DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

I glanced at couple of them.. Thanks, I'll try to digest the rest of it, but I'll need about a year LOL

Ok, and NBC edited the Zimmerman 911 call to make him look racist. They all lack credibility, which is why I get my news from more than one site, and more than one slant. After that, I make my own opinions.

Guns used to stop a crime rarely get past local media, and a lot of those are still not reported. Chicago has shootings so often they usually only report nothing more than '20 shootings, 5 dead'.

Once again, with the majority of media being liberal, they would much rather report a shooting than a shooting that was stopped. There is a gun control agenda in the liberal media. Conservative media will report a shooting that was stopped, but only when it's very newsworthy.

I was actually surprised with how bad that one was. I've lived in this area the majority of my life, and most hurricanes were a reason to party or go surfing in the bay (usual 6" waves). We got the east side of the hurricane in that one, which is the side you don't want. They usually bounce off the Outer Banks in NC and are to the east of us.

There were lines of people getting government ice and water. I cooked all the meat I could, and the rest went bad. I was smart enough to fill my bathtubs with water, or we wouldn't have been able to flush toilets, and I had a bottled water service. We eventually abandoned the house and stayed with my parents a few days, as they lived next door to the mayor and their power was restored after 3 days. Now, I am much better prepared for that type of instance.

I lived in Newpert News Newport News..and the amount of people dependent on someone else always stuck with me..

Ive always been a prepper nut..the only thing I had to do then was explain to my kids why they should keep their mouth shut on we have ice and food to the neighborhood.

People was getting their doors kicked in beaten and robbed in the townhouse development we lived in. I had the gun..wife had a machete and the kids stayed/slept with us.

We had no electric for 2 weeks..and the locals chased the police out at night when they tried to regain order..

after that one we bought a house in Gloucester and never looked back.

No real disagreement. Even if we had to defend against our government, we wouldn't stand much of a chance. Our weapons are nothing compared to what they have.

As far as it being us on us, in another thread I explained that I believe it is because too many people don't have hope for the future, be it real or imagined. We have to find ways to bring more people in to the fold so they too get a slice of the American Pie. I am not talking handouts. I am talking a real slice. The hope for a good job. As I said before, people who feel worthless become mean people. Our government should do everything possible to promote business and give business incentives to hire people at a decent wage.

I see it this way, if you simply give the person a check each month, that helps, no doubt, but I still believe that doesn't do a darn thing to enhance a persons self worth. I don't think people like to simply take money. I think they would rather have a good job, with a chance to better their position. I would rather if we had to, to give that money to a business who hires people and pays them. Call it tax credits, whatever you want. As long as the business can still operate in a profitable manner, they don't care how many employees they have.

The problem is it seems the Dems dangle the carrot in front of people to get votes. That doesn't work for the reason I spelled out earlier. It does get votes but doesn't solve the problem. I say dangle the carrot in front of business. Hire X amount of people, or pay them X amount, and you get this.

That is the way we can reduce the number of mean people walking around the streets. Remember, this discussion is about violence and not so much about politics, but politics has to come in to the discussion at one point. The government fosters the environment in which we live and business operates.

It's about jobs. Give a person a good job, and most will stop robbing and killing, and no matter what, government is a poor generator of jobs. The private sector is where real jobs are created.

We have to start working together here. There has to be a way for both people and business to thrive.

i agree with that.

Verizon came out and put a generator on the local phone distribution box. We had phones for about 6 hours before someone stole the generator. The worst thing I found about hurricanes is that it's always 95 degrees and at least 95% humidity the next day. Everyone is hot, damp, and miserable with no air conditioning the next few days, and that makes for a lot of ticked off people.

Tax and regulation relief would do a lot to solve that problem.

No real disagreement. Even if we had to defend against our government, we wouldn't stand much of a chance. Our weapons are nothing compared to what they have.

IDK..hope I never have to find out..but if the time comes where we had to fight the 'government' I would out of sheer morbid curiosity would like to see who would follow orders to attack.

