• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More gun violence

Heh. His employer's first response was to fire the guy because he had a gun on the property in violation of his contract.
 
Lutherf said:
Heh. His employer's first response was to fire the guy because he had a gun on the property in violation of his contract.
Click to expand...

Well who in their right mind would want a gun nutter/Rambo/cowboy/vigilante/cop wannabe working at their facility potentially shooting a criminal in the process of murdering someone. Someone could have gotten hurt because these things always turn out badly if they even happen at all.

His employer quite possibly uses an online handle something along the lines of Absentglare, Jet57 etc...........
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
Valet with gun stopped attack on GM worker

Of course many in this forum would have waited until law enforcement arrived....
Click to expand...

Most on this forum, including liberals like myself support gun ownership and concealed carry. While I won't deny there are a few on the left who would be happy to eliminate gun ownership, this is neither a widely held position nor a politically expedient one. If the democrats adopted this position, it would be political suicide.

I myself own two guns.
 
akrunner88 said:
Most on this forum, including liberals like myself support gun ownership and concealed carry. While I won't deny there are a few on the left who would be happy to eliminate gun ownership, this is neither a widely held position nor a politically expedient one. If the democrats adopted this position, it would be political suicide.

I myself own two guns.
Click to expand...

Not to worry my friend. I have some very liberal relatives and friends that feel the same as you or me when guns are concerned.
 
Lutherf said:
Heh. His employer's first response was to fire the guy because he had a gun on the property in violation of his contract.
Click to expand...

It is within their rights, but goddamn does thst make them look moronic as ****ing ****.
 
BretJ said:
Valet with gun stopped attack on GM worker

Of course many in this forum would have waited until law enforcement arrived....
Click to expand...

Yeah, so...

Unarmed Veteran, 75, Fights Off Knife-Wielding Man Who Threatened to Kill Kids at Illinois Library: Report | KTLA

An unarmed 75-year-old Army veteran helped save the lives of 16 children after fighting off a knife-wielding attacker who had threatened to kill them an Illinois library this week, according to a report.

Armed with two hunting knives, Brown entered the Morton Public Library Tuesday afternoon screaming, I’m going to kill some people,” James Vernon told the local newspaper.

Vernon was teaching a chess class of 16 children, ages 7 to 13 years old, at the time.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
Like I said. Did I call this one or what. Scenarios are different tiger. You think he would have fought him off physically if he had the option to use a pistol? He was injured pretty badly but good for him.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems real heroes don't need pistols.
 
jet57 said:
Well, it seems real heroes don't need pistols.
Click to expand...

So anyone who uses a pistol is not a real hero....why are you so determined to ensure anyone such as this elderly man are obligated to risk getting slashed up or beaten????

Out of sheer curiosity, if your wife/girlfriend were being assaulted, would you thank the person who stepped in and stopped it with a firearm? Or would you call him/her a coward and chastise him/her for getting involved using a firearm? Willing to answer?
 
BretJ said:
So anyone who uses a pistol is not a real hero....why are you so determined to ensure anyone such as this elderly man are obligated to risk getting slashed up or beaten????

Out of sheer curiosity, if your wife/girlfriend were being assaulted, would you thank the person who stepped in and stopped it with a firearm? Or would you call him/her a coward and chastise him/her for getting involved using a firearm? Willing to answer?
Click to expand...

(chuckle)

Dude, real heroes do NOT need pistols. So building a straw man against that fact doesn't help you.
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

Dude, real heroes do NOT need pistols. So building a straw man against that fact doesn't help you.
Click to expand...

that's so stupid its funny. You should go back in time and tell Sgt Alvin York he didn't need a pistol or a rifle for that matter.

Every heard of the case of Sammy Long and "the hunter" who shot down the murderer who killed Officer Long.

we get the fact you are afraid of people carrying guns

but pretending that everyone else should be afraid to carry them is ludicrous
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

Dude, real heroes do NOT need pistols. So building a straw man against that fact doesn't help you.
Click to expand...

All real heroes or some real heroes? Was the valet who stopped a murder less of a hero because he used a firearm? What straw man?

Noticed you did not answer my question....
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
All real heroes or some real heroes? Was the valet who stopped a murder less of a hero because he used a firearm? What straw man?

Noticed you did not answer my question....
Click to expand...

You keep avoiding the point and the proven fact: one does not need a gun to stop a criminal act.

Howz about acknowledging that.
 
jet57 said:
You keep avoiding the point and the proven fact: one does not need a gun to stop a criminal act.

Howz about acknowledging that.
Click to expand...
I have never said you needed one in every situation. There are situations where a firearm is definitely not the best option. In your example, he did what he had to do with what he had. He is a bona fide hero. He could have done the same with a firearm with less risk to himself and still would have been a hero in my eyes though not necessarily yours. Agree?

