Shootings in Tucson

[Thales750]

I can point you to facts that show concealed carry permits lead to less crime: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

I have guns and ammunition. If any of you would like to confiscate my guns and ammunition, please stand in a single file line. I will be happy to surrender my ammunition to you, at a distance, one round at a time. When I run out of ammunition to surrender, I will happily turn over my weapon and allow you to take possession of it butt / stock first via your forehead. If you fail to retain possession of the weapon properly, I will try again until you can no longer accept the transfer or there is no more of you in line.

My guns are not just for hunting. They work well when an intruder in my home has a severe lead deficiency, a thug on decides to attack me or someone I 'm with or a member of law enforcement decides the law no longer applies to them and they are inclined to oppress my family or myself. And Yes, the Supreme court has upheld the last one so you libtard anti-gun, law enforcement can do no wrong idoits can shut it. I know good cops, I have taken a hit for an off duty cop who was recognized by someone he arrested so No, I am not against all law enforcement, just the crooked ones.
In addition to the right to free speech, I have the right to keep and bear arms. This right was secured to ensure the people were able and ready to defend the nation from any enemy, whether it is a foreign government, our a domestic attack.
This attack in Tuscon was not a focused political assasination attempt; it was a rampage by a sick individual. If more people carried their guns, the bastard could have been turned into swiss cheese before he got a round off.

Mostly wrong as usual,

If you were half as smart as you believe, then it would occur to you that preaching to the uneducated choir has no real value.

The people do have the right to bear arms, as has been proven in a recent Supreme Court case, making it more difficult for local jurisdictions to ban firearms.

But in your case it would seem that only two things will come from your frantic arguments.
1. Other unintelligent psychotic lunatics will listen to you and kill some more innocent people or
2. You will fuel the fire to continue making gun control a national issue.

Guns aren’t going away, why spew such irrelevant hate words?

It sounds like you are secretly applauding the deaths in Arizona as a way to keep the country away from the liberals.

If he were a Muslim, you would be the first to condemn this as a jihad, and of course, by proxy, a condemnation to all Muslims, and this could be your rally cry.


Anyway, you do not do your cause any good, you merely exist to herald for your betters.

 

[Thales750]

I also think that the crime rate would be increaseing whether there was a gun ban or not, we just seem to be living in a more violent time, in my opinion due to wishy washy liberals in parliament and the courts.

Brian

Actually the US crime rate has been declining for some years now.

 

[Alc]

I may have missed this point too - but why would the pro gun looby use th 600,000 for their benefit?

Surely the anti , claim thats 600,000 in the hands of criminals that wouldn't have been , if legally held guns were less common theres less to steal?


I wonder if the US is better or worse placed to suffer from a Mumbai type attack. That may change the issue somewhat.

They can't, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

A figure of 600,000 (when referring to thefts of legally owned guns) is seen as tiny by those who claim that most guns crime is committed by those who own guns illegally. People make their own guns, they come from Mexico, etc. etc. The fact that those 600,000 would not be available to criminals in the fiurst place if guns weren't legal is not worth considering as (presumably?) they represent such a small percentage of all ths guns out there. If they represented the majority of guns used by criminals, it would be one hell of strong argument against gun ownership.

If that 600,000 were, instead, the number of people who could be proved to be saved by guns each year it would be considerede a far greater figure and would be at the forefront of the pro gun lobby's argument.

 

[Alc]

Try again genius, the spelling and grammer are faultless.

Oh the irony.

 

[Alc]

Yes We call them politicians

Which ties in nicely to Thales' ealier comment
"DC has much more crime than its neighbor Virginia."

 

[Insane_ai]

ALC: Nice Catch, on grammer (grammar). I see the joke was not lost.

Thales750: Please do not project your own insecurities, prejudices and ignorance upon me; your accusations and summary are invalid.
"Other unintelligent psychotic lunatics will listen to you and kill some more innocent people" - WRONG. A Psychotic person would kill themselves. A Psychopath would kill others.

