kallend 2,112 #1 August 1, 2008 Kills 3 www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395743,00.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 August 1, 2008 Beheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/31/canada.bus/index.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 860 #3 August 1, 2008 Buses should be outlawed. Pretty soon, only criminals will use them. this killed 8! apparently totally unprovoked even. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 August 1, 2008 Kills 57 http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=810729 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #5 August 1, 2008 Kills 45 http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Arson-suspected-as-fire-kills.2833673.jp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 860 #6 August 1, 2008 Apparently fire is legal in Russia though... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #7 August 1, 2008 QuoteBeheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/...anada.bus/index.html Yup and with a gun around in that case at least 2 people would have been dead. You are right, that is a much better tally isn't it..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #8 August 1, 2008 QuoteYup and with a gun around in that case at MOST 2 people would have been dead. Fixed it.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #9 August 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteBeheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/...anada.bus/index.html Yup and with a gun around in that case at least 2 people would have been dead. You are right, that is a much better tally isn't it..... 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #10 August 1, 2008 QuoteBeheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/31/canada.bus/index.html Excellent rebuttle john7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 August 1, 2008 Business owner defended himself from would-be robbers The owner was exiting the front door of the business carrying a small bank bag and had turned around to lock it when one of the men ran up and hit him in the head with a 2-by-6 board. The owner fell to the ground but was able to get a handgun out of his rear waistband and point it at the robber. Another man was running toward them, but the two turned around and ran to a waiting car when they saw the owner was armed. http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080730/BREAKINGNEWS/80730008 Burglary suspect shot Chris Hooten, 34, of Greers Ferry, is recovering from a gunshot wound to his abdomen after a scuffle around 10:15 p.m. Friday. He reportedly entered a home without permission, fought and choked the homeowner, and was shot in the process. http://www.thesuntimes.com/articles/2008/07/30/news/news01.txt 84-year-old man wounds intruder n 84-year-old man, who repeatedly held off an alleged intruder Sunday when the man tried to break into his home, finally got a gun in desperation and shot through a door, wounding the intruder in the leg. http://www.sunherald.com/pageone/story/711027.html Man Shot & Killed in Self-Defense three people, one armed with wooden club, went to the home to start a fight -- which they did. After a short time, police say the homeowner, Joshua Pyles, got a shotgun and asked the suspects to leave his home and property. They refused and continued to make threats, so Pyles fired one shot. http://www.wtvq.com/news/1-latest/963-man-shot-a-killed-in-self-defense.html Home invasion suspect shot, killed One of two men who forced their way into a Williston-area home early Wednesday was shot to death by one of the home’s occupants, a shooting that authorities described as self-defense. http://www.ocala.com/article/20080723/NEWS/306035810/0/News01 Robber targets diners in restaurant The man went into a private dining area and demanded money from the diners. He told them this was a robbery and demanded their wallets. One of the doctors, who had been at target practice earlier, pulled out his gun and ordered the suspect out, saying, "Get out of the restaurant now!" The suspect left and was greeted by police officers outside. http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_072208WAB_restaurant_robbery_KC.810a4e71.html Do you want more examples? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #12 August 1, 2008 Don't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. In the case in Canada, one guy is dead, one guy is aprehended. In my mind one dead guy is better then two dead guys. But then I tend not to have the bloodlust you just displayed. I still believe in judge and jury and innocent until proven guilty, you tend to believe in summary execution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 August 1, 2008 QuoteDon't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. In the case in Canada, one guy is dead, one guy is aprehended. In my mind one dead guy is better then two dead guys. But then I tend not to have the bloodlust you just displayed. And it's possible that an armed defender could have stopped the attack with no injuries/death, or only the perpetrator being injured/killed. Why are you so vehement in advocating that the innocent be at the mercy of the criminals? QuoteI still believe in judge and jury and innocent until proven guilty, you tend to believe in summary execution. You know... when someone is coming at you with a knife/club/etc, their intent to do grave bodily harm (or worse) is pretty self-evident.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #14 August 1, 2008 QuoteI still believe in judge and jury and innocent until proven guilty, you tend to believe in summary execution. So, a guy is stabbing and sawing away at a formerly sleeping kid right in front of you? Is he innocent? Is this really happening or does it only happen after he's been found guilty? Doesn't Canada have more guns per capita than the US anyway? This sadistic bastard still chose to use a knife.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #15 August 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBeheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/...anada.bus/index.html Yup and with a gun around in that case at least 2 people would have been dead. You are right, that is a much better tally isn't it..... 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. The loony probably would have lived. Gun shot wounds from handguns aren't even lethal 20% of the time. Since the most lethal aspect of a gunshot wound is blood loss, prompt medical attention following the 911 call he probably would have lived to stand trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #16 August 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Beheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/...anada.bus/index.html Yup and with a gun around in that case at least 2 people would have been dead. You are right, that is a much better tally isn't it..... 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. The loony probably would have lived. Gun shot wounds from handguns aren't even lethal 20% of the time. Since the most lethal aspect of a gunshot wound is blood loss, prompt medical attention following the 911 call he probably would have lived to stand trial. ROFLMAO. What planet do you live on? If I shoot you I guarantee you have a 99.999999999 % chance of dying. You can take that to the bank.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #17 August 1, 2008 Quote fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Simply not true, no matter how many times you say it. But it's obvious that your mind is already made up, despite the fact that this has been disproven to you in this forum numerous times. QuoteIn the case in Canada, one guy is dead, one guy is aprehended. In my mind one dead guy is better then two dead guys. But then I tend not to have the bloodlust you just displayed. You seem to prefer to save the blood of murdering lunatics. In my scenario, yes, the murdering lunatic would have been stopped dead in his tracks by someone with a gun. And that could have prevented him from moving on to attack and kill other people. It's not about retribution - it's about saving lives. You would seem to prefer an entire bus load of murdered innocent victims, rather than to take the life of one murdering lunatic. So it seems to me, that YOU are the one that is guilty of bloodlust. My scenario tries to minimize the amount of innocent blood that gets spilled. Why don't you express any concern for that? Hmm? QuoteI still believe in judge and jury and innocent until proven guilty, you tend to believe in summary execution. The LAW believes in deadly force to prevent loss of life. Killing the murderer to stop his attacks, is not "summary execution". It's called "self defense". When you are there in the presence of someone stabbing people to death, there's no question of guilt. You can see it happening with your own eyes. The law allows deadly force in self defense of yourself or others, and even prefers it, over mass numbers of dead innocent victims. It's just amazing to me that you can hate guns so much that you would prefer to have more dead victims and more live murderers. If someone, gosh forbid, ever starts plunging a knife into your body, I wonder if you'll be thinking: 1) "Gosh, I hope someone calls 911 so that this poor man can be apprehended and judged by a jury of his peers to determine if he is really guilty of stabbing me", or; 2) "SOMEONE PLEASE SHOOT AND STOP THIS BASTARD, NOW!" Which will it be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #18 August 1, 2008 QuoteThe loony probably would have lived. Gun shot wounds from handguns aren't even lethal 20% of the time. That's okay, as long as it makes him stop his attack. The goal in self defense is not to KILL the attacker, but to STOP him. But if after being shot once he continues stabbing anyway, then you keep shooting him until he does stop. That's what the law allows, that's what common sense dictates, and that's what preserves the life of innocents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #19 August 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Beheads 1 http://www.cnn.com/...anada.bus/index.html Yup and with a gun around in that case at least 2 people would have been dead. You are right, that is a much better tally isn't it..... 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. The loony probably would have lived. Gun shot wounds from handguns aren't even lethal 20% of the time. Since the most lethal aspect of a gunshot wound is blood loss, prompt medical attention following the 911 call he probably would have lived to stand trial. ROFLMAO. What planet do you live on? If I shoot you I guarantee you have a 99.999999999 % chance of dying. You can take that to the bank. Planet Earth, as in real life not Holywood. On the receiving side, Joseph Guzman was shot by police _16 times_ and lived. Plenty of people shot fewer times survive. On the sending end, the objective is to stop the hostilities. If I have to shoot some one I'll fire at their center of mass until they longer pose a threat - one round or ten (I moved to California). You want to save your ammo in case there's another nut case around and don't want to cross the line from self defense to something else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 August 1, 2008 QuoteDon't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #21 August 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteDon't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. It may be clear to you, but not to professional epidemiologists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 August 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Don't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. It may be clear to you, but not to professional epidemiologists. How they doing on the Koch postulate proofs on that, anyway? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #23 August 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Don't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. It may be clear to you, but not to professional epidemiologists. How they doing on the Koch postulate proofs on that, anyway? Another uninformed, irrelevant post from mnealtx, someone who admits to knowing sweet FA about statistics... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 August 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Don't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. It may be clear to you, but not to professional epidemiologists. How they doing on the Koch postulate proofs on that, anyway? Another uninformed, irrelevant post from mnealtx, someone who admits to knowing sweet FA about statistics I take that as praise, coming from someone that thinks epidemiologists know more about gun crime than criminologists. Unlike some, I don't pretend to think I'm an expert on everything. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #25 August 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Don't need other examples. I know you like your guns. fact remains that the more guns are in circulation the more people get killed by them. Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. It may be clear to you, but not to professional epidemiologists. How they doing on the Koch postulate proofs on that, anyway? Another uninformed, irrelevant post from mnealtx, someone who admits to knowing sweet FA about statistics I take that as praise, coming from someone that thinks epidemiologists know more about gun crime than criminologists. Unlike some, I don't pretend to think I'm an expert on everything. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ And an irrelevant link too. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
