Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another Mass Shooting in Texas
I have no idea what the solution is.
I mean, I do: intact Families and a culture that does not promote despair and rage.
But since that is not on the table, I have no idea. Taking away guns from citizens has never been shown to work in this nation. That seems to be all that is ever proposed.
Guns have always been in the hands of the people. Mass shootings are a sign of sickness in America as much as theft of AC parts. In the great depression, people did not rob infrastructure. We are sick and dying as a society.
Not enough people believe in anything but getting what is good for themselves or in hurting others because of their pain. It is the Republic of Rome in its last days.
Published in General
I can do those things if I wish. I fired guns while in the Army Reserve here – I was quite a good shot. Lee-Enfield.303 as I recall. I can go to professional organised clay pigeon shooting if I want to, and I have standing invitations to go hunting with friends.
I didn’t say there were no guns in Ireland, just that it’s very hard to own one.
With respect, I pay my subscription the same as anyone else, and I’ll comment away to my heart’s content, if I wish.
Gun grabbers don’t have any specific ideas 99% of the time. When they start talking, it tends to be really stupid or it’s something like a de facto gun registry. Just enforce the laws we have. We aren’t doing that.
The reason for this is gun grabbers never say anything specific that is actually going to work. Don’t give into anything. The only possible exception is a Republican candidate in a purple district, possibly.
And, Ireland, as we know, has long, long been known as a land of peace.
Absolutely. I’m not talking about Ricochet. I’m talking about you running your mouth about what rights Americans should have, which just between members in good standing, you can stow.
If you had them you might have gotten the English out like we did. The founding fathers didn’t have to resort to blowing up trash cans to get independence, and would have lost if they did. But the IRA had a hard stance that the English should get out of Ireland then just handed Ireland over to Muslim immigrants. Makes lots of sense. I’ll keep my rights to bear arms unimpeded.
I’ll take the course to get a concealed carry permit. Unless they’ve changed over the years, Kentucky’s self-defense laws governing the use of lethal force are pretty straightforward.
Running, if you have that option, is still the best defense. Don’t take your ego into a fight. It’s just business, and the business is survival.
Supposedly, if you shoot somebody, plan on a $30,000 lawyer bill no matter what.
I think that depends a lot of where you live. Sadly, today it also depends on your race and the race of your target.
Yup. My little pea-shooter is by no means a combat pistol. It’s for breaking an engagement I did not successfully avoid or avert.
I’ll smile through my trial. Alive.
I am aware that there are “Good Samaritan” laws offering some protection for those who voluntarily give aid. I think there might also be legal consequences, though rarely enforced, in some jursidictions for not rendering aid. Is that true?
Years ago where I now live, one was required to stop at a traffic accident scene and offer assistance to the injured. That was the extent of one’s legal obligation, beyond notifying the authorities. Go beyond what was requested at your own risk. I assume, but can’t say for certain, that this applied to the first few to arrive after the accident.
If you don’t pay a lawyer to defend you from the state, you’ll still pay a lawyer to defend you from the criminal’s relatives.
You don’t get it, do you? This is an open forum where members get to comment on whatever they like, subject only to the Code of Conduct. Telling an overseas member to “stow it” is extremely rude. Happily for you, I’m overloaded with work, so this is my last contribution to this conversation.
Oh, it’s “I have a full-time job” again. :-)
Almost as if somebody were pontificating about your rights.
I think there is a legitimate argument that if there were drastically fewer guns in existence in the United States there would be fewer deaths from those guns (both homicide and suicide). Charles Mark is not arguing the irrational.
But the practical challenges of getting to drastically fewer guns are significant, and maybe even insurmountable. Who goes first in a disarmament process? How do we avoid a phase or even end result in which the remaining guns are disproportionately in the hands of bad guys?
Also, the United States also already has higher rates of violence using other types of weapons than the rates of violence in other countries, so it is likely that the people intent on violence will find a way to do so even if they cannot obtain a gun. So overall violence may not decrease, and some people think an absence of guns might contribute to an increase in violence in the United States.
Women in particular benefit from being able to defend themselves with guns.
If there were drastically fewer people, there would also be fewer deaths from guns, and no, I’m not being flippant.
Language matters and the debate is sometimes just plain stupid. “Killed by a gun” should be phrased accurately as “killed with a gun”. A small change in language, but a big change in perspective. I’ve yet to hear anyone say, “killed by a knife.”
But why bother? Most minds are made up already.
No mother to tend too?
How many people are in the paradise if the Republic of Ireland anyway?
Exactly what do they mean when they say fewer guns?