I walk into the house an hour ago – make a cup of tea – click on the TV and sit down to check out the day’s news. And this is what I see:
A person who shot 13 people Thursday at Northern Illinois University’s DeKalb campus outside Chicago has died, local reports said.
Most of the 13 wounded were shot in the head, said Theresa Comitas, spokeswoman for Kishwaukee Community Hospital, located about 10 minutes from the school…
A woman named Corrine described the scene to CLTV, saying she was “carried out” of Cole Hall by a “wave” of students running for their lives.
“When one of the kids said, ‘This guy is shooting!’ I just ran to the next building as fast as I could and hid in an empty classroom.”
You’ll get to see all the details, the final body count, on TV, tonight. All the “analysis” over the next week.
These types of crimes were around 20 years ago. You didn’t here about them because communication was not global. It just seems like more because it’s reported everywhere now. I still believe that kids are more safe today then when I was growing up 30 years ago. People are just paranoid now.
#54 Thomas
“If instead of students, the victims were off-duty police officers armed with handguns do you believe the body count would have been different?”
Yes I do think it might be higher but that would just be speculation. Just like you or anyone else saying that they would have stopped him. IT IS AN UN TESTABLE Scenario.
Police officers are shot and killed all the time Those are trained individuals with a loaded weapons. That fact is proof positive that being trained and having a loaded weapon is not a guarantee that you will stop the assailant or survive. I wish people would stop pretending that it is. IT ISN’T!!!!!!!!
“You are forgetting the school-wide ban on carrying handguns. Thus, all those licensed gun owners made no difference since they were unarmed.”
You must be uninformed about that which you speak. There were “licensed individuals” (POLICE) with guns running around on the VT campus while the asshat was still shooting people. Did you not watch the news footage? Again there is not one piece of evidence either way that the ban would have changed anything. Nothing but speculation
“An excellent question for which there is an excellent answer”
Boy you think a lot of yourself don’t you?
“they are wholly ill-equipped to protect everyone everywhere. ”
I agree. Two things on that. Did you bother to read what I wrote? You can’t stop every asshat that wants to kill people. Not with more guns. Not with more police. Not with anything!! The real problem isn’t guns or the lack thereof. But it is just like a gun nut to try and solve the problem once it has reached the end. I bet you think it is better for uninsured people to just show up at the hospital for that heart bypass instead of getting the lower cost meds that could have prevented the problem in the first place. Typical!!
“If you want to find how ill-equipped the police are to solve crime, try reporting a robbery some day”
LOL I have and they caught the guy! LOL LOL No guns were drawn they simply picked him up LOL LOL Holy shit that was funny. You really thought that was a excellent answer?
“A friend of mine had his place robbed and it took the police three hours to show up.”
Yeah everybody has “a friend who….” Really excellent answer. LOL So what?
“If you are assaulted, the odds of getting police help at the time of the crime are almost nil. ”
Depends on where you are.
“The police have become almost entirely reactionary. ”
Do you even realize that you are attacking your own argument with that logic? What are you going to do with a gun? Shoot people before they commit a crime? Yeah, I thought so.
“Thus, they cannot be there when the crime actually occurs to help you.”
Why do people think there is some kind of absolute to every problem?
“The only person on which you can rely to protect yourself is yourself”
Yes and of course a gun is the only way to do that. First. You seem focused on protection instead of prevention. Second. People protect themselves all the time without guns so any suggestion that guns make you safer is just nonsense.
I am not against guns at all. If you want one and you are not a mental case, nut job, asshat, or yahoo. By all means have guns. Have as many guns as you want if you are that insecure with your manhood. But if you don’t mind I would like to solve the problem not the symptom
Jeezus, what a crock.
“Police officers are shot and killed all the time.”
No they aren’t. It’s a very uncommon occurrence. You are an idiot.
Police officers, unlike citizens with CC permits, proactively seek out and confront armed criminals. And at that, the average cop in America never fires his gun in the line of duty.
“There were “licensed individuals” (POLICE) with guns running around on the VT campus while the asshat was still shooting people.”
Fuckin’-A, what an asinine statement. The police were not inside, with the gunman, being shot at. So it makes no difference WHERE they were “running around.” They could just as well’ve been on the fucking Moon. The only people who could’ve brought him down were those in his presence – and THEY WERE UNARMED, BY POINTLESS LAW.
• • • •
At either school, either incident, one of two things could’ve happened;
1. The gunman could have proceeded to shoot people at will, since no one was armed and no one shot him.
This is what did happen.
2. The gunman could have been shot and thereby prevented from shooting any more people. Since no one shot him, because no one was permitted to have a gun, this did not happen.
If he had been shot after shooting his final victim, then no lives would have been saved. The number of victims would be the same. If he had been shot anytime before shooting his final victim, then there would have been ONE OR MORE FEWER VICTIMS.
He could have been stopped or not stopped. He was not stopped. HAD HE BEEN STOPPED THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIGHER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER THE SAME OR LOWER.
What kind of simpleton logic says that a shooter on a rampage will kill MORE people if he gets shot than he would have killed if he were left to do as he pleased?
Moron.
#64–3HC==you are exactly correct.
#53–J==you are confusing probability with certainty. You probably think you understand the subject you are posting on, but you certainly don’t.
On open letter to all who propose gun control.
THC is absolutely right! Just look at the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City as an example. A crazy Bosnian refugee (Sulejman Talović -who couldn’t care less about the law) went into a mall and started randomly killing everyone he could find. He killed 5 people and hurt another 4.
Get This! He was stopped by an off-duty policeman who happened to be in a restaurant with his wife when the shooting started right underneath him. He took out his gun, faced the killer, and got into a gunfight where the killer was cornered till backup arrived.
The killer had a backpack FULL of ammunition, and was intent on using all of it.
We will never be able to put the gun genie back in the bottle. Even if we did, it wouldn’t stop mass killings. Look at the middle east.
Also, did you know the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from our own government? It goes hand in hand with the first and forth amendments. If you are so uninformed that you haven’t actually studied these amendments, then do so before opening your mouths.
I find it ironic that the people complaining about the government practicing urban warfare simulations in Toledo are the same crowd touting gun control.
By the way, the Trolley Square killer “was described as wearing a white shirt, a tan trenchcoat and a mullet.”
I think for the safety of all, we need to lock up everyone sporting a mullet…
#64 the three headed kitty
“No they aren’t. It’s a very uncommon occurrence. You are an idiot.”
Really why don’t you do a Google search on that and get back to me when you know WTF you are talking about.
“Police officers, unlike citizens with CC permits, proactively seek out and confront armed criminals.”
Oh this is good…….First you say it doesn’t happen then you try to defend why it does. LOL DOLT!
And so what? You are talking about situations where citizens are confronted with an armed assailant. Are you that dumb? In the police situation I would bet that the criminals would rather avoid the police than get into a shoot out. In these school situations the criminals have the intent to kill as many people as they can usually before shooting themselves. THAT IS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO!! Someone with a death wish and a loaded weapon. Most of the criminals that the police run into aren’t in that category.
“The only people who could’ve brought him down were those in his presence – and THEY WERE UNARMED, BY POINTLESS LAW.”
Really? Didn’t read up on it much did you? Considering the people who were there couldn’t even give you an accurate description at the time of the attack what makes you think that if they had guns they would have shot the right person? What if they all had guns? Who would know who shot first? Who would be able to tell if that other person with the gun was the assailant or a defender? Should we also require people who carry to take advance human behavior classes too so that they can evaluate everyone’s behavior to decide in a split second who is and is not a danger?
“At either school, either incident, one of two things could’ve happened…….bla bla bla”
You see. That is your problem. You think that this an “either or” situation. IT IS NOT!
If other people had guns, there is an UNLIMITED number of possible outcomes. Yes less people “could” have been shot but also MORE people could have been shot and killed
“HAD HE BEEN STOPPED THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIGHER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER THE SAME OR LOWER.”
What about the potential for those other people with guns shooting the wrong person maybe even a police officer? What about the potential for a stray bullet from one of those other people, hitting an innocent victim? What about a police officer seeing another person with a gun and in the heat of the moment shooting them. You see I can speculate too but at least I realize it is speculation and not “logic” or fact. What you propose is nothing but speculation and you insist that it is the only outcome in a truly dynamic chaotic situation.
THAT MY FRIEND IS ILLOGICAL
“What kind of simpleton logic says that a shooter on a rampage will kill MORE people if he gets shot than he would have killed if he were left to do as he pleased?”
A better question would be what kind of simpleton logic says that the only factor in the amount of deaths is based solely on when the original killer is stopped.
Stop thinking that you are using logic because you are not! You are doing nothing more than speculating.
