Media dramatization regarding US shooting incidents

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I did. You did not like the answer I guess, You have not answered mine and you put words in mhy mouth. Shame on you

"Criminals are criminals" is a platitude, not an answer.

Do you think a criminal with a gun is no worse than an unarmed criminal?

Yes

I suspect you're in a small minority. After all, armed robbery gets more serious sentences in every jurisdiction I can think of.

I can't recall the last mall or school shooting committed by an unarmed criminal, either.

But we can all draw our own conclusions.

YOU, need the different "levels" to make your case. Otherwise your argument fails

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, and you still have not answered my question. The one that asks you if you really think gunshows is where fellons get thier weapons?

I think some felons get their guns from unscrupulous or careless "law abiding" dealers. I think some get their guns from straw purchases by "law abiding" gun owners. I think some steal guns (more than 300,000 every year) from "law abiding" gun owners who are too careless properly to secure their guns. And I think some get them from "legal" sales at gun shows.AH, kallend, it cant be a "legal" sale if a felon buys a gun

In fact, "law abiding" gun dealers and owners are the primary routes by whcih felons (and loonies) get the guns with which they commit mayhem of various sorts.

Ya, your position (however crazy) is becoming more clear the more you post on this site. That is good as I want to know who would be a one to suggest law that goes contrary to the constitution.

Good thing is I realize you have nothing here. You keep throwing out that 300,000 number that was "discussed" in another thread.

Thanks

Are you disputing the MORE THAN 300,000 number?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Ya, thanks to the libs who say you cant ask that for reaosns of privacy

Kennedy, that damn liberal!not Kennedy I am talking about and you dam well know that

>it has no relationship to a gunshow in general.

Background checks at gun shows have no relationships to gun shows? Not even you can spin that one hard enough to have it make any sense.

Where did I say that?
Sheesh, what a bunch of crap

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Again, that is not a gunshow issue now is it.

Yes, it is. See caps above.

Claiming it's not is like claiming that restaurant health code standards are not a restaurant issue because sometimes people cook at home. (using the example from your post.)

>if you are selling a handgun anywhere you should have the check, which,
>as I said, in Iowa you do.

If that is your position, then I agree. Background checks should always be required to help prevent convicted felons from buying guns.

I have no problem with background checks if, once the check is completed, it is destroyed as the law states. And, cap locks not withstanding, this is NOT a gunshow issue. Not even close

What kind of issue is it, then, since allowing felons (and loonies) to buy guns at will is CLEARLY an issue.

So, are you saying they ONLY get them (guns) at gunshows?

I'm ASKING you what kind of issue it is that felons and loonies can so readily buy guns.

It's not a statistically significant issue.

Assuming the percentage of firearms used in crimes acquired at gun shows is consistent between homicides and other crimes and the percentage is not increasing, fewer than 175 homicides a year are committed with guns purchased illegally gun shows.

In 2006, we had 10177 homicides committed with firearms.

The Bureau of Justice has done two studies in the last decade: _Firearms Use by Offenders_ and _Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98_. The first reported that .7% of criminals acquired their firearms at gun-shows and the second 1.7%.

Personally, I worry a lot more about people buying beer at seven eleven and contributing to the 15,000 drunk driving deaths we have each year (nearly 100X more than firearms bought at gun shows).

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

>Ya, thanks to the libs who say you cant ask that for reaosns of privacy

Kennedy, that damn liberal!not Kennedy I am talking about and you dam well know that

>it has no relationship to a gunshow in general.

Background checks at gun shows have no relationships to gun shows? Not even you can spin that one hard enough to have it make any sense.

Where did I say that?
Sheesh, what a bunch of crap

Do you read what you have written?

You could still quit while you're not yet in too deep

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Yes, 173 homicides is nothing to worry about.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, and you still have not answered my question. The one that asks you if you really think gunshows is where fellons get thier weapons?

I think some felons get their guns from unscrupulous or careless "law abiding" dealers. I think some get their guns from straw purchases by "law abiding" gun owners. I think some steal guns (more than 300,000 every year) from "law abiding" gun owners who are too careless properly to secure their guns. And I think some get them from "legal" sales at gun shows.AH, kallend, it cant be a "legal" sale if a felon buys a gun

In fact, "law abiding" gun dealers and owners are the primary routes by whcih felons (and loonies) get the guns with which they commit mayhem of various sorts.

Ya, your position (however crazy) is becoming more clear the more you post on this site. That is good as I want to know who would be a one to suggest law that goes contrary to the constitution.

Good thing is I realize you have nothing here. You keep throwing out that 300,000 number that was "discussed" in another thread.

Thanks

Are you disputing the MORE THAN 300,000 number?

Serious question, do you have the underlying info for your great number?

In other words, of those 300,000 how many were stolen by people who had no record and/or were not felons before they stole said guns? How many of the 300,000 were recoved? How many were taken by family members or freinds? How many were stolen by felons ?

Just for a few examples

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Ya, thanks to the libs who say you cant ask that for reaosns of privacy

Kennedy, that damn liberal!not Kennedy I am talking about and you dam well know that

>it has no relationship to a gunshow in general.

Background checks at gun shows have no relationships to gun shows? Not even you can spin that one hard enough to have it make any sense.

Where did I say that?
Sheesh, what a bunch of crap

Do you read what you have written?

You could still quit while you're not yet in too deep

You love the little winky eye thingy dont you. You think it makes stupid statments look less stupid?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Let's make your example a better one. Many people go to street fairs where legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco) are sold by licensed sellers to adults. Many vendors also sell them illegally to underage kids; these vendors are easy to find because they clearly advertise "not a licensed dealer." They just sell beer from their own personal supply of Budweiser that they bring in a truck.

I don't mean to change the subject, but... Does this actually happen? I thought that a license was always required to (legally) sell alcohol?

[billvon 3,132]

>Does this actually happen? I thought that a license was always required to
>(legally) sell alcohol?

I used the example because it actually _did_ happen in my hometown in NY. The St. Rocco's Festival had beer booths, and also a few other food vendors who would sell beer no questions asked. The booth was somewhat spotty on proofing people and the other vendors never did.

Technically both required a liquor license, but the show's license only covered the beer tent. The police always looked the other way because it was a church event and was quite popular.

Well, the expected happened, and some kids got very drunk. A few got arrested, a few ended up in the ER. Soon enough the cops came down on the festival and started enforcing the laws.

(The difference in these cases, of course, is currently there is no law preventing the "other vendors" from selling guns without a license or a background check.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Does this actually happen? I thought that a license was always required to
>(legally) sell alcohol?

I used the example because it actually _did_ happen in my hometown in NY. The St. Rocco's Festival had beer booths, and also a few other food vendors who would sell beer no questions asked. The booth was somewhat spotty on proofing people and the other vendors never did.

Technically both required a liquor license, but the show's license only covered the beer tent. The police always looked the other way because it was a church event and was quite popular.

Well, the expected happened, and some kids got very drunk. A few got arrested, a few ended up in the ER. Soon enough the cops came down on the festival and started enforcing the laws.

(The difference in these cases, of course, is currently there is no law preventing the "other vendors" from selling guns without a license or a background check.)

A misleading point at the end. "Vendors" would indicate a license. We are talking about private sales that are (unles sold to a felon) legal. Correct?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>"Vendors" would indicate a license.

No, a vendor is someone who sells something, licensed or not.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A misleading point at the end. "Vendors" would indicate a license. We are talking about private sales that are (unles sold to a felon) legal. Correct?

I don't see much distinction between a non FFL who has a booth at a gun show and someone who sets up a keg at a church fair. Someone walking about the show who offers to sell a gun out of his trunk would be different.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>"Vendors" would indicate a license.

No, a vendor is someone who sells something, licensed or not.

So, you make it even more misleading

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

A misleading point at the end. "Vendors" would indicate a license. We are talking about private sales that are (unles sold to a felon) legal. Correct?

I don't see much distinction between a non FFL who has a booth at a gun show and someone who sets up a keg at a church fair. Someone walking about the show who offers to sell a gun out of his trunk would be different.

As far as I know, you must have a license to sell alcohol to anybody. That is the law. As a firearms dealer you must make sure a buyer of a gun is legal to do so. That is the law. As a private person you can sell your gun to some one else legaly. That is the law. If the buyer is a felon then that criminal has committed the crime, not the seller. Steps, as in Iowa, can be put into place that helps insure the buyer is legal. I have no problem with that. In this case a gunshow is not attacked and becoming a criminal or extending your criminal acts remain where they should. With the fucking criminal.

Gun shows are not the problem. Killing Gun shows are however, a step in the gun control nuts path to bypassing the 2nd.
Cant chose which rights are good and which are not. Making criminals out of the law abiding only created fear and mis-trust. Mis-leading posts and attacking so called symptoms and not the problems also create mis-trust.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Good thing is I realize you have nothing here. You keep throwing out that 300,000 number that was "discussed" in another thread.

Thanks

Are you disputing the MORE THAN 300,000 number?

Serious question, do you have the underlying info for your great number?

In other words, of those 300,000 how many were stolen by people who had no record and/or were not felons before they stole said guns? How many of the 300,000 were recoved? How many were taken by family members or freinds? How many were stolen by felons ?

Generally, STEALING a gun is automatically a felony. Felonies are committed by felons (kind of a definition, don't you think?). What a silly question that was.

