(Close Window)
Topic: Active shooting in Califonia
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Dec 2, 2015 01:52PM)
Luckily the police were close by doing a training session. It is bad, a lot hurt and killed (reported so far).
San Bernandino, Ca
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 2, 2015 02:38PM)
DEVELOPING: As many as a dozen people have reportedly been killed in what police call an active shooter situation Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif., where SWAT teams were pursuing three suspects who may have escaped in an SUV.

As many as 30 hostages were seen coming out of the building, a center for treating developmentally disabled people, where the event occurred. Witnesses said three men in masks and body armor stormed the crowded building and opened fire, with one shooting people in a conference room, according to reports. Local Fox affiliate KTTV reported that at least 12 fatalities occurred inside the building, which was surrounded by authorities, just before noon local time. The FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were responding.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/02/as-many-as-20-shot-police-in-standoff-in-san-bernardino-calif/
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 2, 2015 02:43PM)
I go to watch the video link of the shooting at the Fox site above and before it lets me watch the live reporting, I have to suffer through an advert of youngsters acting commando and firing bows and arrows. Well, at least they were not firing toy guns at one another.
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Dec 2, 2015 03:33PM)
I went to my periscope app and found a guy live scoping from the scene and got the SUV story (along with the drive away) long before the live Fox News reported it. Social media (although often annoying) is great for on the spot reporting.
Message: Posted by: Vlad_77 (Dec 2, 2015 08:07PM)
Two suspects are dead after a shootout with police. A third person has been detained after being apprehended fleeing the scene - 6:05 PST as I write this.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 2, 2015 08:20PM)
I think they may be releasing a name soon ... It was on the scanner I'm told.
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Dec 2, 2015 10:59PM)
Glad it is resolved (at this point) so at least people can start to heal without worrying that they are still at large. I think a lot has yet to be uncovered and by no means is this going to be the last tragedy on our soil. There are just too many "angry people" out there ( be it for religious, political or just plain nutty reasons). My sympathies go out to all those affected.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 2, 2015 11:50PM)
We are truly sorry and saddened to hear of yet another loss of life to this, I don’t know, to this sort of horrible madness in America that seems now to be happening more and more often.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 2, 2015 11:57PM)
Something to do with the climate, no doubt.

(The social and political climate, that is.)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 3, 2015 06:08AM)
Awful.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 3, 2015 07:18AM)
This is just horrific! The one guys last name was Syed Farook. They are not saying yet if he was a radical extremist muslim. All signs point to terrorism. This is truly sad. And with more refugees coming it's only going to get worse.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 3, 2015 07:29AM)
Oh, they were terrorists? Oh, well then, it's no longer 'awful'. It's now 'asymetrical warfare'.
These were soldiers retaliating against the great satan.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 3, 2015 07:31AM)
RNK, you're not allowed to call them radical extremist muslims anymore. We want to be sure we are not offending them while they are killing us.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 3, 2015 07:33AM)
Maybe if we let them kill us all and turn North America into an islamic republic, maybe then they'll stop.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 3, 2015 07:59AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Maybe if we let them kill us all and turn North America into an islamic republic, maybe then they'll stop. [/quote]

I believe that's wishful thinking. As long as you do not believe in "Allah" then you will die according to them.

And oh, sorry about the use of the term "RADICAL EXTREME MUSLIMS". My bad.
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Dec 3, 2015 08:58AM)
I remember years ago a shoot out with police left three dead suspects, and one of the mother's of a dead felon sued the police for wrongful death. I think the case was thrown out of court. but still....
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Dec 3, 2015 09:14AM)
These shootings are becoming too frequent. Used to be the odd disgruntled post office worker but now it seems to be almost every month.

Still, at least you've banned the Kinder Egg rather than the gun.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 09:31AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Cliffg37 wrote:
I remember years ago a shoot out with police left three dead suspects, and one of the mother's of a dead felon sued the police for wrongful death. I think the case was thrown out of court. but still.... [/quote]

There was a hung jury in the lawsuit that followed the North Hollywood shootout, and the family of one of the bank robbers dropped it after that in exchange for not being countersunk for malicious prosecution. Might be the one you're thinking of.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 3, 2015 09:38AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Russell Davidson wrote:
These shootings are becoming too frequent. Used to be the odd disgruntled post office worker but now it seems to be almost every month.

Still, at least you've banned the Kinder Egg rather than the gun. [/quote]

So your plan is to ban the gun?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 3, 2015 09:57AM)
A very interesting article about gun-free zones: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/26/christy-stutzman-moms-unite-against-gun-free-zones/

The Crime Prevention Research Center released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between 2009 and 2014 took place IN GUN FREE ZONES!

So yeah, let's remove our guns. We will be more safe.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 10:23AM)
That raises the question, "What percentage of people in the USA are in a gun-free zone at any particular random moment?"
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 3, 2015 10:35AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:

The Crime Prevention Research Center released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between 2009 and 2014 took place IN GUN FREE ZONES!

[/quote]
Yes, lack of guns is the problem.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 3, 2015 10:40AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Cliffg37 wrote:
I remember years ago a shoot out with police left three dead suspects, and one of the mother's of a dead felon sued the police for wrongful death. I think the case was thrown out of court. but still.... [/quote]
There was a hung jury in the lawsuit that followed the North Hollywood shootout, and the family of one of the bank robbers dropped it after that in exchange for not being [b][i]countersunk[/i][/b] for malicious prosecution.[/quote]
Seriously, Lobo: lose the iPhone, iPad, or iWhatever.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 11:44AM)
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 11:54AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:

The Crime Prevention Research Center released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between 2009 and 2014 took place IN GUN FREE ZONES!

[/quote]
Yes, lack of guns is the problem. [/quote]
Gun Free Zone, some of the strictest gun laws in the USA ... Tell me ...What do you suggest other than arming yourself for self protection?
Guns could have saved the victims just as guns saved the police that finally caught the terrorist couple.

This is a tragic event. It looks as if the terrorists are using the Mail Order Bride scam to get murderers into the states legally. IMHO.....
As I've said many times before .. Please arm yourselves.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 11:59AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:

The Crime Prevention Research Center released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between 2009 and 2014 took place IN GUN FREE ZONES!

[/quote]
Yes, lack of guns is the problem. [/quote]
Gun Free Zone, some of the strictest gun laws in the USA ... Tell me ...What do you suggest other than arming yourself for self protection?
Guns could have saved the victims just as guns saved the police that finally caught the terrorist couple.

This is a tragic event. It looks as if the terrorists are using the Mail Order Bride scam to get murderers into the states legally. IMHO.....
As I've said many times before .. Please arm yourselves. [/quote]Oh yes, guns at a Christmas party, along with spiked egg nog and other libations. Wonderful idea.
Plus, if the attackers were wearing armored assault gear, you know what effect a handgun would have had on them? None.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 3, 2015 12:06PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:

The Crime Prevention Research Center released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between 2009 and 2014 took place IN GUN FREE ZONES!

[/quote]
Yes, lack of guns is the problem. [/quote]
Gun Free Zone, some of the strictest gun laws in the USA ... Tell me ...What do you suggest other than arming yourself for self protection?
Guns could have saved the victims just as guns saved the police that finally caught the terrorist couple.

This is a tragic event. It looks as if the terrorists are using the Mail Order Bride scam to get murderers into the states legally. IMHO.....
As I've said many times before .. Please arm yourselves. [/quote]Oh yes, guns at a Christmas party, along with spiked egg nog and other libations. Wonderful idea.
Plus, if the attackers were wearing armored assault gear, you know what effect a handgun would have had on them? None. [/quote]
Clearly every public place in the country needs security guards at all doors armed with weapons and armor-piercing ammo. I'm sure nobody would have any problem with their taxes being raised to finance the astronomical amount of money that would cost.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 12:06PM)
Redshirt ...In Texas two terrorists armed with assault rifles were dispatched/ killed by an off duty cop carrying a side arm ... So you are 100% WRONG!!!!!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 3, 2015 12:14PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Yes. True. But so far:

News that the couple were each carrying an AR-15 rifle and a pistol when they were shot and killed by police after a brief chase in their rented black Ford Expedition with Utah plates about 2 miles from the initial shooting site. The source said the vehicle also contained so-called "rollout bags" with multiple pipe bombs, as well as additional ammunition.

"That's a military tactic for a sustained fight," the source told Fox News of the rollout bags.

In addition to the explosives found at the SUV, authorities discovered and detonated three pipe bombs late Wednesday at the Inland Regional Center, the complex where the initial shooting took place about 60 miles east of Los Angeles. Another source said investigators discovered a dozen pipe bombs in the house, as well as small explosives strapped to remote-controlled cars - a signature of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, according to counter-terrorism experts. Police also found thousands of .223-caliber and 9mm rounds at the home.

"Clearly, they were equipped to do another attack," Burguan said Thursday. "Luckily, we intercepted them before that."


Um. Yea. Workplace violence, huh? Wow. The world better wake up!
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Dec 3, 2015 12:29PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:

The Crime Prevention Research Center released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between 2009 and 2014 took place IN GUN FREE ZONES!

[/quote]
Yes, lack of guns is the problem. [/quote]

Not being In the hands of law abiding citizens , yes I do agree.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 12:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or the pipe bombs that were being assembled in he garage before the holiday party started...
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 12:57PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Redshirt ...In Texas two terrorists armed with assault rifles were dispatched/ killed by an off duty cop carrying a side arm ... So you are 100% WRONG!!!!! [/quote]
Doesn't matter if they were armed with 50-cal miniguns. When I say "gear" I mean body armor, and small arms fire mostly bounces off the stuff.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 12:59PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or the pipe bombs that were being assembled in he garage before the holiday party started... [/quote]
So maybe they were planning something else, but something at the party set them off to start there instead. Maybe they were planning to attack and bomb their work office, and it had nothing to do with religion. The point is, we don't yet know.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 3, 2015 01:01PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or the pipe bombs that were being assembled in he garage before the holiday party started... [/quote]
So maybe they were planning something else, but something at the party set them off to start there instead. Maybe they were planning to attack and bomb their work office, and it had nothing to do with religion. The point is, we don't yet know. [/quote]

Wow Redshirt. Just wow.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 01:22PM)
A delay in identifying this as terrorism only allows the terrorists to escape more easily (I'm sure they had help). The neighbors were afraid to report these terrorists because they feared repercussions from the politically correct crowd .. Now more victims of Jihad.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 01:22PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
Wow Redshirt. Just wow. [/quote]
Okay, just read the latest info released. Yes, they were muslims, and it's now being treated as a counter-terror investigation.

More to the point, the rifles used were acquired legally, because Syed was a US citizen.

So, this latest one of [b]355[/b] mass shootings this year so far in the US was committed by a muslim. Now what? People gonna get hell-bent on kicking out all the muslims? Deny Second Amendment rights based on someone's religion (which violates the First Amendment?) Or are we going to try and look at some sensible regulations that might have helped prevent some of the other 354 shootings as well?

Or go, "Ah well, there's nothing we can do! ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 01:30PM)
It is possible to arrest and deport those who wish to do harm to American Citizens. If you believe in the physical Jihad, which requires the killing or enslaving of Infidels (Guys like me ), then it is legal for the USA to remove you from our country. It's basically treason. That seems to be the catch here. We need a good look at Sharia Law, Jihad, and the violence that surrounds these belief systems. I have many Muslim friends. I don't let their religious views bother me... However, if someone thinks the world would be a better place with me and my family dead ... I draw the line .. Wouldn't you? But we can't discuss religion here ... So it can't be resolved on the Café.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 01:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It is possible to arrest and deport those who wish to do harm to American Citizens. If you believe in the physical Jihad, which requires the killing or enslaving of Infidels (Guys like me ), then it is legal for the USA to remove you from our country. It's basically treason. That seems to be the catch here. We need a good look at Sharia Law, Jihad, and the violence that surrounds these belief systems. I have many Muslim friends. I don't let their religious views bother me... However, if someone thinks the world would be a better place with me and my family dead ... I draw the line .. Wouldn't you? But we can't discuss religion here ... So it can't be resolved on the Café. [/quote]
But he [b]was[/b] an American Citizen, born and raised here. Where would he be deported [b]to[/b]? Besides, the families of both suspects said they showed no signs of fanaticism. Neither had any criminal record.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 3, 2015 01:59PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

But he [b]was[/b] an American Citizen, born and raised here. Where would he be deported [b]to[/b]? Besides, the families of both suspects said they showed no signs of fanaticism. Neither had any criminal record. [/quote]

Exactly! Showed no signs but yet in the end were faithful to their roots! You have hit the nail on the head Red! Once a devout follower always a devout follower and some will go off the deep end. You have proven our point why it's essential not to let Syrian refugees in. There is no way of telling if or if not. And 25,000 as opposed to the safety of hundreds of millions, I would say protect the hundreds of millions.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 02:08PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:

But he [b]was[/b] an American Citizen, born and raised here. Where would he be deported [b]to[/b]? Besides, the families of both suspects said they showed no signs of fanaticism. Neither had any criminal record. [/quote]

Exactly! Showed no signs but yet in the end were faithful to their roots! You have hit the nail on the head Red! Once a devout follower always a devout follower and some will go off the deep end. You have proven our point why it's essential not to let Syrian refugees in. There is no way of telling if or if not. And 25,000 as opposed to the safety of hundreds of millions, I would say protect the hundreds of millions. [/quote]
Better watch out for those extremists bent on blowing up Planned Parenthood clinics, too.