#65 bobbo
“you are confusing probability with certainty”
No bobbo I am not confused perhaps it is you that is confused. I am not the one claiming that there is only 2 possible outcomes in a situation as dynamic as a mass killing spree. Anyone who does and anyone who agrees is the one confused about probability and certainty.
“You probably think you understand the subject you are posting on, but you certainly don’t.”
Oh please. And what do you or the three headed kitty actually know?
You don’t know what I know. You are just like the three headed kitty. You talk out your ass thinking you have some great knowledge of the world and that logic backs you up. Well my friend it doesn’t. I would not expect you to understand real logic or probability so for you to make such a comment is either you shooting off your mouth about what you think you understand or a display of complete stupidity.
#66–Ah Yea===by “gun control” do you mean gun confiscation and banning, or do you mean “further restrictions than we have now?”
I fit your ironic category of being for gun control and against military urban warfare simulations==I don’t see any irony unless you think that people with guns will stop an organized military assault?
“In order to maintain a militia” (from memory) allows local organized folks to protect against outside organized folks. Its not to protect the individual citizens from the government but rather it is FOR the government to use as the State Authority directs. Politics has changed the original intent of the founding fathers but that is a minor issue as any such rule can be changed as society deems appropriate unless you advocate the dead hand of history control our destiny?
Nice humorous finish though.
The only stat’s the FBI keeps regarding self defense are the self defense shootings. How many times do the criminals take off without getting shot? How many times are they merely injured or held at gun point? All those self defense uses, not recorded by the FBI.
John Lott and Gary Kleck put the high end of self defense uses, not just killings, at 2.5 million per year.
“More guns, less crime”, Amazon press.
Hello, bobbo! Good to talk to you again. Please excuse my rather lengthy response. I respect your opinions and so I would like your take on the following if you have the time.
By gun banning, I mean confiscation. I am personally all for adding some additional restrictions to gun purchasing. I would have every person who wants to purchase a gun go through a reasonably priced instruction course which would include gun safety, supervised practice at a gun course, and a good background check (no guns to nutjobs). Of course this would not be perfect, but a little goes a long way…
I am not so worried about the government suppressing the people en mass, but your concern gives me pause to think; I’m going to reconsider the possibility.
Assuming that this possibility exist, what would you do if they did roll into your town? I don’t have any good answers to this, except possibly that knowing beforehand that any such attempt would be difficult and costly might prevent it.
This possibility leads right to the main point.
The 1st amendment gives us freedom of speech. Specifically the freedom to criticize our government.
The 4th amendment gives us protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Again, specifically to limit the action of the government against it’s citizens.
What good are laws which cannot be enforced? Hence the 2nd amendment. Think of it as the enforcement clause to insure our individual rights against our own government.
The Declaration of Independence specifically states “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government”. This applies to domestic as well as foreign governments.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe completely that even with all it’s problems, America is still the best place on earth. I live here because I choose to live here. Nor do I advocate armed revolution or any moronic crap like that. Even with having gone through George W. and company.
But should we as a people be willing to completely subjugate ourselves to our government and have faith that our government will never become totalitarian?
It’s not today which is the problem, it’s what can happen tomorrow.
What if -over time- the majority of the people decide (in defense against islamic extremist, for example) to institute a “Christians Only” policy? Criticism of the new Policy results in imprisonment? Going to church becomes mandatory?
Mike Huckabee as Pres. with Pat Robinson as VP?
The horror, the horror…
#69 Phillep
Why can’t anyone grasp that things like killing sprees are not your average crime and would not be avoided by MORE or LESS guns.
You are trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease.
#70 Ah_Yea
“I am personally all for adding some additional restrictions to gun purchasing. I would have every person who wants to purchase a gun go through a reasonably priced instruction course which would include gun safety, supervised practice at a gun course, and a good background check (no guns to nutjobs). ”
I think some of those laws are already on the books in most places. We don’t need more gun laws just as we don’t need more guns. We need to deal with the real problems rather that the symptoms.
Will we ever remove crime completely? NO. No matter how many or how few guns there are. There will always be some wing nut that thinks he is bulletproof or the fact that criminals will always adapt to new situations. If you have more guns then they will adapt with an unknown potential for death on both sides. If you have fewer gun they will adapt and there could be an increase in crime. But lets remember guns alone do not determine crime statistics. There are many many variables. Poverty, addiction, mental illness, police presence, punishment laws, culture of fear. Deal with these things and you will see a drop in crime whether or not there are LESS or MORE guns in the hands of honest citizens.
