How are "No Weapons" business employees supposed to defend themselves ?

[Farmer Br0wn]

Dont you guys always say that like 99% of gun violence in USA happens in ghetto by gang members? So if your company isnt in the ghetto, and doesnt employ gang members, whats the fear?

(This all happened at the workplace)
A woman in Oklahoma was beheaded by a co-worker who was an ISIS sympathizer. The only reason the ISIS sympathizer didn't behead another woman was because the manager shot the ISIS loving scumbag.

You never know what evil will be visited upon you on any given day, that's why I carry a gun.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

You reduce the criminal's with guns by criminal control.

a good guy today can be a bad guy with a gun tomorrow. no way to control him beforehand.

 

[oldshadow]

a good guy today can be a bad guy with a gun tomorrow. no way to control him beforehand.

So you want to take away rights on maybe someone does something?

What about the 4th ammendment, you want to change that just in case?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Sure it can be. It may seem counterintuitive, but the fact that the world is round is also counterintuitive.

The more places I can legally carry, the safer my family and I will be.

lots of other people can carry around your family too. even people who think themselves "good guys."

Unless an individual has initiated force or fraud, no one has any justification to impose upon a peaceful individual.

The standard your putting forward is based on knowledge you couldn't possibly know.

You can't charge people on the suspicion of pre-crime.

errr.. thats not what i said.

im saying, maybe ownership of guns should be regulated, because someone who thinks themselves a good guy today, could be in a different place emotionally tomorrow.

That claim would be correct.

Look up the YouTube channel "Royal Nonesuch" to see how easily homemade firearms are to make with minimal materials or effort.

Matchstick heads are even a replacement for gun powder for Russian crime groups.

your average goon on the street doesnt have the know how or the materials to do this.

How exactly would this be achieved?

As an individual, I have a right to property, personal safety, and privacy.

This "tempering" you speak of will likely violate these basic rights.

thats just what the nra and winchester want you to think. believe it or not, regulations on guns will not inevitably lead to martial law and all that shit.
in australia the government bought people's guns voluntarily, and then destroyed them. there are all sorts of ways it could be done without NWO conspiracy theories and such.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

So you want to take away rights on maybe someone does something?

What about the 4th ammendment, you want to change that just in case?

taking away rights.....

how am i suggesting that this happens? as i mentioned, i like guns and own several myself. i just think that more guns in more places is not the answer. i think people should be able to get whatever guns they want, but i do think you should have to jump through several hoops to get them.

i also dont think people should be allowed to stockpile dozens of guns. to me, thats being an irresponsible gun owner. what happens when you lose interest in them? who buys them? when you die where do they all go? people like that are why even reasonable gun control laws wont work in this country. because we are up to our ears in guns.

 

[oldshadow]

taking away rights.....

how am i suggesting that this happens? as i mentioned, i like guns and own several myself. i just think that more guns in more places is not the answer. i think people should be able to get whatever guns they want, but i do think you should have to jump through several hoops to get them.

i also dont think people should be allowed to stockpile dozens of guns. to me, thats being an irresponsible gun owner. what happens when you lose interest in them? who buys them? when you die where do they all go? people like that are why even reasonable gun control laws wont work in this country. because we are up to our ears in guns.

This fine for you to have your rights restricted but why should I let you do this to me.

I have a numbers of guns that I have collected over the years. Why should you be able to tell me I don't have that right?

Why should I have to jump through all the hoops you want to use my rights?


If you go down that street why shouldn't the cops be able to search you or your home or car anytime they want?

After all you could go "bad" anytime.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

This fine for you to have your rights restricted but why should I let you do this to me.

I have a numbers of guns that I have collected over the years. Why should you be able to tell me I don't have that right?

Why should I have to jump through all the hoops you want to use my rights?


If you go down that street why shouldn't the cops be able to search you or your home or car anytime they want?

After all you could go "bad" anytime.

all of these are fair points and im not saying that youre wrong. unfortunately, this is one of those laws/values where people inevitably have to draw a line somewhere, and people are going to draw them at different points.

the stockpilers of guns are making america more dangerous imo. its your fault that "gun regulations dont work." its your fault that a teenager can illegally buy weapons with ease in this country.

buy whatever guns you think you need for defense, if thats really why youre buying them. they arent golf clubs. you dont need a new one every year because its marginally different than the other 5 rifles you have.

 

[oldshadow]

all of these are fair points and im not saying that youre wrong. unfortunately, this is one of those laws/values where people inevitably have to draw a line somewhere, and people are going to draw them at different points.

the stockpilers of guns are making america more dangerous imo. its your fault that "gun regulations dont work." its your fault that a teenager can illegally buy weapons with ease in this country.

buy whatever guns you think you need for defense, if thats really why youre buying them. they arent golf clubs. you dont need a new one every year because its marginally different than the other 5 rifles you have.

Why do you get to tell me what I "need"?

I've got guns handed down to me and one's I've collected over the years.

I don't need to justify that any more then why i can voice my opinions.

We are not going to let people restrict our rights any more then they have.

Just like we are going to fight hate speech laws.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Why do you get to tell me what I "need"?

I've got guns handed down to me and one's I've collected over the years.