Still, it does solve the problem. At this rate, there won't be anyone left in the country to shoot or be shot at.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 3, 2015 02:25PM)
Oh blah blah. Nobody left. How ridiculous. Want to make an actual point or just use hyperbole as usual?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 02:30PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
It is possible to arrest and deport those who wish to do harm to American Citizens. If you believe in the physical Jihad, which requires the killing or enslaving of Infidels (Guys like me ), then it is legal for the USA to remove you from our country. It's basically treason. That seems to be the catch here. We need a good look at Sharia Law, Jihad, and the violence that surrounds these belief systems. I have many Muslim friends. I don't let their religious views bother me... However, if someone thinks the world would be a better place with me and my family dead ... I draw the line .. Wouldn't you? But we can't discuss religion here ... So it can't be resolved on the Café. [/quote]
But he [b]was[/b] an American Citizen, born and raised here. Where would he be deported [b]to[/b]? Besides, the families of both suspects said they showed no signs of fanaticism. Neither had any criminal record. [/quote]
I never said he WASN'T.... But his partner was from SA like the 911 terrorists. Here on a green card. They had a bomb factory going at home ... She was a Mail Order Bride ... it's a scam.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 3, 2015 02:35PM)
Is there anything thay is not a scam?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 02:39PM)
First it's a movement, then it's a business, then it's a scam..... It just takes time.
Terrorists are using these weaknesses to import their army.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Dec 3, 2015 03:16PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
Wow Redshirt. Just wow. [/quote]
Okay, just read the latest info released. Yes, they were muslims, and it's now being treated as a counter-terror investigation.

More to the point, the rifles used were acquired legally, because Syed was a US citizen.

So, this latest one of [b]355[/b] mass shootings this year so far in the US was committed by a muslim. Now what? People gonna get hell-bent on kicking out all the muslims? Deny Second Amendment rights based on someone's religion (which violates the First Amendment?) Or are we going to try and look at some sensible regulations that might have helped prevent some of the other 354 shootings as well?

Or go, "Ah well, there's nothing we can do! ¯_(ツ)_/¯" [/quote]

So with no criminal record or known documented mental issues, what would have been your reason for denying him the right to purchase his guns?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 03:27PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
Wow Redshirt. Just wow. [/quote]
Okay, just read the latest info released. Yes, they were muslims, and it's now being treated as a counter-terror investigation.

More to the point, the rifles used were acquired legally, because Syed was a US citizen.

So, this latest one of [b]355[/b] mass shootings this year so far in the US was committed by a muslim. Now what? People gonna get hell-bent on kicking out all the muslims? Deny Second Amendment rights based on someone's religion (which violates the First Amendment?) Or are we going to try and look at some sensible regulations that might have helped prevent some of the other 354 shootings as well?

Or go, "Ah well, there's nothing we can do! ¯_(ツ)_/¯" [/quote]

So with no criminal record or known documented mental issues, what would have been your reason for denying him the right to purchase his guns? [/quote]
Because only a lunatik needs an AR-15? ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 3, 2015 04:21PM)
A judgement you get to make?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 04:27PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
A judgement you get to make? [/quote]
A judgement we all need to make.

You can't buy grenades and keep 'em in your closet. Where should we draw the line with firearms?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 04:40PM)
If terrorists can get guns and kill us with them, then we need to be able to protect ourselves with the same. Fast and Furious put hundreds of guns into the hands of mobsters and drug dealers. The black market to buy guns in Chicago and elsewhere is insane. Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check. The bottom line is... The bad guys will always have guns and the good guys will need guns to protect themselves. The very people who call out for gun control are surrounded by people with guns.
Message: Posted by: Daryl -the other brother (Dec 3, 2015 05:09PM)
How many times need it be said! OUTLAW guns and the only ones with guns will be OUTLAWS.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 3, 2015 05:12PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check.[/quote]
You write sentences that undermine your position.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 05:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, RNK wrote:
Wow Redshirt. Just wow. [/quote]
Okay, just read the latest info released. Yes, they were muslims, and it's now being treated as a counter-terror investigation.

More to the point, the rifles used were acquired legally, because Syed was a US citizen.

So, this latest one of [b]355[/b] mass shootings this year so far in the US was committed by a muslim. Now what? People gonna get hell-bent on kicking out all the muslims? Deny Second Amendment rights based on someone's religion (which violates the First Amendment?) Or are we going to try and look at some sensible regulations that might have helped prevent some of the other 354 shootings as well?

Or go, "Ah well, there's nothing we can do! ¯_(ツ)_/¯" [/quote]


I can't wait to see what "sensible" proposals we'll get in response to one out of (almost) one million Americans committing such acts.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 05:18PM)
Http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/03/neighbor-didnt-report-suspicious-activity-of-san-bernardino-killers-for-fear-of-being-called-racist-n2088543.com

Not sure if Magnus is reading this one, but this is another example of some of the more pernicious effects if political correctness.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 3, 2015 05:21PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/03/neighbor-didnt-report-suspicious-activity-of-san-bernardino-killers-for-fear-of-being-called-racist-n2088543.com

Not sure if Magnus is reading this one, but this is another example of some of the more pernicious effects if political correctness. [/quote]
Oh, there's a non-biased source if I ever saw one.

Yeah, right.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 05:35PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/03/neighbor-didnt-report-suspicious-activity-of-san-bernardino-killers-for-fear-of-being-called-racist-n2088543.com

Not sure if Magnus is reading this one, but this is another example of some of the more pernicious effects if political correctness. [/quote]
Oh, there's a non-biased source if I ever saw one.

Yeah, right. [/quote]


They didn't originate the story; KNX News did, and it was widely reported by a number of mainstream sources. If your favorite decided to suppress it, I think that says the most about the bias of your news sources of choice.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 3, 2015 05:57PM)
Let's see, armed men parade outside Planned Parenthood chapters around the country, but what you find as an example of intimidation is a woman's [i]thought[/i] that she might be [i]thought[/i] a racist.
Sounds more like a case for Dr. Phil than the PC police.
Sorry, Lobo, that dog don't hunt at all. A weak example IMO.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 06:04PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
Let's see, armed men parade outside Planned Parenthood chapters around the country, but what you find as an example of intimidation is a woman's [i]thought[/i] that she might be [i]thought[/i] a racist.
Sounds more like a case for Dr. Phil than the PC police.
Sorry, Lobo, that dog don't hunt at all. A weak example IMO. [/quote]


A weak example of reading comprehension on your part, I'd say. Who on earth said anything about intimidation?! What it was an example of is political correctness.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 3, 2015 06:08PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/03/neighbor-didnt-report-suspicious-activity-of-san-bernardino-killers-for-fear-of-being-called-racist-n2088543.com

Not sure if Magnus is reading this one, but this is another example of some of the more pernicious effects if political correctness. [/quote]
Oh, there's a non-biased source if I ever saw one.

Yeah, right. [/quote]

They didn't originate the story; KNX News did, and it was widely reported by a number of mainstream sources. If your favorite decided to suppress it, I think that says the most about the bias of your news sources of choice. [/quote]
WHICH story?

Your link takes me to a page with something like 20+ stories. I've no idea which one you are talking about.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 3, 2015 06:31PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
Let's see, armed men parade outside Planned Parenthood chapters around the country, but what you find as an example of intimidation is a woman's [i]thought[/i] that she might be [i]thought[/i] a racist.
Sounds more like a case for Dr. Phil than the PC police.
Sorry, Lobo, that dog don't hunt at all. A weak example IMO. [/quote]


A weak example of reading comprehension on your part, I'd say. Who on earth said anything about intimidation?! What it was an example of is political correctness. [/quote]
Then what is this awesome power of political correctness supposed to be in your example, and why is it bad?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 3, 2015 07:43PM)
I wonder what the motive was.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 3, 2015 07:53PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check.[/quote]
You write sentences that undermine your position. [/quote]
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun. That's WHY we have the Bill of Rights!!!!!! Had this not been a gun free zone perhaps someone could have fired back, like in Texas, and killed these two before the slaughter.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 08:03PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
Let's see, armed men parade outside Planned Parenthood chapters around the country, but what you find as an example of intimidation is a woman's [i]thought[/i] that she might be [i]thought[/i] a racist.
Sounds more like a case for Dr. Phil than the PC police.
Sorry, Lobo, that dog don't hunt at all. A weak example IMO. [/quote]


A weak example of reading comprehension on your part, I'd say. Who on earth said anything about intimidation?! What it was an example of is political correctness. [/quote]
Then what is this awesome power of political correctness supposed to be in your example, and why is it bad? [/quote]

People are conditioned to elevate non-offensiveness to the highest priority. It's bad, because in many situations, truth, for instance, is a higher value.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 3, 2015 08:25PM)
I guess we should rail against Emily Post as well: there once was a woman who said nothing about her house on fire because she didn't want to appear impolite.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 3, 2015 08:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
I guess we should rail against Emily Post as well: there once was a woman who said nothing about her house on fire because she didn't want to appear impolite. [/quote]

Right!

Or just the woman who didn't voice her suspicions about the people making the pipe bombs.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 3, 2015 08:38PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/03/neighbor-didnt-report-suspicious-activity-of-san-bernardino-killers-for-fear-of-being-called-racist-n2088543.com

Not sure if Magnus is reading this one, but this is another example of some of the more pernicious effects if political correctness. [/quote]

Which one?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 3, 2015 09:31PM)
I'm still trying to parse it, Lobo:

A climate of anti-Muslim hatred has nothing to with random Muslims [url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/23/group-says-france-sees-as-many-anti-muslim-acts-since-january-terror-attacks-as/] getting hurt [/url],

but asking people not to be rude is a problem?

Perhaps there might be an element of personal responsibility in all of these cases?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 3, 2015 09:39PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check.[/quote]
You write sentences that undermine your position.[/quote]
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun. That's WHY we have the Bill of Rights!!!!!! Had this not been a gun free zone perhaps someone could have fired back, like in Texas, and killed these two before the slaughter.[/quote]
You're supposing an awful lot there.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 3, 2015 09:48PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check.[/quote]
You write sentences that undermine your position.[/quote]
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun. That's WHY we have the Bill of Rights!!!!!! Had this not been a gun free zone perhaps someone could have fired back, like in Texas, and killed these two before the slaughter.[/quote]
You're supposing an awful lot there. [/quote]

No more than usual.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 12:10AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check.[/quote]
You write sentences that undermine your position.[/quote]
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun. That's WHY we have the Bill of Rights!!!!!! Had this not been a gun free zone perhaps someone could have fired back, like in Texas, and killed these two before the slaughter.[/quote]
You're supposing an awful lot there. [/quote]
I wish they would have had the opportunity to fight back. With your attitude the victims never will. It's sad to see. In Texas an armed citizen with a hand gun killed two terrorists with rifles before they murdered anyone ... To bad this didn't happen here. I know it's important to you to win an argument ... I, however don't care what is important to you at this moment. Innocent people have been slaughtered. I wish they had been armed.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 4, 2015 12:42AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Crooks can buy guns from their buddies who can pass a background check.[/quote]
You write sentences that undermine your position.[/quote]
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun. That's WHY we have the Bill of Rights!!!!!! Had this not been a gun free zone perhaps someone could have fired back, like in Texas, and killed these two before the slaughter.[/quote]
You're supposing an awful lot there.[/quote]
I wish they would have had the opportunity to fight back. With your attitude the victims never will.[/quote]
With "my attitude"?

What, exactly is "my attitude"?

How can you even know what "my attitude" is?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 12:57AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
I'm still trying to parse it, Lobo:

A climate of anti-Muslim hatred has nothing to with random Muslims [url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/23/group-says-france-sees-as-many-anti-muslim-acts-since-january-terror-attacks-as/] getting hurt [/url],

but asking people not to be rude is a problem?

Perhaps there might be an element of personal responsibility in all of these cases? [/quote]

Firstly, there's no particular reason to conflate two different issues. I didn't say anything about Muslims getting hurt.secondly, political correctness goes well above and beyond "asking people not to be rude."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 4, 2015 04:35AM)
Okay, let me ask it this way: where is it in the PC Constitution that it asks people to not mention it if they see their neighbors transporting pipe bombs?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 4, 2015 05:52AM)
The F.B.I. is treating the Wednesday shooting as a potential terrorist act, though the agency is far from concluding that it was, two law enforcement officials said.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 4, 2015 08:31AM)
While you were sleeping ...

"The Senate rejected a measure ... from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 4, 2015 08:50AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
While you were sleeping ...

"The Senate rejected a measure ... from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/ [/quote]
Why on earth would you want to deprive people on a terror watch list from their God-given and Constitutionally protected right to buy firearms? Those freedom-hating librols are at it again.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Dec 4, 2015 09:01AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, tommy wrote:
The F.B.I. is treating the Wednesday shooting as a potential terrorist act, though the agency is far from concluding that it was, two law enforcement officials said. [/quote]

I wonder who's preventing them from concluding that it was a terrorist act when everyone else now knows it was? Wait...I think I know.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 09:29AM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 4, 2015 09:48AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]
Yeah, but that's a slippery slope. If we make it harder for criminals and terrorists to legally buy guns, it's just a matter of time before Obama starts going house to house confiscating the weapons of law-abiding gun owners.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 09:59AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]
Yeah, but that's a slippery slope. If we make it harder for criminals and terrorists to legally buy guns, it's just a matter of time before Obama starts going house to house confiscating the weapons of law-abiding gun owners. [/quote]
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Sometimes it is easily identified by the use of the words "slippery slope" in an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 10:08AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
While you were sleeping ...

"The Senate rejected a measure ... from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/ [/quote]
Why on earth would you want to deprive people on a terror watch list from their God-given and Constitutionally protected right to buy firearms? Those freedom-hating librols are at it again. [/quote]

Would you support taking other freedoms from them as well? Ir is it just this so you can be sarcastic and all proud of yourself?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 10:11AM)
It's not a logical fallacy; it's an argument structure that may be the basis for either a valid argument or a flawed one.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 10:11AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]

It would help your argument a LOT more if you could actually know what it is you are talking about.

So since you concede the crooks will get guns, why disarm law abiding folks? Since it is the criminals who have been using them for terrible things, why punish law abiding citizens? Why is it this question never gets answered?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 10:12AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]
Yeah, but that's a slippery slope. If we make it harder for criminals and terrorists to legally buy guns, it's just a matter of time before Obama starts going house to house confiscating the weapons of law-abiding gun owners. [/quote]
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Sometimes it is easily identified by the use of the words "slippery slope" in an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [/quote]

Incorrect.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 10:14AM)
The craziness is that 1 in 1,000,000 do something wrong and the reflex is to take away rights from the other 999,999.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 10:17AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]

Do you have a source for that $30,000 number?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Dec 4, 2015 10:17AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]

Who is going to pay $30,000 for an AR-15? They'd have to be REALLY naive to do so. I might pick up a few and flip them for some nice profit, please have them contact me and I'll cut you a 10% finders fee.
Making guns harder to acquire legally by law abiding citizens has not slowed down criminals in doing so and never will.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 10:20AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It's not a logical fallacy; it's an argument structure that may be the basis for either a valid argument or a flawed one. [/quote]I would concede that, if he'd bothered to explain the logical chain of progression. Because right now, our politicians (and quite a few gun owners) scream bloody murder the second someone mentions any restrictions at all. I can't conceive of any logical chain of events that leads to outright confiscation.

I can't even conceive of any logical chain of events that leads to the smallest restriction on firearms being passed on a national level. If Sandy Hook resulted in diddly squat legislatively, nothing can bring about change.

I do find it amusing that a lot of people seem to want to violate privacy rights, religous freedoms, habeus corpus, and a bunch of other Amendments to "protect" us, but refuse to even look at the Second Amendment.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 10:22AM)
If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure he was being ironic.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 4, 2015 10:23AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
While you were sleeping ...

"The Senate rejected a measure ... from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/ [/quote]
Why on earth would you want to deprive people on a terror watch list from their God-given and Constitutionally protected right to buy firearms? Those freedom-hating librols are at it again. [/quote]

Would you support taking other freedoms from them as well? Ir is it just this so you can be sarcastic and all proud of yourself? [/quote]

I know this conversation has many branches, but I'd just like to say here, that I agree with conservatives on this, because [i]the whole concept of a warrantless watchlist with no judicial overview or recourse to challenge, and which already restricts all kinds of rights besides gun ownership, is inherently unconstitutional.[/i] It is the defining feature of an authoritarian government.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 4, 2015 10:26AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, NicholasD wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, tommy wrote:
The F.B.I. is treating the Wednesday shooting as a potential terrorist act, though the agency is far from concluding that it was, two law enforcement officials said. [/quote]

I wonder who's preventing them from concluding that it was a terrorist act when everyone else now knows it was? Wait...I think I know. [/quote]


Everyone but me.
Message: Posted by: Professor Marvel (Dec 4, 2015 10:32AM)
We don't need to seize everyone's guns to make some common sense changes to gun policy. Things like limiting clip capacity and commonly available weapons types can help limit tragedies. The 2nd amendment does not grant absolute right to bear all arms of any kind.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 10:37AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, Slim King wrote:
This affirms my position that CROOKS will always find a way to get a gun.[/quote]
Um, yeah. AR-15's cost like $500 when legally purchased (as opposed to something like $30,000 on the black market,) and there's no real way to prevent someone from just buying one for someone else. So [i]of course[/i] the crooks will get guns.

Maybe if we had a few common sense restrictions- waiting periods, etc.- and a few less guns, it wouldn't be so [i]easy[/i] for crooks to get them. [/quote]


I think you should start shopping at a different market. You're way overpaying. All those common sense ideas are in effect in CA. Background, waiting, etc. and still a muslim terrorist who in the past few days has been talking with known terrorists bought legal guns. Common sense restrictions are fine, but the problem is not the gun but the terrorist.

I love how everyone talks about the 'gun culture' in the US and how it's responsible for these mass killings. In this case, the 'culture' that did all the killing was something else. Appears to be as dangerous as the other.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 4, 2015 10:59AM)
How do you know if you are on a terror watch list?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 11:26AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure he was being ironic. [/quote]

Actually he might have been being sarcastic. It might be ironic you missed that though.
Message: Posted by: Daryl -the other brother (Dec 4, 2015 11:32AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
but the problem is not the gun but the terrorist. [/quote]


:applause: If we are talking about the California shootings the subject is not gun control, it terrorism.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 11:33AM)
Sarcasm is my favorite form of irony.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 12:15PM)
This was a very frightening and unfortunate situation.

My mom grew up in San Bernardino, and most of my family lives there.

My grandfather was less than a mile away when it happened.

I never realized how much more impact a shooting like this has viscerally when it hits close to home.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 4, 2015 12:23PM)
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Well we know now Redshirt. http://news.yahoo.com/pious-california-killer-showed-no-outward-signs-violence-081939530.html#

She HAD ties to ISIS and pledged her allegiance to them! I mean really- get your head out of the sand!
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 12:31PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, RNK wrote:

Well we know now Redshirt. http://news.yahoo.com/pious-california-killer-showed-no-outward-signs-violence-081939530.html#

She HAD ties to ISIS and pledged her allegiance to them! I mean really- get your head out of the sand! [/quote]

The two attackers were no doubt tied to ISIS/Daesh. It was a terrorist plot, that's not up for debate.

The point of divergence between liberals and conservatives comes when we talk about what we should do about it, not who perpetrated it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 12:35PM)
Would gun control laws have stopped a terrorist?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 12:37PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
This was a very frightening and unfortunate situation.

My mom grew up in San Bernardino, and most of my family lives there.

My grandfather was less than a mile away when it happened.

I never realized how much more impact a shooting like this has viscerally when it hits close to home. [/quote]

Good to hear your family is OK.

It is a shame that when it hits our family it changes the way we think. It is always someones family.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 12:41PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Well we know now Redshirt. http://news.yahoo.com/pious-california-killer-showed-no-outward-signs-violence-081939530.html#

She HAD ties to ISIS and pledged her allegiance to them! I mean really- get your head out of the sand! [/quote]


That workplace violence just gets worse and worse.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 12:47PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, RNK wrote:

Well we know now Redshirt. http://news.yahoo.com/pious-california-killer-showed-no-outward-signs-violence-081939530.html#

She HAD ties to ISIS and pledged her allegiance to them! I mean really- get your head out of the sand! [/quote]

The two attackers were no doubt tied to ISIS/Daesh. It was a terrorist plot, that's not up for debate.

The point of divergence between liberals and conservatives comes when we talk about what we should do about it, not who perpetrated it. [/quote]

And, that is?
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 12:48PM)
I am not a huge supporter of strict gun control. I'm somewhat moderate on the issue.

Background checks? Definitely (75% of the country supports them according to recent polls - its just common sense)

Other than that, I don't think gun control should be stricter on most conventional weapons.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 12:52PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Would gun control laws have stopped a terrorist? [/quote]

Of course. We just need more rigorous laws concerning buying pipes as well.

They knew Farook was talking to people on the terrorist watch list. He checked out apparently. Will be interesting to find out more about the wife who was subjected to our diligent government screening process. I got 5 bucks that says Pakistan knew she worked with terrorists and we just didn't get around to asking.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 12:53PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I am not a huge supporter of strict gun control. I'm somewhat moderate on the issue.

Background checks? Definitely (75% of the country supports them according to recent polls - its just common sense)

Other than that, I don't think gun control should be stricter on most conventional weapons. [/quote]


California has the most stringent controls including everything liberals want and he still bought them. All the blather about more controls is proven wrong in this case.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 12:54PM)
I think we need to drastically improve the mental health infrastructure in this country. I can go into more depth if need be.

I am supportive of wide-scale intelligence operations in the Middle East, and specific, coordinated strikes against known operatives. I am against boots on the ground and full on war at this point.

Also, if we continue a campaign of Islamaphobia, even more Muslims will join ISIS. We need to join with Muslims in the West to educate and raise awareness about fundamentalism, in order to prevent more people joining ISIS.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 01:01PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I think we need to drastically improve the mental health infrastructure in this country. I can go into more depth if need be.

I am supportive of wide-scale intelligence operations in the Middle East, and specific, coordinated strikes against known operatives. I am against boots on the ground and full on war at this point.

Also, if we continue a campaign of Islamaphobia, even more Muslims will join ISIS. We need to join with Muslims in the West to educate and raise awareness about fundamentalism, in order to prevent more people joining ISIS. [/quote]

There is no campaign of Islamaphobia. What is your evidence?. We are concerned about terrorists that feel their religion allows them to kill infidels. If that is a phobia, it's just like my phobia of going into bad neighborhoods in the middle of the night. Even moderate muslims support doctrine that is totally against western values. It's a cultural war. 51% of US muslims believe they should be allowed to be governed by sharia. How do you work with that? Honor killing, homosexual killing, adultery killing, raping infidel women - that's their cultural framework.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 4, 2015 01:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Professor Marvel wrote:
We don't need to seize everyone's guns to make some common sense changes to gun policy. Things like limiting clip capacity and commonly available weapons types can help limit tragedies. The 2nd amendment does not grant absolute right to bear all arms of any kind. [/quote]

How well did limiting "clip" (by the way, proper terminology is magazine, a clip is something completely different), capacity do under the assault weapons ban during those glory years? We were limited to 10 round magazines. Oh yea, didn't make any difference. Why not hold the criminals accountable instead of adding more useless and unproven governmental red tape ridiculous laws that we wont enforce anyway to the books?
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 01:12PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

There is no campaign of Islamophobia. What is your evidence?. We are concerned about terrorists that feel their religion allows them to kill infidels. If that is a phobia, it's just like my phobia of going into bad neighborhoods in the middle of the night. Even moderate muslims support doctrine that is totally against western values. It's a cultural war. 51% of US muslims believe they should be allowed to be governed by sharia. How do you work with that? Honor killing, homosexual killing, adultery killing, raping infidel women - that's their cultural framework. [/quote]

How can we have a serious conversation when you claim that 51% of muslims want Sharia Law?

As for my evidence of Islamophobia, look no further than your own rhetoric.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 4, 2015 01:15PM)
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 01:30PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/ [/quote]

From the PEW Research Center:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

One distinction here is that of the Muslims who want Sharia Law, much less of them believe it should apply to non-Muslims. So a large percentage of Muslims are only referring to other Muslims when talking about Sharia Law.

The biggest distinction here is that no AMERICAN Muslims were polled, and yet you claimed that 51% of US MUSLIMS were supportive of Sharia Law. Do you see how deceptive that is?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 4, 2015 01:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
This was a very frightening and unfortunate situation.

My mom grew up in San Bernardino, and most of my family lives there.

My grandfather was less than a mile away when it happened.

I never realized how much more impact a shooting like this has viscerally when it hits close to home. [/quote]

Good to hear your family is OK.

It is a shame that when it hits our family it changes the way we think. It is always someones family. [/quote]
except when you murder a dancefloor full of teenagers, then it's legitimate, asymetrical warfare.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 01:33PM)
I'm not even sure what that means I am sorry.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 01:37PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I am not a huge supporter of strict gun control. I'm somewhat moderate on the issue.

Background checks? Definitely (75% of the country supports them according to recent polls - its just common sense)

Other than that, I don't think gun control should be stricter on most conventional weapons. [/quote]


California has the most stringent controls including everything liberals want and he still bought them. All the blather about more controls is proven wrong in this case. [/quote]
There are still loopholes. The most stringent controls on guns anywhere in the US are incredibly lax compared to most other first-world countries.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 01:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I think we need to drastically improve the mental health infrastructure in this country. I can go into more depth if need be.

I am supportive of wide-scale intelligence operations in the Middle East, and specific, coordinated strikes against known operatives. I am against boots on the ground and full on war at this point.

Also, if we continue a campaign of Islamaphobia, even more Muslims will join ISIS. We need to join with Muslims in the West to educate and raise awareness about fundamentalism, in order to prevent more people joining ISIS. [/quote]
I totally support improving the mental health infrastructure. But I'm more and more convinced it's just a platitude being used by politicians to dodge having to actually deal with the gun problem. Otherwise, why don't they pass some actual legislation for mental health? If the conservatives put it forward, I'm certain liberals and the president would throw their support behind it as well.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 01:42PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I am not a huge supporter of strict gun control. I'm somewhat moderate on the issue.

Background checks? Definitely (75% of the country supports them according to recent polls - its just common sense)

Other than that, I don't think gun control should be stricter on most conventional weapons. [/quote]


California has the most stringent controls including everything liberals want and he still bought them. All the blather about more controls is proven wrong in this case. [/quote]
There are still loopholes. The most stringent controls on guns anywhere in the US are incredibly lax compared to most other first-world countries. [/quote]

Yea all that freedom just bugs you doesn't it?

MANY of the first world countries have different laws concerning things like search and seizure , right to trial and such. Does that bother you as well?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 01:43PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure he was being ironic. [/quote]

Actually he might have been being sarcastic. It might be ironic you missed that though. [/quote]
Poe's Law is in effect here. He didn't use an emoticon, I couldn't detect the sarcasm.

Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 01:45PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Well we know now Redshirt. http://news.yahoo.com/pious-california-killer-showed-no-outward-signs-violence-081939530.html#

She HAD ties to ISIS and pledged her allegiance to them! I mean really- get your head out of the sand! [/quote]
Alright. Now we know. At the time I made the initial post, [i]we did not know.[/i]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 01:55PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure he was being ironic. [/quote]

Actually he might have been being sarcastic. It might be ironic you missed that though. [/quote]
Poe's Law is in effect here. He didn't use an emoticon, I couldn't detect the sarcasm.

Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law [/quote]

You seem to be the only one who didn't detect it.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 01:57PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I am not a huge supporter of strict gun control. I'm somewhat moderate on the issue.

Background checks? Definitely (75% of the country supports them according to recent polls - its just common sense)

Other than that, I don't think gun control should be stricter on most conventional weapons. [/quote]


California has the most stringent controls including everything liberals want and he still bought them. All the blather about more controls is proven wrong in this case. [/quote]
There are still loopholes. The most stringent controls on guns anywhere in the US are incredibly lax compared to most other first-world countries. [/quote]

Yea all that freedom just bugs you doesn't it?

MANY of the first world countries have different laws concerning things like search and seizure , right to trial and such. Does that bother you as well? [/quote]
It's not the freedom. It's the stupidity and the greed. [b]Every time[/b] something like this happens, gun companies make money. People get scared and go out and buy more guns. I'm beginning to think like Slim here:

Point- Federal laws prevent gun manufacturers from being sued if someone is shot by their products.
Point- All gun manufacturers can pay a lesser amount of money to total up to a huge donation to the NRA lobbying group.
Point- The NRA is lobbying for zero additional gun restrictions despite the fact that a majority of its members support common-sense regulations.
Point- The NRA makes outrageous statements and absorbs all negative publicity gun manufacturers might otherwise take after a mass shooting.
Point- Gun sales go up after mass shootings (because of fear for personal safety.)
Point- Gun manufacturers are making massive profits- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you-2014-03-07?page=2

One might almost think there's actually an incentive to allow mass shootings to continue, and it's condoned by the politicians.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 02:04PM)
You are starting to think like Slim. Isn't that your first red flag?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 02:17PM)
I was 100% correct! All those California gun laws FAILED! The NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, and all the rest FAILED despite the TRILLION DOLLARS we give them every year!

Remember BOMB BOY and all those who helped him sue for $15,000,000.00???? Kind of made everyone wonder if the government would sue us if we "Saw Something Said Something!"... So no one said anything .. It was a set up!

While authorities were saying ... "Maybe workplace violence, or mixed motives?" those who helped these two were running for cover. Someone gave them a head start. Who is that?

Who was responsible to monitor the FB posts of brand new green card mail order brides from terroristically minded nations? Meanwhile Verizon has given the NSA every single phone call I've made in the last 7 years.

If I say the "IRS sucks" on FB I get audited for 6 years!!!! However this gal swears allegiance to ISIS on FB and no one does a thing?
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 4, 2015 02:17PM)
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 02:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 3, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Until there's an investigation, we won't know if it was terrorism or just extreme workplace violence.

It doesn't follow typical terrorist attack pattern- there were certainly targets which would have had a greater impact- shopping mall, courthouses, etc. The attackers didn't inflict more casualties when they could have, they stayed in the general area afterwards, and nobody blew themselves up.

One suspect knew the group involved, so it wasn't random. He was at the event, left angry, and came back shooting.

Let's let the investigators determine a motive before we start making accusations. Causing fear, anger, and rash decisions is exactly what terrorists want to do, let's not give in to their desires. [/quote]

Well we know now Redshirt. http://news.yahoo.com/pious-california-killer-showed-no-outward-signs-violence-081939530.html#

She HAD ties to ISIS and pledged her allegiance to them! I mean really- get your head out of the sand! [/quote]
Alright. Now we know. At the time I made the initial post, [i]we did not know.[/i] [/quote]


Yes, originally all we know was that we had a guy of Pakistani descent who killed about a dozen people and had several pipe bombs in his garage; all of a sudden, people were making wild speculative suggestions that it was terrorism. Amazingly, it seems to have turned out that they were correct. They really should have bought lottery tickets.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 02:20PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 4, 2015 02:22PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
I am not a huge supporter of strict gun control. I'm somewhat moderate on the issue.

Background checks? Definitely (75% of the country supports them according to recent polls - its just common sense)

Other than that, I don't think gun control should be stricter on most conventional weapons. [/quote]


California has the most stringent controls including everything liberals want and he still bought them. All the blather about more controls is proven wrong in this case. [/quote]
There are still loopholes. The most stringent controls on guns anywhere in the US are incredibly lax compared to most other first-world countries. [/quote]

Yea all that freedom just bugs you doesn't it?

MANY of the first world countries have different laws concerning things like search and seizure , right to trial and such. Does that bother you as well? [/quote]
It's not the freedom. It's the stupidity and the greed. [b]Every time[/b] something like this happens, gun companies make money. People get scared and go out and buy more guns. I'm beginning to think like Slim here:

Point- Federal laws prevent gun manufacturers from being sued if someone is shot by their products.
Point- All gun manufacturers can pay a lesser amount of money to total up to a huge donation to the NRA lobbying group.
Point- The NRA is lobbying for zero additional gun restrictions despite the fact that a majority of its members support common-sense regulations.
Point- The NRA makes outrageous statements and absorbs all negative publicity gun manufacturers might otherwise take after a mass shooting.
Point- Gun sales go up after mass shootings (because of fear for personal safety.)
Point- Gun manufacturers are making massive profits- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you-2014-03-07?page=2

One might almost think there's actually an incentive to allow mass shootings to continue, and it's condoned by the politicians. [/quote]

Can we sue car manufacturers when someone uses their vehicle to commit a crime? Can we sue alcohol manufacturers for the incidences of drunk driving?

Yet the NRA continues to grow............probably because there are more people who cherish our rights instead of despise them.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 02:30PM)
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 02:33PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]
Tell that to the 100 million unarmed people executed by Socialist regimes .....

The world would love to disarm patriotic Americans.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 02:35PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens!
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 02:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/ [/quote]

From the PEW Research Center:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

One distinction here is that of the Muslims who want Sharia Law, much less of them believe it should apply to non-Muslims. So a large percentage of Muslims are only referring to other Muslims when talking about Sharia Law.

********PROVE IT************* There are many countries that rule by Sharia. You think that is a distinction that matters anyway. It will only be do until they can foist it on everybody. Their religion requires it.

The biggest distinction here is that no AMERICAN Muslims were polled, and yet you claimed that 51% of US MUSLIMS were supportive of Sharia Law. Do you see how deceptive that is? [/quote]

The 51% is from a poll of US Muslims by the polling co. 60% told PEW they are more loyal to Islam than US. They will never assimilate because their religion forbids them to. That is the problem.

At least Christ told people to live within their government.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 02:42PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens! [/quote]

Maybe someone in that room would have shot Farook.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 02:45PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]

Once again, unless you are talking about confiscation there laws are pretty stringent. CA meets all the stuff gun control advocates want. Also, give up the NRA boogyman. There are 100M+ gun owners and 4M NRA members. This is not about the NRA.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 02:49PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens! [/quote]

Better yet lets take them away and see what happens.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 03:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens! [/quote]
If everyone on the 911 planes had guns we'd still have the World Trade Center. Over 100 people on each of those planes would have gunned down those terrorist in less than a minute!!!!
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 4, 2015 03:03PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. Also, coincidentally, in gun ownership.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 03:07PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens! [/quote]

Better yet lets take them away and see what happens. [/quote]

I agree. Let's start with terrorists and criminals since that seems to be where the problem is. After that, we'll look at the others cause it won't do much good otherwise.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 03:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]

Propoganda on the Café ..ROTFLMAO
More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. Also, coincidentally, in gun ownership. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 03:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens! [/quote]
If everyone on the 911 planes had guns we'd still have the World Trade Center. Over 100 people on each of those planes would have gunned down those terrorist in less than a minute!!!! [/quote]
Arm the passengers?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 03:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!! [/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens! [/quote]
If everyone on the 911 planes had guns we'd still have the World Trade Center. Over 100 people on each of those planes would have gunned down those terrorist in less than a minute!!!! [/quote]
Arm the passengers? [/quote]
THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE AIR MARSHALL PROGRAM DANNY ...We needed more armed people flying ... Could have stopped the entire 911 attack!!! Making the plane a gun free zone didn't work there either ..just like it didn't work at the Christmas party!
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 03:13PM)
Just first class.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 4, 2015 03:16PM)
This was a hilarious All in the Family bit. You must be trolling.

But I'll bite. It was arming the passengers that started the air martial program?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 03:38PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 03:43PM)
Definitely time for me to step away. Like I said, Poe's Law. At least one person here is, I believe, being earnest. The rest, I have no clue. Statements are being made here that I'd normally consider flat-out trolling, but theyre less outrageous than the ones I believe to be made in earnest.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 4, 2015 03:46PM)
Not all suicides are suicides.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 03:48PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, tommy wrote:
Not all suicides are suicides. [/quote]
And a suicide by gun is still a death.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 03:50PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, tommy wrote:
Not all suicides are suicides. [/quote]
And a suicide by gun is still a death. [/quote]
Exactly!
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 4, 2015 04:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

From the Washington Post:

"Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

If you are more of a visual learner, please Google "gun death rate by country" like I did: https://www.google.com/search?q=which+country+has+the+highest+deaths+by+guns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFoNO5m8PJAhVKMSYKHTsGDo8Q_AUICCgC&biw=1168&bih=664#tbm=isch&q=gun+death+rate+by+country
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 04:14PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, tommy wrote:
Not all suicides are suicides. [/quote]
And a suicide by gun is still a death. [/quote]
Exactly! [/quote]

Exactly true, and exactly missing the point. I was responding to a post relating "gun deaths" in the USA to [i]safety[/i] (specifically, the likelihood of being shot as you go about your day to day life). As you were careful enough to distinguish between "US Muslims" and Muslims outside the U.S., and to note the flaw in using one group in the premise of an argument and another in the conclusion, I have no doubt that the logic of my point does not escape you. The number of gun [i]suicides[/i] in the country has no bearing on the likelihood of your being the victim of a gun [i]homicide[/i].
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 04:16PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

From the Washington Post:

"Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

If you are more of a visual learner, please Google "gun death rate by country" like I did: https://www.google.com/search?q=which+country+has+the+highest+deaths+by+guns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFoNO5m8PJAhVKMSYKHTsGDo8Q_AUICCgC&biw=1168&bih=664#tbm=isch&q=gun+death+rate+by+country [/quote]

Perhaps you shouldn't have overstated your case by omitting the qualifier "of all developed countries."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 4, 2015 04:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/ [/quote]

From the PEW Research Center:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

One distinction here is that of the Muslims who want Sharia Law, much less of them believe it should apply to non-Muslims. So a large percentage of Muslims are only referring to other Muslims when talking about Sharia Law.

********PROVE IT************* There are many countries that rule by Sharia. You think that is a distinction that matters anyway. It will only be do until they can foist it on everybody. Their religion requires it.

The biggest distinction here is that no AMERICAN Muslims were polled, and yet you claimed that 51% of US MUSLIMS were supportive of Sharia Law. Do you see how deceptive that is? [/quote]

The 51% is from a poll of US Muslims by the polling co. 60% told PEW they are more loyal to Islam than US. They will never assimilate because their religion forbids them to. That is the problem.

At least Christ told people to live within their government. [/quote]
How do you feel about Hasidic Jews and the local Sanhedridim? [The local Hasidic courts that make decisions based strictly on Torah and Talmudic law. They are a powerful force where I live.] How do you feel about their strict adherence to non-assimiliation, and their considering assimilation a strict taboo?
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 4, 2015 04:21PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, tommy wrote:
Not all suicides are suicides. [/quote]
And a suicide by gun is still a death. [/quote]
Exactly! [/quote]

Exactly true, and exactly missing the point. I was responding to a post relating "gun deaths" in the USA to [i]safety[/i] (specifically, the likelihood of being shot as you go about your day to day life). As you were careful enough to distinguish between "US Muslims" and Muslims outside the U.S., and to note the flaw in using one group in the premise of an argument and another in the conclusion, I have no doubt that the logic of my point does not escape you. The number of gun [i]suicides[/i] in the country has no bearing on the likelihood of your being the victim of a gun [i]homicide[/i]. [/quote]

Point well taken.

However, if we're talking about gun safety, any death by gun (whether homicidal, suicidal, or accidental) is still relevant.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 4, 2015 04:31PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

From the Washington Post:

"Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

If you are more of a visual learner, please Google "gun death rate by country" like I did: https://www.google.com/search?q=which+country+has+the+highest+deaths+by+guns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFoNO5m8PJAhVKMSYKHTsGDo8Q_AUICCgC&biw=1168&bih=664#tbm=isch&q=gun+death+rate+by+country [/quote]

Perhaps you shouldn't have overstated your case by omitting the qualifier "of all developed countries." [/quote]

That's a valid correction. Then we can agree that in the US you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other [i]developed[/i] countries are.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 04:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/ [/quote]

From the PEW Research Center:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

One distinction here is that of the Muslims who want Sharia Law, much less of them believe it should apply to non-Muslims. So a large percentage of Muslims are only referring to other Muslims when talking about Sharia Law.

********PROVE IT************* There are many countries that rule by Sharia. You think that is a distinction that matters anyway. It will only be do until they can foist it on everybody. Their religion requires it.

The biggest distinction here is that no AMERICAN Muslims were polled, and yet you claimed that 51% of US MUSLIMS were supportive of Sharia Law. Do you see how deceptive that is? [/quote]

The 51% is from a poll of US Muslims by the polling co. 60% told PEW they are more loyal to Islam than US. They will never assimilate because their religion forbids them to. That is the problem.

At least Christ told people to live within their government. [/quote]
How do you feel about Hasidic Jews and the local Sanhedridim? [The local Hasidic courts that make decisions based strictly on Torah and Talmudic law. They are a powerful force where I live.] How do you feel about their strict adherence to non-assimiliation, and their considering assimilation a strict taboo? [/quote]

Hasidic courts only have power if you want to obey them. Hassidim don't want their religion imposed on others. Islam believes all must conform to sharia. And, as far as I know Hassidic courts don't recommend death for adultery, gayness or leaving Judaism. They may have a lot of customs I think are crazy, but they don't go around shooting innocent people because they're not Jews.

Keep reaching for more lame arguments. Pointless though.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 4, 2015 04:35PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!![/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens![/quote]
If everyone on the 911 planes had guns we'd still have the World Trade Center. Over 100 people on each of those planes would have gunned down those terrorist in less than a minute!!!![/quote]
Your comments keep getting stupider and stupider.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 04:36PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

Also factually incorrect. The majority of gun deaths is from black people shooting black people i.e. gangs.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 04:39PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

From the Washington Post:

"Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

If you are more of a visual learner, please Google "gun death rate by country" like I did: https://www.google.com/search?q=which+country+has+the+highest+deaths+by+guns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFoNO5m8PJAhVKMSYKHTsGDo8Q_AUICCgC&biw=1168&bih=664#tbm=isch&q=gun+death+rate+by+country [/quote]

Perhaps you shouldn't have overstated your case by omitting the qualifier "of all developed countries." [/quote]

That's a valid correction. Then we can agree that in the US you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other [i]developed[/i] countries are. [/quote]

I think the appropriate metric would be "gun homicide rate" rather than "gun death rate." If it holds true after controlling for suicide, then sure.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 4, 2015 04:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

Also factually incorrect. The majority of gun deaths is from black people shooting black people i.e. gangs. [/quote]

No; there are far more gun suicides than gun homicides in the USA.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 4, 2015 04:46PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Hasidic courts only have power if you want to obey them. Hassidim don't want their religion imposed on others. [b]Islam believes all must conform to sharia.[/b] And, as far as I know Hassidic courts don't recommend death for adultery, gayness or leaving Judaism. They may have a lot of customs I think are crazy, but they don't go around shooting innocent people because they're not Jews.

Keep reaching for more lame arguments. Pointless though. [/quote]
Bold emphasis mine. You're making a vast oversimplification.
http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Also, though you probably mistrust the source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/shariah-law-the-five-things-every-non-muslim_b_1068569.html
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 4, 2015 05:28PM)
Hermit wrote:

[quote] Islam believes all must conform to sharia.[/quote]
Simply a lie. My Jewish ancestors lived under Muslim rule for hundreds of years without having to give up their religion.

And you've obviously not been following what is happening in Israel as the ultra-Orthodox have made more and more demands for all Israelis to follow Talmudic law.

In my neighborhood here in NYC, they have forced businesses to close on Saturday whether they are Hasidic or not. So direct consequence of religious fundamentalism.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 4, 2015 10:57PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!![/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens![/quote]
If everyone on the 911 planes had guns we'd still have the World Trade Center. Over 100 people on each of those planes would have gunned down those terrorist in less than a minute!!!![/quote]
Your comments keep getting stupider and stupider. [/quote]
Why are you calling people names????? There are dead americans and all you can do is call members of the Café names ...????Why the attacks?
What about that pledge you took????
People are DEAD and you worry about winning an argument?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 4, 2015 11:02PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I have no doubt that the arms dealers have invested on both sides of the issue just as businesses contribute to both the Repubs and the Demos ....

Bottom line ... as I've said for years .. Please Arm Yourselves!!!!![/quote]

Guns don't kill People, People kill People. So let's give everyone guns and see what happens![/quote]
If everyone on the 911 planes had guns we'd still have the World Trade Center. Over 100 people on each of those planes would have gunned down those terrorist in less than a minute!!!![/quote]
Your comments keep getting stupider and stupider. [/quote]
Why are you calling people names????? There are dead americans and all you can do is call members of the Café names ...????Why the attacks?
What about that pledge you took????
People are DEAD and you worry about winning an argument?[/quote]
You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I've not called anyone names.

I simply said that your comments (not you) are stupid.

I said that because they are.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 4, 2015 11:42PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

From the Washington Post:

"Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

If you are more of a visual learner, please Google "gun death rate by country" like I did[/quote]

Perhaps you shouldn't have overstated your case by omitting the qualifier "of all developed countries." [/quote]
So you are leading the pack with regards to gun safety when it comes to third world nations? Kudos to you. You win the debate. But your observations reminds me of one of those "yay, we're all winners" lines, though.

Randwill, just be satisfied that these things (certainly mainly) happen there and not here.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 4, 2015 11:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Hermit wrote:

[quote] Islam believes all must conform to sharia.[/quote]
Simply a lie. My Jewish ancestors lived under Muslim rule for hundreds of years without having to give up their religion.

And you've obviously not been following what is happening in Israel as the ultra-Orthodox have made more and more demands for all Israelis to follow Talmudic law.

In my neighborhood here in NYC, they have forced businesses to close on Saturday whether they are Hasidic or not. So direct consequence of religious fundamentalism. [/quote]

No one can make a business close on Saturday in the US. The business may agree to close out of sensitivity to the community that supports them. That's just the give and take of commerce. You don't antagonize your clients. However, more pointless examples since I still haven't seem NY Hassidim doing much beheading, stoning of women, teaching gay men to fly or killing people that leave the community.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 5, 2015 12:01AM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

No one can make a business close on Saturday in the US.
[/quote]
I would be surprised if that was really the case. Some cities in the U.S. ban the sale of alcohol for instance. I have trouble believing a city can restrict alcohol sales but not store opening hours.

This has to do with Sunday not Saturdays, but I suppose it is basically the same idea:

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/americas-last-ban-sunday-shopping
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 5, 2015 12:01AM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Randwill wrote:
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to accept the fact that we live in a country where you or a loved one are more likely to end up with a bullet in your body while going about your everyday life than people in other countries are.

There are two factors, the people and the laws. You can't fix effed up people and lawmakers have no motivation to draft stricter federal laws. They are not about to give up the cushy life-styles that NRA money provides them just so us lowly citizens can be safer in schools, movie theaters and workplaces. Never going to happen. [/quote]


More likely than in some countries; less likely than in most countries. And still extremely unlikely. Fortunately, we're one of the countries that permits people to head off to other places that some might find preferable. [/quote]

America leads the world in gun-related deaths. [/quote]

That's simply factually incorrect.

Moreover, the vast majority of gun deaths in he USA are suicides, so if you and your loved ones don't plan on offing yourselves, the chances of ending up with a bullet in you go way down. [/quote]

From the Washington Post:

"Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

If you are more of a visual learner, please Google "gun death rate by country" like I did[/quote]

Perhaps you shouldn't have overstated your case by omitting the qualifier "of all developed countries." [/quote]
So you are leading the pack with regards to gun safety when it comes to third world nations? Kudos to you. You win the debate. But your observations reminds me of one of those "yay, we're all winners" lines, though.

Randwill, just be satisfied that these things (certainly mainly) happen there and not here. [/quote]

Why is "developed nations" the relevant criterion? Other than it's a nice arbitrary distinction that one can use to make political hay by creating a subgroup in which you can claim that we rank last. Is there some inherently obvious reason that it's more appropriate to compare the USA to "developed" Japan, a tiny island country with no bordering countries several thousand miles away, than to "developing" Brazil, a country much closer to the USA in population and geography?