I mean it is after all your family friends and community that they would be marching against.

How many of 'them' would be willing to do that??

I'll butt out of your guys convo now..just something I think about when someone says what you just did.

You would be surprised how many retired generals have been building up militant militias that are armed with high grade weapons. There have been a few cases already when said militias have showed up to stop the FED from stealing people's property and other atrocities. There are at least 100,000 in various militia forces in this country ready to go if Uncle Sam ever takes things too far. Many of them are in the military or ex military. There is a serious divide in this country and people with half a brain will learn to be preppers for when the chit hits the fan.

To me it doesn't matter what doomsday scenario you fantasize about. If your are prepared for a natural disaster then you are a lot better off than those that are not. Being a prepper has saved my but through hurricane katrina and later on when my job went belly up. Things got hard but because I was prepared things stayed sane until they got better. Always be prepared will be my motto till the day I die =)

I'm very in tune with the militia movement's...I'd rather not comment on that a whole lot..dont want NASA to put me on a list

you scared they gonna shoot you to outer space or something?

Yes, NASA might shoot you into space.

No I dont want to be put on the domestic terrorist list

Guess the joke got lost on some..with all the talk of Nasa and their surveillance on domestic scale..

https://nsa.gov1.info/

Again it was a JOKE:/

You keep typing NASA (National Aeronautics & Space Administration) when you mean NSA (National Security Agency)

yea, thats what we're getting at you over bro.

Maybe he assumes we will have interplanetary travel soon and he doesn't want put on the interplanetary no-fly list.

Its fine...my bad...I'm trying to do ten things at ounce..and have to be at a procedure at the hospital in about an hour that I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy..my mind is not here and shouldn't have even posted today..was trying to take my mind off of it and obviously made a mistake.

its all good you guys have a great day.

That was funny...see I can laugh at myself

You keep talking crap about NASA, you might be put on the climate denier list. Considering obummers priorities, that would be far worse than the terror watch list.

It happens more often than you think. Check this out: http://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen

Now, most of these are not "mass" shootings, of course.

It just seems when people use guns to do bad things, it's all over. When people use guns to do good things, we don't hear much.

"A lot of these stories are somebody with a gun shooting the guy, but only after he injured a bunch of people." (that's your quote - not trying to confuse things here)

An armed citizen cannot arbitrarily prevent a shooting. An armed (or even un armed) citizen must wait until there is definite evidence of a crime being committed before they act.

Yup. They (a citizen) cannot stop it from starting (supposedly, this is why the NSA spies on us - THEY should be preventing this junk), but they can stop it from continuing on and being any worse that it might otherwise be.

If it saves even one life, it's worthwhile for that citizen to carry.

I posted a couple days ago.....I'll get the link if you want, but suicide accounts for 63$ of gun deaths in the u.s. Homicide accounts for about 1.5%, cops killing account for about 1.4%, and "mass" shootings account for about the same 1.4%

http://thearmedcitizen.com/category/armed-citizen-stories/

Start reading.

Somewhat agree.

Problem is, a person needs to have the DESIRE to work.

I know a guy that has 3 kids. The first one was pregnant with her 3rd kid when she graduated highschool. She hasn't worked a day in her life, and if you ask her why she says "why would I work?"

Her sister, only 1 kid, but same reply.

The youngest? Just graduated last year, has a kid. Oh, no husbands involved, anywhere. Just welfare, wic, child support, and many other gov't. supplied income/benefits.

They have no desire to work. And sadly, I think there are millions of others like them.

I don't think there are as many as you think who are THAT BAD, though I will admit, there are some people who just don't feel like they should have to work, there always have been and probably always will be...

but it's not a condition that is going to change itself over night. It took several generations to get this bad, it will take several generations to turn it back around.

Problem that I have is that the vast majority of our social services money that we spend is not, in any way, designed to help people... it's just designed to get you through the month. Have a place to live this month, have some food this month, have enough money to ride the bus this month... we'll deal with next month, next month. It's not designed to help you improve, it's designed to help you survive...