Quote

Just for a few examples

You have been around DZ.COM for a while. You read the thread on guns. Are you NOW disputing the 300,000+ number of stolen guns each year? Yes or no?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Generally, STEALING a gun is automatically a felony. Felonies are committed by felons (kind of a definition, don't you think?). What a silly question that was.
\

Quote

You walked right square into buddy. That is why I asked the question the way I did because of your patterns of not answering questions were clear. And you followed it to a fucking T prof. Congrats
Wondering what the hell happended Re-read my post.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

>"Vendors" would indicate a license.

No, a vendor is someone who sells something, licensed or not.

So, you make it even more misleading

It's a definition. Like "felony" is something committed by a "felon". Nothing misleading at all, except to someone who wants to be misled.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Generally, STEALING a gun is automatically a felony. Felonies are committed by felons (kind of a definition, don't you think?). What a silly question that was.
\

Quote

You walked right square into buddy. That is why I asked the question the way I did because of your patterns of not answering questions were clear. And you followed it to a fucking T prof. Congrats
Wondering what the hell happended Re-read my post.

Making a stupid, absurd statement is not a clever way to avoid the question. Do you dispute that 300,000+ guns stolen each year?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Generally, STEALING a gun is automatically a felony. Felonies are committed by felons (kind of a definition, don't you think?). What a silly question that was.
\

Quote

You walked right square into buddy. That is why I asked the question the way I did because of your patterns of not answering questions were clear. And you followed it to a fucking T prof. Congrats
Wondering what the hell happended Re-read my post.

Making a stupid, absurd statement is not a clever way to avoid the question. Do you dispute that 300,000+ guns stolen each year?

AFTER you provide the info behind the data that I asked you for.

I am having fun. You?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Yes, 173 homicides is nothing to worry about.

Compared to other sources of homicides it isn't.

5000 people loose their lives annually to manslaughter by motor vehicle with drunks driving.

500 people can be murdered each year by street gangs in a single large metropolitan area (in 2001 LA County saw 587 gang-related homicides).

If a few hundred deaths are worth worrying about, a few thousand are more worth worrying about.

Compared to the 5000 annual sober victims of drunk drivers, or 500

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Yes, 173 homicides is nothing to worry about.

Compared to other sources of homicides it isn't.

No problem then. Just tell the families to get over it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Generally, STEALING a gun is automatically a felony. Felonies are committed by felons (kind of a definition, don't you think?). What a silly question that was.
\

Quote

You walked right square into buddy. That is why I asked the question the way I did because of your patterns of not answering questions were clear. And you followed it to a fucking T prof. Congrats
Wondering what the hell happended Re-read my post.

Making a stupid, absurd statement is not a clever way to avoid the question. Do you dispute that 300,000+ guns stolen each year?

AFTER you provide the info behind the data that I asked you for.

I am having fun. You?

I already did. You even participitated in the thread. Now, ARE YOU DISPUTING IT?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I did. You did not like the answer I guess, You have not answered mine and you put words in mhy mouth. Shame on you

"Criminals are criminals" is a platitude, not an answer.

Do you think a criminal with a gun is no worse than an unarmed criminal?

Yes

I suspect you're in a small minority. After all, armed robbery gets more serious sentences in every jurisdiction I can think of.

I can't recall the last mall or school shooting committed by an unarmed criminal, either.

But we can all draw our own conclusions.

Let me answer this question in a different way.

Someone you know is killed by a person using a

baseball bat or

a knife or

a car or

they used thier bare hands or

thier feet

or


a gun.



which killing is worse if defined by the tool used?




(skip the but they can kill many more bs because I will ask if 1 life is less important than many more.. You know, that same argument you use the other way when it comes to Iraq)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I did. You did not like the answer I guess, You have not answered mine and you put words in mhy mouth. Shame on you

"Criminals are criminals" is a platitude, not an answer.

Do you think a criminal with a gun is no worse than an unarmed criminal?

Yes

I suspect you're in a small minority. After all, armed robbery gets more serious sentences in every jurisdiction I can think of.

I can't recall the last mall or school shooting committed by an unarmed criminal, either.

But we can all draw our own conclusions.

Let me answer this question in a different way.

Someone you know is killed by a person using a

baseball bat or

a knife or

a car or

they used thier bare hands or

thier feet

or


a gun.



which killing is worse if defined by the tool used?




(skip the but they can kill many more bs because I will ask if 1 life is less important than many more.. You know, that same argument you use the other way when it comes to Iraq)

Do you know the meaning of "unarmed"? If you had to confront an intruder or a mugger, would it make NO difference to you if they were holding a loaded gun or had no weapon at all? Now try again.

PS: Do you dispute that 300,000+ guns are stolen each year? Are you calling me a liar based on your (possibly faulty) recall of a previous thread?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.