PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control


nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 01:01 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vsVCHE7ayPE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

All for one, and one for all.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 03:05 PM
How many lives could have been saved in this one incident, liberals?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M1u0Byq5Qis" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Blart
02-02-2013, 03:40 PM
Fiction wins more arguments than fact, but in case anyone's interested:

I'm comparing 3 things,

1) The richest countries (by GDP per capita),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

2) Compared with a list of countries by firearm-releated deaths,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

3) as well as overall *intentional* homicide rate (because without guns, people will use knives right?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


GDP Rank (per capita) / Country / firearm death rate (per 100,000) / homicide rate (per 100,000)

1. Luxembourg 1.81 / 2.5
2. Qatar 0.18 / 0.9
3. Norway 1.78 / 0.6
4. Switzerland 3.84 / 0.7
5. Australia 1.05 /1.0
6. Denmark 1.45 / 0.9
7. Sweden 1.47 / 1.0
8. Canada 2.13 / 1.6
9. Netherlands 0.46 / 1.1
10. Austria 2.94 / 0.6
11. Singapore 0.24 / 0.3
12. Finland 3.64 / 2.2
13. United States: 10.2 / 4.8

(firearm death & homicide rate don't add up, because firearm deaths aren't always a homicide, evidence may be inconclusive, or different countries have different definitions of homicide.)

Conclusion:
There are a couple correlations I see right away. One is that more guns often correlates with more homicides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Another correlation is more poverty = more homicides. Compare the USA and Switzerland, or Canada and Austria. USA and Switzerland are the #1 and #2 gun-owning countries in the world, but the USA has nearly 8 times the homicides of Switzerland, despite just 2 times the guns. One big difference? One state doubles their welfare spending, reducing poverty to just 3.8%, while the USA nears 12% poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty

W*GS
02-02-2013, 03:49 PM
How many lives could have been saved in this one incident, liberals?

Impossible to say.

How many lives wouldn't have been ended if Ms. Lanza had properly secured her weapons?

Blart
02-02-2013, 03:53 PM
If we're going on anecdotal evidence rather than statistical, here ya go,

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8QjZY3WiO9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 03:57 PM
Blaming gun violence on poverty and thus society by extension by rolling out the who-does-more argument.

Yet another example of how the left continuously place the behavior of lower classes on everyone but the lower classes. Absolving the responsibility for the behavior of someone because he's poor or some other trait only encourages said behavior to continue.

Get this one: I don't care how poor you are. Don't behave like an animal.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:00 PM
Get this one: I don't care how poor you are. Don't behave like an animal.

I agree. Wealth is also no excuse for misbehavior. It's past time we put the fraud artists from Wall Street on trial, don't you agree?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:01 PM
If we're going on anecdotal evidence rather than statistical, here ya go,

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8QjZY3WiO9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So apparently a nervous early 20something guy without much training represents CCW owners. I'm duly impressed. I'll be even more impressed when ABC gets off the anti-gun liberal bandwagon its gotten butt sores on for decades.

There are already ample cases of such incidences saving lives, one of the most recent being a CCW holder in Salt Lake City stopping a mass stabbing spree.

EDIT: That's ABC News, who have already been caught staging stories (http://gawker.com/5486666/how-abc-news-brian-ross-staged-his-toyota-death-ride). 50/50 the whole thing was a hoax anyway.

:afro:

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:04 PM
I agree. Wealth is also no excuse for misbehavior. It's past time we put the fraud artists from Wall Street on trial, don't you agree?

Money PERIOD. But let's face it - it's not "fraud artists from Wall Street" who are spraying black and Latino neighborhoods with gunfire.

Blart
02-02-2013, 04:04 PM
There are already ample cases of such incidences saving lives, one of the most recent being a CCW holder in Salt Lake City stopping a mass stabbing spree.

By your reasoning, shouldn't more guns = less violence? I don't see that correlation in the statistics above.

Absolving the responsibility for the behavior of someone because he's poor or some other trait only encourages said behavior to continue.


What should be done instead? Crack down on crime? That doesn't seem to be solving much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

USA: Rank #1
Switzerland: Rank #167

Nope, I think they're doing something a bit different to decrease homicides. I'm open to your ideas on exactly what that is :angel:

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:04 PM
We Americans are quite irresponsible with our firearms.

We suffer far more death and injury than the Swiss, despite the fact that they have almost as many firearms per capita as we do. What maturity towards firearms do the Swiss have that we can examine and learn from, and maybe incorporate into our relationship with our weapons?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:08 PM
Impossible to say.

How many lives wouldn't have been ended if Ms. Lanza had properly secured her weapons?

There are a number of factors to consider. It's also possible that if she had locked them up to your liking that she could have faced a situation in which a home burglar would have subdued her before she could unlock them.

Statistically, which of the two situations are far more likely to happen to the average person? 1) Psycho offspring caps you with your own gun and shoots a bunch of kids to spite you, or 2) Home burglary and lack of ability to get to a protection weapon quickly? In her case, a meteorite struck and it was option 1.

Btw, mandatory trigger locks have already been shown unconstitutional, so you're barking up the wrong tree. There is no justification for calling for forced weapons lockups in the extremely rare what-if scenario.

I'm also a stringent believer that a CCW at the Century Aurora could have brought down the orange-haired hedgehog before he did much harm - if any - to patrons that night.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:08 PM
Money PERIOD. But let's face it - it's not "fraud artists from Wall Street" who are spraying black and Latino neighborhoods with gunfire.

It would be nice to know how these criminals have such easy access to guns.

On the other hand, it was the US financial industry that damn near toppled the global economy. In the bigger picture, that's far more damaging. Put the ardor you have for prosecuting criminals to good use. Demand that the individuals responsible for the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression be punished for their deeds.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:09 PM
We Americans are quite irresponsible with our firearms.

We suffer far more death and injury than the Swiss, despite the fact that they have almost as many firearms per capita as we do. What maturity towards firearms do the Swiss have that we can examine and learn from, and maybe incorporate into our relationship with our weapons?

Unsurprisingly you leave out that the US has a big problem with gangsterism, which is the large majority of gun violence incidents in this country. The Swiss don't have such issues. No Crips, Bloods, 13s, or likewise.

I see no reason to condemn an entire nation for walking fecal smear gangster behavior.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:13 PM
It would be nice to know how these criminals have such easy access to guns.

On the other hand, it was the US financial industry that damn near toppled the global economy. In the bigger picture, that's far more damaging. Put the ardor you have for prosecuting criminals to good use. Demand that the individuals responsible for the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression be punished for their deeds.

I'm rather mystified at how losing one's job is more damaging than being physically attacked in the street. If I have to choose between the two, I know the route I'm taking.

This country has a huge black market of stolen goods of all types. I used to have a coworker from New Mexico that was magically acquiring spiffy new electronics and reselling them for cheaper than market value.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:13 PM
There are a number of factors to consider. It's also possible that if she had locked them up to your liking that she could have faced a situation in which a home burglar would have subdued her before she could unlock them.

Statistically, which of the two situations are far more likely to happen to the average person? 1) Psycho offspring caps you with your own gun and shoots a bunch of kids to spite you, or 2) Home burglary and lack of ability to get to a protection weapon quickly? In her case, a meteorite struck and it was option 1.

Btw, mandatory trigger locks have already been shown unconstitutional, so you're barking up the wrong tree. There is no justification for calling for forced weapons lockups in the extremely rare what-if scenario.

Who said anything about mandatory or forced? I just noted that Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. Obviously.

It would behoove the pro-RKBA folks to work harder on responsible firearm ownership, instead of fearmongering and insisting that tyranny is very nearly upon us so time to arsenal up. I'm an NRA Life Member, and I'd disheartened by the vitriol and paranoia that permeates their writing. They and the other pro-RKBA groups need to step up the maturity of their arguments, and quit relying so much on fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

I'm also a stringent believer that a CCW at the Century Aurora could have brought down the orange-haired hedgehog before he did much harm - if any - to patrons that night.

Impossible to know. Your belief is an act of faith - very difficult to prove.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:15 PM
I'll throw another bone into the pot: We shouldn't NEED CCW permits to begin with. These hoops only hamper law abiding citizens and do zilch to deter criminals. What's with the bullcrap of trying to stop street crime by slapping more regulations on law abiding citizens?

Did the 2nd amendment say "only after a background check may you carry your weapon"?

DenverBrit
02-02-2013, 04:16 PM
Who said anything about mandatory or forced? I just noted that Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. Obviously.

It would behoove the pro-RKBA folks to work harder on responsible firearm ownership, instead of fearmongering and insisting that tyranny is very nearly upon us so time to arsenal up. I'm an NRA Life Member, and I'd disheartened by the vitriol and paranoia that permeates their writing. They and the other pro-RKBA groups need to step up the maturity of their arguments, and quit relying so much on fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.



Impossible to know. Your belief is an act of faith - very difficult to prove.

Bingo!

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:16 PM
Unsurprisingly you leave out that the US has a big problem with gangsterism, which is the large majority of gun violence incidents in this country. The Swiss don't have such issues. No Crips, Bloods, 13s, or likewise.

Just how much gun-related death (and injury) is caused by "gangs" (whatever that means)? Do you have any hard data? No, the gun homicide rate among black teen males isn't sufficient.

I see no reason to condemn an entire nation for walking fecal smear gangster behavior.

What causes gangs and what can be done to make them less attractive and eventually eliminated? Or are they an intractable problem with no solution?

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:18 PM
I'm rather mystified at how losing one's job is more damaging than being physically attacked in the street. If I have to choose between the two, I know the route I'm taking.

Literally trillions in wealth was wiped off the collective balance sheet. More people suffered huge financial losses than were victims of assault.

This country has a huge black market of stolen goods of all types. I used to have a coworker from New Mexico that was magically acquiring spiffy new electronics and reselling them for cheaper than market value.

From where are these stolen guns coming, and how is it that they're stolen?

As for your coworker, what did you do about it?

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:22 PM
Bingo!

We always hear from conservatives that it's up to Muslims to denounce and eliminate the jihadists from their communities; it's up to blacks to rebuild families and stop the problems caused by single motherhood; it's up to Hispanics to clean up their problems.

I figure that the pro-RKBA crowd can be given the same lecture and clean out the bad apples in the community of gun owners.

Dukes
02-02-2013, 04:24 PM
By your reasoning, shouldn't more guns = less violence? I don't see that correlation in the statistics above.

Probably because most gun related crimes happen in large cities with massive gun restrictions. Chicago, NY, LA, DC, Detroit.

Put a sign up in your front yard or window that says "gun free house" and let us know what happens.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:26 PM
Put a sign up in your front yard or window that says "gun free house" and let us know what happens.

Put up a sign in your front yard that says "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and let us know what happens.

Dukes
02-02-2013, 04:27 PM
Put up a sign in your front yard that says "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and let us know what happens.

I've got one that says "We don't call 911" with a revolver under it. Haven't had anyone try anything so far.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:27 PM
Who said anything about mandatory or forced? I just noted that Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. Obviously

I already gave you two potential scenarios, one in which explains why people are against trigger locks and other forced security measures. What do you consider "properly secured"? What are the chances that someone in the home takes those guns and uses them on their mother and others outside the home? Yes - One in over 300,000,000. Not remotely enough to debate over.

It would behoove the pro-RKBA folks to work harder on responsible firearm ownership, instead of fearmongering and insisting that tyranny is very nearly upon us so time to arsenal up. I'm an NRA Life Member, and I'd disheartened by the vitriol and paranoia that permeates their writing. They and the other pro-RKBA groups need to step up the maturity of their arguments, and quit relying so much on fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

Responsible ownership is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm going to be purchasing a CCW weapon. 1) Visit a gun range and try out guns, (I lean toward the .357 2" barrel based on advice from a lifelong sportsman friend) 2) Purchase the gun of my choice along with a lock box, 3) Take an NRA-approved CCW course, and 4) Apply for the CCW license.

I think that's responsible, but not everyone needs to take my path, nor should they be forced to.


Impossible to know. Your belief is an act of faith - very difficult to prove.

I don't believe it is. For one thing, I listened carefully to what the witnesses recounted. There was enough visibility that they saw him emerge through the door with weapons, they saw what he was wearing, they saw what he was carrying, they saw where he was. He was standing on the stairs in the upper section of seats when he paused to reload. Secondly, the Century Aurora theater re-opened to the public less than 2 weeks ago. I went to catch a movie there to support the theater and the community. I in specific went to sit in row 2 of the old Theater 9 which is now Auditorium XD (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/plans-permits-reveal-modifications-made-to-aurora-century-16-theater-after-movie-shooting) about 20 feet from the still-there emergency exit door Holmes used. I inspected the layout of the place quite closely. It's not that dark in there during a film that you couldn't have seen him and shot his ass off, sorry. Just my humble opinion.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:29 PM
Put up a sign in your front yard that says "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and let us know what happens.

I'd wager nothing.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:32 PM
I've got one that says "We don't call 911" with a revolver under it. Haven't had anyone try anything so far.

I just hope you have a good security system and a quality safe for your weapons for when you're not at home.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:32 PM
I'd wager nothing.

For all you know, your friend from NM might be interested in a place that so blatantly advertises "Guns inside!".

Dukes
02-02-2013, 04:33 PM
I just hope you have a good security system and a quality safe for your weapons for when you're not at home.

Indeed. Bought a Superior 31 gun safe a little while back. Have to have it with little ones running around.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:33 PM
I just hope you have a good security system and a quality safe for your weapons for when you're not at home.

Security system? You've just excluded poor people from gun ownership.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:35 PM
I've got one that says "We don't call 911" with a revolver under it. Haven't had anyone try anything so far.

How about, "We call 911 after we're done."

Dukes
02-02-2013, 04:36 PM
How about, "We call 911 after we're done."

If they had that one, I would have gotten it.

Dukes
02-02-2013, 04:37 PM
I need to get this one

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511bwShq4lL._SL500_SS500_.jpg

Blart
02-02-2013, 04:41 PM
If guns deterred crime, USA would be the safest country on earth.

The talk isn't backed up by statistics. It's like you're telling me Mark Sanchez is the best QB in the NFL, shouldn't his stats kind-of support that, at least a little bit? Show me a record he's broken. Give me some numbers.

Put up a sign in your front yard that says "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and let us know what happens.

As it turns out, even if you're a top-10 youtube star with insane weapons, you're still likely to be killed. Always someone crazier than you.
http://www.iviewtube.com/uploads/thumbs/f3ljjpmar2fkyl71q5z.jpg

RIP FPSRussia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/keith-ratliff-gun-enthusiast-of-fpsrussia-is-shot-to-death.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:42 PM
I already gave you two potential scenarios, one in which explains why people are against trigger locks and other forced security measures.

I know why they're against such things. I never said I favored them nor wanted them imposed. You're criticizing views I've never stated.

What do you consider "properly secured"?

That Mr. Lanza couldn't get ahold of the guns. Ms. Lanza was obviously having major problems with young Mr. Lanza, so she should have been more responsible with her weapons. Do you disagree?

What are the chances that someone in the home takes those guns and uses them on their mother and others outside the home? Yes - One in over 300,000,000. Not remotely enough to debate over.

Not "One in over 300,000,000". There are ~100,000 deaths and injuries from the use of guns in this country every year. That's unacceptable and abhorrent. Do you disagree?

There are some very irresponsible gun owners out there. Agreed?

Responsible ownership is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm going to be purchasing a CCW weapon. 1) Visit a gun range and try out guns, (I lean toward the .357 2" barrel based on advice from a lifelong sportsman friend) 2) Purchase the gun of my choice along with a lock box, 3) Take an NRA-approved CCW course, and 4) Apply for the CCW license.

Good for you. What's your plan for maintaining control over your weapon at all times? Yes, I mean all times.

I think that's responsible, but not everyone needs to take my path, nor should they be forced to.

Suppose you're at a buddy's house, the place where all the neighborhood kids like to go. He's also a gun owner, and has a habit of leaving loaded guns in plain sight. Would you say anything, or just stay quiet because it's none of your business?

I don't believe it is. For one thing, I listened carefully to what the witnesses recounted. There was enough visibility that they saw him emerge through the door with weapons, they saw what he was wearing, they saw what he was carrying, they saw where he was. He was standing on the stairs in the upper section of seats when he paused to reload. Secondly, the Century Aurora theater re-opened to the public less than 2 weeks ago. I went to catch a movie there to support the theater and the community. I in specific went to sit in row 2 of the old Theater 9 which is now Auditorium XD (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/plans-permits-reveal-modifications-made-to-aurora-century-16-theater-after-movie-shooting) about 20 feet from the still-there emergency exit door Holmes used. I inspected the layout of the place quite closely. It's not that dark in there during a film that you couldn't have seen him and shot his ass off, sorry. Just my humble opinion.

Ever been under fire? In a panic situation with a screaming crowd and folks moving rapidly in random directions, in a quite dark and unfamiliar location? I haven't, but I think it's pretty safe to say that just because you plopped your butt into a seat in the same theater means that you'd be able to shoot Holmes is a fantastical stretch.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 04:45 PM
Security system? You've just excluded poor people from gun ownership.

Perhaps part of the NRA's multimillion-dollar budget could be used to subsidize those too poor to afford proper gun ownership.

Dukes
02-02-2013, 04:50 PM
If guns deterred crime, USA would be the safest country on earth.

The talk isn't backed up by statistics. It's like you're telling me Mark Sanchez is the best QB in the NFL, shouldn't his stats kind-of support that, at least a little bit? Show me a record he's broken. Give me some numbers.


As it turns out, even if you're a top-10 youtube star with insane weapons, you're still likely to be killed. Always someone crazier than you.
http://www.iviewtube.com/uploads/thumbs/f3ljjpmar2fkyl71q5z.jpg

RIP FPSRussia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/keith-ratliff-gun-enthusiast-of-fpsrussia-is-shot-to-death.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

It's still true today. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:51 PM
By your reasoning, shouldn't more guns = less violence? I don't see that correlation in the statistics above.

It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't correlate somewhere to your liking. People have a basic right to defend themselves. The bottom of this is that no amount of liberal protestation overrides the US Constitution, and that yes, like it or not CCW does indeed save lives and plenty of them.

I'm old enough to recall when liberals defecated dynamite bricks over Colorado's so-called "Make My Day" law back in the 1980s, swearing up and down that giving people *GASP!* the right to self-defense in the home was going to "start a wild west shootout" and we'd "have people shooting all over." We're still waiting and the screaming liberals quietly slinked off back to the rocks they crawled from under.

Now they're making ridiculous demands about CCW licensing while criminals carry as they please, which of course does nothing but leave regular people vulnerable and the criminals in charge. CCW licenses are a load of horse ****.


What should be done instead? Crack down on crime? That doesn't seem to be solving much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

USA: Rank #1
Switzerland: Rank #167

What should we do instead of absolving the behavior of poor thugs because they're poor? Is this a troll post?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 04:53 PM
Perhaps part of the NRA's multimillion-dollar budget could be used to subsidize those too poor to afford proper gun ownership.

I think it easier if you stopped demanding unconstitutional controls on personal possession.

Blart
02-02-2013, 05:01 PM
What should we do instead of absolving the behavior of poor thugs because they're poor? Is this a troll post?

We now incarcerate more people than any country in the world, yet our homicide rate is still the highest compared to countries of similar wealth.

I'm just curious if you believe that to be a solution, and why.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 05:02 PM
I think it easier if you stopped demanding unconstitutional controls on personal possession.

Show me where I have done so.

Show me where I've "demanded" anything in regards the RKBA.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 05:06 PM
We now incarcerate more people than any country in the world, yet our homicide rate is still the highest compared to countries of similar wealth.

I'm just curious if you believe that to be a solution, and why.

Would you like the criminals running free on the streets, instead?

:pimp:

Dukes
02-02-2013, 05:08 PM
We now incarcerate more people than any country in the world, yet our homicide rate is still the highest compared to countries of similar wealth.

I'm just curious if you believe that to be a solution, and why.

Would that still be true if you discount non violent criminals incarcerated?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 05:08 PM
Show me where I have done so.

Show me where I've "demanded" anything in regards the RKBA.

You really need it stamped onto your noggin that forcing home security systems isn't constitutional when forced trigger locks have already been ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court?

One word: D'oh.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 05:15 PM
You really need it stamped onto your noggin that forcing home security systems isn't constitutional when forced trigger locks have already been ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court?

One word: D'oh.

Indeed. Show me where I said security systems should be made mandatory.

Just one instance, please.

BTW, what would you do if a gun-owning buddy was irresponsible with his firearms? Anything?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 05:31 PM
I know why they're against such things. I never said I favored them nor wanted them imposed. You're criticizing views I've never stated.

You want a "quality security system" which apparently includes forcing home security systems on people, no?


That Mr. Lanza couldn't get ahold of the guns. Ms. Lanza was obviously having major problems with young Mr. Lanza, so she should have been more responsible with her weapons. Do you disagree?

I don't know what the exact home situation was but no, I don't think everyone should be forced to lock down like a maximum security prison with blinking alarms everywhere because one woman in Connecticut had a batty son.

Not "One in over 300,000,000". There are ~100,000 deaths and injuries from the use of guns in this country every year. That's unacceptable and abhorrent. Do you disagree?

Yes, the Lanza family is one in over 300 million.

Lots of things are unacceptable and abhorrent. Doesn't mean I'm going to rescind everyone's constitutional rights nor does it mean I'm going to put law abiding citizens through hell in a lame attempt to snap at the ankles of criminals who ignore all laws in existence.


Suppose you're at a buddy's house, the place where all the neighborhood kids like to go. He's also a gun owner, and has a habit of leaving loaded guns in plain sight. Would you say anything, or just stay quiet because it's none of your business?

The "mind your business" is a favored view of the left, and I'm not of the left. I speak out, and do it plentifully, so no.

Does that mean everyone should lock up as I do? No. It means they should determine what is best for their needs, not that it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying about.


Ever been under fire? In a panic situation with a screaming crowd and folks moving rapidly in random directions, in a quite dark and unfamiliar location? I haven't, but I think it's pretty safe to say that just because you plopped your butt into a seat in the same theater means that you'd be able to shoot Holmes is a fantastical stretch.

Nope. Not yet, and hopefully never will be. But if it happens, I certainly don't want to be an unarmed sitting duck. Visit the theater, maybe you can understand what it would have been like there to be an unarmed sitting duck, sitting in a place where people were gunned to death en masse in your immediate vicinity when you could all clearly see the gunman in close range. Personally the thought makes me sick... And angry.

Is there something wrong with giving them and us a fighting chance?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 05:35 PM
Indeed. Show me where I said security systems should be made mandatory.

Just one instance, please.

BTW, what would you do if a gun-owning buddy was irresponsible with his firearms? Anything?

Why would you call for NRA assistance for home security if you didn't want it?

Trolling?

W*GS
02-02-2013, 05:39 PM
Why would you call for NRA assistance for home security if you didn't want it?

Trolling?

If the NRA is interested in responsible gun ownership, and properly securing weapons is definitely a part of that, then perhaps the NRA can assist those who have difficulty with the expense of properly securing their weapons.

What's so offensive about that?

W*GS
02-02-2013, 05:47 PM
You want a "quality security system" which apparently includes forcing home security systems on people, no?

I don't know what the exact home situation was but no, I don't think everyone should be forced to lock down like a maximum security prison with blinking alarms everywhere because one woman in Connecticut had a batty son.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Yes, the Lanza family is one in over 300 million.

At least ~100,000 families have to deal with the aftermath of irresponsible gun ownership. The Lanzas are far from alone.

Lots of things are unacceptable and abhorrent. Doesn't mean I'm going to rescind everyone's constitutional rights nor does it mean I'm going to put law abiding citizens through hell in a lame attempt to snap at the ankles of criminals who ignore all laws in existence.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Since criminals by definition break the law, perhaps we shouldn't have any laws?

The "mind your business" is a favored view of the left, and I'm not of the left. I speak out, and do it plentifully, so no.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Does that mean everyone should lock up as I do? No. It means they should determine what is best for their needs, not that it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying about.

What would you do if your kid was a frequent visitor to such a house? What's more important - your child's safety or this person's irresponsible use of his RKBA?

Nope. Not yet, and hopefully never will be.

Well then, you're speaking from ignorance. Don't be such an armchair dork.

But if it happens, I certainly don't want to be an unarmed sitting duck. Visit the theater, maybe you can understand what it would have been like there to be an unarmed sitting duck, sitting in a place where people were gunned to death en masse in your immediate vicinity when you could all clearly see the gunman in close range. Personally the thought makes me sick... And angry.

Is there something wrong with giving them and us a fighting chance?

Unless and until one practices such a scenario, time and again, until the proper reaction becomes nearly instinctual and a matter of muscle memory, pat pronouncements of "I'd cap the sucker and not be a sheep" is just misplaced bravado and assholitude.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 05:47 PM
If the NRA is interested in responsible gun ownership, and properly securing weapons is definitely a part of that, then perhaps the NRA can assist those who have difficulty with the expense of properly securing their weapons.

What's so offensive about that?

As I said, your suggestion is unconstitutional. There is no need for discussion beyond that.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 05:57 PM
Leave the strawmen alone, please.

It isn't. You repeatedly make the suggestion, so it's reasonable to assume it's your own idea.

At least ~100,000 families have to deal with the aftermath of irresponsible gun ownership. The Lanzas are far from alone.

Same could be said about booze. Let's get ADT in the hizzouse.


Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Since criminals by definition break the law, perhaps we shouldn't have any laws?

I made no strawman statement there. Forcing unreasonable locks on guns is unconstitutional, period. It's been ruled as such.


Leave the strawmen alone, please.

No, the left routinely say "mind your damned business." That is no strawman. That's just reality. Before the screaming left in the 60s came along doing that, people were much more involved in their communities and neighborhoods, watching what all the kids were up to. Now it's "mind your effing business you effing b--."

And since I'm not a lefty anymore...


What would you do if your kid was a frequent visitor to such a house? What's more important - your child's safety or this person's irresponsible use of his RKBA?

Why would I allow my child to go there? I'd also inquire with the local police.


Well then, you're speaking from ignorance. Don't be such an armchair dork.

So then the woman that survived the Killeen massacre whose testimony I already posted at the top of page 1 in this thread is "an armchair dork." After all, she said what I did. That makes no sense. Further, it's not an argument against CCW, if that's what you're trying to make. With CCW, at least those folks in that theater would have had a fighting chance, and that's the bottom line.

Unless and until one practices such a scenario, time and again, until the proper reaction becomes nearly instinctual and a matter of muscle memory, pat pronouncements of "I'd cap the sucker and not be a sheep" is just misplaced bravado and assholitude.

No, it isn't. It's happened plenty of times. People have used CCW successfully in many situations, stop hiding your head in the ground. Some videos of such instances have been posted here, most recently the 70 year old man in Florida that shot a thug and ran the others off. You seem to be intent on ignoring valid instances of it being effective choosing to focus on slamming someone for considering it may be effective.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 05:58 PM
As I said, your suggestion is unconstitutional. There is no need for discussion beyond that.

How is the NRA assisting folks in responsible gun ownership practices "unconstitutional"? What if the NRA offered cut-rate or free gun safes?

Is Eddie Eagle "unconstitutional"?

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 06:07 PM
How is the NRA assisting folks in responsible gun ownership practices "unconstitutional"? What if the NRA offered cut-rate or free gun safes?

Is Eddie Eagle "unconstitutional"?

I already answered this and I'm not going in circles with you.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 06:08 PM
I made no strawman statement there. Forcing unreasonable locks on guns is unconstitutional, period. It's been ruled as such.

Who said anything about "forcing unreasonable locks on guns" besides you? Certainly I made no mention whatsoever of trigger locks or mandatory anything regarding safe storage.

Stop with the BS.

No, the left routinely say "mind your damned business." That is no strawman. That's just reality. Before the screaming left in the 60s came along doing that, people were much more involved in their communities and neighborhoods, watching what all the kids were up to. Now it's "mind your effing business you effing b--."

I didn't realize libertarians were leftists. They're the ones most frequently claiming that they merely want to be left alone.

Who came up with the idea of a Nanny State? The left or the right?

Why would I allow my child to go there? I'd also inquire with the local police.

Why get the police involved? There's no law, and according to you, cannot be any law, regarding the proper and safe storage of firearms. What purpose would be served by bugging the police?

So then the woman that survived the Killeen massacre whose testimony I already posted at the top of page 1 in this thread is "an armchair dork."

Uh, no, you're the dork, claiming that it would have been no big deal and quite easy to stop Holmes, despite never having been in nor trained for the scenario.

In that particular instance, it's entirely possible an innocent person would have been shot, or that Holmes would have kept shooting people anyway.

That Ratliff fellow, who was shot in his office, apparently tweeted that he carried and wished there had been another Batman incident. That's rather sick.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 06:10 PM
I already answered this and I'm not going in circles with you.

