Do you/would you carry a concealed firearm to Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wexford said:
What tweedlealice says sounds right to me. No guns inside the church. Guards posted outside seems an okay compromise considering recent events.
Click to expand...
They wouldn’t know anyway without metal detectors. Ridiculous to have a church full of sitting ducks. Very dangerous.
 
Okay, I see your point. There is no point in debating if you are going to cherry pick.

I mean could do the same, and compare Stratford, Ontario to some 10,000 neighbourhoods across the US.

I’ll leave you be to deal with your chronic mass killing problem. I don’t live in a bubble and it’s not my world.
 
Last edited:
michaelArc said:
There is no point in debating if you are going to cherry pick.
Click to expand...
What’s not worth debating is comparing Canada with a small and fairly homogeneous population of 36M (less than California’s 39M) to the USA with a very diverse population of 323M.
 
Yet you are the one that said "MANY parts of the US are FAR safer than “Australia, Europe, or Canada.”

It seems to me that you are making a generalization, unless you want to twist it into to fit into your perspective. Feel free to believe what you want. Live in another country and maybe you’ll develop the wisdom to see things differently.
 
michaelArc said:
Yet you are the one that said "MANY parts of the US are FAR safer than “Australia, Europe, or Canada.”
Click to expand...
They are… I’m sure I could list enough communities in the US that have a total population greater than all of Canada and a lower violent crime rate.

It’s remarkable how quickly the US’s crime rate drops when you eliminate: Chicago, NYC, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle and Camden, NJ from the rest of the country.
 
Duesenberg said:
Don’t play games…

Look at TOTAL homicides – including suicides by EVERY method!
Click to expand...
Desperate people are going to find ways to kill themselves regardless. Other people, perhaps desperate or troubled in some other way, are still, horrifically, going to find ways sometimes to kill other people.

But the point is that it’s about as anti-life as I can possibly imagine to make it easier. Lengths of rope, or trucks, or knives, or trains, or even paracetamol, all have uses other than to hurt oneself or others.

In the 1950s and '60s when air and water pollution was killing thousands of people per year (to say nothing of anhilating local wildlife), countries including the US, and the UK, instituted clean air and clean water acts, and found ways to help clear up the mess. If a new drug or a new car kills 20 people because it turns out not to work as expected, it is immediately withdrawn from sale.

At the time of writing, just in the last 72 hours, 120 people in the United States were killed by guns. ( http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours ), and even without the tragedy in Texas, there would still have been 94 deaths. In three days. Some or even many of them may well be suicides, but that doesn’t make them one iota less tragic, or less worthy of attention or care.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Can’t worry too much about it because then I’d go crazy, but it’s really scary what is happening.
Click to expand...
That’s why I would not preoccupy myself over it, but at the same time I would take appropriate precautions if I were in the USA, such as carrying. A perpetrator will think twice if he see’s a couple individuals with the ability to shoot back.

Just like in Australia and the fact that terrorists use vehicles, I don’t preoccupy myself over it, but at the same time I take appropriate precautions by maintaining my situational awareness when in a crowd. Not using headphones or distracted constantly looking down on a phone.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
 
Last edited:
EleanorArr said:
At the time of writing, just in the last 72 hours, 120 people in the United States were killed by guns. ( http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours ), and even without the tragedy in Texas, there would still have been 94 deaths. In three days. Some or even many of them may well be suicides, but that doesn’t make them one iota less tragic, or less worthy of attention or care.
Click to expand...
You are fundamentally mistaken. 120 people in the US were killed by some number of people (in the case of suicide, themselves) using firearms.
EleanorArr said:
In the 1950s and '60s when air and water pollution was killing thousands of people per year (to say nothing of anhilating local wildlife), countries including the US, and the UK, instituted clean air and clean water acts, and found ways to help clear up the mess.
Click to expand...
Stop dumping stuff into the Great Lakes and stop belching coal smoke around their shores and the health of the area improves dramatically because they are direct causes. HOWEVER, attempt to reduce gun-related crime (perpetrated by criminals) by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms WILL NOT (it has been proven time and time again) reduce gun-related violence. It’s analogous to fighting the problem of drink drivers (AKA criminals), by making it more difficult for for law-abiding citizens to buy new automobiles.

Until that fact is recognized by the anti-gunners, until it become a focus of the discourse on reducing gun-related violence, most Americans will fight hard against “feel good only” anti-gun legislation.
 
Last edited:
EleanorArr said:
Some or even many of them may well be suicides, but that doesn’t make them one iota less tragic, or less worthy of attention or care.
Click to expand...
But it does invalidate the argument. The biggest argument I believe against, is the ability for massacres to take place, and the biggest argument for, I believe is the strength of a nation.

If Australia did not have the USA to help with our defense, our harsh gun laws would severely cripple us.

I think a better track to go down would be safety features on weapons such as finger print locking mechanisms on triggers.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how Australian gun laws would make the country less safe if it weren’t for the USA.

Civilians with firearms aren’t going to protect a country from missiles, bombers, chemical weapons, biological weapons, or rogue nukes.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
I don’t see how Australian gun laws would make the country less safe if it weren’t the USA.

Civilians with firearms aren’t going to protect a country from missiles, bombers, or nukes.
Click to expand...
Nor if the government becomes too tyrannical to bear, will possession even of semiautomatic weapons be much use either. The government has tanks and air support. The freedom-loving bunch is going to have, at best, a crop duster and a pickup truck.
 
Duesenberg said:
What is an “assault rifle?” Do you mean a select fire machine gun?
Click to expand...
I mean an ‘Assault Rifle’ if you google it you will get a list, I’m not expert enough to argue definitions, but most people know the type.

Is there a list somewhere of common guns used in massacre’s?

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.
 
TK421 said:
Civilians with firearms aren’t going to protect a country from missiles, bombers, chemical weapons, biological weapons, or rogue nukes.
Click to expand...
So why does every military in the world carry and use them?

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
 
Last edited:
Oh yes. Firearms are more-or-less useless against a “tyrannical government”.

The effective defenses against a tyrannical government from forming are 1) religion & spirituality, 2) family, 3) education.

But to think that guns are an effective safeguard is supremely juvenile. At least half of the civilians with guns would probably be cheering the tyrannical government on.
 
Last edited:
EleanorArr said:
Nor if the government becomes too tyrannical to bear, will possession even of semiautomatic weapons be much use either. The government has tanks and air support. The freedom-loving bunch is going to have, at best, a crop duster and a pickup truck.
Click to expand...
Malarkey. If the US Gov’t went totally rogue there would be massive division and defection – particularly in the military. Even if it total nutso mode, it could hardly sustain much of a fight without troops and it’s not about to start popping nukes in the Midwest. On the other side of the coin would be a modestly armed militia, but also the largest one in the history of the world – over 100M. If you don’t think that would be a deterrent, you’re not a student of history.

Right now as I type, Catalonia is under siege by Spain. I’m sure Spain will once again subsume what was a sovereign nation until 1931. You can bet things would be far different if Catalonia was trained and armed along the lines of say Switzerland…
 
Last edited:
What does Australia have to fear? An invasion from China? That isn’t going to happen, but if it did happen, it wouldn’t stand a chance either way.

In more horrible scenarios, firearms are useless against nuclear/biological/chemical terrorism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top