Mass Shooting At Pittsburgh Synagogue

['NucK™]

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

What extra guns?

You said "Countering guns with more guns would depend on who's holding the extra guns.  If it's a person with very little training like a school teacher, then yes it's a monumentally stupid idea."

 

So if it depends on who's holding the extra guns, where's the scenario where it's not a monumentally stupid idea?

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, 'NucK™ said:

You said "Countering guns with more guns would depend on who's holding the extra guns.  If it's a person with very little training like a school teacher, then yes it's a monumentally stupid idea."

 

So if it depends on who's holding the extra guns, where's the scenario where it's not a monumentally stupid idea?

21 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

An undercover armed guard(s) at more soft targets can't be any worse than zero armed guards. Obviously the status quo of sitting around and bitching and pointing fingers isn't doing anything helpful. Ex military guys looking for a job or career might be the best for that pending a mental evaluation. Yearly mental evaluations, something like that.

['NucK™]

7 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

We already do that.  Felons cannot own firearms and a judge can take guns away from mentally unstable people.

Well I don't mean to sound insensitive, but clearly not good enough. 

 

A thorough audit would identify those mentally unstable people BEFORE they commit these acts. These people should not have any access to things they can use to harm themselves, let alone other people. IMO this means if you are living with a mentally instable person, there should be no guns allowed in that household. 

['NucK™]

4 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

You said "Countering guns with more guns would depend on who's holding the extra guns.  If it's a person with very little training like a school teacher, then yes it's a monumentally stupid idea."

 

So if it depends on who's holding the extra guns, where's the scenario where it's not a monumentally stupid idea?

  26 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

An undercover armed guard(s) at more soft targets can't be any worse than zero armed guards. Obviously the status quo of sitting around and bitching and pointing fingers isn't doing anything helpful. Ex military guys looking for a job or career might be the best for that pending a mental evaluation. Yearly mental evaluations, something like that.

17 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

1.  Full-auto's are illegal in the US unless you're in a 3 letter gov't agency.  Not sure about state law and their police.

 

2.  Nobody wants even more guards everywhere.  We already have that, they're called the police and they haven't been looking good themselves for a while now.

 

3.  What do you mean, audit the guns?  There's already records of who owns most guns since they keep track of the background checks.

I think you can see why I'm a bit confused then..

 

[SabreFan1]

Just now, 'NucK™ said:

Well I don't mean to sound insensitive, but clearly not good enough. 

 

A thorough audit would identify those mentally unstable people BEFORE they commit these acts. These people should not have any access to things they can use to harm themselves, let alone other people. IMO this means if you are living with a mentally instable person, there should be no guns allowed in that household. 

There are people that would agree with you and others that wouldn't.

 

The only part of your statement that I think is a bit iffy us not allowing guns in a household with a mentally unstable person.  The argument could be made that if there are guns in that situation that there should be laws enacted that would tie a negligent homeowner to the crime.  Something like the depraved indifference statute.

[SabreFan1]

2 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said:

I think you can see why I'm a bit confused then..

OK.  I get what you're saying now.

 

My point is that if you live in a high crime area and your church or whatever is in the same area then it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a well trained armed guard in the building or parking lot.  They can respond immediately whereas the police cannot.

 

That could bring it's own newly unique problems like knowing that people will eventually die in a cross-fire, but it's better than taking a school teacher to a shooting range to squeeze off some rounds and giving them a 5 hour lecture and sending them on their way.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

OK.  I get what you're saying now.

 

My point is that if you live in a high crime area and your church or whatever is in the same area then it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a well trained armed guard in the building or parking lot.  They can respond immediately whereas the police cannot.

 

That could bring it's own newly unique problems like knowing that people will eventually die in a cross-fire, but it's better than taking a school teacher to a shooting range to squeeze off some rounds and giving them a 5 hour lecture and sending them on their way.

Would it be a bad idea to have (in the US) a military presence at these high risk locations?  Maybe two soldiers?  I wonder if the logistics is too difficult?  Are there enough US military bases around your country to support that idea?  What about using the National Guard?  Up here this idea wouldn’t work.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Alflives said:

Would it be a bad idea to have (in the US) a military presence at these high risk locations?  Maybe two soldiers?  I wonder if the logistics is too difficult?  Are there enough US military bases around your country to support that idea?  What about using the National Guard?  Up here this idea wouldn’t work.

No.  Civilian use of military personnel is only available temporarily during a declared state of emergency. 

