Yet another looney with a gun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>how about you actually refute what I said?

OK. #1 -Spent the weekend with my family in New York and saw the nieces and nephews, and a great time was had by all. And no one could possibly piss in my wheaties since I have no wheaties.

Glad you had a good weekend.

Quote

#2 - if you are going to count all the innocent people who could have used a gun to defend themselves against people you don't like, you have to count all the innocent people who could have used a gun to defend themselves against people you DO like. Cops, US soldiers etc.

You're arguing a point I didn't make, Bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Please explain how your "no handguns" is going to do ANYTHING to reduce crime, thanks. Do you really think that Joe Gangbanger is going to say "well, gee, handguns are illegal now - I guess I'll go turn mine in at the police station" - be real.

Your beloved 2nd ammendment had put you in a sad position indeed.

Not having the guns in the first place would have been the real answer, if someone so much as fires a gun in NZ it is all over the news.....

...why? because it doesn't usually happen.

The US is in a position where there are millions of guns in circulation, what is the answer?

Fuck knows? but not having them would be the answer, it s a shame you cant work towards that due to people like you that love their guns so much they fail to see what they are really designed to do.

It seems that your "solution" is to sit back and whine and lament that guns were ever invented. That's how you address what to do now that guns are a reality.

The real reason we can't "work towards that" gun-free utopia you dream of is that the only way it would make sense to approach that would be to make sure that the FIRST people to be forced to give up their guns would be the BAD people. Only when the last bad person had no more guns would it be fair to then demand that the GOOD people give up theirs.

But the problem is, even as the bad people are giving up theirs (as if they would, but let's just pretend), some of those who had been disarmed (or perhaps some newly-minted bad people out to get their first guns) would be acquiring them from the usual sources -- theft from civilians, theft from police, theft from the military, straw purchases, purchases made by criminals not yet made ineligible by conviction...

Of course, all of this ignores the nature of getting the criminals' guns confiscated, which would necessitate (no way around it) nullification of a number of constitutional protections (this fact never seems to bother the gun-banners).

Another important reality the "I-wish-we-had-zero-guns" dreamers ignore is the fact that THINGS ARE NOT SO ROSY FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN NO ONE HAS GUNS, EITHER. We harken back to the past, when powerful lords ruled the land, because they had MUSCLE. They employed the most physically powerful people around, who were, essentially, grown-up-world BULLIES. If you were of small stature, or infirmed, or elderly, or very young, YOU WERE A NATURAL VICTIM. When guns came along, they nullified the natural advantage that the large and strong possessed.

So if we imagine a world remade with no more guns, we would have to imagine a world in which you could kiss goodbye any chance your mother had of emerging unharmed from a gang rape attempt in a dark parking lot. Your effete 140 lb. bespectacled businessman carrying his briefcase and wearing his Rolex watch? His ass is kicked and he is left to die of brain swelling by two 16-year-old punks armed with ax-handles. Why? Because neither of these people had an "equalizer" in your perfect world.

Your vision of the world FUCKING SUCKS, dude.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>I wish I would be around to see your face when/if you come to
>be victimized and have nothing to use to defend yourself.

It would be even more of a treat to see your face as you stare down the barrel of your own gun in the hands of someone who got his hands on it first!

How on earth is it that an attacker is going to get his hands on my concealed handgun before I do? He won't even know it's there.

And if I do draw the gun, why is it supposedly soooo easy for someone to take it from me? Who do you know who is so ballsy that he'd just step up to a person pointing a gun at him and "take it from him"?

Your scenario makes you look ridiculous. How many stories can you provide us (I mean real stories, not story-stories) that appeared in newspapers (as surely they would) where a person had his gun "taken from him" and used against him?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>I wish I would be around to see your face when/if you come to
>be victimized and have nothing to use to defend yourself.

It would be even more of a treat to see your face as you stare down the barrel of your own gun in the hands of someone who got his hands on it first!

You're right, though -- I would have a very shocked look on my face. It would be in direct proportion to how ridiculously unlikely that scenario is to actually play out. Really, Mr. Von, you do have a very potent imagination -- you'd have to, to picture such a far-fetched occurrence.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

If you want to analyze the beliefs of morons,
let's take a look at the "success" of your Virginia Tech "gun-free zone". Worked real well, didn't it.

It wasn't a gun-free zone, since weak laws and poorly implemented laws (courtesy of folks like YOU) allowed a nutcase to buy guns and go on a shooting spree. You, Ms No Name Entered, share some of the responsibility every time something like this happens, because you condone weak laws that allow people like Cho to obtain firearms so easily.

No, it was a "gun-free zone." It was a place whose proprietors said, "NO GUNS ALLOWED." You might want to just call them "Wishful-thinking zones," for all the good they do, all the goal they accomplish.

And in yet more disingenuousness from you, you claim that "laws ALLOWED a nutcase to buy guns."

NO. The law PROHIBITED him from being eligible to buy guns. He bought them because ENFORCEMENT of the law is problematic. Stop lying and saying that the law "allowed" Cho to buy guns. We can show you clearly (HAVE shown you clearly) where the law says he could NOT legally buy guns.

When the law says that the speed limit is 65 mph, and some nutcase goes blasting down it at 95 mph, did the law "allow" him to do it, simply because there was no cop around to pull him over? Your logic, as shown here, would say, "Yes."

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[rhys 0]

Quote

It seems that your "solution" is to sit back and whine and lament that guns were ever invented. That's how you address what to do now that guns are a reality.

The real reason we can't "work towards that" gun-free utopia you dream of is that the only way it would make sense to approach that would be to make sure that the FIRST people to be forced to give up their guns would be the BAD people. Only when the last bad person had no more guns would it be fair to then demand that the GOOD people give up theirs.

You are one paranoid SOAB.

You assume I use the same thought process as you and you assume carrying a gun protects you from another party with a gun.

I don't want to debate this with you as it will be like talking to a brick wall!

Don't assume you will be safe with a gun, the badies will be more likely to shoot than you, whatever you ignorant pro gunners think.

I'll choose to do what has kept me safe for 33 years so far, live in a safe environment, don't carry weapons and don't be an asshole. if you want to be safe i suggest you do the same.

otherwise you can keep your dirty harry attitude and keep it to your neighborhood because that type is not very welcome where I come from.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Also bullshit is the inferrence that the homeless/mentally ill will have the several hundred dollars to walk into a gun store and buy a weapon, not to mention valid identification (or the probability of passing a NICS check)

*giggle!*

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Agreed. It is rare for a criminal to get a gun away from a legal gun owner/user and use it against him. Then again, it is also rare for people to be injured or killed due to a lack of a gun.

Several millions in Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.
Columbine
VA Tech
Appalachian Law School
Pearl High School
Several church and mall shootings
x number of others from this page that could have gone the other way, if unarmed.

Aww, sick burn!!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Leapinglizardto 0]

Quote

still believe in judge and jury and innocent until proven guilty, you tend to believe in summary execution.

As do I under reasonable circumstances! There were 37 other eyewitness passengers on that bus. Each of which had legal & reasonable cause to

* use extreme force to try to defend sleeping innocent victim #1's life..
* also had legal reasonable cause to use force in that: ANY ONE OF THEM COULD EASILY HAVE BECOME INNOCENT VICTIM # 2 !
Aside from that 37 other passengers of his 'peers' = 3 times a jury of 12 'peers' + one alternate, save the tax payer dollars AND The all too frightening & real possiblity that this depraived lunatic, could very well 'walk' on the brutal savage murder charge.
All it would take is one simple error turned - bullshit technicallity, based on honest human error by 1 investigator, prosecutor or jurist, & Looney boy 'Walks' to brutally, savagely murder AGAIN !
How truly FUCKED UP would that be?
How would it change your perspective if after he walked, his next victim was a personal loved one of your own?
Before you answer that it wouldn't. Put me on the record as already replying BULLSHIT!
Unless you would really have us believe, that all of the following took place.
* On a single coach distance bus ride, 38 complete strangers converged.
* In this time frame the 38 of them conspired to frame complete stranger #39, for what has to be one of the most savage & brutal murders on record.
* This conspiracy ALSO included the 23 year old victim - WILLING VOLUNTEERING his young precious life, & sacrificing himself to be SLOWLY, SAVAGELY, BRUTALLY BUTCHERED ALIVE & EATEN IN A GROSSLY PSYCHOTIC MANNER.

