Man shot with own gun

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

They are simply a tool. When in the hands of bad people, bad things tend to happen. Just like bats, knives, whips...just about anything can be used to hurt people.

The guy in your story was committing an aggravated assault, while illegally carrying a firearm and was shot by his own gun. Having seen Ron's arguments over the past few years, I know that what you purport isn't the message he has. It does fit your MO at attacking the person and trying to derail a discussion instead of having a polite discussion.

How is this thread not polite?

How is Ron repeatedly saying that I believe in guilty until proven innocent not an attack on me?

Ain't you the guy that just called someone stupid in another thread?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I followed your lead - you are the one the posited that it was easier for a person to kill 30 than to protect 30. Defend your position.

My point has been proven by real life examples. Looking on recent history, I remember several shoot spree cases in U.S., and not a single case when a potential or existing shoot spree was stopped by a regular citizen who happen to be a gun owner. What else proof you need?

You can prove anything if you cherry-pick your data enough.

You use spree killings where the victims were unarmed as your 'proof'. Hasan was stopped on the arrival of an ARMED police officer, if you recall. The gunman that attempted the church shooting last year was stopped by an armed security officer. The Utah mall shootings were stopped by police officers.

Quote

Quote

That is true - there is no guarantee that a person would always choose to defend themself, but I posit that someone that has taken trouble to gain a concealed carry license would be MORE likely to make that choice. Your thoughts?

There is a difference between defending yourself, and approaching an armed murderer who may otherwise ignore you (for example if he kills only his coworkers or only blacks). But at this moment it's quite a moot point as we do not have real-life examples of such approaches.

We do, however, have several instances where armed individuals HAVE made just that decision, though.

Quote

Quote

Immaterial.

Nope, it is very important. If your theory would only work when every citizen would be carrying, then it would never work as there are people who would not carry a gun no matter what. Then the question to you is, what rate of gun ownership should be sufficient to prevent such sprees?

You are the only one positing that argument. Make your proof.

Quote

Quote

Virginia Tech does not allow licensed carry holders to exercise that right on campus.

So now you're saying that even if everyone would own guns it would still be no use to prevent shoot sprees until every place, including clubs, courts and airplanes, allows you to carry a gun?

No - that position is your own. You asked 'where were the guns at VA Tech?' - I answered you. My position is that it only takes ONE individual with the proper tools and the will to act.

Quote

And do you know what would happen if one or more Cho colleagues illegally carried a gun in the VaTech? They would likely to share this information between their peers - after all, nobody expected their peers to be a threat - and he would shot them first. Maybe even used their guns to shot others too.

Your assumption - you have no way to know if that is true, or not. I know several friends that carry - I do not know WHEN they carry.

Your theory that Cho 'used their guns' is incorrect - you could at least do SOME research before trying to pass off bullshit as data.

Quote

Quote

Lots - the overwhelming majority of them (those not being carried by MP's) locked up in the base armory.

I don't care about "majority" as you apparently need only one gun to save 30 people.

That is correct.

Quote

How many armed people were there who had a gun in possession, and why nobody stopped them?

None, until the police showed up.

Quote

If military base personnel, who has or should have had necessary training, and have no issues firing in a real person (something not everyone can do - it is still different from a shooting range), and have better access to guns than everyone around but still was unable to stop such a spree - I doubt it would be more effective anywhere else.

Regardless of your expertise from watching "Stripes", the military doesn't march around base under arms (MP's excepted).

Quote

And I still waiting for you to clarify your position.

Good for you.

Quote

You've become very good in dodging questions and turning them around, and I already asked you two.

You've asked several more than two, most of which I've answered.

Quote

It does not make any sense to seriously discuss issues with someone who has no balls to even state their opinion, so unless you do it (and answer my question about your expectations of preventing shoot sprees, and regarding owning WMDs), I will ignore your further questions on that matter.

So when are YOU going to sack up and defend YOUR position?

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

[georgerussia 0]

I see, you decided to ignore my questions, and you did not even state your position on any important subject. No reason to waste time on you anymore.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rwieder 0]

SOAB! You can tell this was Wednesday night discussion(s)

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Ron (and others) would have us believe that guns are just a force for good in the world.

guns are inanimate objects.

--
Rob

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I see, you decided to ignore my questions, and you did not even state your position on any important subject. No reason to waste time on you anymore.

100 outa 10!!!
You broke the damn meter

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

However it is easier to use a gun to directly hurt 30 people than to use a gun to directly protect 30 people.

Not if you use a gun to shoot the guy that is trying to hurt 30 people.

Quote

Was there any in Va Tech? And how many guns are on a military base in TX?

VA tech they had a rule that didn't allow you to take a gun on campus.

The base in TX has a lot of guns.... But they are all locked away in an armory unless you are on a range. And when you have a your gun out... you are not allowed to have ammo unless you are on the range.

You are proving our points.... Both places were, in effect, disarmament zones.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Ron (and others) would have us believe that guns are just a force for good in the world.

guns are inanimate objects.

So are nukyular bombs. Kittens are not inanimate, yet I've never been hurt by them.
Obviously you're in favor of using nukyular bombs on kittens. That's horrid.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Kittens are not inanimate, yet I've never been hurt by them.

You've obviously never tried to bathe a kitten. They are evil. I'd rather see North Korea, Iran, and Burma get nuclear weapons before a single kitten.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ron (and others) would have us believe that guns are just a force for good in the world.

guns are inanimate objects.

So are nukyular bombs. Kittens are not inanimate, yet I've never been hurt by them.
Obviously you're in favor of using nukyular bombs on kittens. That's horrid.

Straight to the nukyular straw man

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

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

How is this thread not polite?

Kallend MO part 2: Trying to turn the thread around towards him. Its been this way for a long time.

I've seen your true nature, with the cruelness you had for my dead friend and the tragedy that we went through. Others have seen your nature too. It doesn't fool anyone. It appears that you don't care for anyone outside of your absolute immediate circle, unless you can some how stroke your ego.

+1000000. Description fits to a tee.

[skyrider 0]

My take on it is the OP wants "guns, knives, hammers, files, wrenches, cars, motorcycles, bathtubs, glass bottles, trucks, parachutes, airplanes, bridges, buildings, cliffs , Trains, boats, Surfing, swimming, fatty foods, Smoking , etc.etc, etc,........Outlawed, because in the wrong hands, they can all kill!

[skyrider 0]

BTW, kelland, If ia was you, I'd stay out of "Virgin Utah" it is against the law to NOT own a gun there!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

BTW, kelland, If ia was you, I'd stay out of "Virgin Utah" it is against the law to NOT own a gun there!

Oh, kallend owns a gun - he was asking about shotgun shells a while back. He just doesn't trust anyone else with them. He's special.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I've seen your true nature, with the cruelness you had for my dead friend and the tragedy that we went through. Others have seen your nature too. It doesn't fool anyone.

Well put, and spot on. Can anyone in SC claim they've actually learned something from kallend?

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I see, you decided to ignore my questions, and you did not even state your position on any important subject. No reason to waste time on you anymore.

Want a tissue? NoKo and Iran have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You want to discuss them, start another thread.

Makes a great excuse to duck out the thread when you can't prove your position, though.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Not if you use a gun to shoot the guy that is trying to hurt 30 people.

There were multiple stories recently when a gun was used to murder a bunch of people, and so far there were no stories when average Joe with a gun used it to shoot the guy that was trying to hurt 30 people. So maybe you tell us when will it work?

Quote

VA tech they had a rule that didn't allow you to take a gun on campus.

So what? If you're assuming there would be more concealed carry gun owners if there was no such rule, you'd have to prove it.

Quote

The base in TX has a lot of guns.... But they are all locked away in an armory unless you are on a range. And when you have a your gun out... you are not allowed to have ammo unless you are on the range.

Are you saying that NOBODY on this base can legally carry an armed weapon outside the range?

Quote

You are proving our points.... Both places were, in effect, disarmament zones.

So is your point that there would be no real help from gun owners in preventing crimes like that until every place around allows anyone to bring a loaded gun?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Want a tissue? NoKo and Iran have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

But WMDs are!
Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them?

Quote

Makes a great excuse to duck out the thread when you can't prove your position, though.

I will, but only once you show that you want to have a _discussion_, which means you have a position and able to stand behind it. So far in almost every thread I've been watching your answers you're trying extremely hard to avoid any specifics about what do you think about subject, or what would you do on subject. You just blame or criticize what other think, and request proofs from everyone for everything without even bothering to state what exactly you argue with, and why. This is called "trolling", and makes the discussion with you useless.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Want a tissue? NoKo and Iran have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

But WMDs are!
Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them?

We're talking about individuals, not countries. Start another thread if you want to discuss that.

Quote

Makes a great excuse to duck out the thread when you can't prove your position, though.

I will, but only once you show that you want to have a _discussion_, which means you have a position and able to stand behind it. So far in almost every thread I've been watching your answers you're trying extremely hard to avoid any specifics about what do you think about subject, or what would you do on subject. You just blame or criticize what other think, and request proofs from everyone for everything without even bothering to state what exactly you argue with, and why. This is called "trolling", and makes the discussion with you useless.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

My take on it is the OP wants "guns, knives, hammers, files, wrenches, cars, motorcycles, bathtubs, glass bottles, trucks, parachutes, airplanes, bridges, buildings, cliffs , Trains, boats, Surfing, swimming, fatty foods, Smoking , etc.etc, etc,........Outlawed, because in the wrong hands, they can all kill!

In theory you would be right. But if you look on real-life examples, you might check what percentage of cars are being bought, or bridges being built are then used to kill someone versus what percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone.

Also the same argument can be used for WMDs - countries have been attacking each others for centuries, starting with stone axes and ending up with tactic missiles, so why some people are against giving WMDs to anyone around, but would still give a gun to anyone around?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

We're talking about individuals, not countries.

You did not answer my question.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

We're talking about individuals, not countries.

You did not answer my question.

You didn't answer several of mine.

If you want to talk about countries and WMD's, make another thread. It is NOT germane to this discussion.

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun.

On some levels and w/r/t some of the deterrence arguments, there is a parallel. I do think it's an interesting intellectual path to consider.

Where the parallel breaks down, and catastrophically in my mind and in customary international law, is that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are fundamentally indiscriminate weapons (exempting ideations of 'race-based' or such biological agents), whereas firearms are discriminate weapons.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Ron 10]

Quote

There were multiple stories recently when a gun was used to murder a bunch of people, and so far there were no stories when average Joe with a gun used it to shoot the guy that was trying to hurt 30 people. So maybe you tell us when will it work?

Maybe you should google Assistant Principal Joel Myrick?

Maybe you should read up on James Strand, Edinboro, Pennsylvania

Maybe you should check out who stopped Peter Odighizuwa’s rampage in 2002?

Quote

So what? If you're assuming there would be more concealed carry gun owners if there was no such rule, you'd have to prove it.

If you can't see the obvious error in your logic there..... I don't know what to tell you.

I have a CHL... And I don't take it places that BY LAW I am not allowed to take it. That law clearly didn't stop Cho..... But it has stopped guys with CHL's.

Seriously.... I can't even fathom how your logic is working there.

Quote

Are you saying that NOBODY on this base can legally carry an armed [loaded] weapon outside the range?

Yep, MP's only... And you see what happened when the MP's showed up right?

Quote

So is your point that there would be no real help from gun owners in preventing crimes like that until every place around allows anyone to bring a loaded gun?

No... My point is that as long as rules are in place to prevent legal citizens from carrying, most times they will follow the law and not carry. But that does not stop a criminal. So those places are ripe targets for nutjobs.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Where the parallel breaks down, and catastrophically in my mind and in customary international law, is that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are fundamentally indiscriminate weapons (exempting ideations of 'race-based' or such biological agents), whereas firearms are discriminate weapons.

That's true at this moment (one with a gun can be very picky in his victim selection, but one with an explosive vest attached to his chest cannot), but this becomes negligent when everyone around carries guns (which seems to be an ideal situation for some pro-gun types). In this case everyone is a potential enemy, and one just cannot be picky anymore.

It also depends on a gun. It is quite easy to discriminate with a sniper rifle than with AK-47, and a knife is probably even more discriminating than a gun.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *