As far as I can tell, the shooter was a perfectly responsible gun owning patriot like all of 'em, right up until he suddenly wasn’t. Which is how it works.
For some reason this pisses me off. I know a guy who once pulled a bullet out from his stick shift. This happened in my driveway. The bullet had fallen from the sky.
Responsible gun owners need to speak out against the fanaticism and start denouncing those who flout basic rules of gun safety. Until moderate gun owners speak out – not only individually, as many have, but collectively – this extremism will continue to threaten peace and progress, fanning broad brushed characterizations of all gun holders. We need to see more gun owners lobbying to protest deadly and preventable gun accidents, not just against gun registries and the like.
I modded that paragraph from a call for moderate Muslims screed. But seriously, people might take the gun nuts more seriously if they would self-police some of the more fucked up and deadly aspects of gun culture, and advocate fact-based risk assessment.
So wait, you don’t think licensing and regisgtration would reduce gun death in the US? Am I misunderstanding you or do you simply have no idea what you are talking about? Do you need me to explain how licensing and registrationw orks to reduce gun violence? Several other posters have done a pretty good job of describing how licensing and registration woudl reduce gun violence.
I’m also wondering if you have a cite for when I used “Would it have prevented Newtown?” as a criteria for gun control. Of course I don’t expect you to provide any sort of cites (you never respond to any requests for cites, because you live in a fact free universe (or at least a fact indifferent universe)). I don’t know of any gun control that was under consideration that would have prevented Newtown.
Of course when you ask me for cites, I provide them and you promptly ignore the cite and don’t bring up the subject for several days before you ask for the same cite again.
You are an embarrassment to your side of the debate and someone from your side of the debate should really put you out of your misery.
He’s not stupid, he simply doesn’t care what you have to say. He’s made up his mind and nothing can change his mind. Its an article of faith reinforced by a selective reading of the facts.
Its their stock in trade.
But you do agree that trying to analogize it with dropping a swimming pool on the kid’s head is retarded, right?
bolding mine
No, not like all of 'em, and thats not how it works. The vast majority of “them” (the murderers) are not responsible gun owning patriots until they suddenly snap and become murderers. the vast majority of them are people who are prohibited from owning a gun, because they are felons, wifebeaters, mentally ill, underage, or subject to a restraining order.
You must know this by now. This have been stated several times in multiple threads with multiple cites.
Now, we all know that the po-leece are never ever ever ever wrong. Ever.
Be interesting to see how long they keep him suspended. Prolly just about as long as it takes for the news cycle to move on. What will be very interesting will be when he kills a citizen who has a CC permit and a concealed weapon- which Ohio has made legal- solely because of the threat of a concealed gun.
And, it goes round and round and round. Stupid Gun Story of the day? Shit yeah.
Where’s your proposal, how is it politically feasible, and why is it that you’re going to actually support it (you are, aren’t you? right?) instead of disdainfully dismissing any and all attempts at actually reducing the murder rate? Your credibility is lower than whale shit on that point, as you must know.
Please. Every fucking time any serious gun control proposals come up from the anti-murder side, that’s when. Search your own damn GD posts if you really have such an amnesia problem.
Or get angry or drunk or depressed … ever. Good luck with that. There is a pretty serious problem, as you know, with “law-abiding citizens” who suddenly stop being that, right after somebody else gets killed. The good guy / bad guy, responsible/irresponsible dichotomy the murder-rights crowd likes to draw, so as to comfortably put themselves on the good/responsible side in their own minds, is not so clear when compared to the long and ever-growing list of facts.
Fine, except who *are *these “moderate gun owners” you speak of?
Credibility is earned and you have none. Your only claim to any credibility is that you are a kneejerk liberal and as luck would have it, that puts you on the right side of most debates. But you have no idea what to do when you find yourself on the wrong side of a debate (and liberals are on the wrong side of a few debates)and that’s why you are so embarrassing to your side of the argument. The only thing saving you from open and universal ridicule at this point is that most of this board is also very liberal and would rather ignore you than try to point out your idiocy.
The only reason I engage you at this point is to highlight to the other gun grabbers how stupid their side can be.
I’ve been advocating licensing and registration for a while now and I think it is at least as feasible as the absolutely retarded shit you have been suggesting.
So cite me. Or are you confusing me for the straw man you have built?