Grow a pair and admit error.

Requiem
02-02-2013, 06:17 PM
Drinks won't stain this birth.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 06:18 PM
Grow a pair and admit error.

Then by your own standards you don't have a pair - or are you still pretending it was OK to let Syria invade and butcher Israel with impunity?

Christ.

nyuk nyuk
02-02-2013, 06:25 PM
Who said anything about "forcing unreasonable locks on guns" besides you? Certainly I made no mention whatsoever of trigger locks or mandatory anything regarding safe storage.

Stop with the BS.

You keep mentioning it so as I said.


I didn't realize libertarians were leftists. They're the ones most frequently claiming that they merely want to be left alone.

Libertarians are morons, and they aren't the ones who were out en masse in the 60s undermining traditional social institutions and demanding that standards be changed to their suiting. I'd call this one not a straw man but a non sequitur.

An example of lefty culture rot: When I was 7 years old there were two boys across the street who kept playing in a parked car, unsupervised. I was alarmed by this and eventually mentioned it to their lovely father who told me to "mind my effing business." About 2 weeks later, the boys were at it yet again, this time apparently with matches. They lit the car on fire, and though they escaped unharmed, the car was totaled. Pops apologized shortly thereafter and said he should have listened.

Do you really think such things would have happened in say, the 1950s? No, it was popularized much later.


Why get the police involved? There's no law, and according to you, cannot be any law, regarding the proper and safe storage of firearms. What purpose would be served by bugging the police?

Difference between gun laws and child endangerment, Einstein.


Uh, no, you're the dork, claiming that it would have been no big deal and quite easy to stop Holmes, despite never having been in nor trained for the scenario.

No, I said I think it was possible that someone with CCW could have done it., not that I specifically was some pistol packin' cowboy, which is NOT what I said. That's ALL I said, yet I'm trashed for it, even if there are numerous examples of such very things happening.

In that particular instance, it's entirely possible an innocent person would have been shot, or that Holmes would have kept shooting people anyway.

Welcome to life - there are risks. As I said, a fighting chance is better than no chance.

That Ratliff fellow, who was shot in his office, apparently tweeted that he carried and wished there had been another Batman incident. That's rather sick.

That's nice. And this means what? You're insinuating this somehow applies to me? How retarded.

TonyR
02-02-2013, 06:28 PM
If guns deterred crime, USA would be the safest country on earth.

The talk isn't backed up by statistics.

I notice how nobody's touched this. I love how clowns like nyuk nyuk talk tough about the movie theater incident. As if everyone is Jack Bauer, trained and ready to handle a crisis situation. Such profound stupidity. A bunch of amateurs with guns would only lead to one thing: more dead bodies.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 08:31 PM
Then by your own standards you don't have a pair - or are you still pretending it was OK to let Syria invade and butcher Israel with impunity?

Christ.

Ironic.

Syria is Israel's problem. Why is Syria's tiff with Israel our problem?

Oh yeah - our shared Judeo-Christian heritage, in which our Jesus is their YHWH.

Never mind that you christians called Jews "Christ killers" for a few centuries...

W*GS
02-02-2013, 08:37 PM
You keep mentioning it so as I said.

I never said "mandatory" or "forcing" - those were entirely from your fetid imagination.

Libertarians are morons,

That's true.

It's good your 7-year-old self was such a law-n-order kid. Never mind that any verification of your claim is impossible.

What is it with you righties and your promotion of personal experience to the universe? Please explain.

Difference between gun laws and child endangerment, Einstein.

What's dangerous to a kid about a loaded gun? Given that gun owners are always responsible (correct?) it shouldn't be any more dangerous than a knife in the block by the stove.

What do you think the police would do, or should do? Arrest Dad? On what charge?

No, I said I think it was possible that someone with CCW could have done it., not that I specifically was some pistol packin' cowboy, which is NOT what I said.

You're just fantasizing Rambo, that's all. Too typical of gun owners.

W*GS
02-02-2013, 08:42 PM
I notice how nobody's touched this. I love how clowns like nyuk nyuk talk tough about the movie theater incident. As if everyone is Jack Bauer, trained and ready to handle a crisis situation. Such profound stupidity. A bunch of amateurs with guns would only lead to one thing: more dead bodies.

Yup.

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 09:13 AM
I notice how nobody's touched this. I love how clowns like nyuk nyuk talk tough about the movie theater incident. As if everyone is Jack Bauer, trained and ready to handle a crisis situation. Such profound stupidity. A bunch of amateurs with guns would only lead to one thing: more dead bodies.

Nobody's touched a simplistic assumption of correlation/causation?

It's not "tough talk," I've been to that theater and in my humble opinion it's not so dark in there, like the media claimed, that if someone in the crowd had a CCW those folks would have had a fighting chance. Tell it to the families of the dead your garbage about how it would have been worse if someone had a defense weapon in there, and how much better off they are without one.

Here's a hint:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mm9o3vhKoF8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
02-09-2013, 09:14 AM
Nobody's touched a simplistic assumption of correlation/causation?

It's not "tough talk," I've been to that theater and in my humble opinion it's not so dark in there, like the media claimed, that if someone in the crowd had a CCW those folks would have had a fighting chance. Tell it to the families of the dead your garbage about how it would have been worse if someone had a defense weapon in there, and how much better off they are without one.

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

TonyR
02-09-2013, 09:56 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wYpvA4Jhih0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cutthemdown
02-09-2013, 12:16 PM
I agree with liberals that everyone with guns trying to stop a criminal would just lead to innocent bystanders being shot. You should be able to have a gun in your car loaded and ready to go though. But walking through the mall in CA with everyone packing seems sort of crazy to me. Whats the biggest city you can carry in? Dallas? Somewhere in TX probably right? I would love to see the stats on how many times citizens used guns in public and if innocent people ever got shot.

If I saw that its a low% then maybe i would agree to everyone open carrying. I just worry one citizen thinks he's helping, but another citizen gets confused and thinks he's the gunman, and we shoot the wrong guy.

But carrying weapons in public and assault rifle bans aren't really the same issue at all.

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:24 AM
I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you suspect. Let these folks have a chance to carry CCW and give themselves a fighting chance.

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:26 AM
I agree with liberals that everyone with guns trying to stop a criminal would just lead to innocent bystanders being shot.

Nobody has ever advocated for this. What are you talking about? "Trying to stop a criminal"? What is that?

CCW and its legal use are laid out in explicit detail, and it does not involve "trying to stop a criminal."

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:29 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wYpvA4Jhih0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They should demand a plan to control their own behavior and pay off all their child support debts.

Neon Deion is one to talk, anyway, even though he and his wife do pose nicely for mugshots.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/670xX/photos/deionmugshot1.jpg

http://uptownmagazine.com/files/2012/04/Pilar-Sanders.jpg

Oh and how many here think the Sanderses and these other athletes don't carry?

W*GS
02-10-2013, 11:32 AM
I really don't give a rat's ass what you suspect. Let these folks have a chance to carry CCW and give themselves a fighting chance.

Thus speaketh the fake tough guy.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 11:50 AM
We always hear from conservatives that it's up to Muslims to denounce and eliminate the jihadists from their communities; it's up to blacks to rebuild families and stop the problems caused by single motherhood; it's up to Hispanics to clean up their problems.

I figure that the pro-RKBA crowd can be given the same lecture and clean out the bad apples in the community of gun owners.

That won't happen, because any rational response to mass murder becomes a pathetic, "The government is trying to take our guns."

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/03/7617.dl.jpg?key=0

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:58 AM
Thus speaketh the fake tough guy.

Thus speaketh someone who thinks people have a right to defend themselves.

:wave:

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:59 AM
That won't happen, because any rational response to mass murder becomes a pathetic, "The government is trying to take our guns."

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/03/7617.dl.jpg?key=0

I think you should be asking why there should be all of this going on over extremely rare cases to begin with. People ask those questions, they suspect a political pretext, and they point it out. Indeed what is going on other than attempts to confiscation from citizenry?

We aren't applying the same standards to booze even though we have over 10,000 killed each year in drunken driving crashes, so why do it here? Smells fishy to me.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 12:19 PM
I think you should be asking why there should be all of this going on over extremely rare cases to begin with. People ask those questions, they suspect a political pretext, and they point it out. Indeed what is going on other than attempts to confiscation from citizenry?

We aren't applying the same standards to booze even though we have over 10,000 killed each year in drunken driving crashes, so why do it here? Smells fishy to me.

Hilarious! Paranoid much??

Some the the proposed recommendations. Point out the Government attempt to repeal the 2nd.

Close the" Gun Show" Loophole: Extend Brady Background Checks to All Gun Purchases
Close the Terror Gap: Prohibit Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines (aka Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes)
Require Gun Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Guns
Restrict Large-Volume Gun Sales
Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Gun Thefts
Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Employees
Prohibit The Transfer of Gun Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace crime guns and supporting development of safety features to childproof guns

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 12:32 PM
Hilarious! Paranoid much??

How's it paranoid? I've already pointed out the ridiculousness of such massive overreactions. As I said, we have over 10k dead each year in the US in drunken driving crashes, yet nobody calls for these measures to be taken with alcohol.

Several things on your list violate the 2nd: "Closing the 'terror gap' gun sales to SUSPECTED terrorists." I shouldn't have to explain that one. Further, "safety features" you want - such as forced trigger lock usage - have already been ruled a violation of the 2nd by the US Supreme Court. Why did it go that far? Because local liberal-controlled municipalities (in this case DC) have attempted to subvert the Constitution.

But oh wait - you're a Brit. You really don't know what you're doing.

Let's apply your rationale to alcohol, which should already be applied since after all you and yours are so terribly worried about deaths and ****.

Background Checks to All Booze Purchases
Close the Drunkard Gap: Prohibit Booze Sales to Suspected Drunkards
Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Alcohol Containers (aka Kegs and 24 packs)
Require Booze Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Booze
Restrict Large-Volume Booze Sales
Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Booze Thefts
Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Liquor Store Employees
Prohibit The Transfer of Booze Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace drunk driving booze and supporting development of safety features to childproof booze

What... Crickets?

Let's look at the numbers, courtesy of the Mother Jones Mass Shooting Study (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map).

Point 1 based on MOJO's own admission: Only 25% of mass shootings have involved so-called "assault weapons." If you break down that figure, it amounts to exactly 7.5 people/year injured or killed by such a weapon. Contrast that to 10,228 people killed in drunken driving crashes in 2010 alone, including 211 children (http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html).

Yet people are still boozing up without a flinch.

Point 2 based on MOJO's own admission: 981 deaths and injuries have taken place since 1982 in "mass shootings." That averages out to under 30/year.

You and yours want to harass legal owners and trash the Constitution to save 30 lives a year while boozing your brains out and swerving over the median. If you take the 10,228 dead in 2010 as an average drunken driving figure, that amounts to 204,560 killed in drunken driving crashes over the same 30 year period of MOJO's mass shooting study.

So if you aren't going to push these weirdo restrictions on booze ownership, shut your pie hole about guns, little man.

Have a nice day.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 12:47 PM
How's it paranoid? I've already pointed out the ridiculousness of such massive overreactions. As I said, we have over 10k dead each year in the US in drunken driving crashes, yet nobody calls for these measures to be taken with alcohol.

Several things on your list violate the 2nd: "Closing the 'terror gap' gun sales to SUSPECTED terrorists." I shouldn't have to explain that one. Further, "safety features" you want - such as forced trigger lock usage - have already been ruled a violation of the 2nd by the US Supreme Court. Why did it go that far? Because local liberal-controlled municipalities (in this case DC) have attempted to subvert the Constitution.

But oh wait - you're a Brit. You really don't know what you're doing.

Let's apply your rationale to alcohol, which should already be applied since after all you and yours are so terribly worried about deaths and ****.

Background Checks to All Booze Purchases
Close the Drunkard Gap: Prohibit Booze Sales to Suspected Drunkards
Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Alcohol Containers (aka Kegs and 24 packs)
Require Booze Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Booze
Restrict Large-Volume Booze Sales
Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Booze Thefts
Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Liquor Store Employees
Prohibit The Transfer of Booze Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace drunk driving booze and supporting development of safety features to childproof booze

What... Crickets?

Let's look at the numbers, courtesy of the Mother Jones Mass Shooting Study (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map).

Point 1 based on MOJO's own admission: Only 25% of mass shootings have involved so-called "assault weapons." If you break down that figure, it amounts to exactly 7.5 people/year injured or killed by such a weapon. Contrast that to 10,228 people killed in drunken driving crashes in 2010 alone, including 211 children (http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html).

Yet people are still boozing up without a flinch.

Point 2 based on MOJO's own admission: 981 deaths and injuries have taken place since 1982 in "mass shootings." That averages out to under 30/year.

You and yours want to harass legal owners and trash the Constitution to save 30 lives a year while boozing your brains out and swerving over the median. If you take the 10,228 dead in 2010 as an average drunken driving figure, that amounts to 204,560 killed in drunken driving crashes over the same 30 year period of MOJO's mass shooting study.

So if you aren't going to push these weirdo restrictions on booze ownership, shut your pie hole about guns, little man.

Have a nice day.


You'd repeal First amended rights to salve your delusional feelings about attempts to introduce sanity into the gun debate.

Talk about paranoid. Hilarious!

Run along little girly. :curtsey:

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 01:00 PM
You'd repeal First amended rights to salve your delusional feelings about attempts to introduce sanity into the gun debate.

Talk about paranoid. Hilarious!

Run along little girly. :curtsey:

I would repeal "First amended rights" <-- WTF is that? Illiterate British friend: The 1st applies to government censorship of dissent, not someone telling another person in a debate to be consistent or stick a sock in it. /facepalm

And ad hominem abusive is your only response. You will not justify your views on guns especially when put into contrast with far more dangerous activities because you simply cannot do so, just like all other hysterical gunsnatchers I have discussed these statistics with.

My point is proven. Now go have your Heineken.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 02:51 PM
I would repeal "First amended rights" <-- WTF is that? Illiterate British friend: The 1st applies to government censorship of dissent, not someone telling another person in a debate to be consistent or stick a sock in it. /facepalm

And ad hominem abusive is your only response. You will not justify your views on guns especially when put into contrast with far more dangerous activities because you simply cannot do so, just like all other hysterical gunsnatchers I have discussed these statistics with.

My point is proven. Now go have your Heineken.

Hilarious! Good grief.

I suggested you'd repeal the 1st to protect the 2nd, not that your stupid comment was a violation of the 1st. Try and keep up.

As for your absurd false equivalency of comparing guns to alcohol, feel free to keep talking to yourself, it's absurdity at its finest.

You are incapable of having any rational discussion about guns. You were probably more interesting as a Marxist.

As for 'your point is proven,' all you've done is prove my assertion that you are delusional.

In the real world.

March 2, 2011—"There is no reason that a peaceful society based on the rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round [ammunition] magazines," states Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck during a news conference." Such magazines transform a gun "into a weapon of mass death rather than a home protection-type device," Beck notes.

February 26, 2011—Referring to increasing seizures of semiautomatic assault weapons that are trafficked in from outside states, Brockton (Massachusetts) Police Department Captain Emanuel Gomes says, "We're literally outgunned. You're talking about the kind of firepower that can go through vehicles, through vests, and that can literally go through a house."

January 16, 2011—After one of his officers is ambushed by a teenager wielding a semiautomatic AR-15 and fired at 26 times, Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty tells The Oklahoman, "There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day. They are outgunned." Citty states that he sees "no practical reason" why a civilian would need an AR-15 or similiar military-style weapon.

November 21, 2010—Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derenda states,"In my opinion, [AK-47 rifles and other high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons] exist for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill."

November 15, 2010—After losing his son and another officer in a shootout to sovereign citizens armed with a semiautomatic AK-47, West Memphis [Arkansas] Police Chief Bob Paudert purchases 30 AR-15s for use by patrol officers in the field. "We're going to protect our officers," he says. "Our times have changed. And we've got to change with our times. We cannot allow our officers to continue to be killed."

October 25, 2010—Ten national law enforcement organizations form the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. Founding members are the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chief Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. The partnership is described as "an unprecedented joint effort by law enforcement leaders to address gun violence in an era of shrinking law enforcement budgets and rising levels of officer deaths." In their Statement of Principles, the new coalition states, "As law enforcement organizations, we believe the level and lethality of gun violence directed at police officers requires an organized and aggressive response from policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels."

The list goes on.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 04:13 PM
Hilarious! Good grief.

I suggested you'd repeal the 1st to protect the 2nd, not that your stupid comment was a violation of the 1st. Try and keep up.

I did no such thing, therefore at the best your odd remark was a strawman/non sequitur.

As for your absurd false equivalency of comparing guns to alcohol, feel free to keep talking to yourself, it's absurdity at its finest.

Labeling it absurd and false doesn't make it absurd and false. Explain why it's absurd and false. Then you can explain what you are willing to do to remedy the far greater problem of drunken driving. I expect at the bare minimum the same kinds of legislation you screechingly demand for guns. Thus far, you've only tried to laugh it off and change the subject.

You like to drink, don't you?

You are incapable of having any rational discussion about guns. You were probably more interesting as a Marxist.

Except that asserting I'm not capable of having a rational discussion about guns doesn't cover for nor negate the need for you to address your glaring inconsistencies on the drunken driving vs guns issue. You either want to save lives or you don't. If you do, then go more vigorously after those things which are far more a social menace than extremely rare psychos with guns randomly shooting at people are. If you won't...

You're in the adult world now, and giggling isn't going to negate a need for an adult response.

The list goes on.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons

I've already presented "assault weapons" info from a liberal source. Not liking this and wanting a bigger body count to try to hang onto, you are as your political allies are, attempting to widen the net beyond the initial hysteria over "mass shooters" to include all gun violence regardless because the "mass shooting" angle isn't producing enough bodies and enough coins to fill the political cash registers.

Yet again I must state: Put your money where your mouth is and call for the type of legislation you demand for guns to be applied to alcohol sales, at the absolute bare minimum. I don't think that's too much to ask, yet with you and those like you, asking it is like pulling teeth for some odd reason.

Easy math: 30/yr or 10,000+/yr. Which is it?

Personally, I think listening to experienced law enforcement officers is much more beneficial than pasting mined quotes from a liberal gunsnatching organization. Refer to the County Sheriffs of Colorado Position Paper on Possible Gun Control Legislation (http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf).

Thankfully plenty of Colorado peace officers don't have their brains up their backsides (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22436618/el-paso-county-passes-measure-support-second-amendment).

Your Titanic is sinking and all you've done is grab for a bucket.

Is this gun-phobia a Limey thing or what? I'd suggest if you hate gun ownership so much, you're living in the wrong country.

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 04:19 PM
I did no such thing, therefore at the best your odd remark was a strawman/non sequitur.



Labeling it absurd and false doesn't make it absurd and false. Explain why it's absurd and false. Then you can explain what you are willing to do to remedy the far greater problem of drunken driving. I expect at the bare minimum the same kinds of legislation you screechingly demand for guns. Thus far, you've only tried to laugh it off and change the subject.

You like to drink, don't you?



Except that asserting I'm not capable of having a rational discussion about guns doesn't cover for nor negate the need for you to address your glaring inconsistencies on the drunken driving vs guns issue. You either want to save lives or you don't. If you do, then go more vigorously after those things which are far more a social menace than extremely rare psychos with guns randomly shooting at people are. If you won't...

You're in the adult world now, and giggling isn't going to negate a need for an adult response.



I've already presented "assault weapons" info from a liberal source. Not liking this and wanting a bigger body count to try to hang onto, you are as your political allies are, attempting to widen the net beyond the initial hysteria over "mass shooters" to include all gun violence regardless because the "mass shooting" angle isn't producing enough bodies and enough coins to fill the political cash registers.

Yet again I must state: Put your money where your mouth is and call for the type of legislation you demand for guns to be applied to alcohol sales, at the absolute bare minimum. I don't think that's too much to ask, yet with you and those like you, asking it is like pulling teeth for some odd reason.

Easy math: 30/yr or 10,000+/yr. Which is it?

Personally, I think listening to experienced law enforcement officers is much more beneficial than pasting mined quotes from a liberal gunsnatching organization. Refer to the County Sheriffs of Colorado Position Paper on Possible Gun Control Legislation (http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf).

Thankfully plenty of Colorado peace officers don't have their brains up their backsides (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22436618/el-paso-county-passes-measure-support-second-amendment).

Your Titanic is sinking and all you've done is grab for a bucket.

Is this gun-phobia a Limey thing or what? I'd suggest if you hate gun ownership so much, you're living in the wrong country.

This is the third time in a row you've mentioned my ethnic origins.

What's your point, other than being a xenophobe?

As for my hating guns, that's just another example of your paranoia and inability to discuss this issue like an adult.

Now, show posts of mine that demonstrate my hate of gun ownership.

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 04:36 PM
This is the third time in a row you've mentioned my ethnic origins.

What's your point, other than being a xenophobe?

Deflecting, labeling, namecalling.

1) I'm part British.
2) National orgins mean a lot and explain much considering your obvious ignorance of US laws and culture.
3) I'm also descended of US Revolutionary War veterans. Perhaps we just have a thing against pushy redcoats/bloody backs.


As for my hating guns, that's just another example of your paranoia and inability to discuss this issue like an adult.

More labels covering for an inability to discuss the issue in context. I'm waiting for ONE example of where you're morally consistent and are willing to put your money where your mouth is on the booze issue. Ante up.

Now, show posts of mine that demonstrate my hate of gun ownership.

Deflection and topic change. Your lack of consistency on the booze issue speaks for itself.

You want to save lives or not, buddy?

DenverBrit
02-10-2013, 05:19 PM
Deflecting, labeling, namecalling.

Yes, cut it out so I can stop responding to it.

More labels covering for an inability to discuss the issue in context.

What issue? Gun control, 2nd amendment? I keep trying, but you deflect with an alcohol rant. Former 12 stepper?

I'm waiting for ONE example of where you're morally consistent and are willing to put your money where your mouth is on the booze issue. .

If you want to discuss 'booze', go find someone who gives a rat's arse. The thread title says 'GUN CONTROL' and so far, you've discussed alcohol, my ethnic origins and little else.

Deflection and topic change.

What's your problem? ADD? I was responding to your comment:
if you hate gun ownership so much, you're living in the wrong country.



Talking to you is as like talking to Gaffney, which is like herding cats.

Requiem
02-10-2013, 07:22 PM
Nobody you know fought in the Revolutionary War, nyuk. You're full of it.

Requiem
02-10-2013, 07:27 PM
The Deleterious Effects of Mass Media on Public Opinion: The “Mass Shooting” Storyline
By Ex-Leftist
12/26/2012
Recently, I wrote about in part relating to the mass shooting at the Aurora Mall in Colorado [1] and needless to say, the media are again sinking their teeth in to the gun issue. Not only does such hysteria-hype bring in more frightened viewers and increase advertising revenues for the media, but this kind of (selective) coverage advances the media’s anti-gun liberal agenda. Coverage on certain subjects in the mass media (especially national-level television and magazines) conform to certain left-of-center narratives, regardless of how accurate they actually are, even if statistics and evidence say otherwise. I’ve concluded there are two kinds of science: the science of scientists and cherry-picked science as portrayed by the media based on causes célèbre. This article is in part about media science.
Emotion-driven propaganda has been a staple of the left for many years. That those who push their activism with such techniques is in part what alienated me from the left. I found it very bothersome that emotion - and not reason - were being used to convince people into action. In looking for reasoned arguments, I found political narratives instead. The predictable storyline of media coverage regarding mass shootings is no different. Worse, this emotionally-manipulative coverage is considered enough for us to surrender our Constitutional rights (in spite of warnings of the perils of a disarmed citizenry from many of our Founding Fathers).
We are told, with no shortage of very loud, nearly endless emotionally hysterical appeals, that we must at least “ban assault weapons” if not guns in toto, because they keep being used in mass shootings. This is the basis of this specific media-science narrative, the facts notwithstanding.
A selective study by Mother Jones Magazine, [2] conducted shortly after the shootings in Aurora is often cited as a basis for this activism (including by leftwing professors). Never mind that most actual mass shootings were culled out of the study (robberies and gang-related shootings) and of those actually counted, only 25% actually used what the media are referring to as “assault weapons.” Regarding the killings in Connecticut, the assault weapon angle has been the focus and that the killer also carried two pistols has been neglected. Likewise with quotations from the Mother Jones study, in which it was admitted that 62% of the shootings were done with regular handguns as well; 88 of 142 total in specific. Only 35 were done with “assault weapons,” (rounded up to 25% of the total) and this writer assumes that these are generalized figures, that the actual numbers of people who were killed/injured by X type of weapon (or even flying glass or splintered wood instead of a bullet) in each shooting is not recorded. James Holmes used multiple gun types, for example, as did the shooters at Columbine. Some victims were injured by debris only.
Of course, a pistol doesn’t conjure a made-by-Hollywood image of a Terminator-esque villain letting loose on crowds of civilians making us all feel vulnerable and running for a catchall remedy, thus there is no useful emotional response elicited in readers which can be translated into political action by malleable, unwitting crowds. How many people in this country are now saying that our Constitutional rights “aren’t worth it” to save an average of 30 lives a year due to this type of media coverage? Worse, if you divide this 30-victim annual average by the 25% Mother Jones assault weapon usage figure, you round up to an average of 8 victims per year. EIGHT.
Let’s analyze Mother Jones’ data and draw some useful comparisons.
The Mother Jones study listed select shootings from 1982 to 2012, again setting criteria of their own definition that omitted most actual mass shootings, namely robberies and gang fights. In doing so, it is worth mentioning, that they invoked the old Marxian bogeyman-meme of the Angry White Male™ as most of the non-culled shooters in their study were white males. The insinuations are obvious and conform to another popular media narrative. While Mother Jones did admit to ruling out mass shootings in the text of the article (they did not tell us that they ruled out MOST of them statistically, however), in looking a the headline itself, it gives no indication of that whatsoever and makes a generic and thus all-encompassing reference to mass shootings as if they were all being counted. The reader assumes that all mass shootings are included in the study by first glance by implication. Manipulative and sensationalist? Loaded and leading?
By Mother Jones’ data, a total of 981 deaths and injuries have taken place in 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years from 1982 to 2012. That comes out to fewer than 30 per year. Consider that in a nation of over 300,000,000 people, an average of 30 annual victims (including survivors) are being used to fan mass hysteria and attempt to roll back our Constitutional rights. Eight annual victims in specific are being used to push “assault weapons” bans. (Hands on your 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment rights but hands OFF our 1<sup>st</sup> Amendment rights!) Admittedly, even worse, Mother Jones concedes that the large majority of perpetrators in these shootings were mentally ill.
Now for a little more context.
Consider a favored cause of the environmentalist left: green, wholesome, natural gas. By US federal government figures, from 1992 to 2011 only (that leaves the Mother Jones mass shootings study with 11 more years of data), there were 10,265 reported natural gas pipeline-related incidents resulting in injuries and deaths. [3] In counting injuries in with deaths as Mother Jones did, it totals to 1,935, or an average of 102 per year. These figures are not reported in the media, let alone alarmingly so, and certainly are not used as a weapon against the natural gas industry to roll back natural gas usage and production, nor is the natural gas industry referred to and demonized as the Gas Industrial Complex or simply Big Gas. The emotionally tormented are not on Twitter calling for pro-natural gas activists and lobbyists to be set aflame. Gas is considered “green” and thus is excluded from the usual anti-business rhetoric from major media. Nautral gas CEOs are exempt from the kind of anti-CEO hostility that Hollywood and New York tend to enjoy portraying as they mock their favorite capitalist pig targets such as oil executives (J.R. Ewing in Dallas and Blake Carrington in Dynasty) and chemical company CEOs (Maxwell Potterdam in the movie Men at Work).
Odd, isn’t it? Let’s look at another one. Drunken driving. [4]
This is only in reference to actual deaths (you can assume injuries are many times greater than these figures). Annual US deaths from drunken driving in 2010: 10,228, which accounted for a massive 31% of all traffic-related deaths that year. 211 children were killed by alcohol-impaired drivers, vastly more than people of all ages killed annually in random shootings. If we are to assume the 2010 death figure is a general average, then over the past 20 years to compare to the length of the Mother Jones study, we can calculate that approximately 204,560 people have been killed in drunken driving crashes since 1982.
Yet not one peep out of the media, and chances are that many of them go out for cocktails after they go off-air.
I think I’ve said enough. Hands off my Heineken.

BroncoInferno
02-11-2013, 06:56 AM
Yup.

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

Yep. The gun lunatics imagine themselves morphing into Clint Eastwood at the first sign of trouble. The reality would probably more often resemble this guy:

http://datacenteroverlords.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/barney.jpg

Rohirrim
02-11-2013, 07:24 AM
Talking to you is as like talking to Gaffney, which is like herding cats.

Once you've read two or three nyuk posts you've read them all. I no longer bother.