So it is your turn, would you still have considered him a hero had he used a firearm and not gotten slashed while saving those kids?
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
I have never said you needed one in every situation. There are situations where a firearm is definitely not the best option. In your example, he did what he had to do with what he had. He is a bona fide hero. He could have done the same with a firearm with less risk to himself and still would have been a hero in my eyes though not necessarily yours. Agree?

So it is your turn, would you still have considered him a hero had he used a firearm and not gotten slashed while saving those kids?
Click to expand...

when dealing with mindless gun hate, you cannot expect a rational discussion. especially when the gun hate is not based on a rational thought process
 
akrunner88 said:
Most on this forum, including liberals like myself support gun ownership and concealed carry. While I won't deny there are a few on the left who would be happy to eliminate gun ownership, this is neither a widely held position nor a politically expedient one. If the democrats adopted this position, it would be political suicide.

I myself own two guns.
Click to expand...


This is simply untrue. Most liberals are against private gun ownership and especially CCW.
 
jet57 said:
You keep avoiding the point and the proven fact: one does not need a gun to stop a criminal act.

Howz about acknowledging that.
Click to expand...

One does not need an aircraft to fly, do you agree with that?
One does not need to be immersed in water to drown
One does not need matches to start a fire
One does not need an umbrella to walk in the rain.
One does not need a pen to write.
One does not need a knife and fork to eat
One does not need roads.

These are all proven points

WTF is your point? And how about you acknowledge all the things in this world that are not needed like stupid statements.

When faced with a criminal intent on committing a crime on you what would you rather have. Something you did not bring because it would not be needed or the gun it is proven you would not need?

One is not armed because you might not need it to stop a crime. Can you acknowledge that.
 
Crimefree said:
One does not need an aircraft to fly, do you agree with that?
One does not need to be immersed in water to drown
One does not need matches to start a fire
One does not need an umbrella to walk in the rain.
One does not need a pen to write.
One does not need a knife and fork to eat
One does not need roads.

These are all proven points

WTF is your point? And how about you acknowledge all the things in this world that are not needed like stupid statements.

When faced with a criminal intent on committing a crime on you what would you rather have. Something you did not bring because it would not be needed or the gun it is proven you would not need?

One is not armed because you might not need it to stop a crime. Can you acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

The point is a very simple one. A person as sharp as you should have picked it up quite easily:

"A gun is not necessary to stop a criminal act".
 
BretJ said:
I have never said you needed one in every situation. There are situations where a firearm is definitely not the best option. In your example, he did what he had to do with what he had. He is a bona fide hero. He could have done the same with a firearm with less risk to himself and still would have been a hero in my eyes though not necessarily yours. Agree?

So it is your turn, would you still have considered him a hero had he used a firearm and not gotten slashed while saving those kids?
Click to expand...

YOU have acknowledge my point. Thank you.

That's all I was saying. I was proving that disarming a criminal can be done without a gun. So a gun is not necessary.

Showing that people use guns is not the point.
 
jet57 said:
YOU have acknowledge my point. Thank you.

That's all I was saying. I was proving that disarming a criminal can be done without a gun. So a gun is not necessary.

Showing that people use guns is not the point.
Click to expand...

I have never ever said otherwise. It is not necessary in every case, necessary in others. All dependent on the situation. What you fail to see is that situations and scenarios differ in the real world. Again.....if he had used a firearm to stop the situation and not been slashed up, would you still have considered what he did heroic?
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
The point is a very simple one. A person as sharp as you should have picked it up quite easily:

"A gun is not necessary to stop a criminal act".
Click to expand...

Which is why the police should be immediately disarmed.

I'm afraid it is not possible for me to get down to that inane level. Should I ever do I hope somebody puts me out of my misery.

I would have thought that somebody who pretends to be sharp would realise a knife is not necessary to cut oneself. You do it so successfully without one.
 
jet57 said:
YOU have acknowledge my point. Thank you.

That's all I was saying. I was proving that disarming a criminal can be done without a gun. So a gun is not necessary.
Click to expand...

Telling people it is possible to disarm a criminal unarmed would be the height of irresponsibility. That is common for gun control advocates who happily create killing zones provided with unarmed victims.

Showing that people use guns is not the point.
Click to expand...

WTF is your point in making this idiotic statement.

Anybody can make hundreds of equally stupid statements. It is not necessary to drive your car at 100mph into a wall to commit suicide. Somebody hearing or seeing such a foolish statement should be forgiven for thinking the author might be in need of help.
 
BretJ said:
I have never ever said otherwise. It is not necessary in every case, necessary in others. All dependent on the situation. What you fail to see is that situations and scenarios differ in the real world. Again.....if he had used a firearm to stop the situation and not been slashed up, would you still have considered what he did heroic?
Click to expand...

What scenarios and situations would you offer to "gun nutters" to dissuade them from using a firearm to defend themselves, or, the life of another person?
 
RetiredUSN said:
What scenarios and situations would you offer to "gun nutters" to dissuade them from using a firearm to defend themselves, or, the life of another person?
Click to expand...

Can't think of many really where it's not an option if someones life is at stake. Perhaps someone being strangled/ choked....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom