Another day, another shooting. Ho hum. When will NRA leadership step up to the plate? (Page 3) Su Ni Chang: David...If I were you I would re read some of your posts. If I were you, I would try and figure out why....for example, you would use 'wok', rather than 'frypan' to make light of a Chinese woman's post...or "Juan' rather than John to describe a dope smoking criminal. This is not a question you should ask me, this is a question you should ask you in quiet comtemplation.  davidk14: Carol, Once again, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. You refuse to answer. And.... You assume too much without thinking....or asking... I married a Hispanic woman and was married for decades. Our very large family had numerous Juan's, four to be exact. I currently live and work just a few miles from the Mexican border and work with more Juan's than Johns. I was a Mexican culinary chef for years as well. In my last career, I was the Director of Culinary Ops for a national Chinese restaurant concept where we cooked in woks...not frypans. So, now that you know this, makes more sense I'm sure. What you need to think about is this...why would you point your finger at me? Because I am white? I think that if you knew me, I think you would love me. . Su Ni Chang: My answer was very simple...it is, to let your words (as far as the way we communicate) answer those questions for you. I didnt ask you for personal information, and there is no need for you to try and convince me you arent racist...that is for you to answer for yourself. Oh...and a wok is another version of a frypan. (Edited by Su Ni Chang) davidk14: . In China, do they call it a frypan? Not.  Still unable to answer a yes or no question? Make sure you do not accuse me again.. . davidk14: . Carol, You did not read my post second from the top of this page. I was very clear yet in your very next post you said, "...I didnt ask you for personal information". So now you are? You want to know how tall I am or how much I weigh? How about my favorite restaurants? I have quite a few actually especially since I have been in the culinary and hospitality business for over 4 decades working in different cultural settings and with numerous people from multiple cultures. . . . Su Ni Chang: david... no matter where you live, who you associate with, or who you marry, the question about if you are racist needs to be answered by you...and you alone.  billy_piper: carol are you suggesting mass murder isnt a natural phenomenon? or that its just china that this kind of crime does not occur? also are you implying that these mass killings are exclusive to america because of something to do with society? you seem quite offended china might have similar problems. Su Ni Chang: The REACTION to the mass shooting in Conetticut was to blame guns, and not the meaning of 'individual' in the society. Many people REACTED by blaiming guns, many others reacted by claiming that if someone was armed, that the shooting could have been avoided.. Many people cant seem to understand the difference between things that are not designed to kill human beings...such as knives, cleavers and hunting guns, and those weapons that are for the exclusive use to kill another person...such as bombs or assault rifles. Billy...In China, I live in a city of more than 2 million people. If there were 600 murders in that city within a year, I am sure that there would be some personal and cultural self reflection in our society because hof how we define 'individual. The first thing is...we would not be projecting to another country, and pointing out that thier problems are worse, or beliving that a threat from outside is dangeous enough to spend billions of USA a week to kill other people's children...and justifying it based on the relationship between the murderer and the victim...rather than focusing on the crime, the criminal, and how this evil spawned from our society. You see Billy...we see our actions and words as individuals, reflecting, and perhaps influencing the acts and words of another. We see ourselves in my culture, as a part of a whole, and not an 'independant agent'. So...in a way, I am complaining about the REACTION of some on your society on the shooting of those children. (Edited by Su Ni Chang)  lori100: Exclusive: Cops, detectives, FBI agents, U.S. soldiers tell Natural News they will not enforce gun confiscation orders----------------NaturalNews) In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over the last three days, asking three simple questions: #1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation? #2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?) #3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings? I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff's deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity. Here are their answers. #1) Will Obama use Executive Order to call for gun confiscation? The majority of those answering this question told me they did not believe Obama would call for outright gun confiscation. One detective told me, "Obama will probably try to roll out an incremental restriction similar to the '94 Clinton assault weapons ban." He would then wait for another mass shooting and use that event to ratchet up the restrictions, I was told. Only two of the eight people I questioned thought that Obama would call for outright gun confiscation, and one of those believed it would only be a restriction on so-called "assault rifles" but not shotguns or handguns. Everyone believed that Obama would at minimum call for restrictions on weapon magazine capacity, most likely seeking to limit that to ten rounds per magazine (which is also the current limit in California). I was also told that Obama might attempt to federalize mandatory waiting periods#2) Will you enforce gun confiscation against the citizens? On this issue, the answer was resounding and unanimous: NO! The retired police captain told me that, "Door-to-door confiscation by men and women in blue [i.e. city cops] would be a suicide mission." If ordered to conduct such gun confiscation actions, many would simply resign on the spot rather than risk their lives in firefights with determined gun owners, he explained. "Our officers are not generally willing to assume the increased risk of such a police action." He also explained, importantly, that most police officers have not even been trained to conduct sweeping, community-level weapons confiscation programs. "This goes against all our community outreach efforts where we try to earn the trust of the community." If cops suddenly became gun confiscation enforcers, trust would break down and policing would become extremely difficult, he explained. The USMC veteran told me that some of the younger soldiers would go along with gun confiscation if ordered, but that nearly all the older military personnel would likely refuse such orders, even at risk of a court martial. "Some of the guys actually talked about this on deployment. The E-1's might follow those orders but most of us who managed to stay alive through a couple of tours are too smart for that. You'd have AWOL out the ass. We didn't sign up to engage Americans as enemy combatants. The answer would be F*%K NO all the way up the chain of command." One of the police detectives explained another reason for saying no: "There is no love for gun confiscation in law enforcement. We're all gun owners and most of us grew up with guns, hunting, target shooting or just collecting. Most of us have gun collections when we're off duty, and Obama himself isn't well liked across law enforcement. There's no way police officers are going to put their lives on the line to go along with an order from a President who really doesn't have moral authority among cops." When I asked what if Bush had called for gun confiscation, and would cops be more likely to comply if the order was given by a Republican, the reply was, "For some guys, yes, because they will listen to a Republican more than a Democrat, but still for rank-and-file officers who are just here collecting a paycheck for a risky job, they're no way they're going to engage in what is basically a war action just to keep that job. You can't pay them enough to pull that kind of duty, gun confiscation." I was told by more than one person in this group that any effort by Obama to invoke gun confiscation could lead America to civil war if any real effort were made to enforce it. -----------------#3) What is the solution to stopping mass shootings? The former police captain explained that the real problem with shootings in his city was, "dirt-cheap handguns" also called "Saturday Night Specials." As he explained, "People that spend $500 on a nice handgun are almost never the problem when it comes to violent crime. It's the ones who pick up a junk gun for $50 on the street." When I asked him about a practical solution to reduce shootings, he said that in his opinion, "Levying new taxes on all handguns like the tax stamps on class three weapons" would likely prevent new guns from being purchased by most violent criminals, but it wouldn't take guns out of the hands of criminals who already have them. "These people will break into your car to steal the coins out of your vehicle console. They have no morals, no limits. There's almost nothing they won't do to get what they want, which is usually drugs." As background, the BATF currently levies a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of any suppressor (silencer), short-barreled rifle, or full-auto weapon, all of which are VERY expensive to acquire and require extensive background checks to legally own. "Most of the gun violence in our city is drug addicts raiding the homes of other drug addicts. The statistics might appear to show a lot of armed robberies and shootings, but it's really just a small subset of homes or apartments getting raided over and over again by the same people, the drug dealers." When I asked what the real drug problem was, he answered without hesitation. "Meth." Not pot, not marijuana, not even heroin. Meth is the drug that drives violent crime in America's cities. The retired Sheriff's deputy told me that the solution was to, "Arm the teachers. Tear down the 'gun free zone' signs and put weapons in the hands of school personnel." This opinion was seconded by one of the active-duty police detectives, who said he had actually worked several shootings, but never a mass shooting. "A mass shooting takes time, often several minutes," he explained. "That's too fast for the police to arrive on scene, but it's plenty of time for someone already on location to pursue and engage the active shooter." He went on to explain that in the training they have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that ANY engagement of an active shooter -- even shots that don't hit the shooter -- are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to "confirm your sight picture" of weapon sights on the target before pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of rounds, even returning so-called "suppressing fire" is now considered tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is to go in and engage the shooter, even if you're just one officer on the scene. This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes against most cops' safety rules which include, "always know what is BEYOND your target." But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim when laying down suppressing fire. It is therefore believed, I was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can effectively lay down that "suppressing fire" even if they are not nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction. ------------- lori100: Schertz gun shop offers free handgun courses to educators www.kens5.com LoneStar Handgun is offering its concealed handgun license course to all teachers free of charge. Josh Felker, who owns the gun shop off I-35 in Schertz, said his phone has been ringing nonstop since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.. billy_piper: thanks for the considered reply carol. im not sure the percentages of americans pro vs against gun laws. personally, and being a brit (not american, theres much different) im not against the right to arm oneself to protect ourselves or property. we dont have gun laws in britain like they do in america, but we do have similar mass killing incidents involving guns and children unfortunately. the pro of having weapons imo is if some lunatic went wild with a gun perhaps if others were armed theyd have a chance of stopping the lunatic before the body count made double figures. i gotta admit and maybe ive fallen foul of stereotyping but i was surprised to hear you speak about individuals in china, i thought china was all about society not individuals. nadiaovrthere: we absolutely DO NOT have a gun problem in america…we have a ‘critical thinking’ problem in america, spanning everything from how we address freedom, mental health, the ‘philosophy of the constitution’, the expression of democracy, cause and effect liberalism, the tendency of groups, the tendency of individuals, and on and on and on…banning guns, knives, bats, cars, bars, drugs, cigarettes, abortions, free speech, free association, etc ad infinitum only means the tyrannical govt. the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to protect ‘us’ from wins!  davesdatahut: Can you elaborate on all that a bit, Nadia? What kind of tyranny do you see out there? I haven't heard anyone here in this thread talk about banning anything, including guns. Just having a back and forth about how and whether to control their availability.  duncan124: Alcohol is (was) behind the majority of shootings. Its availability should have been more limited. duncan124: I can't remember. US laws and the 'anti shootings' lobby. But its true, experience and common sense shows that alcohol is a part of most shootings. Alcohol is far more poisonous then Doctors were willing to say and Black people react differently to it. During WW2 London Council trying to help the War Effort stopped some of the sanctions the US anti drinking lobby had demanded and was told "We don't want to be poisoned"  Coffrey: Experience and common sense? Well I'm glad you're not detective, because people who actually want to know what's true do not rely solely on intuition without facts. And what do black people have to do with this anyway? Nadia brings up an excellent point as to how NOT to look at this situation. Not everything is the same, not everything has the same level of demand that would warrant a black market. Drugs are something that affect one's own body, one can develop an addiction. Abortions are just a medical procedure, a necessary one for some, I'd say most, women who want them. But guns are simply weapons. Under your logic, it should be legal to buy WMDs. We've already drawn a limit at what kind of weapons someone is allowed to buy, all the pro-life side are saying is we should push that line a bit further. And the results are not even theoretical, look at countries who have extreme restrictions on guns, they have the lowest deaths. Unless you're willing to say Americans are inherently more violent and will seek out weapons just for the pleasure of it, the argument against banning is fallacious. billy_piper: what sort of demographic is Connecticut compared to other states and sandy hook also? is it an industrial or service, government state? davesdatahut: Connecticut has been among the top 5 wealthiest and most educated states in the country for years, with a moderate, but Democrat-leaning electorate. Lots of insurance companies are based in the Hartford area (I am pretty sure insurance is the top industry in the state), but the state's economy also depends a lot on ocean-based tourism and other activity. They have some depressed old cities, but also some of the wealthiest towns in the country, along the New York border. Twice in the last few years, the voters have, fortunately, rejected an attempt by a professional wrestling executive to buy her way in to the U.S. Senate on the Republican line. (Edited by davesdatahut) | Politics Chat Room 35 People Chatting Similar Conversations |