But of course if we included Brazil in the comparison, all of the fair-minded, objective, intellectually honest anti-gun types wouldn't be able to say that the USA ranked last.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 6, 2015 08:52AM)
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 6, 2015 09:43AM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

No one can make a business close on Saturday in the US.
[/quote]
I would be surprised if that was really the case. Some cities in the U.S. ban the sale of alcohol for instance. I have trouble believing a city can restrict alcohol sales but not store opening hours.

This has to do with Sunday not Saturdays, but I suppose it is basically the same idea:

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/americas-last-ban-sunday-shopping [/quote]

Can't do it in NYC
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 6, 2015 09:53AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. [/quote]

Typical.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 6, 2015 08:24PM)
[quote]No one can make a business close on Saturday in the US. The business may agree to close out of sensitivity to the community that supports them. That's just the give and take of commerce. You don't antagonize your clients.[/quote]

Wrong. Small businesses have been ruthlessly coerced and bought out in some areas. That's a reality of New York City real estate and politics. It has nothing to do with being "sensitive to the community."

[quote]However, more pointless examples since I still haven't seem NY Hassidim doing much beheading, stoning of women, teaching gay men to fly or killing people that leave the community. [/quote]

Is your implication then, that NY Muslims are doing beheading, stoning, etc. Otherwise the analogy between Sharia and the Talmud holds. They are actually remarkably similar, not surprising given the common origin.

For the record, Hasidic women have no right of divorce and are often plunged into poverty by their former husbands, and excommunicated from all their former relationships. Some women got so desperate, there was a recent case where Rabbis were hired by the women to kidnap and torture the husbands into granting a divorce.
Then of course was the Orthodox Jewish boy from my neighborhood who assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel because he thought the PM was too conciliatory to the Arabs.

I say this not to put down any religion, but to point out the double standard and misinformation all along the line, in just about all of your posts.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 6, 2015 08:34PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. [/quote]

Typical. [/quote]
Sorry, but I think that's a strong point. If the guy had been carrying, the outcome would have been different.

But, and I say this with tongue only half in cheek, there is a way to make sure that gun control laws get passed by Congress within the next month. All that has to happen is for a coalition of Muslim Imams and Black church leaders to insist to their followers that [i]all[/i] US Muslims and Black men aged 21 - 27 arm themselves with multiple concealed weapons as the Second Amendment allows them to; you'll then see National Gun Control passed by both Houses of Congress so fast it will make your head spin.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 6, 2015 08:55PM)
You don't know that. It is the same assumption as if others had a gun they could have stopped him. Can't make one without the other.

The second part is just nonsense.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 6, 2015 09:16PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. [/quote]
Too bad THEY didn't!!!!!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 6, 2015 09:29PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. [/quote]
Too bad THEY didn't!!!!!!!!!! [/quote]

See my point landmark?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 6, 2015 09:29PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun.[/quote]
Too bad THEY didn't!!!!!!!!!![/quote]
Yet another stupid, thoughtless comment.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 6, 2015 10:51PM)
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 6, 2015 11:33PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2015 12:58AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

The second part is just nonsense. [/quote]

Not as much nonsense as it may seem: the modern era of gun control was a direct result of the Black Panthers in the 60s/70s declaring their Constitutional right to open carry. The Panthers said the guns were necessary for self-defense against racial harassment; others had a different opinion. But for a while at least, the law was on their side. That soon changed, and not accidently.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 7, 2015 07:18AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Meanwhile, in London last night, another terrorist attack. A man yelled, "This is for Syria!" then non-fatally stabbed three people with a knife before being tased by police.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. [/quote]

Too bad the victims didn't have a gun.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 7, 2015 07:23AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable. [/quote]

Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 7, 2015 07:40AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable. [/quote]

Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do. [/quote]

This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.
I'm sick and tired of people saying that arming yourself is the wrong thing to do when we just lost another 14 Americans!!!!!
Arm yourselves! Save your family!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 08:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable. [/quote]

Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do. [/quote]
I think that a reasonable person knows you can not change only one variable so it suits your argument and expect to be taken seriously.

The entire arm yourselves idea is predicated on everyone being a great shot and being able to function in a hot zone.

I am all for the second amendment. I don't want it infringed upon and think it is terrible how it is under almost constant assault. But making asinine arguments is not the solution.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 7, 2015 08:25AM)
The logic is infantile.

These people behaved like school shooters. They armoured up, loaded up and prepared to die. They had no intention of doing anything other that wreaking maximum damage until their own deaths stopped them.

This isn't about childhood fantasies of stopping bad guys. This kind of crime is premeditated and it takes advantage of local conditions and possibilities. Armed civilians are simply part of the calculus.

Legislation MIGHT slow down this kind of activity if large scale purchases flagged police investigation. If guns were slightly more difficult to obtain, then they would have more difficulty building the arsenal. But other alternatives, such as pipe bombs, remain open to them.

In a free and open society, we are vulnerable to crimes of this kind. Single action responses (more guns! fewer guns! stop immigrants! blah blah blah) will do nothing to prevent further tragedy.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 09:33AM)
Look at us agreeing and stuff.

There are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 10:07AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]No one can make a business close on Saturday in the US. The business may agree to close out of sensitivity to the community that supports them. That's just the give and take of commerce. You don't antagonize your clients.[/quote]

Wrong. Small businesses have been ruthlessly coerced and bought out in some areas. That's a reality of New York City real estate and politics. It has nothing to do with being "sensitive to the community."
******** maybe coerced or whatever. I said they can't be made to close.
[quote]However, more pointless examples since I still haven't seem NY Hassidim doing much beheading, stoning of women, teaching gay men to fly or killing people that leave the community. [/quote]

Is your implication then, that NY Muslims are doing beheading, stoning, etc. Otherwise the analogy between Sharia and the Talmud holds. They are actually remarkably similar, not surprising given the common origin.

For the record, Hasidic women have no right of divorce and are often plunged into poverty by their former husbands, and excommunicated from all their former relationships. Some women got so desperate, there was a recent case where Rabbis were hired by the women to kidnap and torture the husbands into granting a divorce.
Then of course was the Orthodox Jewish boy from my neighborhood who assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel because he thought the PM was too conciliatory to the Arabs.

I say this not to put down any religion, but to point out the double standard and misinformation all along the line, in just about all of your posts. [/quote]

No double standard in my point. I don't see Jews doing what the CA shooters did. Only happens with Muslims. So maybe the religion has something to do with it. In fact, when you read the articles about friend describing the shooters before the act, they talk about them getting more religious as a sign that something was going on. It's always referred to that way - 'they were acting more religious.'
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2015 10:58AM)
[quote]Only happens with Muslims. [/quote]
And again the big lie and the double standard--a Christian fundamentalist just committed a serial killing, as have others in the past. No, it not only happens with Muslims.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 11:24AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]

Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife???[/quote]
He likely would have been wielding more than a knife.

To think that you can change the rules for the victims but leave the rules for the culprits unchanged is stupid.
Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries.[/quote]
If you think I made Slim's point, your analysis is as shallow as his.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 11:27AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]
Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
You're so silly, Slim.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
Or gotten them killed by an equally well-armed culprit.

You're so short-sighted it's pathetic.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 11:47AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]Only happens with Muslims. [/quote]
And again the big lie and the double standard--a Christian fundamentalist just committed a serial killing, as have others in the past. No, it not only happens with Muslims. [/quote]

Puhleeze. We've had a couple of Christian killers. None part of an organized movement. On the other hand, we have 9.11 killers, paris, california, free flying gays, stoned women and guys beheaded for being non-muslim.


Stop with your double standard. You can pick the fly sh..t from the pepper, but you know what you're saying pales in comparison to muslim terrorists.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 11:48AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]
Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
You're so silly, Slim.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
Or gotten them killed by an equally well-armed culprit.

You're so short-sighted it's pathetic. [/quote]

At least there would have been a fair fight.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 11:52AM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/ [/quote]

From the PEW Research Center:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

One distinction here is that of the Muslims who want Sharia Law, much less of them believe it should apply to non-Muslims. So a large percentage of Muslims are only referring to other Muslims when talking about Sharia Law.

********PROVE IT************* There are many countries that rule by Sharia. You think that is a distinction that matters anyway. It will only be do until they can foist it on everybody. Their religion requires it.

The biggest distinction here is that no AMERICAN Muslims were polled, and yet you claimed that 51% of US MUSLIMS were supportive of Sharia Law. Do you see how deceptive that is? [/quote]

The 51% is from a poll of US Muslims by the polling co. 60% told PEW they are more loyal to Islam than US. They will never assimilate because their religion forbids them to. That is the problem.

At least Christ told people to live within their government. [/quote]
How do you feel about Hasidic Jews and the local Sanhedridim? [The local Hasidic courts that make decisions based strictly on Torah and Talmudic law. They are a powerful force where I live.] How do you feel about their strict adherence to non-assimiliation, and their considering assimilation a strict taboo? [/quote]

Just to make sure you get my point. When the Hassidim start carrying guns into buildings and killing dozens of people, I'll get concerned. Otherwise, it appears I should be more worried about radical muslims than radical jews.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 7, 2015 11:53AM)
They would have had an equal chance if both sides were equally armed but unarmed they had no chance against him who was.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 7, 2015 12:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Most Muslims want Sharia Law.


Http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/foreign/most-muslims-want-sharia-law-study/ [/quote]

From the PEW Research Center:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

One distinction here is that of the Muslims who want Sharia Law, much less of them believe it should apply to non-Muslims. So a large percentage of Muslims are only referring to other Muslims when talking about Sharia Law.

********PROVE IT************* There are many countries that rule by Sharia. You think that is a distinction that matters anyway. It will only be do until they can foist it on everybody. Their religion requires it.

The biggest distinction here is that no AMERICAN Muslims were polled, and yet you claimed that 51% of US MUSLIMS were supportive of Sharia Law. Do you see how deceptive that is? [/quote]

The 51% is from a poll of US Muslims by the polling co. 60% told PEW they are more loyal to Islam than US. They will never assimilate because their religion forbids them to. That is the problem.

At least Christ told people to live within their government. [/quote]
How do you feel about Hasidic Jews and the local Sanhedridim? [The local Hasidic courts that make decisions based strictly on Torah and Talmudic law. They are a powerful force where I live.] How do you feel about their strict adherence to non-assimiliation, and their considering assimilation a strict taboo? [/quote]

Just to make sure you get my point. When the Hassidim start carrying guns into buildings and killing dozens of people, I'll get concerned. Otherwise, it appears I should be more worried about radical muslims than radical jews. [/quote]

Exactly Hermit. Last I checked I have not heard about any JEW beheaded someone. Unless I missed it. But I am pretty sure that hasn't happened. To make a comparison of Jews to ISIS members is just laughable.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 12:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]
Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
You're so silly, Slim.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
Or gotten them killed by an equally well-armed culprit.

You're so short-sighted it's pathetic. [/quote]

At least there would have been a fair fight. [/quote]

Under what logical framework is that true? It wasn't a fair fight and suddenly you make it one.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 7, 2015 12:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, RNK wrote:

Just to make sure you get my point. When the Hassidim start carrying guns into buildings and killing dozens of people, I'll get concerned. Otherwise, it appears I should be more worried about radical muslims than radical jews. [/quote]

Exactly Hermit. Last I checked I have not heard about any JEW beheaded someone. Unless I missed it. But I am pretty sure that hasn't happened. To make a comparison of Jews to ISIS members is just laughable. [/quote]

I haven't heard of any women beheading anyone. Does this mean that we need laws to restrict the liberties of all men?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2015 12:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2015, landmark wrote:

How do you feel about Hasidic Jews and the local Sanhedridim? [The local Hasidic courts that make decisions based strictly on Torah and Talmudic law. They are a powerful force where I live.] How do you feel about their strict adherence to non-assimiliation, and their considering assimilation a strict taboo? [/quote]

Just to make sure you get my point. When the Hassidim start carrying guns into buildings and killing dozens of people, I'll get concerned. Otherwise, it appears I should be more worried about radical muslims than radical jews. [/quote]

The assassination of an Israeli prime minister by one of my radical Hasidic neighbors should be quite enough to concern anyone without a double standard, but here's more for you, as reported in Haaretz, a popular Israeli newspaper:

"One of the largest U.S. organizations involved in funding Jewish communities in the West Bank is the Brooklyn-based Hebron Fund. It transferred $5.7 million to the Jewish settlement in Hebron from 2009-2014...

It has also paid the monthly salary (cumulatively amounting to hundreds of thousands of shekels) of Menachem Livni..