I don't need to justify that any more then why i can voice my opinions.

We are not going to let people restrict our rights any more then they have.

Just like we are going to fight hate speech laws.

yea an exception may need to be made for heirloom pieces.

a good portion of laws tell you what you need. we can agree that hate speech laws are stupid, and theyll likely not be created in the US. i mean, look who our president is now.

people should have a right to own guns. but your neighbors should have a right to be protected from nuts who have disorders and stockpiles.

 

[oldshadow]

yea an exception may need to be made for heirloom pieces.

a good portion of laws tell you what you need. we can agree that hate speech laws are stupid, and theyll likely not be created in the US. i mean, look who our president is now.

people should have a right to own guns. but your neighbors should have a right to be protected from nuts who have disorders and stockpiles.

Their rights end where mine begin.

They have a right to have me arested if I break the law and endanger them.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Their rights end where mine begin.

They have a right to have me arested if I break the law and endanger them.

so should you be able to drive drunk then? if you crash into someone, then they can call the cops.

 

[m52nickerson]

That depends where you live and what your job is.
These comparisons are also asinine, a criminal unlike lightning can not only kill you but may also tie you up and rape you with a stick if you can't defend yourself. People also accept dying from natural causes/accidents instead of getting their lives stolen by some dickhead.

It is not a big deal for most people though, I never had to use a gun, nobody ever broke into my house or workplace.

The caparisons are not asinine because it comparing how likely something is to happen. The fact is that you don't need a gun to be safe in this country.

 

[oldshadow]

so should you be able to drive drunk then? if you crash into someone, then they can call the cops.

Driving on public roads is a privilege not a right.

And the laws also says I cannot carry a gun in public drunk.

The law does not say I cannot have guns in my home if I'm drunk.

And the law does not say I cannot drive my car on my property drunk.

 

[m52nickerson]

Sorry, but your opinion on this matter is completely subjective. You have no idea what other people "need". Beyond food, water, and basic shelter, whatever a person "needs" is subjectively determined by that individual, not you!

Again, you don't know what other people are going to need or when. You're letting the fact that you don't like guns cloud this undeniable truth.

Also, insulting anyone who disagrees with you won't draw people to your ideology. It shows the listening or reading audience how little confidence you have in your arguments, if you had better arguments, you wouldn't need the insults.

I don't like guns? What the hell are you talking about. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I'm just not going to pretend that in the US you needs a gun for protection. Sorry, need is not determined by individuals, it is determined by reality and actually need.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Driving on public roads is a privilege not a right.

And the laws also says I cannot carry a gun in public drunk.

The law does not say I cannot have guns in my home if I'm drunk.

And the law does not say I cannot drive my car on my property drunk.

you win. we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Joe Wong]

name me the place or type of job where a mass shooter wouldn't be able to harm people - dumbass

the fort hood shooter killed soldiers in an army base - btw, they weren't permitted to carry.

So much for waiting for the liberals to start the name calling and deflection. Typical weiner king.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

lots of other people can carry around your family too. even people who think themselves "good guys."

Yep. Unless those people have initiated force or fraud against others, I have no reason to be concerned with their day to day happenings.

That's the way liberty works.

errr.. thats not what i said.

im saying, maybe ownership of guns should be regulated, because someone who thinks themselves a good guy today, could be in a different place emotionally tomorrow.

My argument is that you have no way of knowing the "place emotionally" of anyone but yourself.

Any regulation put in place that would satisfy this unknowable standard would surely violate basic individual rights.

your average goon on the street doesnt have the know how or the materials to do this.

Your average goon on the street are who is making the vast majority of these improvised firearm.

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com
(Several homemade guns in Australia featured on this site)

Look up "slam fire shotgun". Two metal tubes and a bb glued to an endcap make a functional shotgun.

thats just what the nra and winchester want you to think.

Are you the poster that calls the American gun lobby the "Winchester lobby"?

believe it or not, regulations on guns will not inevitably lead to martial law and all that shit.

I never made any such argument in this thread. My argument is that a disarmed population is more likely to be victims of common crime and government tyranny.

in australia the government bought people's guns voluntarily, and then destroyed them. there are all sorts of ways it could be done without NWO conspiracy theories and such.

That buy back was NOT voluntary. The Australian people were forced to turn in previously legal firearms or face severe criminal prosecution. Voluntary implies having a choice, the Australian people had none.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I don't like guns? What the hell are you talking about. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I'm just not going to pretend that in the US you needs a gun for protection.

Again, you have no way of knowing the needs of 300,000,000+ individual people.

Sorry, need is not determined by individuals, it is determined by reality and actually need.

According to your theory, needs are determined independent of any individual consciousness? How does that work exactly?

 

[kpt018]

The Sausage King writes better but his threads are as bad as Hans Gruber and The Struggle.

I mean, he gets the left wing position wrong almost every fucking time.

 

[m52nickerson]

Again, you have no way of knowing the needs of 300,000,000+ individual people.

According to your theory, needs are determined independent of any individual consciousness? How does that work exactly?

Yes needs are determined independent of individual consciousness, depending on your definition of need. You need food, you need water, those are basic needs. Having a firearm in this country does not rise to that level, anywhere.