0
kallend

Yet another nutter with a gun

Recommended Posts

Quote

If the gun is within reach, the drunken idiot full of anger will use it to kill his family (or his cattle [:/]).



AHA! I think we're on to something here. I propose a solution while were on the topic of "banning" things that cause harm.

If this booze and guns mixture is so deadly - we should confiscating and restricting booze...it would be easier and more sensible because booze isn't covered by the 2nd ammendment. Booze creates drunk driving deaths, death by health disease, death by violence, and a whole lot of other bad things.

Bring back Prohibition!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Now...exactly how do you plan on removing 290 million guns from the U.S. population? I'm not giving mine back - so now you have 289,999,994 to account for...what's the plan?



There are several possible working implementations. If you're interested, you might check how did it work in other countries around the world.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


This is how you support your arguements - with a wave of citations you apparently don't actually read



And then ignoring any data that proves him wrong. He also uses "new" math. If more than one person shares the same view... They are in fact only one person and their opinion only counts as one.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Facts are obvious, these are deadly shootings, effected by persons with weapons



Yep... And in every single case the weapon didn't do the shooting.

I do find this funny from a person who admits to breaking Federal Law and completing a straw purchase in Florida in the 2000

"I bought a hand gun in Fort Lauderdale in '00 by just by showing my credit card"--christelsabine

No matter that the law requiring paperwork has been in place since 1968, and a MANDATORY 3day wait has been in place in FL since May 5, 1991.

Then of course you just changed your story:

"The guy in the Fort Lauderdale shop just asked me if I have cash, no need for a credit card."

So you either:

A. Lied
B. Participated in an illegal transaction.

So which is it?

And why did you buy a gun in the US if you only need them for hunting?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Where is your PROOF that would happen? You keep demanding proof from others, so don't be mad when we hold you to that same standard.



After so many explanations you still cannot understand that you can only prove something which happened/happening (or not happened/happening), not what would or would not happen? To make it easier for you to grasp, you cannot prove that if you were in VA tech with your gun, you would stop Cho. And nobody can prove that you wouldn't either. When you talk about something which may or may not happen, you can only talk about probability. One demanding any kind of proof that it would actually happen appears to either having no idea what "proof" is, or deliberately playing "no proof" card while clearly understanding that

Quote


And the proof is they clearly were for the Jews.



You only provided proof that the guns were banned for German Jews well before WWII, while most things happened to them already. You did not provide proof that Jews or other nations from other countries (those who were significantly more affected during WWII) were banned from guns being banned, thus making your point irrelevant. And you still claim you proved anything relevant to the discussion?

Quote


I would tell them to blame the criminal, not the item. Just like I would not blame GM for a drunk driver.



This is not about blame, this is about prevention, so your reply is irrelevant at most as it says nothing about how to prevent further similar crime.

Quote


No, I would not tell them to be "happy".



So what would you tell them instead? How would you explain that your right to keep (and lose without penalties) your guns is more important to you that lives of thirty people, most if not all of whom would be alive if Cho did not get a gun?

Quote


England's gun crime is UP. Which goes to show criminals will not abide by a ban.



I already proved that England gun crime is going DOWN using the official Home Office statistics, and the significant number of reported gun crimes are caused by "imitation weapons" or BB guns which weren't illegal before the gun ban. So where is your proof?

Quote


Lame...... And seen right through.
"No, I just ignore Ron posts" --georgerussia.



And the second time you yet again ignored the follow-up question. I will repeat it again: You have said it clear that since there was zero reference to time frame in my phrase, you assumed this phrase would mean that I would never reply to his posts. However you conveniently ignored the follow-up question: if someone says "I believe in God", do you interpret it as the person now must believe in God for the eternity because there is also zero reference to time frame? If you do, then this is against English grammar rules, and if you don't, then this would mean you intentionally misinterpreted my words to further insult me, because you have no real facts to back your position up. Tough choice, yeah?

Quote


Uh, the only one "debating" me is you and Kallend.



Everyone else apparently does not consider it worthy. I would too, but I have some time to kill while my test suites are executed after the software changes, and it take a while. This is the only reason I'm still discussing anything with you, as none of us gonna change their opinion anyway.

Quote


You have 4-5 guys telling you that you are wrong and providing data to support their positions.



This is the same "data" you provide - which is either irrelevant to the discussion, or not "data" but just your interpretation of data.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Bow and Arrow, Long staff weapon, ever see a mailbox after it has been hit by a baseball bat in a game of "mail box baseball"? So, lots of weapons.



So why aren't those drive-through baseballings happening in Europe, where criminals are significantly restricted in their ability to get weapons and should have reverted to other weapons then?

Quote


WE have not discussed anything. And I have read those discussions and YOU have not provided anything to support your position. Please explain why violent crime rates and gun crimes are going UP in the UK.



Please provide proof that they are going up.

Quote


Do your own research...



I'll remember and remind you about that when you claim another time that you "provided facts, references and data".

Quote

***
However try to get, for example, some Army explosives or Cyanide gas, and I'd see how would it work.


You need to do some more research.


I knew you'd have nothing to say. So much for "providing facts".

Quote


Really?



Really. I can't believe Berkeley police has no idea that a bunch of people are pretty much openly selling drugs in downtown. Couple of arrests while virtually everyone knows where to buy stuff is not "enforcing the ban" at all.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


No, you called the idiots. I asked if the people who got their car stolen were stupid.
"Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible."



I know it's a long word, pretty hard to read, but at least you should have tried instead of reverting to cherry-picking only those words you understand.

Quote


Your English needs work



And I'm not denying that. As I said, it's my fourth language basically acquired six or so years ago, so I'm not claiming proficiency.

However you claimed that a phrase "with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident" mean "they should have been be stopped" (and even went so far as claiming you "proved me 100% wrong"). This is also despite the obvious rationale that in any subjective matter nobody can ever be 100% right or 100% wrong, and it is just brazen to claim that.

You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And you repeatedly ignored my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule.

Let those without sin cast the first stone. You are not.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was just speculating that if guns were unavailable a crossbow could be used. If they are unavailable one could probably be easy to make.



I understood that. However this theory is not supported by real-life experience. There is indeed a lot of countries where guns are pretty much unavailable (and crossbows are available), and I was not able to find a single case where someone was murdered with a crossbow in a drive-through shooting. Since my experience with a crossbow is limited to a game "No one lives forever", I'd speculate it is not that easy to shot someone with a crossbow to death from a moving vehicle, and that the chance of such shooting to be lethal is significantly lower comparing to a gun.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Not a single one of these is a case of drivers in a parking lot turning some piddling slight into a shooting.



Before claiming a BS you should have checked what exactly we were talking about. It was not about drivers shooting.

Quote


The first one was a drug deal busted by cops.



A criminal trying to shot the cops got shot in a parking lot. My speculation is that he shot at cops and got shot back, but I admit the article doesn't state that directly.

Quote


The second had unknown circumstances, but the shooter and the victim knew each other.



Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot?
Why does it matter if they knew each others?

Quote


The third was a hit by a masked man.



Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot?

Quote


The fourth may not even have a parking lot, took place at an apartment complex, virtually no known facts.



Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot?
The "may" part is your speculation not supported by the fact. He was found dead in a parking lot, so it is much more reasonable to assume he was shot there unless we have information which states otherwise.

Quote


In the 5th, the 15 yo boy was shot near school and ran back to the parking lot. Again, no business in this conversation.



It's not clear whether he was actually shot on a parking lot, as the article clearly says he collapsed on a parking lot, and the shooting was captured by school cameras. So while this is my assumption, it is based on the article.

Quote


And in the last one, another apartment complex shooting with no details known.



Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot?

Quote


This is how you support your arguements - with a wave of citations you apparently don't actually read, just like the one that points out that DC continues to be a city rife with violent crime.



This is how you present your counter-argument - through misinterpretation and misreading, and trying to invalidate the gun crimes happened using some irrelevant comments like "it happened in apartment complex parking lot", like it doesn't make it a crime.

Quote


How did 99% of drivers survive without airbags? How did most skydivers survive without AADs?



You're comparing apples with oranges. How many murders criminals committed with airbags or AADs? This would be valid comparison if your GF got a bodyguard, but not a gun.

Quote


Are you really so dense that you think one person's experience means there is no concern? Your picture suggests you're no small guy either. Maybe you need to get out of your frame of reference where you believe your choices guarantee you no danger.



Yes, in this case it indeed matters. It would show whether she really _needs_ this "viable option", or it's just you think that she needs it. As you know, violent crimes are committed in Houston as well, so it is obvious just having carrying people around does not stop criminals - so carrying is not an obvious solution against a crime.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Now...exactly how do you plan on removing 290 million guns from the U.S. population? I'm not giving mine back - so now you have 289,999,994 to account for...what's the plan?



There are several possible working implementations. If you're interested, you might check how did it work in other countries around the world.



I've asked you for a singular example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Not a single one of these is a case of drivers in a parking lot turning some piddling slight into a shooting.



Before claiming a BS you should have checked what exactly we were talking about. It was not about drivers shooting.




Quote

Gun crime is more than hitmans and gang wars. It also includes those solving their disagreements in parking lots by shooting, those idiots shooting into air in front of Capitols, and those idiots which cannot lock up their guns from their children and let them shoot each others.




Fucking hilarious. Your examples included drug dealing and a hitman wearing a mask. The others suggested gang activity and retribution acts by criminal elements.

Let's do the lame grammar work. If you wanted to say that all shootings in parking lots are relevant here, you should write "solving their disagreements by shooting in parking lots." What you wrote, and what you meant to say until you couldn't support it, is that people who are having disagreements in parking lots (ie, random strangers, not gangsters and other criminals) would lose their temper and start shooting.

I think it's fair to go after parents who do not properly secure their weapons from their children. Parents have a higher standard of care then adult only households. (I do not agree with Kallend that it is their obligation to have 100% unstealable weapons in their private residence.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Fucking hilarious. Your examples included drug dealing and a hitman wearing a mask.



You obviously understood that the list I provided was not all-inclusive, don't you?

Quote


What you wrote, and what you meant to say...



Unless you have a working mind reader, I'd say it is pretty naive for you to tell me what I meant to say. Please address what I actually said, not what you think I wanted to say, and please ask clarifications if you don't understand the point.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I've asked you for a singular example.



You asked? I thought it was tsisson. Is it your another account?



Yes, I asked, and quite clearly. Post 197.

"You can cite an example where there was a ratio of 1 gun per person where they then successfully removed them from the equation and crime (not gun crime) went down markedly? Outside of a country that just finished a war within its borders, pretty unlikely. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, I asked, and quite clearly. Post 197.

"You can cite an example where there was a ratio of 1 gun per person where they then successfully removed them from the equation and crime (not gun crime) went down markedly? Outside of a country that just finished a war within its borders, pretty unlikely. "



This is a completely different question comparing to what you asked here (see the tsisson quote you replied to), which was HOW to remove the guns.

Your other question has been already answered at least twice, the most recent being post #200.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yes, I asked, and quite clearly. Post 197.

"You can cite an example where there was a ratio of 1 gun per person where they then successfully removed them from the equation and crime (not gun crime) went down markedly? Outside of a country that just finished a war within its borders, pretty unlikely. "



This is a completely different question comparing to what you asked here (see the tsisson quote you replied to), which was HOW to remove the guns.

Your other question has been already answered at least twice, the most recent being post #200.



I see no relevant example there. (hint: Europe isn't)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Facts are obvious, these are deadly shootings, effected by persons with weapons



Yep... And in every single case the weapon didn't do the shooting.

I do find this funny from a person who admits to breaking Federal Law and completing a straw purchase in Florida in the 2000

"I bought a hand gun in Fort Lauderdale in '00 by just by showing my credit card"--christelsabine

No matter that the law requiring paperwork has been in place since 1968, and a MANDATORY 3day wait has been in place in FL since May 5, 1991.

Then of course you just changed your story:

"The guy in the Fort Lauderdale shop just asked me if I have cash, no need for a credit card."

So you either:

A. Lied
B. Participated in an illegal transaction.

So which is it?

And why did you buy a gun in the US if you only need them for hunting?



Why do YOU buy guns? Only for hunting when hungry?

Yep, I bought a gun. Like many others did and still do. Even aliens.

Do not tell me that every gun shop is working properly and according to law requirements. THAT would be a lie.

The shop owner wanted to see cash (instead of a credit card deal, of course).

And now you tell me: Where is the connection to actual thread, please? Or are you just fishing for arguments? *Solid* arguments like that one from your post?

"And in every single case the weapon didn't do the shooting."

That's a punchy argument?? It needs little brain to realize it's just moronic.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If the gun is within reach, the drunken idiot full of anger will use it to kill his family (or his cattle [:/]).



yeah... that right there makes me take you seriously.

yeah...


Yes, you should. It's happening in your country on a daily basis.

That is a serious matter. Even the story with the cattle. :S

:|

dudeist skydiver # 3105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see no relevant example there. (hint: Europe isn't)



It is right there, under your question. How could you miss it? I'll even quote it for you:

Each crime requires different measures to lower it. For example more auditing on Medicare would reduce insurance fraud and will have no effect on gun crimes or DUI. Increasing DUI penalty and implementing "sobriety tests" will lower the number of drunk drivers and will have no effect on insurance fraud and gun crime. Restricting guns will lower the gun crime, and will have no effect on insurance fraud and DUIs. Different crimes require different approaches, and while there is no single approach to lower ALL the crime at the same time, focusing on lowering specific crimes works really well.

In short, gun restrictions are supposed to lower gun crime. They are not supposed to lower insurance fraud or DUI. For those types of crime other measures are needed.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0