AND

* In the same time frame
The 'Conspiracy' included Completely brainwashing an otherwise completely sane man, into committing such a savage brutal homocide & disgusting depraived act of beheading & canniballism?
WTF have U been smoking?

It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

You're right, the 2nd amendment was the opening of the pandora's box. But here we are today, and there's more guns than people out there.

Got any productive suggestions for solving the gun crime problem other than taking them away from non-criminals?

Have an amnesty for illegal guns and offer cash for them?

Oh, yeah, that'd be really popular with the career criminals. They'd be lining up!

If you're talking about the goal of getting ALL guns back from ALL of society, you're talking about ~ 300,000,000 guns. Even if each gun were worth ONLY $100, that's a total of THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS. Who's going to pay for that? Will you raise everyone's taxes? How do you feel they'll react when they find out the cost, to each of them, for the dream of a gun-free America? You do realize, of course, that according to the Constitution, the government cannot seize property without providing just compensation, right? Some people have guns that are worth THOUSANDS of dollars each. I personally have several thousand dollars worth. 80,000,000 more people like me--many of whom have far more guns than I do. Pay them all for surrendering their guns? WHO WILL PAY THEM?

Quote

Stop sales of ammunition from outlets such as wal mart, and have higher restrictions on pirchasing ammunition?

Pirchasing? Is that anything like byeing?

Quote

Increase the penalties for carrying an illegal weapon?

And keep them in prison for their full sentences? Wow, if you carry on this way, you'll be almost as tough on crime as the NRA! (We've been arguing this point for a long time.)

Quote

increase the prerequesates of owning a firearm.

And criminals will comply?

Quote

Produce new calibres and stop the production of old ammunition, this would disable many firarms and all old models over time? probably an extreme method but would be affective over time.

Kinda requires that you give authoritarian powers to the government to simply put people out of business, or dictate what their business may produce. We argue that we have our guns in part to defend against a totalitarian government, which is what you want us to have in order to get rid of the guns!

Quote

I havn't thought about it much

That much is OBVIOUS.

Quote

as it will probably never happen. Whatever I say or think, there will be a pro gun creature to oppose me or anyine else so it is not really worth the time, It is funny watching some of you guys get fired up over the subject though.

Ah, very creative of you. You've managed to blame pro-gunners for your own failure to think your own plan through.

The truly funny thing is watching you come up with these moronic "ideas" for eventually reducing the number of guns to zero (at which time, the big, strong criminals will rule the country, in a wonderful tradeoff, thankyewverymuch).

Quote

I really wonder if some of you guys wank yourselves while stroking your guns? It is quite disturbing how pasionate you are about them, they are only a tool remember.

I'm frankly not surprised that you are imagining me and the others "wanking ourselves." Anti-gunners have a marked fixation on the penises of gun owners. Always pontificating about the size, virility, etc. It's really quite sad, actually. Evidently you don't know that there are bars you can go to if you're really curious about penises.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

so....when do we get an answer on Americans' right to private medical records? Ever?

Nothing's private any more. But you know that.

Does that mean that if we said that all individual Americans' personal medical records are to be made available to any FFL doing a background check to clear a gun purchase, the ACLU will not cry out an objection? You consent to loss of privacy by virtue of acknowledging that "nothing's private any more"?

I guess it's settled, then. In the name of safety and more secure background checks for nutjobs, gun sellers can have unfettered access to your mental health records.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

#2 - if you are going to count all the innocent people who could have used a gun to defend themselves against people you don't like, you have to count all the innocent people who could have used a gun to defend themselves against people you DO like. Cops, US soldiers etc.

But we're not advocating about what happens to BAD guys when we take away guns, we're concerned about GOOD guys being thrown to the wolves when guns are outlawed.

If a cop were illegally attempted to end an innocent person's life, then yes, I support his right to fight back (even armed) against that cop. You're talking about a rogue cop, remember, or else you wouldn't be calling the cop's victim "innocent."

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Don't assume you will be safe with a gun, the badies will be more likely to shoot than you, whatever you ignorant pro gunners think.

Why do you assume that I assume that?

Despite what you assume I assume, I don't walk around with the ignorant notion that having a gun makes me 10 feet tall and bulletproof, like I have some sort of magic field around me. I still exercise caution, avoid "bad" areas and situations, don't act aggressive or confrontational... and I keep my eyes open to what's going on around me.

Quote

I'll choose to do what has kept me safe for 33 years so far, live in a safe environment, don't carry weapons and don't be an asshole. if you want to be safe i suggest you do the same.

I do the first thing and the third thing, but I don't agree that staying safe means I should be defenseless. See, I understand that I can not be an asshole, and I can live in a "safe environment" (as though such a thing even exists), but the real "assholes," the criminals, can bring the trouble to wherever they want to. They can bring it into the restaurant where I'm eating. They can bring it into the movie theater where I'm watching a picture. They can bring it to my car in the parking lot as I am going to head home. What makes you think that you can magically make sure that everywhere you happen to be is bereft of criminals and can be made to remain that way?

Quote

otherwise you can keep your dirty harry attitude and keep it to your neighborhood because that type is not very welcome where I come from.

See, this is where the ignorance of your kind really shows itself -- implying that I have demonstrated a "dirty harry attitude" when all I've really done is say that part of my personal plan to survive against crime and criminals is to be armed to be able to fight if need arises. Nowhere in anything I've said was there a "dirty harry attitude," but you ignorantly and smugly attribute such to me regardless.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Trent 0]

Quote

Despite what you assume I assume, I don't walk around with the ignorant notion that having a gun makes me 10 feet tall and bulletproof, like I have some sort of magic field around me.

Oh YES YOU DO!! Don't you know that all gun owners are just itching to kill some poor, disadvantaged youth who is just trying to get by? We are all cowboys who scoff at the anti-gunners' dream of a peaceful world.

It's a funny characterization, but the lefties do it all the time. Disagree with them and all of a sudden, you're the devil! It's really laughable, except that it's so widespread. I think it really IS a mental disorder.

I thought the left was all for us having MORE rights... so why take away the 2nd right we enumerated at the start of this whole crazy country?

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

so....when do we get an answer on Americans' right to private medical records? Ever?

Nothing's private any more. But you know that.

so translating - you advocate a process by which all medical records with possible threat of gun violations should be flagged and entered into a database that can be accessed by the InstaCheck process (as well as by airlines and cops doing a traffic stop)?

What did Virginia do after the VA Tech shooting massacre? Was it unconstitutional?

...

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

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I don't want to debate this with you . . .

Can't say I blame ya -- I hate getting my ass kicked too.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

so....when do we get an answer on Americans' right to private medical records? Ever?

Nothing's private any more. But you know that.

so translating - you advocate a process by which all medical records with possible threat of gun violations should be flagged and entered into a database that can be accessed by the InstaCheck process (as well as by airlines and cops doing a traffic stop)?

What did Virginia do after the VA Tech shooting massacre? Was it unconstitutional?

How is it material to the question? I'm asking for your solution to the problem you keep trying to blame on lax laws. But I suspect you cannot give one while still complaining about the Patriot Act.

Do the dead retain privacy rights? Probably not, and especially not as dead murderers.

