georgerussia

So what are you saying then? We're discussing people murdered in sprees, so your point "murder is murder" would only be valid if the same person, who died in spree, would die the same day of another reason. The ability of a single murderer to kill multiple people GREATLY depends on the tool he choses. Give him a knife - he'll kill one or two. Give him a gun - he'll kill 30. Give him a nuclear bomb - he will kill hundreds thousands. So we need to worry about both. Exactly - but it was YOUR stupid example. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You somehow missed the point. Are sticks, knives or anything else also banned in DC, Chicago and NYC? Is carrying a stick there illegal? I'm using it as example where the gun ban actually works, and explaining you how it works, and why. The way I read what you say is that there is no penalty for a criminal who just carries a gun with him if it's not used. Then indeed there is a good reason to carry it, just in case. I bet things would change dramatically if this alone would give a criminal mandatory six to fifteen without parole. My question was like, do they do any psychology testing? Are there periodical exams? How does this training works, and how easy ("well" was a wrong word here) is it to pass? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So far you were the only one who had problem recognizing this, so I'm afraid you'll have to just remember it. So much for "facts and references". Don't mention them anymore, "google them up" is not a fact nor a reference. I'm writing my posts in assumption that people know what fact is, and those who don't know how to check the dictionary. Therefore they would be able to understand that when you say what someone would do in that situation is just a guess, and therefore no disclaimer needed. Actually it makes me really wonder, as starting learning English six years ago I should have known English much worse than you do. You might try to apply the same rules you're applying to my posts to your own. They're written in pretty much the same way. I probably should have been more specific. Your merely claim that "You were given stuff from NRA-ILA and KABA in the other thread" is not a proof that you indeed gave stuff until you provide a link which indeed showed that you gave stuff to me. This is what I was referring to. Well, if you consider this a relevant method, and 3000 results is enough, you now have to admit that Bush did 9/11 (19.5 million results), and Americans didn't land on the moon (21 million results). Now we finally know the Truth! Because the guys were leaving, one even tried to drive away. Because this is a speculation. Same way you can speculate that they were going to go home and commit suicide, like some others did, or just go home, like Jing Hua Wu. The point is that they were not STOPPED by the people with guns, they were stopped by circumstances, and were going to leave the place. Dude, please, open a Webster dictionary, and read what "fact" means. I even gave a direct link in previous post. You're making yourself look silly. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. And while I did though different, now this indeed surprises me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Quite hard to imagine tank _driver_ head outside the tank while he's driving. During the war it was typically the tank commander's head which was out. Well, maybe it's different in U.S. tanks. But nevertheless, this also happened during war, I just finished a new book about 1945 Berlin campaign. Snipers and fausts were two problems during the campaign, but usually the next thing followed the shot, the tanks and artillery bring down every \thing in the nearest hundreds of yards where a sniper could theoretically be. He mentioned flamethrower tanks were especially effective in this matter. Another thing from Chechen campaign was that a lot of people just couldn't shot - after all, they would be shooting just other citizens who had nothing personal against them - they just got orders. So no, I don't really believe in a bunch of gun owners fighting the government nowadays. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder if this is something you have proof (that this is not the case), or you're just stating your opinion? What are the risks of him being arrested with a gun here in US, how more severe a sentence is ? In Russia the penalty for just having a gun is much larger than for most nonviolent crimes, so it would be stupid for a criminal to do their "business" with a gun unless they intend to use it. I wonder how well this training works. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, segregation was part of this culture quite recently too, so just being a part of the culture doesn't mean it has to stay forever. I would also speculate that not everyone in Brady bunch is from Europe, or the DC or NYC legislators are, so apparently they also miss this "culture" part. The question is, who should? You would likely agree that not just everyone (nuts? felons? underage?) should have them either, and I would agree that it would be stupid to have army and police without guns, so at least someone would have them, and the question is, who should? And since I'm not going to own guns, I'm comparing the benefits versus drawbacks of having guns (and people carrying them) around me, and our family gonna vote as the result of this comparison. At this moment a lot of people still had guns, especially outside cities. After all, a civil war ended just recently, and it was obvious the next war is ahead. This, however, didn't help. Even when Checnya and Ingushetia regions were deported after the war, almost every family there had guns. The government has more than just guns, they have authority, and they're smart not to target everyone at the same time. And when they do target everyone (like happened with Chechnya), they use military force. Your guns are useless against tanks. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder if you ever read this, and stop explaining to me what I am writing? So where are they? This is a baseless claim. Point them out. First, I'm not whining, I'm explaining (while my application is rebuilt in background), and having fun. Your opinion that you know more about stuff means nothing to me as well. As I said, you can think whatever you want, just don't expect me to follow your thinking. Dude, fact is "something done, having actual existence or actual occurense". Something which might have happened is in the best case educated guess. Backtrack?! I had to repeat you something you seem to not understand before. This is not proof (and you do not consider such things as proof when you asked me or Kallend). Nice logic. Well, YOU may consider it "debunked" - this, of course, means nothing to others. No, they were not STOPPED. At least two of them has finished already as the guys were leaving, and in one case having no more ammo. Which I pointed out to you, and you preferred to ignore. No, at this moment I can assure you that I have no intention of learning anything gun-related from you. Your posts are one of the reasons I'm now thinking gun control indeed makes a lot of sense. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Less likely comparing to what? In this story the criminal was not turned to the police, was not even hurt. He was just told to go away - not quite a resistance for someone committing armed robberies. And since he still needs money - he didn't get any here, right - he obviously went to find another victim. I'm pretty much sure that none of school shooters, and only one recent spree killer would be able to obtain guns if they really weren't routinely available (meaning if there was ban, which was enforced). I have seen it working. While it is not possible to prevent everyone from owning a gun, even most criminals still wouldn't get one. The reason is that if they got caught during theft or pickpocketing, it's three to six with possible parole for the first time offense, but if they have a gun during crime (even unloaded, or even a single ammo with no gun at all), it is now six to fifteen without parole, and one will experience some heavy torture in Russian police (some really mean stuff, not just waterboarding) to turn in the arms dealer as well. And for a law abiding citizen five to ten is pretty good reason not even to try get one. And for those non-criminals wanting to start spree killing - they do not even know where to get one, as illegal arms dealers do not post ads in newspapers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In a civil war - yes, mostly there is no way. In a regular murder - very likely. In a lot of cases it's just being there in a wrong time. If this was the case, those guys wouldn't carry machetes, they would carry machine guns. As you know, Nazi soldiers had much more than just guns - they had tanks, artillery and airplanes, and still a lot of them died in 1945. Response provokes appropriate counter-response, and if you have regular people without guns, a lot of criminals will also be without guns. If you have regular people with guns, a lot of criminals will be also with guns. Not having a gun does not mean you're helpless, it is culture thing. If you were born and grew up in a country without guns culture, it's very likely you'll feel fine without one. Having a gun does not mean you're not victim - Mixon killed four COPS in Oakland, who not only carried guns, but were apparently more proficient in their usage comparing to average Joe. I guess for some people having a gun might make it worse than not having one, as they might end up in the situation they'd never be if they didn't have a gun. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you gonna use any navigation software, you need 16Gb at least. U.S. map s are at least 1.2Gb (Magellan RoadMate; Navigon is 1.8Gb), and Europe maps are 2-3 gigs depending on coverage. Dictionaries are another kind of apps which are flash-hungry. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Some indeed were, but in the described situation - on a bus stop (not a backdoor street then), having either two witnesses, or three people against one with a knife, I would say the chance was pretty slim. If the story was true and the author indeed did not call the police and have the robber arrested, I can believe in it. If he just let the guy go, then the next time the guy might suspect another gun holder, and prefer to stab him in the back and frisk a dead body instead of risking being shot. In fact this was probably the worst possible example of using a gun to prevent crime - representing a gun owner as a selfish pig, being concerned about his wallet more than about lives of his fellow citizens. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, dude. You asked me to "prove it OR withdraw it", which is different from what you are saying right now. However you provided no reason why should I withdraw my opinion, nor you apply the same strict standard to yourself. Where? Please point out exact posts where I was given "statistics, studies, news stories", and didn't address them? Most of the "references" I've got were "I mentioned you Aa Bb, now you should google it and research it yourself". No, thanks, it's your job to spend time finding facts to support your point. This is not even funny. Where did I say that my opinion is supposed to be taken as gospel truth? Evidence, please, or at least you owe an apology (but again, it was long time ago, when Republicans actually believed in personal responsibility for everyone - now it seems to be "everyone but me"). I even said explicitly multiple times that everything I write is my opinion (and everything you write is your opinion as well). Which facts you're talking about? Proof, please. Somehow I'm getting impression that you either confuse me with someone else, or didn't really follow the thread. Nevertheless, don't you think it is relevant whether the stats are produced by a non-biased party or not? Would you honestly accept all stats from Brady? No, this was actually my point - that concealed carry holders are quite useless in stopping spree killings, and the facts prove it. I remember you had excuses WHY it was like that (guns not allowed in VA tech, only for MPs on the military base), but so far nobody disputed the point itself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Somewhere you hope you'll never be. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is different if this person would be alive otherwise. As I said, it is very unlikely Cho would kill the same amount of people with a knife or baseball bat, so unless you're saying they all would die the same day from a stroke or car run, I do not see how your point is relevant. What you're saying is essentially that murder is fine, as the victim would die anyway. Because a chance for a regular person who goes nuts and starts a massacre to kill a significant number of people are pretty low if all they have is a screwdriver, hammer, fire axe, lead pipe, machete or garrote. And cyanide gas and bubonic plague are not as easy available as guns. Using the same logic, however, we should make both cyanide gas and bubonic plague available to everyone as well - after all, they can already buy guns to murder, why not cyanide? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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

No, it is irrelevant. If you tracked back to where and how it was introduced, you'd see it yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Sure, you made another assumption instead. Yeah, exactly like Ron - "I said something, and it is considered proof. You said something - unless you provide a bunch of evidence, there is no way I gonna believe in it". Been there, seen that. Exactly. The problem was that I asked for proof - references, facts, evidence - and you just provided "info". I'm not interested in info, I can go to nralia and read it myself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, sir. My assertion is just my opinion based on the story we were told. So far I did not see any evidence which would make it invalid, so I see no reason to withdraw it. If you don't believe it, it's up to you. If you, however, believe that nothing should be written here unless proven by facts and research, I suggest you start do it yourself first, and only then demand this from others. You know, the "personal responsibility" thing. I'll repeat: you do not see a difference between a civil war, and your regular murderer, don't you? It was pretty obvious that we were talking about gun ownership in USA, not about gun ownership in Rwanda. Why do you continue bringing completely irrelevant points? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Was it a question? I thought you made some irrelevant and rather stupid point, and somehow wanted ME to provide proof for the point YOU made. Not even funny. I'm not. I just do not want to own one, and do not want to be killed from one. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Which worth as much as YOUR assumption that he would. See it now? Dude, stop asking everyone for proof until you start providing any proof yourself. It looks like you think that you can say whatever you want and not needed to provide any evidence, but when others do the same, you start asking them to provide proof. Why do you think so high of yourself? Your words worth no more than mine, so if you do not provide evidence, do not expect anyone else to provide it either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Prove what? I didn't see you presenting any evidence, so why are you asking me to present any? You do not see a difference between a civil war, and your regular murderer, don't you? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A further example of such useless point. I wonder whether you don't really understand it, or you're just pretending? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I'm just pointing out that your assumption that three of you would be dead if you didn't have a gun is definitely groundless. But since you didn't turn a criminal to the police (very "nice" of you, I have to admit, and makes the whole story much less believable), next time he'll probably bring a gun, and shot you as soon as you try to reach for yours. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is a poster child example of such useless point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You'd be alive as well if you just gave him your money, as he was not trying to kill you. If you take out another knife, or a dummy gun it might also have the same effect. So far pretty much every gun story I heard the same effect might be achieved having unloaded broken gun, as none actually used it. I also wonder if you turned him in to the police, or just let him go and rob others? An attempt to kill three people even in average physical condition with just a knife would most likely fail. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *