SkyDekker

I know what you meant And you are right, it is not always the right answer But who decides? You are saying you think it may have made the situation in this threads example, worse. Some think it may have helped and ended the situation better or quicker Who is to say? Even if two different people experienced the exact same situation that answer could be very different for them. So this being where we are at, what point are you trying to make? either of you could be correct The only point is the conversation and seeing things from multiple angles. Sometimes one might even think...gee, hadn't thought of that.

Geting work would be easier if; #1 The fucking gov would get out of the way with its fucked up laws and regulations that would allow companies to hire without worry of new regs and gov interventions #2 The gov would stop giving shit away. Hear the newest? Free Obama phones when you sign up for the ACA This is where those like Obama and Reid WANT the people to be Easier? Fucking pussies, always want everything to be easy. So tired of this entitlement generation. Wah, wah, wah my welfare doesn't cover my expenses. So work for a living, lazy bums. Maybe in stead of writing letters to editors, they should be handing out resumes. Noooo, they would rather complain about their handout not being large enough. Now you are a mind reader Fucking cool Tell me what am I thinking about you right now? LOL Funny you wouldn't recognize your own responses. It is usually those on your side of the political sepctrum who rant and rave about those on welfare and the entitlement.

This is absolutely your decision to make I only ask that I can make my own decision We are all playing arm chair quarterback here in any event But, in one of the arcticles during a police interview, they (the police) stated that identifying the bikers will be very hard because many of the license plates were stolen and on the wrong bikes Still think they would have legal guns? Sigh..... This wasn't a debate on my end on legal or illegal guns, or wether they should be allowed. There was an insinuation that a gun would have improved the situation. I am trying to figure out how that would have been. DaVinci laid out a possibility how it could have been....Personally I think it likely would have played out differently. No that doesn't mean I think all Americans have to hand in their firearms. I just don't happen to think a gun is always the right answer. Sorry.

First above all... We have to recognize that this was NY. So the chances of a law abiding citizen having a gun is next to nothing. But lets assume it was somewhere else. First, you are assuming that there would be a gun fight. You have to make several assumptions for that to happen. First you have to assume that the bikers had guns... But if they had guns then why didn't they just shoot the tires out of the SUV?

I get that part. But what happens after that? Let's assume the guns are legal in NYC. You are sitting boxed in, in traffic, on rims, since the tires have been slashed and shredded from previous driving on them. You pop the first one or two, there are roughly 30 remaining. You have wife and kid in the car with you. What happens after you pop the first one or two? (speeding away would be a great option, but since you came to a stop due to traffic gridlock, it is unlikely to be a viable option)

Geting work would be easier if; #1 The fucking gov would get out of the way with its fucked up laws and regulations that would allow companies to hire without worry of new regs and gov interventions #2 The gov would stop giving shit away. Hear the newest? Free Obama phones when you sign up for the ACA This is where those like Obama and Reid WANT the people to be Easier? Fucking pussies, always want everything to be easy. So tired of this entitlement generation. Wah, wah, wah my welfare doesn't cover my expenses. So work for a living, lazy bums. Maybe in stead of writing letters to editors, they should be handing out resumes. Noooo, they would rather complain about their handout not being large enough.

Sorry, but questions like that are silly. Do you have a mortgage? Did you read the entire mortgage document? Any loans? Did you read the entire document? Most people in these situations rely on third parties (lawyers, assistants, experts etc) to provide feedback and insight. That's what they have a staff for. Quite frankly I think that him personally reading all regulations would be a waste of valuable time. It is a propaganda question. It is the equivalent of asking a Supreme Court Justice if they have read every law and concluding they must be worthless if they haven't. Seriously? When I signed my mortgage, it was a several hour ordeal, and I went through every piece of paper. While a supreme court judge may not have read every law on the books, they will sit down with their staff and read every rule or ruling that applies as reference to the case they are working on. A more honest answer from those politicians would be "I read that I am exempted, and then I stopped reading after that..." I think your bias is showing. Also confirms the question is indeed propaganda. (question is also based on the falsehood that reading equals comprehension)

Wouldn't that somewhat depend on the firearm? I don't know. You guys are the firearm experts. What firearm would have been best and how would it have played out?

Your buddy's wife needs to get off the government teat and stop trying to live off welfare. That's what happens to lazy people, they get all dependant on government handouts. Take some responsibility and work for a living.

We have the outcome of racing through the streets in this case. That is exactly what happened. You then implied that having a gun would have solved this in a better fashion. I responded that I doubted that, with an explanation of how I thought that would play out. I have asked you to provide your scenario as to how the gun would have helped out. So, I'll ask again, how would this have played out with a gun in your opinion?

And starting a gun fight would somehow not endanger innocent people? Is your assertion that brandishing a gun would have made the mob of bikers go away and solved the problem? In your mind, how would the inclusion of a gun in this scenario played out? I have provided what I think the likely outcome would have been. Your turn.

Sorry, but questions like that are silly. Do you have a mortgage? Did you read the entire mortgage document? Any loans? Did you read the entire document? Most people in these situations rely on third parties (lawyers, assistants, experts etc) to provide feedback and insight. That's what they have a staff for. Quite frankly I think that him personally reading all regulations would be a waste of valuable time. It is a propaganda question. It is the equivalent of asking a Supreme Court Justice if they have read every law and concluding they must be worthless if they haven't.

You DO know who you addressing that post to don't you? Yep, I only asked for the entertainment value. The responses were predictable. That is just because you cannot fathom a scenario in which a gun would not be a great addition. I can think of many scenarios in which I think a gun might be helpful, I just don't like the odds of how I think this would play out. Keep in mind that I am not a Chuck Norris like you. Unlike you, I am not capable to kill 30 guys before one of them can return fire, while sitting behind the wheel of an SUV. Maybe I need to watch mroe movies and play more video games {shrug}

No, with a large group, odds are a couple of them have guns too. I start shooting at the first guy, they likely return fire at the car. With my wife and kids in the car, there are decent odds one of them takes a bullet.