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM AND THEY ARE NOT THE SOLUTION!
Everyone should get off their bandwagons and look at the real problem.
#71, Yup, yup, exactly right. Like I said in #53 “This shooting is the symptom of a much deeper problem. … How many of us are finally realizing that we now have a subculture of suicide “bombers” of our own?”
The additional requirements I suggested is simply to reduce gun accidents, but it will have no effect on the nutjobs.
I agree completely that gun control and discussion of gun control diverts us away from the central issues.
If we took the energy wasted on gun control and applied it to poverty, education, good jobs with decent wages, and reducing mullet haircuts, things would be much better.
#67–J==”real logic?” OK, I apologize. I thought all kinds of logic was allowed.
#70–Ah Yea==so polite, I thought sure it was the set up for the royal skewer, I guess that will be your delayed pleasure.
OK, restricting myself to real logic, and its corollary real facts: before we could confiscate, we would have to further regulate and since right now the regulations are being loosened, using “real politik” I would opt for regulation at the moment.
Gun safety is always good. Everyone should know how to use their tools. If guns were only for sport, those safety schools could also be the only place guns could be located, locked up, and handed out to their licensed owners. That would be a good accommodations to those “hunters” among us.
I am not worried about government initiated military control of the populace. That is an end of the world scenario. The reality of the GOUSA is excessive societal rot due to gun availability and the violence that flows from it. So, I’d rather deal with the reality at hand rather than some slippery slope argument. If the military did take over, the notion of armed citizens being effective against them is a COMPLETE JOKE. Look at Iraq. Lots of guns. What is used to defeat the military==explosives. Yes, that is the reality.
In context–the enforcement mechanism designed to have our laws enforced is the ballot box. In large measure, the boobs too unintelligent to vote are the same dicks that want guns to protect themselves. Protecting us against the government is the talking point they learn at their local NRA chapter.
America is the best place on earth for some, and not for others, and it is on a steady decline. Guns are one reason for it, not the main reason, but one reason.
Slippery slope arguments===what if guns were legal and it became impossible to walk on the streets at night in certain city neighborhoods and the GOUSA developed the highest per capita death rate by gun among first world countries? Oops, I guess that isn’t a slippery slope argument.
#69–Phillep==valid comment. Just like more family members are shot with home firearms than are burglars. There are trade-off under any set of laws. Acting like gun ownership is all good is dishonest–and of course you didn’t say that.
#73 bobbo
“67–J==”real logic?” OK, I apologize. I thought all kinds of logic was allowed.”
No They are not. Only REAL logic. Not the three headed kitty logic that you seem to defend or any other pretend logic that bends to your argument.
Can you not see? Saying that there are only 2 possible outcomes in such a situation is a completely illogical conclusion. No one can say with any logical reasoning that MORE guns would have ended up in equal or fewer deaths. That is only one possibility out of an unlimited number of scenarios that could arise from such a situation. How many guns? Where are they and their possessor located? How skilled is the user at dealing with timed stressful dangerous situations? How skilled is the user with their weapon? If they could even get a shot off is there anyone else in the way? What if they miss? How many people are around the other people with guns? Will they draw fire towards a larger crowd of people? What if they get killed themselves? Will the killer pick up their gun and use it to kill even more people? What material is the environment made of and will the bullet ricochet? Are the police aware of exactly how many guns are present and who posses them? Is there a clear description of the situation and perpetrator that all gun people have so that they don’t target the wrong individual or individuals. What if there is more than one perpetrator?
Those are only a few of thousands of possible variables that could affect the outcome. To say conclusively that there would be Fewer or Equal amount of dead is to ignore all the possible scenarios.
Oh
the three headed kitty’s entire argument rests on the fact that another person with a gun would in fact win in a gun battle instead of adding to the death toll. This is a big assumption.
So, how many of you are okay with local schools teaching gun handling and safety, the way many did back about 50 years ago?
Spree killers are not normal criminals, but how does that make the killer harder to take out if someone else had a gun and returned fire? How about if several people had guns and returned fire? He is going to be bullet proof? Is the spree killer going to be the only one who will not get shaken up by being shot at? Does every bullet that misses it’s intended target end up in an innocent bystander’s body?