A simple fix is to make people work for their welfare check. They can even keep what they earn for 5 years, minus taxes, without lowering their benefits.

This teaches them to work and gets them closer to being middle class.

We are spending the money anyway, why not lift them off their butts in the process?

See, I agree with Swish that I think most of them want to work.. problem is that I also believe that a lot of them want to work certain types of jobs, certain hours, not too far from home, nothing too strenuous or dirty....

If you went back to some "New Deal" type policy and said we are going to provide productive work for the unemployed, you will receive reasonable pay, housing, and skills you can use when we are done... all you have to do is go spend 2 years in Wyoming working on a railroad... or to rural Kentucky to build a dam... you would get laughed at.

And why do I believe that? Because those types of jobs are already available nobody will take them.

I like that idea. I always have. I think a lot of others would also support a policy that features work. In fact, initiatives just like this have been floated in the past. And still, they've never made it into the national approach to empowering the impoverished.

The sticking points have always come when method becomes the next step.

Does the gov't provide those jobs? Yes, they could- but then there's that pesky 'Socialism' thing...

Could they provide incentives for the private sector? Yes, they could... but then the gov't is STILL involved... and the 'anti Big Gov't' sector will never accept this.

40: I think the reason that your idea has never seen the light of day is for one reason, and one reason alone:

Nobody can agree on how to effectively make it happen. And because the 'ideology crowd' on both sides are so loud, nothing ever gets off the ground. Not even a feeble, flawed, furtive "first attempt."

__________________

I'd support such an initiative. In a heartbeat. If I worked on Cap Hill, I'd promote it with a fierceness. And I'd lose at almost every turn- because too many 'establishment politicians' are quite content with the way things are right now.

You see: they've adapted to their environment just like the 'generational welfare recipient' has to his. They've adopted/adapted the skills/tactics necessary to survive in their personal habitat (graft, corruption, mutual back-scratching, 'lobby cozying,' etc).

What you propose will take a good many career politicians out of their comfort zones... and each will have his own (personal) reasons for resisting.

It's why your idea has had so much trouble gaining traction... and why Gov't Asst statutes have changed so little since they were enacted. The problem lies within the motivations of both Democrat and Republican politicians. Each has his own stake in the game... and changing the game is their collective worst nightmare.

They'd actually have to do something... something they might actually be held accountable for.

__________________

If the primary goal of an elected politician is to seek perpetual re-election, then he will serve the master he's sworn himself to. His every step will have already been dictated by the choices he made on Month One of his tenure.

I'll be quite frank with you. 40: I don't see a way that your ideal could EVER become public policy.

Not because it is a bad ideal.
Not because it is an unworkable ideal.


It's because too many people in places of power gain too much from keeping things just as they are.
And the people whose lives are effected by the inaction their 'survival skills' have taught them to practice?

Well... that's what campaign slogans and soundbites are for. Tell'em what they need to hear, so they'll vote for you again.

It's a real shame, 40.
Peoples' entire lives hang on the national policies that dictate the circumstances of their day-to-day existence...

...and those policies are being effected by people who are more committed to self-preservation than they are 'service to community.'

I wish we could both gain office, meet on Cap Hill.... and make something like this work. We'd prob both get crushed under the weight of The Machine lomng before we could ever get a bill on the floor.


...'cause "that's the way we do biz".. in the good ol' US of A.

But Clem, here's the rub: gov't doesn't have to provide those jobs. At least not in the sense that they have to be the employer.

I know you know who Mike Rowe is (the Dirty Jobs guy). He has a foundation called MikeRoweWorks that is out there trying to get people connected with trade skill jobs because there are hundreds of thousands available, but no one to fill them.

The reason why all those jobs are left empty is because as a culture we hold on to this myth that a person HAS to be college educated in order to have a successful, productive life. And this myth is propagated and enabled purposefully by the gov't.

There's a whole range of good paying career type jobs out there that people could be trained to do vs. going tens of thousands of $$ in debt for a degree. For the longest time we were told the benefit of going to college is that you would become a "more well rounded" individual... please...

Look at the military... there are some VERY skilled and technical jobs our people do, and it doesn't require a college degree.

I'd be willing to bet that the gov't and private business could form a good partnership in promoting job training and placement if the focus was there.

Homicide rates in the U.S. and peer countries by weapon type, 2013

The U.S. has higher rates of homicides from guns than Pakistan. At 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people, the U.S. rates aren’t much lower than gun homicide rates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5.2 deaths per 100,000 people). Annually, the U.S. has about two fewer gun homicide deaths per 100,000 people than Iraq, which has 6.5 deaths per 100,000.

Compared to certain countries known for their high crime rates, such as Jamaica, Russia, South Africa and Kenya, the U.S. had the second-highest rate of gun homicide deaths after Jamaica (view data online).

Although the U.S. stands out for its high rates of homicide firearm deaths, its rates look small compared to certain Latin American countries. The following screen grab indicates that El Salvador, Colombia and Honduras had the highest rates of firearm homicides in the world in 2010.

Another issue that gets less attention is how many people die from firearms accidentally. Again, the U.S. has much higher rates of unintentional death from firearms compared to other countries.

Switzerland, frequently cited as a country where widespread gun ownership makes people safer, has stricter gun regulations than the U.S. The Swiss government has placed limits on gun ownership and makes gun owners renew their permits 14 times a year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there are mentally ill people in Switzerland.

Again, no one is asking for NO guns.

Gun violence from refugees toward US citizens doesn't even rank compared to our own rate of gun violence toward each other, regardless of the reason, and there' an outcry for strict regulations on refugees because no one want's them in their region.

Ebola victims don't kill people, regardless of their mental state. Ebola kills people and no one wants Ebola in the country.

Compare the political demand for action or regulation of refugees and Ebola with nearly no measurement as a cause of death in this country to the political demand for the unfettered freedom to have even more objects responsible for a death rate in this country higher than most police state countries.

If you want a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment....

Where there is the WILL, there is a WAY.

As you say, We simply lack the Will to make this happen.

I do think you would get the cooperation of the Welfare folks if they were allowed to keep Welfare Benefits while earning all the cash they want.

I don't think the Government involvement should be any more than it already is. Maybe classes on interviewing and creating a resume. Maybe the Private sector could have an apprenticeship program at a lower wage.

Once someone has worked for 5 years, full benny's and lots of money, they may end up hooked on the system and want to continue to achieve.

I dunno all the details cuz I am just some guy.

Didn't the Chicago Tribune report this incident?

Probably, but I said earlier that most local sites will put that news out for their locality. National sites will not.

J/C "Conceal Carry Permits". I have no problems with them. It can save lives.

It requires a permit to do so.

So there you have it...a gun control law that saves lives.

Open carry would also, as people would see the guns and probably rethink their actions.

Yeah I have no problem with that either. Which also takes a permit. Two gun control laws that save lives. So we've identified two gun control laws that actually saved lives?

Bet we could come up with a few more that involves keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics.

To do this you either have to take the guns away from everyone, or you have to figure out how to identify the lunatics.

Now, a simple exception to HIPAA if you are trying to buy a gun could easily take care of part of item #2... it'd at least catch some, BUT, you run the very likely risk of a case where someone goes through a rough patch in life and 20 years later it is still preventing them from getting a gun if they wanted one. Who you were isn't necessarily who you are.

This would NOT catch anyone that is a lunatic due to political motivations, and unless you could prove they are indeed a lunatic, any attempts to take away their gun rights due to their leanings or beliefs is a violation of other Constitutional Rights.

As for taking away ALL guns, there is no way that happens in a single step - it would have to be done incrementally or risk literal rebellion. Hence, this begins with tighter regulation, then more regulation, then more, then removal.

Anything that falls short of identifying every lunatic or removing every gun allows things to continue. There is not a middle ground. As long as guns can be gotten, people that want to kill will be able to use them to kill. Period. And, if you take their guns, they'll just switch to knives & pipe bombs/IEDs.