[tbrown 26]

With a gun in the hands of a good guy, the other dead person would have been the looney with the knife, so that one doesn't count. And that would have ensured that he couldn't continue to kill others. That would be a good thing, believe it or not, even though it would involve the use of a gun.

I notice that you didn't bother to comment on the other two methods of mass murder mentioned. Didn't "bomb vests" and "arson" fare well enough for you in comparison with guns? Tsk tsk.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems that your "solution" is to sit back and whine and lament that guns were ever invented. That's how you address what to do now that guns are a reality.

The real reason we can't "work towards that" gun-free utopia you dream of is that the only way it would make sense to approach that would be to make sure that the FIRST people to be forced to give up their guns would be the BAD people. Only when the last bad person had no more guns would it be fair to then demand that the GOOD people give up theirs.

You are one paranoid SOAB.

You assume I use the same thought process as you and you assume carrying a gun protects you from another party with a gun.

I don't want to debate this with you as it will be like talking to a brick wall!

Don't assume you will be safe with a gun, the badies will be more likely to shoot than you, whatever you ignorant pro gunners think.

I'll choose to do what has kept me safe for 33 years so far, live in a safe environment, don't carry weapons and don't be an asshole. if you want to be safe i suggest you do the same.

otherwise you can keep your dirty harry attitude and keep it to your neighborhood because that type is not very welcome where I come from.

There's SOMEone that's paranoid...but it's not the gun-owners in the thread. Why are so afraid someone will shoot you, Rhys?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

With a gun in the hands of a good guy, the other dead person would have been the looney with the knife, so that one doesn't count. And that would have ensured that he couldn't continue to kill others. That would be a good thing, believe it or not, even though it would involve the use of a gun.

I notice that you didn't bother to comment on the other two methods of mass murder mentioned. Didn't "bomb vests" and "arson" fare well enough for you in comparison with guns? Tsk tsk.

I think it's reasonable to admit that it's painfully easy to kill people with guns, quickly and at a distance. It does no harm to recognize that's what frightens people about guns. But that's no reason to take them away from law abiding gun owners who use them responsibly. Especially not after what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

AND given the fact that gun owners are, on average, MORE law-abiding than the police, and tend to avoid situations where they may have to use their weapon.

I believe you have to amend that statement to CCW holding gun owners.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

AND given the fact that gun owners are, on average, MORE law-abiding than the police, and tend to avoid situations where they may have to use their weapon.

I believe you have to amend that statement to CCW holding gun owners.

True, thank you for the reminder - I've amended my post.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lastchance 0]

With 37 eye witnesses to the beheading on the bus. who needs a trial. I'd have shot him on site. If somebody had put a bullet in him instantly, the real victim may still be alive. I'm sick and tired of the perpetrators having more rights than the victims.

I may be getting old but I got to see all the cool bands.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

With a gun in the hands of a good guy, the other dead person would have been the looney with the knife, so that one doesn't count. And that would have ensured that he couldn't continue to kill others. That would be a good thing, believe it or not, even though it would involve the use of a gun.

I notice that you didn't bother to comment on the other two methods of mass murder mentioned. Didn't "bomb vests" and "arson" fare well enough for you in comparison with guns? Tsk tsk.

I think it's reasonable to admit that it's painfully easy to kill people with guns, quickly and at a distance. It does no harm to recognize that's what frightens people about guns. But that's no reason to take them away from law abiding gun owners who use them responsibly. Especially not after what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

AND given the fact that concealed carry permit owners are, on average, MORE law-abiding than the police,

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

AND given the fact that gun owners are, on average, MORE law-abiding than the police, and tend to avoid situations where they may have to use their weapon.

I believe you have to amend that statement to CCW holding gun owners.

True, thank you for the reminder - I've amended my post.

As we've previously established, the criteria for geting a CCW permit are rather more stringent in most states than the criteria for buying a gun. It seems that the states have been quite successful in filtering out loonies in the CCW process.

...

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