 

If you willingly militarize an entire country, you introduce a whole host of much worse problems that will only go downhill over time.

[Alflives]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

No.  Civilian use of military personnel is only available temporarily during a declared state of emergency. 

 

If you willingly militarize an entire country, you introduce a whole host of much worse problems that will only go downhill over time.

I see your point.  The country becomes a military state.  Any guards would need really good training though.  Up here we have “so called” security walking around with nothing more than a cell phone (for a 911 call) who get paid 13 bucks an hour.  

[xereau]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Nationalists.....

A single racist insane retard.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

I see your point.  The country becomes a military state.  Any guards would need really good training though.  Up here we have “so called” security walking around with nothing more than a cell phone (for a 911 call) who get paid 13 bucks an hour.  

Yep.  Our cops aren't well trained some the time, so who knows if the private market could train specialty guards any better.

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

57 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

So... is this a racism issue or a gun issue or mental health issue?

 

Whatever your views on Trump.... I don't see how they has anything to relate to him or his policies.  I mean his own son-in-law is Jewish and his daughter has also converted to Judaism.  To blame him on the actions of deranged individuals makes no sense.  I mean... to support Trump and his strong support of Jews and Israel.... yet harbour anti-Semitic views?  It would be like being a huge support of Obama... but desperately wishing to reinstate Jim Crow laws.  

All of the above in all likelihood.

 

Agree with the bolded portion as well. Don't think it's fair to apportion blame to Trump in this instance.

 

I guess you could make an argument on his stance on firearms and his complete lack of criticism of recent nationalist rallies, but he clearly isn't anti-Semitic and it would be stretching to say he caused this. It's really a reflection of America's deep seated problems, and they've been around far longer than Trump. He certainly hasn't helped to resolve any of those issues though.

[SabreFan1]

Here @Warhippy.  This is what you're looking for.

 

 

[Toews]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Would it be a bad idea to have (in the US) a military presence at these high risk locations?  Maybe two soldiers?  I wonder if the logistics is too difficult?  Are there enough US military bases around your country to support that idea?  What about using the National Guard?  Up here this idea wouldn’t work.

I am not saying your solution is a bad one but at what point did it get to this... People are suggesting armed guards with military training to protect schools. My school just had Mrs. Hudson, she was terrifying and all she was armed with was a pen and a clipboard. 

[SabreFan1]

2 minutes ago, Toews said:

I am not saying your solution is a bad one but at what point did it get to this... People are suggesting armed guards with military training to protect schools. My school just had Mrs. Hudson, she was terrifying and all she was armed with was a pen and a clipboard. 

Plenty of schools already have armed guards now.  Just low-paid poorly trained ones.

[PhillipBlunt]

Maybe prayers and thoughts instead of thoughts and prayers? Maybe one day society will realize that empty platitudes accomplish nothing and a burgeoning race war will continue to fester without action. 

[richado]

52 minutes ago, Just1CupBeforeIDie said:

The world population can be divided into 4 major races, namely white/Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, and Australoid.

Judaism is not a race. 

My question is: why are Jews targeted? I really don't get it.

Envy. Jews have the highest average IQs and so produce many successful individuals. They are over-represented in the upper-class and high status positions relative to their population. Throughout history and even now people make the mistake of thinking they earned this success by oppressing others, hence all the conspiracies about Jews. But it's really the result of a culture that favours intelligence and wealth in marriage, and only marries to people in the culture. The notion that successful people are oppressors is spreading like wildfire these days, aside from Jews.

['NucK™]

38 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

OK.  I get what you're saying now.

 

My point is that if you live in a high crime area and your church or whatever is in the same area then it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a well trained armed guard in the building or parking lot.  They can respond immediately whereas the police cannot.

 

That could bring it's own newly unique problems like knowing that people will eventually die in a cross-fire, but it's better than taking a school teacher to a shooting range to squeeze off some rounds and giving them a 5 hour lecture and sending them on their way.

Agreed. Do these sort of crimes even happen predominantly in high crime areas though? 

[SabreFan1]

3 minutes ago, richado said:

Envy. Jews have the highest average IQs and so produce many successful individuals.

Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ's, not all Jews.  As a nation, Israel is on par with most developed European nations.

[Toews]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

Plenty of schools already have armed guards now.  Just low-paid poorly trained ones.

That maybe the case but even a trained guard cannot stop a determined shooter from killing a whole bunch of people in a confined space. One of the schools I attended had 3000 students. You can take some precautions but you can't feasibly eliminate much of the risk.