A convicted murderer, Livni was one of the leaders of the Jewish Underground, which operated in the territories in the 1980s, killing three Palestinian students and severely injuring two Palestinian mayors and a Border Police sapper. Livni was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was released after six years.

Dan Rosenstein, executive director of the Hebron Fund, declined to answer questions about the fund’s activities or discuss its donors and beneficiaries."

http://www.haaretz.com/settlementdollars/.premium-1.689683?v=81CF923C7B4D29BB9DE3637D9EE8EAFA

And for the record we are neither talking about "radical" Muslims, nor "radical" Jews. We are talking about fundamentalist reactionary religious nuts whose outlook concerning religion closely matches the anti-gay, anti-woman, militaristic, apocalyptic ideology of the reactionary Christian fundamentalists in the US.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 7, 2015 12:25PM)
If the experts in the military think it’s a good idea to be armed when going into battle, then why is it bad idea for civilians to be unarmed when they are being attacked by crazy Muslims and Christians with bombs, guns and big shiny knifes? The safest thing to do is not only carry bombs, guns and big shiny knifes but use them and kill all the Muslims and Christians while they are asleep in their beds.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2015 12:38PM)
From the FBI:

94% acts of terror in the US from 1980-2005 committed by non-Muslims


Chronological Summary of Terrorist Incidents in the United States 1980-2005
Date Location Incident Type
Perpetrator Killed Injured
1/7/1980 San Juan, PR Pipe Bombing Anti-Communist Alliance
1/13/1980 New York, NY Bombing Omega 7 4
1/13/1980 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
1/19/1980 San Juan, PR Bombing Omega 7
3/12/1980 Hato Rey, PR Armed Assault Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
3/15/1980 Chicago, IL Hostile Takeovers (2) Armed Forces of National Liberation
3/17/1980 New York, NY Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters 3
3/25/1980 New York, NY Attempted Bombing Omega 7
4/19/1980 Chattanooga, TN Shooting Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 4
4/30/1980 New York, NY Assault Revolutionary Communist Party
6/3/1980 Washington, DC Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters
6/3/1980 New York, NY Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters
7/14/1980 Dorato, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Organization of Volunteers for the
San Juan, PR Puerto Rico Revolution
7/14/1980 Ponce, PR Multiple Arsons (2) Organization of Volunteers for the
Mayaguez, PR Puerto Rico Revolution
7/22/1980 Hato Rey, PR Multiple Bombings (4) Revolutionary Commandos of the People,
Santurce, PR Ready and at War
Rio Piedras, PR
8/20/1980 Berkeley, CA Pipe Bombing Iranian Free Army 2
9/11/1980 New York, NY Shooting Omega 7 1
10/7/1980 New York, NY Attempted Bombing International Committee Against Nazism
10/12/1980 New York, NY Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide 4
10/12/1980 Hollywood, CA Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide 1
10/14/1980 Fort Collins, CO Shooting Libyan Revolutionary Committee 1
12/21/1980 New York, NY Pipe Bombing Armed Forces of Popular Resistance
12/30/1980 Hialeah, FL Attempted Bombing Omega 7
1/8/1981 Santurce, PR Multiple IncendiaryBombings (3) People’s Revolutionary Commandos
Ponce, PR
Rio Piedras, PR
1/12/1981 San Juan, PR Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
1/23/1981 New York City, NY Bombing Croatian Freedom Fighters
1/26/1981 San Francisco, CA Bombing Jewish Defense League/American Revenge
Committee
2/2/1981 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Bombing 3-Oct
2/9/1981 Eugene, OR Assault Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade
2/22/1981 Hollywood, CA Bombing Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation
of Armenia
3/15/1981 San Juan, PR Attempted Bombing Armed Forces of Popular Resistance
4/21/1981 Santurce, PR Robbery Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
4/27/1981 Washington, DC Incendiary Bombing Iranian Patriotic Army
5/16-18/81 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (5) Puerto Rican Armed Resistance 1
6/25/1981 Torrance, CA Incendiary Bombing Jewish Defenders
6/26/1981 Los Angeles, CA Bombing June 9 Organization
7/30/1981 New York City, NY Hostile Takeover Libyan Students
8/7/1981 Washington, DC Hostile Takeover People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran 3
8/20/1981 Washington, DC Arson Black Brigade
8/20/1981 Los Angeles, CA Bombing June 9 Organization
8/27/1981 Carolina, PR Bombing Grupo Estrella
8/31/1981 New York City, NY Hostile Takeover Jewish Defense League
9/3-4/81 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (2) Jewish Defense League
9/9/1981 Washington, DC Assault Concerned Sierra Leone Nationals
9/11/1981 Miami, FL Multiple Bombings (2) Omega 7
9/12/1981 New York City, NY Bombing Omega 7
9/22/1981 Schenectady, NY Bombing Communist Workers Party
9/24/1981 Miami, FL Attempted Bombing Omega 7
10/1/1981 Hollywood, CA Bombing Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

10/25/1981 New York City, NY Incendiary Bombing Jewish Defense League
11/11/1981 Santurce, PR Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
11/14/1981 Glen Cove, NY Shooting Unaffiliated Extremists
11/20/1981 Los Angeles, CA Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide
11/27/1981 Fort Buchanan, PR Shooting National Liberation Movement 1
11/27/1981 Santurce, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
Condado, PR
12/24/1981 New York City, NY Attempted Pipe Jewish Defense League
Bombing
1/28/1982 Los Angeles, CA Shooting Justice Commandos of the Armenian 1
Genocide
2/19/1982 Miami, FL Multiple Bombings (2) Omega 7
2/19/1982 Washington, DC Bombing Jewish Defense League
2/21/1982 Rio Piedras, PR Pipe Bombing Antonia Martinez Student Commandos
2/28/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (4) Armed Forces of National Liberation
3/22/1982 Cambridge, MA Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian
Genocide
4/5/1982 Brooklyn, NY Arson Jewish Defense League 1 7
4/28/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (2) Jewish Defense League
4/29/1982 San Juan, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Provisional Coordinating Committee of the
Bayamon, PR Labor Self-Defense Group
4/29/1982 San Juan, PR Shooting Provisional Coordinating Committee of the
Labor Self-Defense Group
5/4/1982 Somerville, MA Shooting Justice Commandos of the Armenian 1
Genocide
5/16/1982 San Juan, PR Shooting Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros/ 1 3
Group for the Liberation of Vieques
5/17/1982 Union City, NJ Incendiary Bombing Omega 7
5/19/1982 Villa Sin Miedo, PR Shooting Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1 12
5/20/1982 San Juan, PR Attempted Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
5/25/1982 San German, PR Kidnapping Grupo Estrella 1
5/30/1982 Van Nuys, CA Attempted Bombing Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia
6/10/1982 Carolina, PR Multiple Bombings (3) Armed Forces of Popular Resistance
7/4/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Pipe Croatian Freedom Fighters
Astoria, NY Bombings (2)
7/5/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Pipe Jewish Defense League
Bombings (2)
8/20/1982 Old San Juan, PR Bombing Armed Forces of National Liberation
9/1/1982 Naranjito, PR Attempted Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
9/2/1982 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
9/8/1982 Chicago, IL Bombing Omega 7
9/20/1982 New York City, NY Bombing Armed Forces of National Liberation
9/25/1982 Miami, FL Attempted Bombing Omega 7
10/15/1982 Washington, DC Hostile Takeover Islamic Extremists
10/22/1982 Philadelphia, PA Attempted Bombing Justice Commandos of the Armenian
Genocide
11/4/1982 New York City, NY Smoke Bombing Jewish Defense League
11/16/1982 Carolina, PR Multiple Robberies (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1
12/8/1982 Washington, DC Attempted Bombing Norman David Mayer 1
12/16/1982 Elmont, NY Multiple Bombings (2) United Freedom Front
12/21/1982 New York City, NY Attempted Pipe Bombing Jewish Defense League

12/22/1982 McLean, VA Hostile Takeover People of Omar
12/31/1982 New York City, NY Multiple Bombings (5) Armed Forces of National Liberation 3
1/11-12/83 Miami, FL Multiple Bombings (3) Omega 7
1/28/1983 New York City, NY Bombing Revolutionary Fighting Group
2/13/1983 Medina, ND Shooting Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus 2 4
2/15/1983 Killeen, TX Hijacking Hossein Olya
2/19/1983 Washington, DC Pipe Bombing Jewish Defense League
3/20/1983 San Antonio, TX Bombing Republic of Revolutionary
4/26/1983 Washington, DC Bombing Armed Resistance Unit
4/27/1983 Miami, FL Attempted Bombings (4) Haitian Extremists
4/29/1983 Rio Piedras, PR Hostile Takeover Ejercito Popluar Boricua Macheteros
5/12/1983 Uniondale, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
5/13/1983 New York City, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
5/27/1983 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
7/8/1983 Miami, FL Kidnapping Ejercito Revolucionario Del Pueblo
7/15/1983 Rio Piedras, PR Robbery Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1
8/8/1983 Detroit, MI Attempted Incendiary Bombing Fuqra

8/8/1983 Detroit, MI Shooting Fuqra 1
8/9/1983 Detroit, MI Arson Fuqra 2
8/16/1983 Los Angeles, CA Hostile Takeover Carlos Martinez
8/18/1983 Washington, DC Bombing Armed Resistance Unit
8/21/1983 New York City, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
8/27/1983 Washington, DC Incendiary Bombing Unknown
10/12/1983 Miami, FL Pipe Bombing Omega 7
10/30/1983 Hato Rey, PR Rocket Attack Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
11/7/1983 Washington, DC Bombing Armed Resistance Unit
12/13-14/83 East Meadow, NY Multiple Bombings (2) United Freedom Front
New York City, NY
1/29/1984 New York City, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
2/23/1984 New York City, NY Bombing Jewish Direct Action
3/19/1984 Harrison, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
4/5/1984 New York City, NY Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
4/20/1984 Washington, DC Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
5/9/1984 New York City, NY Attempted Assassination Bashir Baesho
8/22/1984 Melville, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
9/26/1984 New York City, NY Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
9/26/1984 Mount Pleasant, NY Bombing United Freedom Front
12/10/1984 Levittown, PR Multiple Bombings (5) Organization of Volunteers for the
Rio Piedras, PR Puerto Rican Revolution
Ponce, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Cayey, PR
1/25/1985 Old San Juan, PR Rocket Attack Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros/Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution


2/23/1985 New York City, NY Bombing Red Guerrilla Resistance
5/15/1985 Northridge, CA Pipe Bombing Jewish Defense League
8/15/1985 Paterson, NJ Bombing Jewish Defense League 1 1
9/6/1985 Brentwood, NY Bombing Jewish Defense League 1
10/11/1985 Santa Ana, CA Bombing Jewish Defense League 1 7
11/6/1985 Bayamon, PR Shooting Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution 1

1/6/1986 Cidra, PR Multiple Bombings (4) Ejercito Revolucionario Clandestino/ National Revolutionary Front of Puerto Rico
Toa Baja, PR
Guanica, PR
Santurce, PR
3/17/1986 Ponce, PR Attempted Bombing Commando Rojo
4/14/1986 Rio Piedras, PR Bombing Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution

4/29/1986 San Juan, PR Shooting Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rican Revolution 1 1

5/14/1986 Phoenix, AZ Sabotage Earth First Organization
9/2/1986 New York City, NY Tear Gas Bombing Jewish Defense League 17
9/15/1986 Coeur d’Alene, ID Pipe Bombing Aryan Nations
9/29/1986 Coeur d’Alene, ID Multiple Bombings (4) Aryan Nations
10/20/1986 New York City, NY Incendiary Bombing Jewish Defense League
10/28/1986 Bayamon, PR Multiple Bombings (7) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros 1
Fajardo, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Aguadilla, PR
Santurce, PR
Fort Buchanan, PR
11/4/1986 Puerta De Tierra, PR Attempted Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
12/28/1986 Yauco, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
Guayama, PR
4/16/1987 Davis, CA Arson Animal Liberation Front
5/25/1987 Caguas, PR Multiple Bombings (7) Guerrilla Forces of Liberation
Carolina, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Cidra, PR
Aibonita, PR
Ponce, PR
11/9/1987 Flagstaff, AZ Sabotage Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist
International Conspiracy
1/12/1988 Rio Piedras, PR Multiple Incendiary Pedro Albizu Campos Revolutionary Forces
Bombings (2)
5/26/1988 Coral Gables, FL Bombing Organization Alliance of Cuban
Intransigence
7/22/1988 Caguas, PR Pipe Bombing Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
9/19/1988 Los Angeles, CA Bombing Up the IRS, Inc.
9/25/1988 Grand Canyon, AZ Sabotage Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International
Conspiracy
10/25/1988 Flagstaff, AZ Sabotage Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International
Conspiracy
11/1/1988 Rio Piedras, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Pedro Albizu Campos Revolutionary Forces
4/3/1989 Tucson, AZ Arson Animal Liberation Front
6/19/1989 Bayamon, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
7/3-4/89 Lubbock, TX Malicious Destruction of Property
Animal Liberation Front
1/12/1990 Santurce, PR Multiple Pipe Bombings (2) Eugenio Maria de Hostos International Brigade of the Pedro Albizu Campos Revolutionary Forces
Carolina, PR