"You will fuel the fire to continue making gun control a national issue." - Gun Control has been a national issue for a long time now.

You obviously presume to know people and their motivation without evidence. You make allegations simply to distract from the real issue because you know your position is wrong and cannot defend it with logic or evidence. Enjoy being a left wingnut that survives on red herring.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Enjoy being a left wingnut that survives on red herring.

If Thales is a left wingnut then I must be one of those socialist, marxist, facist people I hear so much about.

 

[Thales750]

Which ties in nicely to Thales' ealier comment
"DC has much more crime than its neighbor Virginia."

That's very funny, sorry i didn't come up with the irony myself. Hats off to you.

 

[Thales750]

Thales750: Please do not project your own insecurities, prejudices and ignorance upon me; your accusations and summary are invalid.

The first accusation is that you’re are unintelligent, let the record stand on that one.
Did you or did you not automatically assume an Islam origin to the shootings in Fort Hood?

"Other unintelligent psychotic lunatics will listen to you and kill some more innocent people" - WRONG. A Psychotic person would kill themselves. A Psychopath would kill others.

Not to put to fine a point on it but I did mean INSANE.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Difference-Between-Psychopathy--Psychotic-Disorders

"You will fuel the fire to continue making gun control a national issue." - Gun Control has been a national issue for a long time now.

Would you please inform me of any time during this National Debate, that hate speech has aided the cause for freedom to bear arms?

You obviously presume to know people and their motivation without evidence. You make allegations simply to distract from the real issue because you know your position is wrong and cannot defend it with logic or evidence. Enjoy being a left wingnut that survives on red herring.

The evidence that you are an insane right winger comes from the fact that you call me a liberal wingnut, when on this very issue you can read for yourself that I support the right to bear arms.

Further the only way to insure the protection of this right is through the just legislation and administration of law. In other words the only reason someone would be attempting to disarm you is if you are in the commencement of a crime. So then your reaction would be to shoot them. Your words are all that is needed to convince rational people that guns should be confiscated.

 

[Vassago]

I also think that the crime rate would be increaseing whether there was a gun ban or not, we just seem to be living in a more violent time, in my opinion due to wishy washy liberals in parliament and the courts.

Brian

We're not living in a more violent time. I think access to violent stories and information has just become so much easier, news travels faster and further than before. Statistically speaking, it's not more violent now than it was 50 years ago, crime has actually gone down. That same technology that allows you to get news faster also allows criminals to be caught easier. Forensics and DNA from as little as one human cell is fairly common nowadays. You used to need much more to even match a blood type.

 

[Insane_ai]

In other words the only reason someone would be attempting to disarm you is if you are in the commencement of a crime.

- Try telling that one to the gun owners of New Orleans during Katrina. The National Guard confiscated weapons as they cleared the houses leaving the residents defenseless against the looters.

My original post was in response to those that wanted to restrict the ownership of weapons to police and military personnel. You blew it out of proportion and began personal attacks, I simply responded.

Re: grammar & spelling ..."Further the only way to insure [ensure] the protection of this right is through the just legislation and administration of law." - Wrong again. The Congress could repeal the second amendment completely; how do you defend the right then? With force.

"Would you please inform me of any time during this National Debate, that hate speech has aided the cause for freedom to bear arms?" - I never suggested that hate speech would further the cause, I simply stated that any attempt to disarm me would result in a violent reaction as I defend my rights. I made no threats, accusations, prejudiced comments, or commentary encouraging others to violence in any of my comments.

"The first accusation is that you’re are unintelligent, let the record stand on that one."

The fact that I am able to communicate with you negates your claim. Let the record stand on that one.


"Did you or did you not automatically assume an Islam origin to the shootings in Fort Hood?"
1. That topic is irrelevant to this discussion.
2. A muslim shooter screaming alahu achbar while killing people suggests an influence from islam. Maybe I'm wrong on this one but generally speaking, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

"The evidence that you are an insane right winger comes from the fact that you call me a liberal wingnut, when on this very issue you can read for yourself that I support the right to bear arms."

