Yet another nutter with a gun

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

OK. It's a matter of crime, not of the tool. Let's see:

Don't ban guns. It's a matter of people, killing people. Not guns. Guns don't kill.

Don't ban texting/phoning/w/cell phones. It's a matter of people. Not cell phones. Cell phones don't cause deadly car crashes. Clearly.

Despite your sarcasm, you've actually got it correct, by accident.

We shouldn't ban all cell phones, because they are used for a lot of good.
Just like guns.
We should only outlaw and punish the irresponsible and dangerous usage of them.
Just like guns.
Clearly.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

We should just ban people.

So if the Feds come knocking at your door, all the anti gun folks should just go quietly. After all they would not want to risk hurting the Fed who has come to take them to their new home.

BTW ...

I watched something on Ruby Ridge last night and it was a real eye opener. I remember hearing about it on the mainstream media back in 1992 but I never paid much attention to the actual story outside of what the mainstream media fed me. Without a doubt Randy Weaver and his family were not your typical American family. Mr Weaver did things and has views that I do not share. He made the mistake of attending some gatherings with some people who were even more mixed up than him. But he was not the homicidal anarchist skinhead the mainstream media made him out to be. He just wanted to distance himself from the Feds, and did not want to attend the court hearings for the petty crime the Feds tricked him into committing. It was the Feds who tried to blackmail him into being their snitch. It was the Feds who trespassed on his property, it was the Feds who fired the first shots. It is debatable whether or not the 14 year old son Sam Weaver should have fired back, but WTF were the Feds doing shooting little Sam in the back as he ran up the hill (after they initially wounded him), WTF were the US Marshals doing lying to the FBI saying their were under seige WTF was the FBI thinking when they fatally shot Vicky Weaver in the head while she held her infant daughter in her arms.

I am not impressed with how the US Marshals and the FBI conducted themselves at Ruby Ridge, but I am even more disgusted with the mainstream media who lied to the world back in 1992. They painted this family as extreme homicidal anarchists when in reality what you has was a backwoods family who wanted to be left alone, but the Feds just would not mind their own business.

Do not trust anything that the mainstream media says without doing a little research into the subject.

Now back on topic ... I am sure someone will dissect everything text bite that is said above looking for something to criticize. Just remember one thing, free speech is not free. Many people have paid the ultimate price so that we can gather here and tell the world we are right and the other guy is wrong.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[vanair 0]

read it before you judge it

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

read it before you judge it

Dude, I *told* you...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vanair 0]

yeah your right, too bad he gets to vote

[Ron 7]

Quote

We are not talking about blame. We are talking about prevention

Fine then you tact makes as much sense as preventing future drive by shootings by taking away the cars.

Quote

and it makes your rant irrelevant unless you can provide a workable solution how to prevent criminals to commit crimes

Your solution does not prevent criminals from committing crimes. It only attempts to prevent them from possessing *items*.... Criminals will still commit crimes.

Also, your solution is not workable... Gun bans don't prevent criminals from getting guns, and you have admitted that.

One workable solution is MUCH stricter punishments for gun CRIME... FL has a 10/20/life rule. Have a gun when you commit a crime 10 years. Pull it out, 20 years, shoot someone life.

This punishes the ACTIONS, not the items.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

I have provided a lot of links and references to support my position

So have I... you just ignore them

Like your claim (BTW where is your "proof" to back this claim up?):

Quote

It depends. For example, if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair.

Which I provided proof was nothing but BS from you.

People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday

So *I* have provided proof to debunk your claims... You have just brought BS claims.

Such as this one:

Quote

I never knew guns were banned during WWII.

And in 1938 there were gun laws that banned them for the Jews, and I provided PLENTY of data to back that position. You then tried to lamely claim you "were only talking about WW2".... Well, you do know that the law went into effect in 1938 and was still in effect till the end of WW2 right?

Quote

1. I reply with facts

No, you reply with insults and wishes people's families are hurt.

"you're so amazingly full of yourself "--georgerussia

"let's see what you will say when it is YOUR CHILD AND WIFE who are killed by the next Cho"--georgerussia.

Quote

2. I want to protect everyone from crazy idiots with guns. You only care about yourself, and have no issues with other adults and children dying because of those stupid gun crimes as long as you can keep your loved guns. It is obvious you value someone's life much less than your gun, and therefore it would be just fair if you are treated the same way as you treat others.

This just shows you do not have the cognitive ability to understand rational discussions. And is a prime example of you not understanding the topic, nor any ones position on the topic and rather just making up a position.

Show ANY data that supports that claim... Go ahead, bring the PROOF you claim to bring that shows that as my position.

Your position is to ban the ITEM and ignore the criminal. That position has been proven to NOT WORK (prohibition, war on drugs, gun bans in other Country's). Yet you are unable to understand the complex issues and instead have to rely on the simplistic "guns are bad" mantra.

Quote

3. You have no problem writing outright lies which you almost never back up.

I have backed up everything, you have provided rants. Not only that but you outright LIE.

"No, I just ignore Ron posts" --georgerussia.

When busted, you make lame comments about a native speakers language skills:

Quote

Do you understand what "present time" mean [SIC], and did you check the date? Did it say "I will ignore all future posts of Ron?" Is English your native language?

BTW, it should read "Do you understand what "present time" mean(s)", and you should also notice that there is no time reference mentioned.

Still want to debate language skills? It seems the best that you can do when you have nothing else.

Quote

And this is obvious to every reasonable person around.

Have you noticed NO ONE is supporting you? Something is obvious, but the roles you hold in your head are just like all your other observations... Incorrect and not supported with data.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tsisson 0]

We can all drudge up statistics to support either side of the debate. Below is an example. Personally, for me it is about my freedom and right to protect myself and more importantly my family. I don't really care if someone has a problem with me owning firearms, or carrying them concealed. Whine and complain all you want, I'm not giving my guns back.

---------------------------------

All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25[3] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[4] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million[4] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[3] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[4] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[3] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[5] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[6] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[6] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[6] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[6]

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Actually, it's your bullshit scenario - you tell me how often it happens. Because I know it's an insignificant number, pulled out of your ass.

Why are you so rude? That was you who brought this 1% number into discussion, not me, and now you're claiming I need to tell you something? Get real.

You're the one blathering on about parking lot shootings that never happen.

Quote

3. Some pro-gun cities like Houston, Dallas and even San Antonio (I'm not even mentioning St. Louis, Memphis or Detroit) have much higher violent crime rate comparing to gun-restricted NYC. Baltimore has more violent crime than Washington DC. So pro-gun cities are not really safer as you try to imply.

Did you actually look at this data? It's not really a good sell for DC. #5 for murder. #6 for robbery. And that completely ignores its infamous past, with several years as the murder capital of the country.

Quote

And I believe that's better done by dramatically restricting the possibility for the criminals and to-be criminals to obtain a gun.

It's too late. They're here. Get off this fantasy solution that ignores 300M guns in circulation.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Personally, for me it is about my freedom and right to protect myself and more importantly my family. I don't really care if someone has a problem with me owning firearms, or carrying them concealed. Whine and complain all you want, I'm not giving my guns back.

Hopefully you wouldn't be surprised to get a reply like that: "Personally for me the number of idiots with guns seems to be too high for comfort, and since we cannot ban idiots, we need to ban guns. I don't care if someone wants to own or carry firearms. Whine and complain all you want, if the ban is there and you are carrying, you'll end up in jail. We can also start small - a tax like $1000/month per gun may be a good start, as 2nd amendment does not say anything about the right to bear arms for free, and Congress indeed has authority to establish new taxes".

Arrogant opinion provides adequate response, and since you gun owners are minority, IMHO you should exercise more caution because of your potential to turn gun-neutral people to anti-gun people.

Quote

Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;

(it would make sense to point out to the source you quoted)

And as I said several times, it is not enough to have strict rules - it is equally important to enforce them. It is absolutely useless to compare just the laws in books without taking enforcement into account. Brazil (and Mexico) are poster child examples of that.

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

[tsisson 0]

Quote

Hopefully you wouldn't be surprised to get a reply like that: "Personally for me the number of idiots with guns seems to be too high for comfort, and since we cannot ban idiots, we need to ban guns. I don't care if someone wants to own or carry firearms. Whine and complain all you want, if the ban is there and you are carrying, you'll end up in jail. We can also start small - a tax like $1000/month per gun may be a good start, as 2nd amendment does not say anything about the right to bear arms for free, and Congress indeed has authority to establish new taxes".

Arrogant opinion provides adequate response, and since you gun owners are minority, IMHO you should exercise more caution because of your potential to turn gun-neutral people to anti-gun people.

A question...do you feel all firearm owners are idiots? I can tell you, that I am not considered an idiot by any measure. I'm a well educated, professional, law abiding tax payer who votes.

If you take my attitude towards this whole debate as arrogance, then you have mistaken arrogance for exhaustion. You are obviously not moving off your position, just as I am not moving off of mine. I respect your right to fear firearms. Yes, I agree that they are very dangerous - that's exactly why I carry mine.

So - go ahead and get that gun tax legislation written up...good luck with that.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

A question...do you feel all firearm owners are idiots? I can tell you, that I am not considered an idiot by any measure. I'm a well educated, professional, law abiding tax payer who votes.

Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible. However 300K stolen guns a year is indicator that there is a lot of gun owners who are. And since it is not possible to find in advance who is and who is not, the restrictions should be implemented on everyone - pretty much like with any other restriction or measure.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible. However 300K stolen guns a year is indicator that there is a lot of gun owners who are.

Ah, so crime victims are idiots. You're good for a gem an hour, man.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Fine then you tact makes as much sense as preventing future drive by shootings by taking away the cars.

A car can easily be replaced by another mean of transportation, and it is impossible to ban all means of transportation (like a pair of legs). It is also impossible to ban shooters. It is, however, possible to ban guns they use to shoot, and it is not really possible to replace it with something. I already asked CanuckInUSA how many drive-through shootings happen in Canada, so once he's back maybe we see some rough numbers (even just based on news publications). My guess is that their numbers are significantly less, even though cars are not banned there.

Quote

Your solution does not prevent criminals from committing crimes. It only attempts to prevent them from possessing *items*.... Criminals will still commit crimes.

Also, your solution is not workable... Gun bans don't prevent criminals from getting guns, and you have admitted that.

It lowers the number of gun-related crimes significantly enough to be considered as a solution. Compare the number of school shootings in Europe versus USA - it is less, and CRIMINALS are still not banned in Europe!

Enforced gun bans prevent most criminals from getting guns. Those criminals who shot each others on a parking lot to resolve some arguments wouldn't be able to get guns (because before this shooting they were law abiding citizens). This criminal who shot into air in front of Capitol building wouldn't be able to get a gun, again being a law abiding citizen. The situation with gun crimes in Europe pretty much proves itself - gun restrictions work well to reduce gun-related crime.

Quote

One workable solution is MUCH stricter punishments for gun CRIME... FL has a 10/20/life rule. Have a gun when you commit a crime 10 years. Pull it out, 20 years, shoot someone life.

It has zero effect on shooters like Cho who are going to commit their only major crime and then shoot themselves. Like with terrorists, it is naive to expect that life sentence would stop someone from exploding the plane, it doesn't matter to them what the punishment is. So stricter punishments only work for some criminals. I'd agree however that stricter punishments for straw purchases and "lost" guns is indeed necessary, as 300K stolen guns each year (which go directly to criminals, since stealing a gun is already a serious crime) is quite large number which indicates that there is a lot of irresponsible gun owners around.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible. However 300K stolen guns a year is indicator that there is a lot of gun owners who are.

More than 1.2 million cars are reported stolen each year, are those people also stupid?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Ah, so crime victims are idiots.

I didn't say that. If that's what you think, what can I say?

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible. However 300K stolen guns a year is indicator that there is a lot of gun owners who are.

More than 1.2 million cars are reported stolen each year, are those people also stupid?

Best not to ask how stupid the women that get raped must be.

[Ron 7]

Quote

A car can easily be replaced by another mean of transportation, and it is impossible to ban all means of transportation (like a pair of legs). It is also impossible to ban shooters.

A gun can easily be replaced by another weapon, and it is impossible to ban all types of weapons (like a knife). It is also impossible to ban criminals.

Quote

It lowers the number of gun-related crimes significantly enough to be considered as a solution.

In your opinion, but you have no data to back that position up.

Quote

Enforced gun bans prevent most criminals from getting guns.

Prohibition did not work, drug bans did not work.... Yet you think somehow what has failed in the past suddenly will work? Not logical.

Quote

Enforced gun bans prevent most criminals from getting guns.

Data to back that position up?

Quote

It has zero effect on shooters like Cho who are going to commit their only major crime and then shoot themselves.

If VA had done their job correctly, Cho would have never been able to buy a weapon.

ALSO, you claim that criminals will be able to get guns if they really want them.... The same standard applies to guys like Cho. Just like I could get drugs if I really wanted, just like I can get fake Rolex's if I really wanted.

If somone wants it bad enough... Your idea of a ban is not going to stop anything.... Look at Mexico. They have strict bans and they have a gun problem.

How do your reconcile that with Mexico's gun ban, they have gun crime?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Like your claim (BTW where is your "proof" to back this claim up?):


Let's see. Here is what I said:
It depends. For example, if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair.

And here's your "proof" that what I said is wrong:
People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday

This would be correct proof if all other things were assumed to be the same (i.e. two persons having the same amount of money, one is disabled and one is not). However the situation I described assumed exactly the opposite, and this study does not address "expensive jewelry" - which is extremely important point here, as the criminal's profit is higher, thus compensating him for extra risk. Therefore your quote does not prove anything, as it is not relevant to the situation I described from the beginning - which I pointed out to you multiple times. You did not provide any evidence that the study is still relevant in this case, but you still keeping that BS that you allegedly "debunked" something.

Now let's see the next one:

Me: I never knew guns were banned during WWII. (we were discussing genocide committed during the WWII)

You: And in 1938 there were gun laws that banned them for the Jews

As I pointed out, this law banned guns for German Jews, and Kristallnacht happened at Nov 9, 1938 - BEFORE WWII. You are trying to mix genocide against German Jews (which were subject of this law) committed _before_ WWII with genocide of all Jews (most of whom weren't subject of this law since they didn't live in Germany) and other nations committed _during_ WWII. You also conveniently ignore genocide against Greeks, Yugoslavians (you do know about Tito?) and Slavic populations which indeed happened during WWII. Again, your comment was irrelevant, discussing something which happened outside the requested period. Yet again you claimed that you "proved" something.

Quote

No, you reply with insults and wishes people's families are hurt.

That's what you do. You do not want guns to be restricted even if children and women are dying because of that - just so you can keep your guns. Would you say that in front of parents of those killed by Cho? Would you tell them how should they be happy because there is 2nd amendment protecting your guns?

Quote

Your position is to ban the ITEM and ignore the criminal. That position has been proven to NOT WORK (prohibition, war on drugs, gun bans in other Country's).

This position has been proven to work - and it works pretty well in every country where the ban is in place, and is enforced. "War on drugs" is a lame example - when you see a black guy selling weed to strangers in Berkeley downtown it is quite obvious that this ban is not enforced. If you look on the countries like Singapore where this ban is actually enforced, the picture is completely different. This, however, does not suit your agenda so you're not going to do it.

Quote

I have backed up everything, you have provided rants. Not only that but you outright LIE.

You didn't. You just provided quite a bunch of irrelevant data in a failed attempt to cover-up the fact that you didn't really understand what the discussion was about.

Quote

Still want to debate language skills? It seems the best that you can do when you have nothing else.

Yes, I do. You have said that there is zero reference to time frame, and therefore you assumed this phrase would mean that I would never reply to your 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

Have you noticed NO ONE is supporting you?

Have you noticed NO ONE is supporting you either?

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

• Quote

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

More than 1.2 million cars are reported stolen each year, are those people also stupid?

Are you saying those gun owners who have their guns stolen are stupid? Wow. Even I didn't go so far, I only said that a lot of them are irresponsible to let their guns being stolen (and some of them are indeed idiots like this guy who shot outside Capitol). I believe this is also the case with cars - a lot of times I have seen a car left on a parking lot with the ignition keys inside and the engine running while the driver goes shopping/visiting ATM/paying for gas/whatever. However since most of those stolen cars are not used in violent crimes against others, it is not that much a problem. Not all stolen objects are equal threat - a stolen gun is more dangerous than a stolen car, and a stolen nuclear bomb is more dangerous than a stolen gun.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This position has been proven to work - and it works pretty well in every country where the ban is in place, and is enforced.

Heh - nothing circular about this claim! "They either prove my claim (actually correlation, but nevermind that) or they don't count."

Quote

You didn't. You just provided quite a bunch of irrelevant data in a failed attempt to cover-up the fact that you didn't really understand what the discussion was about.

ok, that was fucking hilarious. Though not in the manner you intended.

Quote

Have you noticed NO ONE is supporting you either?

Uh, just about everyone here supports him. I'm not the type that feels the need to enter +1 after reposting his content. It stands fine on its own.

I don't support his bothering engaging you seriously though. Better things to do. We got Heller, you got a bunch of fantasies and made up facts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

More than 1.2 million cars are reported stolen each year, are those people also stupid?

Are you saying those gun owners who have their guns stolen are stupid? Wow. Even I didn't go so far, I only said that a lot of them are irresponsible to let their guns being stolen

Uh, you shouldn't lie about things that are clearly on the record:

Quote

Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible. However 300K stolen guns a year is indicator that there is a lot of gun owners who are.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Heh - nothing circular about this claim! "They either prove my claim (actually correlation, but nevermind that) or they don't count."

Not really. It would be the same as claiming that "speed limit laws do not work" because a lot of people drive 75 on freeways where the posted limit is 65.

Quote

Uh, just about everyone here supports him.

I'd suggest you speak for yourself, not for "everyone", and let others speak for themselves. But since you, mnealtx, Ron and JohnRich can be considered a single opponent on gun ownership matters - you basically copypaste each others, share the same arguments and are extremely intolerant to any opinion contradicting your own, it was pretty much expectable.

Quote

We got Heller, you got a bunch of fantasies and made up facts.

And we got CCW restrictions in CA, with hopefully more further restrictions on the way (like closing the gun show loophole).

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Of course not all firearm owners are idiots or irresponsible.

Do you read the complete sentences or only the first part?

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

[millertimeunc 0]

"...and are extremely intolerant to any opinion contradicting your own..."






Pot, meet kettle.

The best things in life are dangerous.