This is a placeholder text
Group text
by joanro on 22 June 2016 - 20:06
Here you go, Hund.
by beetree on 22 June 2016 - 20:06
Joan, I just looked up the LE Officers Oath and think you are way off with your take on their responsibilities regarding the protection of citizen lives.
by joanro on 22 June 2016 - 21:06
Bee, I don't know which would carry more weight in a court or law; a swearing in oath, or ruling by the SCOTUS.
Two links on the bottom of page 5, not my take.
by Hundmutter on 23 June 2016 - 05:06
Joan, ever thought that if the gun laws were different, the recognised responsibilities of the Police could be revised ?
As often, you are ignoring the point you cannot dispute: there were staff, management, security people all inside the club. If producing a gun when you are a 'good guy' is so effective against the 'bad guy' how come nobody stopped this after the first customer was shot ?
And it is hardly "rushing in to shoot up the place" for the guy from the 7-11 next door to grab a shotgun from under the counter and run, as soon as that first death-shot went off, to see if he could help. Is it ? Maybe not this time, maybe they let off firecrackers in that particular venue so the neighbours don't react - but why not at any other scenarios ? Your links do not explain that, and nor do the Gun Lobby, and nor do you.
by GSD Admin on 23 June 2016 - 05:06
Great website linked above, not. A few hundred saves but what they don't tell you is how many died because of weapons. In the last 20 years how many lives have been lost to weapons? 60,000 to 80,000 is a fair guess. In the last year how lives lost to guns? 3,000? And that is only counting gun deaths, I wonder how many thousands of injuries? Figure in all the times a bad guy used a gun and nobody died and you are looking at a very small % of good guns saving lives. I am only guessing here but that small a % is almost inconsequential to the sample size. In other words it means pretty much nothing. Also, I read a few of the stories, one a burglar broke into a house the home owner came home and shot the guy, the guy didn't even have a weapon and would have probably just ran off. This wasn't a good guy saving anyone. Your link is laughable at best and down right misleading at worst. SMH. I will say this if you feel safer with a gun so the boogie man doesn't get you, more power to you. But you must also realize in your fear, that the gun the bad guy has might just take your head off while your gun might only leave a hole in his head. I hope at 70 years old you are super fast on that draw, otherwise your gun means nothing. And Hans I have seen you move in videos, I hope you can pull that gun faster than what I have seen or guess what - your gun only insures your death.
by joanro on 23 June 2016 - 11:06
Hind, it was a GUN FREE zone, that means NOBODY is allowed a gun there, except the killer.
As for the 7-11 owner running with his shot gun...cops would have shot himin self defense. Plus, i do believe gun free zone means gun free zone.
by joanro on 23 June 2016 - 11:06
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.
The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.
by GSD Admin on 23 June 2016 - 13:06
He wasn't allowed a gun there, he shot the place up. No one allowed him to carry it in there and as a matter of fact if he couldn't have bought it the week before he would have never had it in there in the first place. Your logic is wrong. Alcohol and guns don't mix so there is good reason bars/clubs are gun free zones, even the NRA agrees. Heard today that 92% of Americans want an assault rifle ban and a no fly list ban on gun purchases, you and Hans seem to be in the 8% that don't, imagine you and Hans on the same side of something, priceless.
by joanro on 23 June 2016 - 14:06
My 'logic' is dead on ! Because its fact based on the law of the land.
by GSD Admin on 23 June 2016 - 14:06
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top