I have read in another article that the guy in the Landrover had called the cops on the bikers because they were all over the road and slowing down all the other cars whiles they did tricks and doghnut burnouts. Victim made the mistake of yelling at them and telling them he was on his ceel with PD. That led to the wolfpack and stopping him. After the idiot brake checks him and the landrover clipps the rear of the bike, the victim stops and the bikers started slammimg there helmets into his LR and actually slash one of his tires. It was then that the victim decided to four wheel over a couple of the barricading bikes. Biggest mistake victim made was exiting... should have stayed on the freeway and waited for PD support. I've watched the bit where he initially stops again and again... It's hard to make out but I don't see any helmets hitting the SUV or people slashing tires (or deflated tires when he gets away)... You also don't hear any yelling (but you do hear the bikes getting run over). It looks like the SUV was surrounded, but no more. If I were in the car at this point, just having lots of people surrounding my vehicle would make me antsy for sure. Like I said, though... We don't see the before. I've seen plenty of drivers in big cars try to "teach me a lesson" by driving aggressively, blocking my way, opening their doors, et cetera when I myself was doing absolutely nothing wrong (filtering being 100% legal in the UK, as long as it's not at wreckless speeds). They often feel pretty untouchable compared to my little bike as there is little I can do to defend myself or retaliate. So we don't know for sure the SUV wasn't being aggressive as well before the biker decided to force him to stop. Things have a way of escalating when people are upset... Being surrounded by 50 people would make me very scared... Seeing 3-4 people get run over would make a lot of bikers furious... My guess is the driver helped to initially escalate things. But even if he didn't, if the reports are correct, it's not very clever to taunt a huge group of people by telling them you've called the cops. Doesn't mean he deserved what he got, but it wasn't clever. Nor is picking a fight with a car/suv when you are on a motorcycle. Even if you are 100% right, you are very likely still going to lose. Even if buddy was completely in the right being in front of that SUV, he is still never going to walk again. I'll take walking over being right.

My understanding is that House Republicans have refused to negotiate up until very recently. Probably since they figured out they appear to be getting the blame for the shut down. Somwhere in there is probably your answer.

How about if she wanted 20 guys to join...? Wendy P. Just sit that one out and man the camera

this if someone is such a puppet that they go all extreme, then they need help and one should avoid that person as much as possible - closemindedness tends to get worse with age, not better. This. But it really goes for every aspect. I could live with a vegetarian (and have), but couldn't live with one of those peta loving, agressive vegans. I could live with a cat lover, but not if she decided she wanted 20 of them. I could live with a bi-sexual nymphomaniac, until she decided she wanted 20 girls to join...oh wait...

Don't think they are really all that removed from the reality of life for the average person. I personally think taht the money required to run for office means that politicians have sold their souls a couple of times over before getting elected.

Yup. I'm furious with the government right now - both sides. Their job is to resolve stuff like this. They knew a deadline was approaching and STILL went on paid vacation and missed their responsibilities In any private industry they'd be reprimanded at the least, or fired at the other end of the spectrum. How do we fire the entire Senate and Congress? The people need to start making examples that the point of politicians is to serve the people, not themselves and if they can't do that then they'll be replaced. As an outsider, I think it is telling enough that politicians have chosen to ensure the war machine (oops defence) keeps getting fed.

Well.. thats actually crap. I see you didn't bother to look at the sources. Homicides 2011: 8,583 Accidental deaths 2011: 851 The data does not support your claim. Again, if you count SUICIDES then your data might be correct. Funny You do realize that the homicide number could include scenarios as outlined by Kallend right? Like the mother that was killed by her own weapons before her son went on in Sandy Hook. That would be listed as a homicide, not an accidental death.

Agreed, I don't see restrictions on the word "arms" in the constitution at all. Yet, most people seem to be okay with some restrictions on the type of arms allowed to be owned.

this you get posted link after link after link. But some how the Islamic leaders distancing them selves and denouncing the action never ends up on FOX news.....go figure I'm talking something larger: either kick the radicals out of Islam entirely, or if there is no way to do it, the "peaceful" ones can regroup under a new name like in other religions such as Judaism or Christianity. This is hilarious. Points for best idea ever. I second this. Also since Westboro Baptist is going nowhere soon I would suggest that Baptists either kick them out, or everyone else just start calling themselves something else, like....BACONBITS. That's it, all peaceful Baptists are now known as BACONBITS, and only hateful Baptists get to stay Baptists. Baptist and Islam aren't at the same level. Christianity will have to denounce Westboro or call themselves something else.

If a group of people left, say, a Kiwanis Club meeting and engaged in an orgy of looting and arson while screaming Kiwanis slogans, it would certainly be germane to mention that there was some Kiwanis factor in the incident, however perverse. The affiliation of the people who murdered Brenda and Erica Lafferty was pertinent from the standpoint that they used their interpretation of the tenets of their faith as justification for the act. If someone commits a crime in an homogeneous society, it is not particularly newsworthy to note that they a member of that society ("Japanese person commits crime in Tokyo - news at 6!"). If, however, identification with a particular group forms the basis for the crime, then it is pertinent ("Dateline Tokyo - Japanese person kills 14 and maims 9 in attack on 'Gaijin' - news at 6!"). Context matters. BSBD, Winsor Right. So, how does that factor into news reports using "muslim" or "islam" in the title of a news article regarding an attack on a mall in retaliation for military intervention in Somalia?

See, in the end background checks accomplished nothing. Hence, theer is no reason to keep background checks. The constitution says nothing about background checks!