Yeah thats what I thought. Punkass bitch.
You have no idea of what the facts are do you? Or are you being deliberately obtuse. What percentage of gun murders are committed by people who are permitted to own a gun? You have no idea do you? And you really don’t care do you?
Most gun owners are moderate. You may have built a straw man to represent the gun owner in your mind.
I’m trying to understand the point of your post. The LEO is clearly an out of control asshole that needs to be fired, but when we have an armed society that means every traffic stop turns into a life or death situation. Just reaching into your pocket or glove compartment can be seen as threatening and the police pretty much have to always have their hand on their weapon as they approach a car.
This is the sort of shit that happens when gun-nuts decide carrying guns should be as common as having a stick of gum in your pocket.
You were happy at the stifling of the latest, and for that matter every, bit of legislation that might actually have made any difference at all. You have done exactly jack to implement anything else. Your own actions show what you stand for, and your words don’t fucking matter. You are fooling no one but yourself and your fellow murder rights fanatics.
I’m not playing your stupid little game, as juvenile as your gun fetish. We both know.
One wouldn’t get them from you, would one?
Do you not think it’s more than zero? Or that many of those who do own shouldn’t be allowed to? Or that anyone, anyone at all, can become a murderer under the wrong circumstances, which include the availability of the weapon to do it with?
What is your definition, then? And how do compose a definition of moderate, or reasonable, or responsible that can not only withstand even the slightest scrutiny of a message board but include you as well?
This childish invective you so enjoy belongs back in fourth grade. It does not contribute to the image you would rather have of being moderate, or reasonable, or responsible. Quite the opposite, it indicates you to be so unable to control your emotional state as to be an unreasonable danger to others when allowed to touch a loaded firearm. Ponder that for a bit before you reply.
You are missing the point. It’s not so the elite feel safe, it’s so the public feels safe when dealing with the police. I don’t want every traffic stop turned into a tense situation where the police officer has to have his hand on his gun and I need to watch every move I make in case I do something that may seem threatening.
In the UK, the cops don’t generally carry guns so things can’t escalate as fast. It’s like the Trayvon Martin case. Once you introduce a gun into a situation things can go very wrong.
I keep my wallet in my cargo pants lower pocket. I keep my insurance card under the passenger’s seat. Since many cops in NY state and in NJ are wired as well as being video’d, I always say VERY LOUDLY and CLEARLY, " May I remove my wallet? It is in THIS pants pocket? Do you want me to put my hand there to take it out? "
I know they’re wired. That evidence has to skew in MY favor when something terrible happens. If I was painfully clear in my movements and pre-movement statements, the cop who does something to me who cannot then control the evidence recorded proving what he/ she did or did not do is in a pickle.
And yes, that’s really how I deal with LEO’s. They can, at any given moment, take out their gun and kill me, my wife and my children and there’s really nothing to be done about that. Don’t believe me? Watch the video linked in # 2484…
Other than the AWB, I don’t remember being against any proposed gun control legilsation. Could you remind me with a cite to where I was happy at stifling the latest gun control legislation? I did have a “I told you so” moment when the background check bill went down because you guys shot yourselves in the foot with the AWB. So if you havea cite, that you be great.
pPaying my little game? Asking for a cite is pretty standard operating procedure around here. This is the pit so you are welcome to ignore the request. Its not like you can damage your credibility any more than you already have.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Dude, you’re frothing at the mouth and the words you write don’t make much sense when you string them together the way you have. But if your question is whether lawful gun owners EVER flip out and kill people, then sure it happens, just in such small numbers that your protrayal of the average gun murderer as some guy that flips out is almost entirely fiction.
So what percentage of gun murders do you think are committed by people who are legally allowed to won that gun?
You make it sound like you think that merely owning a gun indicates that you are not moderate in some way.
I think most gun owners fall into the category of moderate and it would be easier to define what is NOT moderate.
Wait?!? What?!?! Are you accusing me of hurling invectives? Do you even know what that word means? INVECTIVE Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Now go back and read your own posts in light of that definition. You embarass your side of the debate and reinforce the notion that your side of the debate is populated by idiots.
You think cops are scared of the law abiding gun owner?
Do you think that getting rid of CCW would make it harder for the felons to get their hands on guns?
Yes, guns are particularly lethal. Most gun owners would tell you, thats a feature not a bug.
Are you trying to imply that there is some sort of epidemic of previously law abiding gun owners going on gun rampages. What percentage of gun deaths are the result of the sort of scenario you present? Does it even matter to you that the overwhelming majority of gun mudrders are committed by people who were not legally allowed to own those guns?
Asked and self-answered. :rolleyes: What other gun control legislation has there been that you approved of? Here’s a hint: NONE. You’ve been an ardent pro-murder-rights fetishist all along.
No doubt you have some figures to cite on that. But bear in mind that by doing so you’re also claiming there is an acceptable level greater than zero.
The choice of word was your own. Do you have a definition, or set of characteristics, to offer us, or are you content to let it be defined for you?
Go right ahead. I would include, for one thing, a failure to laugh off the ridiculous “defense against tyranny” stuff. That does exclude you, but that’s your problem.
Now you can’t even remember your own damn posts from this very day. Fortunately, they’re right above, easily scrollable.
It’s the gun carrryers on the verge of, or past, being law abiding that gives them concern for their own lives, fool. What sort of situations do you think cops get into?
Obviously it makes it harder for them to be concealed, and therefore creates less risk for cops. Duh.
They’re in the news almost every day, tragically. Yet you *oppose *doing anything substantive about it, don’t kid yourself.
The AWB was retarded both politically and practically. People who support an AWB are generally (1) stupid/ignorant or (2) more interested in making a statement than making a difference.
I didn’t think the Manchin/Toomey bill was offensive. I wasn’t too upset it got defeated because it was not likey to be particularly effective at accomplishing anything. I keep telling you what I think will work and you keep pretending that I am not proposing anything but you keep ignoring it.
I’ve already provided these cites (I do so every few pages when you ask the same question over and over again, you seem to have the memory of a hamster) but when you start providing the cites I requested, I will dig up my old cites and give them to you again.
The acceptability of a non-zero number of legal gun owners who flip out and murder people is dependent on what good if any arises from the ownership of guns by those owners that don’t flip out and murder people. You can’t only look at one side of the equation; that would be like looking at abortions as the death of a fetus without looking at the life altering effects of a pregnancy to the woman. The studies are fairly clear that there are some benefits to private gun ownership in the form of lives saved, and crimes averted. Are you claiming that there are no benefits to private gun ownership?
Well, technically MtM the term moderate. I simply accepted his use of the word in its commonly accepted sense. You seem to need definitions for comonly understood concepts like moderate and it seems like the reason you need this word defined is because you don’t think ther is such a thing as a moderate gun owner.
I think anyone that thinks that tyranny is at our doorstep is probably just mad that a black guy is president. But we have all sorts of checks in place that really only make sense is a world that looks very different from what it looks like now. I don’t think I will ever need to rise up against my government, and I don’t think my kids or their kids will either but society can go to shit in a hurry. It wasn’t that long ago when we were staring into the abyss of total economic collapse and conservatives were doing everything they could to make it happen. I can imagine several scenarios where financial collapse leads to authoritarian government and perhaps that authoritarian government will even be necessary for a while to maintain law and order. I can also imagine that government finding some reason to maintain its authoritarian rule long after it is no longer necessary.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy you halfwit, maybe you should roll back and see who started hurling invectives you fucktard. You’re an embarassment to liberals and the best thing you can do for your cause is shut up and carry whatever signs your friends give you at the march. Just rest easy in the knowledge that your liberal instincts will be right 90% of the time and don’t bother thinking too hard, you’re not good at it.
Wrong. Cops are scared of pulling over a criminal that has a gun not some law abiding gun owner. Law abiding gun owners don’t shoot cops.
How the fuck do CCW laws help criminals conceal their weapons? Will they suddenly open carry if we repeal the conceal carry laws? :dubious:
You do realize that places with conceal carry do not have higher incidences of gun violence and people with ccw tend to have lower rates of gun violence than the general population, don’t you?
Yeah? So what eprcentage of gun murders are committed by perviously law abiding gun owners? You have no idea do you?
And what puzzles me is how anti gun control folks reach the opposite conclusion from that stat (if indeed it is true).
To me, the obvious conclusion is that all transfers of guns should require a background check and all guns should be registered. How else do we know if the felon turned in his guns?