For your information, I am a political conservative and a social liberal which apparently makes me a Libertarian according to www.politicalcompass.org. If you support the right to bear arms, why would argue against the use of them to protect that right or attack someone who declares their willingess to defend and exercise it?

For the Moderators: Heated debate on forums is healthy. This gives people a place to have their disagreements peacefully. I am obviously not a fan of Thales750 but I respect his right to have a different opinion. Your warnings have been duly noted. If you do not want to have debate like this on the forum, why do you have a Politics & Current Events section?

 

[Thales750]

Being a fan of mine on this issue is irrelevant (This is not one of my voting issues). But I'm sure I can further your dislike as time goes on.

 

[Vassago]

For the Moderators: Heated debate on forums is healthy. This gives people a place to have their disagreements peacefully. I am obviously not a fan of Thales750 but I respect his right to have a different opinion. Your warnings have been duly noted. If you do not want to have debate like this on the forum, why do you have a Politics & Current Events section?

Making a warning public is not to your best advantage, but I'll explain more clearly. Heated debates are fine, personal attacks, like calling a specific member of the forum a name, is not. I think this is pretty easy to understand.

Let's try to keep the personal attacks off of this forum. They only seem to make someone's arguments invalid when they resort to such tactics. This is still a professional forum and even in an actual political debate, personal attacks would not be tolerated.

 

[Brianwarnock]

We're not living in a more violent time. I think access to violent stories and information has just become so much easier, news travels faster and further than before. Statistically speaking, it's not more violent now than it was 50 years ago, crime has actually gone down. That same technology that allows you to get news faster also allows criminals to be caught easier. Forensics and DNA from as little as one human cell is fairly common nowadays. You used to need much more to even match a blood type.

50 years ago I was 19, I walked the streets without fear, we did not have random shootings, few random muggings infact I don't think the term was invented, our back door was often left unlocked. Sure there were violent people and violent crime, but I do not believe that the average Joe walked in as much fear as now, and that fear is real because the thuggery is real.

Some crime figures are down because security is better, car security being an obvious example. Crime stats may be down, that does not mean that for the average person the society is less violent.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

50 years ago I was 19, I walked the streets without fear, we did not have random shootings, few random muggings infact I don't think the term was invented, our back door was often left unlocked. Sure there were violent people and violent crime, but I do not believe that the average Joe walked in as much fear as now, and that fear is real because the thuggery is real.

Some crime figures are down because security is better, car security being an obvious example. Crime stats may be down, that does not mean that for the average person the society is less violent.

Brian

You have a point there. It's most likely a combination of all of these things that gives the appearance of more crime, when really, it's just technology in security, information, forensics, and statistics have gotten much better.

 

[Rich]

50 years ago I was 19, I walked the streets without fear, we did not have random shootings, few random muggings infact I don't think the term was invented, our back door was often left unlocked. Sure there were violent people and violent crime, but I do not believe that the average Joe walked in as much fear as now, and that fear is real because the thuggery is real.

Some crime figures are down because security is better, car security being an obvious example. Crime stats may be down, that does not mean that for the average person the society is less violent.

Brian

We've become Americanised, what with gun crime, a sue all culture et.,etc.

 

[Vassago]

We've become Americanised, what with gun crime, a sue all culture et.,etc.

Pretty soon you'll be watching Nascar... and liking it!

(I hate Nascar, for the record lol)

 

[Kryst51]

Pretty soon you'll be watching Nascar... and liking it!

(I hate Nascar, for the record lol)

And College football......

 

[Vassago]

And College football......

We may even send everyone with a Southern accent over there to make it stick.

 

[Kryst51]

We may even send everyone with a Southern accent over there to make it stick.

If you send a Texan they would only make them watch the Aggies (Texas A&M) or the Longhorns (University of Texas), depending on who was talking..... but accent wise anyone from the South would do...