I saw “reasonable gun laws” and “reasonable compromises” from 1966 (Reagan in California) right on up through 1994, and the violent crime rates kept going up! I still have a copy of an AP article written for an Australian paper about how the gun seizures over there were going to reduce criminal violence, yet the rate keeps going up. England and Canada? Same promise, same increase in crime.
Crime rates did not drop in the US until after people started pushing for legalizing concealed carry. Time to recognize that “reasonable” means “repeal gun laws”.
All the cites anyone could want:
http://www.guncite.com/
Yet another person on mind altering drugs starts shooting people. Seems to be an ongoing situation.
#76 Phillep
“Spree killers are not normal criminals, but how does that make the killer harder to take out if someone else had a gun and returned fire?”
It doesn’t. I was talking about deterrence effect of everyone carrying a weapon. It won’t stop this type of killer. Isn’t this the type of killer everyone gets into a tissy about and wants less or more laws for guns because this wouldn’t happen if……? That is bullshit and anyone who says otherwise has an agenda.
“How about if several people had guns and returned fire? He is going to be bullet proof?””
I don’t know what if they all miss? or What if they shoot each other in the crossfire. Bullet proof? Well not unless he hung out with those 2 bank robbers in California a few years back. You know where the cops had to get armor piercing bullets to stop them. Boy that was a fun day.
“Is the spree killer going to be the only one who will not get shaken up by being shot at?”
You know perhaps so. If you watch the videos of some of those shootings They tend to very very calm and very focused. This is why deterrence wont work with these people. They only listen to the voices in their head.
“Does every bullet that misses it’s intended target end up in an innocent bystander’s body?”
No. But every bullet fired has the potential to end up in an innocent persons body. I tell you what. You volunteer yourself or your wife or your kids to be the unarmed by standers and I will concede on your dumb question.
“Crime rates did not drop in the US until after people started pushing for legalizing concealed carry. ”
BULLSHIT. Crime rates go up and down and have more than just guns as a determining factor and no statistic are evidence otherwise.
Just so you know Phillep I am a member of the NRA but I don’t subscribe to all the nonsense they spew and the methods they use to spew it. I believe in the second amendment and just like the first amendment there are limits. You are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon or a patriot missile launcher. So “SOME” laws are necessary and “SOME” guidelines are needed so that every yahoo, nutjob isn’t toting a gun around shooting people. We don’t live in the wild west anymore Phillep. We are a nation of laws! That is how civilization advances. Appropriate and effective laws to keep people from acting on their natural instincts which tend toward territorial violence.
AGAIN THE PROBLEM ISN”T GUNS AND THE SOLUTION ISN’T EITHER!!!!!
Bobbo, Delayed Pressure is the Best Pressure!
#80–Ah Yea==my pleasures have been delayed so long, I have nothing to confirm or deny that statement with.
There are two lines of discussion going on here–more or less guns WITHIN a society that already has too many guns, and how the number of guns in a society has a positive correlation to illegal deaths by guns. So, both sides have a valid line of argument addressing two different questions.
I’ve heard it said that if your problem is a swamp full of moisquitoes, the cure is not to add moisquitoes. Why that doesn’t work for guns escapes me.
Ah Yea–how much alzheimer is in play here?
I said pleasure, you said pressure and I think it is revenge only that is better on waiting. Don’t we all want maximum pleasure asap? I’ll think about pressure, or do you mean “harder baby?”
Alright – I think it’s time for you guys to get a room… 🙂
#63
RE: VT and Police Officers
I agree that the exact scenario is untestable however we can certainly consider similar scenarios where off duty police officers were part of a group of victims and reach a reasonable conclusion that they would have made a difference. To claim that the body count would have been higher had the victims been trained and armed is simply ridiculous.
> There were “licensed individuals” (POLICE)..
#64 said it nicely. Whether the police are armed is not the same as the victims being armed. You agreed that there are simply not enough police officers to protect everyone all the time. Since victims were unarmed primarily due to the campus-wide ban on carrying firearms they had no means to protect themselves even if they had the means and training.
> Again there is not one piece of
> evidence either way that the ban
> would have changed anything.
If there is no proof that the ban would have mitigated nor stopped the killing, then why have the ban in the first place?
RE: Police
If we agree that the police cannot possibly protect everyone, then how do the people protect themselves? The remainder of your paragraph talked about ways of lowering the odds that such a killing will occur. Ok. That does nothing to protect the people when it does it occur.
> Do you even realize that you are
> attacking your
> own argument with that logic? What
> are you going
> to do with a gun? Shoot people before
> they commit
> a crime? Yeah, I thought so.
Do I really have to spell it out for you in simpleton terms? An armed, off-duty police officer is different than a uniformed police officer. If the victims had the equivalent training of a police officer and were armed, reasonable people would agree that the killing would have been reduced. So, no I did not contradict myself.
> What are you going
> to do with a gun? Shoot people
> before they commit
> a crime? Yeah, I thought so.
That is the general idea, yes. Why is that a problem?
A gun is not the *only* way to protect yourself. However, when confronted with someone that is substantially superior in strength and ability, a gun can even the odds.
J, back before 1968, anyone at all could buy a machine gun and have it delivered by the USPS. People could, and did, buy milsurp fighter planes, complete with machine guns. Tanks, complete with machine guns and cannons. Warships, likewise. Ammo for all of them was easily obtained, as were bombs.
Where were all the murders? Where were all the massacres?
“I was talking about deterrence effect of everyone carrying a weapon. It won’t stop this type of killer. Isn’t this the type of killer everyone gets into a tissy about and wants less or more laws for guns because this wouldn’t happen if……?”
Getting killed would stop this type of killer, and how much of an accident is it that so few attempted killings of this sort are attempted where people who are armed hang out?
“Crime rates go up and down”? By how much? Don’t you even read the NRA magazines you get with your membership?
“Member of the NRA”? BFD. Most gun owners do not belong to the NRA, and about half of those that don’t regard the NRA as pro-gun control. If even half of the gun owners belonged to the ILA (the political part of the NRA), it would be the most powerful political organization in the US.
You show too much ingnorance for me to believe your claim that you are a member.
#84 Phillep
“Where were all the murders? Where were all the massacres? ”
First there were plenty of murders before 1968. Second the number of tanks, machine guns and fighter planes owned by the general public was relatively small and more difficult to store. Unlike handguns today.
Phillep. It is clear to me you have missed my point. IT ISN”T ABOUT THE GUNS!!!!!!! BUT MORE GUNS WON”T FIX THE PROBLEM EITHER!!!!!!!
“Getting killed would stop this type of killer, and how much of an accident is it that so few attempted killings of this sort are attempted where people who are armed hang out?”
How much of an accident is it that they tend to happen where larges groups gather? Don’t ask dumb questions that have no foundation in fact. They happen based on a reasoning of a mental patient. Do you really think a loon with a death wish evaluates such things when they plan to carryout their crime? Oh Please!!!! Read from me their manifesto that states such and I will concede.
“Don’t you even read the NRA magazines you get with your membership? ”
Sure do and it is mostly propaganda. I belong to the NRA not because I think every nutjob should have a gun but because I believe in the bill of rights.
“Most gun owners do not belong to the NRA, and about half of those that don’t regard the NRA as pro-gun control.”
The NRA believes in reasonable gun control and responsible gun ownership that doesn’t intrude on the 2nd amendment. If you own a gun and don’t, you probably shouldn’t own a gun.
“You show too much ignorance for me to believe your claim that you are a member.”
I don’t care what you believe. I bet you don’t believe Michael Moore is a member either. Oh and BTW ignorance of what? Gun laws? Proper weapon usage? Propaganda? What?
I have said many time to other members (my whole family). The NRA has been taken over by a political movement and has lost site of what it really stands for. They do themselves a dis service with some of the nonsense they get behind.
#84 – You show too much ingnorance for me to believe your claim that you are a member.
It isn’t like the bar is set too high for membership…
J, I know ardent gun grabbers who are members of the NRA, it’s called “keeping track of the enemy”. You call it all propaganda? Hah. You and Fat Mike.
Anyone who confuses sexuality with firearm ownership has problems. You conflate the two constantly.
Here’s yet another piece of bonehead Logic-Free Reasoning®™:
“…what makes you think that the average citizen is or ever would be trained to handle such a scenario and act accordingly.”
The word ‘what’ makes that a question, which is closed with, not a period (.) but an interrobang, otherwise known as a ‘question mark (?). You know as little about using English as you do about using reasoning.
In answer, no one thinks the average citizen IS trained. By definition, a citizen with a CC permit is NOT an “average citizen.” A licensed carrier is specifically trained, not to balance a ball on the end of his or her nose, but to deal with the SPECIFIC ISSUES INVOLVED WITH CARRYING AND USING A LOADED PISTOL.
Despite your idiotic implied caricature, they are not handed a gun, told “hide it” and pushed out the door. They are instructed to remain calm, to not draw attention, to supress their startle reflex, to be absolutely certain that a threat necessitating a potentially lethal response is present, to be alert for opportunities to nullify the threat without precipitating a firefight, to quickly relinquish their weapon and identify themselves upon the arrival of law enforcement on the scene.
They are also instructed in how to calmly and without presenting a danger to others present, use their weapon to conclusively nullify the threat presented by the bad actor.
And you may be shocked to note that on the thankfully rare occasions that concealed-carriers actually use their weapons, they are never gunned down by law enforcement mistaking them for the perp, they do not accidentally shoot innocent bystanders, they do not mistakenly shoot innocent persons mistaken for the perp.
“All it would do is put more bullets in the air and increase the potential for someone else to die!”
No it wouldn’t, you colossal imbecile. We know that it would not, since it has PLAYED OUT IN THE REAL WORLD, and the absurd scenario you paint HAS NOT COME TO PASS. Or does real-world experience now take a back seat to your technically-possible-but-astronomically-unlikely scenarios?
“First there were plenty of murders before 1968.”
No, there were not, Bozo.
But you are right about how the NRA backs ridiculous causes that have little to do with their alleged purpose. I know people who WON’T join because they don’t want to even be associated with such crap.
OK. Broken watch = correct twice a day. To paraphrase James Bond, “That’s a Smith & Wesson; you’ve had your two.” 🙂
RE: SWAT
If the victims been SWAT team members would the death toll would have been less? If so, then again we are talking about degrees of training.
More people that are better trained with guns would have resulted in a lower death toll than the situation that did occur where everyone was unarmed. Yes, I think that more people should be permitted to carry guns but I also think that the training required to maintain ownership and authority to carry those weapons should be substantially increased.
>> “If we agree that the police cannot
>> possibly protect everyone, then
>> how do the people protect themselves? ”
>
> It is called life. Shit happens.
Wow. Hard to know what to say in the face of such bold ignorance. I could of course bring up the thousands of woman that are raped every year or the number of aggravated assaults that occur but in the face of that kind of ignorance I doubt it will help. Basically, you want everyone to be defenseless except for the State. That’s the “kumbaya” mentality to life. “Everyone will just sit around the campfire and get along.” Life doesn’t work that way.
> Guns are no guarantee either…
Never said they were. However, the do provide another means by which a person can defend themselves or prevent a violent crime without the assistance of the police.
From #90
Should read:
“If the victims had been SWAT team members would the death toll have been less?”
Dang. I just caught myself being unfair – and inaccurate. Allow me to make amends.
• • • • • • • • •
My Right Honorable Friend delivered himself of an utterance which upon first reading, appeared to be an untrue-to-fact categorical assertion, to wit:
“First there were plenty of murders before 1968.”
I preëmptively dismissed this innocent statement, offered as it was in good faith by My RHF, in an unwholesome and unseemly spirit of derision and mockery, viz,
“No, there were not, Bozo.”
Rather than present the spectacle of castigating myself over this unfortunate incident, I would pray leave to proffer my most abject apologies for engaging in such counterproductive and alienating raillery, and to take the opportunity to bring my comment into line, acknowledging my opponent’s lack of error and clarifying any remaining point(s) of contention, which I hereupon proceed to do:
• • • • • • • • • •
You are correct. There were, in point of actual fact, very, very many homicides antecedent to the Year of Our Lord 1968. Tens, indeed, hundreds of millions of murders, all over the world, from prehistoric times onward. Mea culpa. I should not have dismissed your statement is such a demeaning manner.
THIS is how I should’ve dismissed your statement in such a demeaning manner:
The per capita first-degree murder rate in the United States, post-WWII, was at it’s lowest in history, and stayed low until the mid-’60s, where it took off. And the rise in murders overall from ’64 on disguises the fact that second- and third-degree murder was actually declining; the number of deliberate, premeditated murders, first-degree, climbed precipitously from that point onward.
First-degree murder, prior to the second half of the ’60s, was NOT common, despite, as Phillep noted, virtually nonexistent restrictions on purchase and ownership of powerful military weapons and ordinance. And that is to totally ignore the almost exclusively recent phenomenon of mass murder in peacetime America.
Bozo. 🙂