2/22/1990 Los Angeles, CA Bombing Up the IRS, Inc.
4/22/1990 Santa Cruz County, CA Malicious Destruction of Property Earth Night Action Group

5/27/1990 Mayaguez, PR Arson Unknown Puerto Rican Group
9/17/1990 Arecibo, PR Multiple Bombings (2) Pedro Albizu Group Revolutionary Forces
Vega Baja, PR
2/3/1991 Mayaguez, PR Arson Popular Liberation Army
2/18/1991 Sabana Grande, PR Arson Popular Liberation Army
3/17/1991 Carolina, PR Arson Unknown Puerto Rican Group
4/1/1991 Fresno, CA Bombing Popular Liberation Army
7/6/1991 Punta Borinquen, PR Bombing Popular Liberation Army

4/5/1992 New York, NY Hostile Takeover Mujahedin-E-Khalq
11/19/1992 Urbana, IL Attempted Firebombing Mexican Revolutionary Movement
12/10/1992 Chicago, IL Car Fire and Attempted Boricua Revolutionary Front
Firebombing (2)
2/26/1993 New York, NY Car Bombing International Islamist Extremists 6 1042
7/20-22/93 Tacoma, WA Multiple Bombings (2) American Front Skinheads
11/27-28/93 Chicago, IL Firebombings (9) Animal Liberation Front
3/1/1994 New York, NY Shooting Rashid Najib Baz 1 3
4/19/1995 Oklahoma City, OK Truck Bombing Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols 168 754
(Michael Fortier found guilty of failing to alert authorities of plot)

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery
Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery
Spokane Bank Robbers
7/27/1996 Atlanta, GA Pipe Bombing Eric Robert Rudolph 2 112
1/2/1997 Washington, DC Letter Bombing Unknown
Leavenworth, KS (Counted as 1 incident)
1/16/1997 Atlanta, GA Bombing of Abortion Clinic
Eric Robert Rudolph 8
2/21/1997 Atlanta, GA Bombing of Alternative Lifestyle Nightclub
Eric Robert Rudolph 5
1/29/1998 Birmingham, AL Bombing of Reproductive Services Clinic
Eric Robert Rudolph 1 1
3/31/1998 Arecibo, PR Bombing of Superaqueduct Construction Project
Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
6/9/1998 Rio Piedras, PR Bombing of Bank Branch Office
Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
6/25/1998 Santa Isabel, PR Bombing of Bank Branch Office
Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros suspected
1
6/27/1998 Espanola, NM Arson Raymond Anthony Sandoval
10/19/1998 Vail, CO Arson Fire at Ski Resort
Earth Liberation Front
3/19/1999 Santa Fe, NM Attempted Bombing Raymond Anthony Sandoval
3/27/1999 Franklin Township, NJ
Bombing of Circus Vehicles
Animal Liberation Front
4/5/1999 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
Malicious Destruction and Theft
Animal Liberation Front
5/9/1999 Eugene, OR Bombing Animal Liberation Front
7/2-4/99 Chicago, IL Multiple Shootings Benjamin Nathaniel Smith 2 8
Skokie, IL
Northbrook, IL
Bloomington, IN
8/10/1999 Granada Hills, CA Multiple Shootings Buford O’Neal Furrow 1 5
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft
Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft
Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism Earth Liberation Front
12/1/2000 Phoenix, AZ Multiple Arsons Mark Warren Sands
12/9-30/00 Suffolk County, Long Island, NY
Multiple Arsons Earth Liberation Front
1/2/2001 Glendale, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
2/20/2001 Visalia, CA Arson Earth Liberation Front
3/9/2001 Culpeper, VA Tree Spiking Earth Liberation Front
3/30/2001 Eugene, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
4/15/2001 Portland, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/17/2001 Harrisburg, PA Bank Robbery Clayton Lee Waagner
5/21/2001 Seattle, WA Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/21/2001 Clatskanie, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
7/24/2001 Stateline, NV Destruction of Property Earth Liberation Front
9/9/2001 Morgantown, WV Bank Robbery Clayton Lee Waagner
9/11/2001 New York, NY Aircraft Attack Al-Qa’ida 2972 est. 12000
Washington, DC
New Cumberland, PA
9/01-11/01 New York, NY Bacillus anthracis Unknown 5 17
Washington, DC Mailings
Lantana, FL
10/14/2001 Litchfield, CA Arson Earth Liberation Front
11/12/2001 San Diego, CA Burglary and Vandalism Animal Liberation Front
3/18/2002 Erie, PA Vandalism Earth Liberation Front
3/24/2002 Erie, PA Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/11-12/02 Harborcreek, PA Vandalism/Destruction of Property
Earth Liberation Front/ Animal Liberation Front

7/4/2002 Los Angeles, CA Shooting Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayat 2
8/02-10/02 Henrico and Goochland Counties, VA
Vandalism and Destruction of Property
Earth Liberation Front
8/11/2002 Warren, PA Arson Earth Liberation Front
9/15-16/02 Harborcreek, PA Vandalism/Destruction of Property
Earth Liberation Front/ Animal Liberation Front

11/26/2002 Harborcreek, PA Arson Earth Liberation Front/ Animal Liberation Front

1/1/2003 Girard, PA Arson Earth Liberation Front
3/3/2003 Chico, CA Vandalism Animal Liberation Front
8/03-9/03 San Diego, CA Arson Earth Liberation Front
8/22/2003 West Covina, CA Vandalism and Destruction of Property
Earth Liberation Front
8/28/2003 Emeryville, CA Bombing Daniel Andreas San Diego Suspected

9/26/2003 Pleasanton, CA Bombing Daniel Andreas San Diego Suspected

1/19/2004 Henrico County, VA
Arson Earth Liberation Front Suspected

4/1/2004 Oklahoma City, OK Arson Sean Michael Gillespie/Aryan Nations
4/20/2004 Redmond, WA Vandalism and Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/04-7/04 Provo, UT Vandalism and Arson Animal Liberation Front
12/27/2004 Lincoln, CA Attempted Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/05-2/05 Auburn, CA Attempted Arson and Arson
Earth Liberation Front
Sutter Creek, CA
4/13/2005 Sammanish, WA Arson Earth Liberation Front
7/7/2005 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Arson Animal rights extremists Suspected

9/16/2005 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Arson Animal Liberation Front
11/20/2005 Hagerstown, MD Arson Earth Liberation Front
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 7, 2015 12:48PM)
What makes you think Muslims are not an Anti-Communist Alliance?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 7, 2015 01:16PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, RNK wrote:

Exactly Hermit. Last I checked I have not heard about any JEW beheaded someone. Unless I missed it.[/quote]
No offense, but judging from past discussions you do seem to miss a lot in the foreign news.

I seem to recall reading about beheadings done by some Orthodox Jewish settlers a little while back, but I'm too busy to want to search for a link now. Here's a little something for you though ... Israel's foreign minister called for the beheading of some Arab citizens of Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/1.646076

http://europe.newsweek.com/behead-arab-israelis-opposed-state-says-foreign-minister-312276

Tell me, had you heard about THAT prior to now?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 01:43PM)
I think we can all agree there are horrible people in every race color and creed. Nobody has a monopoly on evil behavior unfortunately.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2015 02:04PM)
[quote]Nobody has a monopoly on evil behavior unfortunately.[/quote]
Yes that's exactly the point.


[quote]I think we can all agree there are horrible people in every race color and creed.[/quote]
Unfortunately, some make it a point [i]not[/i] to agree to that.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 7, 2015 02:29PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

I think we can all agree there are horrible people in every race color and creed. Nobody has a monopoly on evil behavior unfortunately. [/quote]
Indeed.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 02:43PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]Nobody has a monopoly on evil behavior unfortunately.[/quote]
Yes that's exactly the point.


[quote]I think we can all agree there are horrible people in every race color and creed.[/quote]
Unfortunately, some make it a point [i]not[/i] to agree to that. [/quote]

Yea I saw the flaw in the sentence too late. This is really the problem.

I think that "evil" should be a race at times.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 03:16PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, RNK wrote:

Just to make sure you get my point. When the Hassidim start carrying guns into buildings and killing dozens of people, I'll get concerned. Otherwise, it appears I should be more worried about radical muslims than radical jews. [/quote]

Exactly Hermit. Last I checked I have not heard about any JEW beheaded someone. Unless I missed it. But I am pretty sure that hasn't happened. To make a comparison of Jews to ISIS members is just laughable. [/quote]

I haven't heard of any women beheading anyone. Does this mean that we need laws to restrict the liberties of all men? [/quote]


Who said we were restricting liberties?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 03:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, landmark wrote:
From the FBI:

94% acts of terror in the US from 1980-2005 committed by non-Muslims


Chronological Summary of Terrorist Incidents in the United States 1980-2005
Date Location Incident Type
Perpetrator Killed Injured
1/7/1980 San Juan, PR Pipe Bombing Anti-Communist Alliance
1/13/1980 New York, NY Bombing Omega 7 4
1/13/1980 Miami, FL Bombing Omega 7
1/19/1980 San Juan, PR Bombing Omega 7
3/12/1980 Hato Rey, PR Armed Assault Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros
3/15/1980 Chicago, IL Hostile Takeovers (2) Armed Forces of National Liberation..................................................


Earth Liberation Front
Sutter Creek, CA
4/13/2005 Sammanish, WA Arson Earth Liberation Front
7/7/2005 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Arson Animal rights extremists Suspected

9/16/2005 Los Angeles, CA Attempted Arson Animal Liberation Front
11/20/2005 Hagerstown, MD Arson Earth Liberation Front [/quote]

Quite the cut and paster. Many of these were attempted something or other, Puerto Rico and so on. Almost none were shootings. Total death toll from all non muslim terrorist actions - some, a few hundred maybe but probably not. Death from ISIS - tens of thousands and counting. Death from ALQ - 3000 us, tens of thousands more.

Death toll from guys in big furry hats and long black coats - zero
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2015 03:27PM)
[quote]Who said we were restricting liberties? [/quote]

[youtube]4pmBC_CrQS4[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 03:31PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

I think we can all agree there are horrible people in every race color and creed. Nobody has a monopoly on evil behavior unfortunately. [/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]

Oh I think some do. I think Nazi's do. I think ISIS does. It defines their existence. The moral equivalence in our world is astounding to me. There is a right and wrong. To everyone hear that draws parallels to ISIS and Christianity or other nonsense and doesn't see the vacuousness of their argument I pity. I am no christian, but I'm pretty sure that it has done a lot of good in the world compared to what evil it condoned by political allies in the distant past. And the crusades was a defensive war on our part BTW. Christian organizations seem to be everywhere and doing a lot of good. Where is that huge Islamic relief organization helping the Syrian refugees?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 03:49PM)
I drew NO moral equivalence between anyone.

By the way not for nothing, but a monopoly means ONE race controls it. You mention Nazi Germany and Isis. So please you need to read what is written. Here is the definition so it helps you some. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

What is making you quote me when I said not one word about Christians is beyond me.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Dec 7, 2015 04:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, landmark wrote:
"One of the largest U.S. organizations involved in funding Jewish communities in the West Bank is the Brooklyn-based Hebron Fund. It transferred $5.7 million to the Jewish settlement in Hebron from 2009-2014...
It has also paid the monthly salary (cumulatively amounting to hundreds of thousands of shekels) of Menachem Livni..
A convicted murderer, Livni was one of the leaders of the Jewish Underground, which operated in the territories in the 1980s, killing three Palestinian students and severely injuring two Palestinian mayors and a Border Police sapper. Livni was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was released after six years.
Dan Rosenstein, executive director of the Hebron Fund, declined to answer questions about the fund’s activities or discuss its donors and beneficiaries."
[/quote]
The similarities between that and Noraid is quite striking.
I grew up with the US backed IRA bombings... How does it feel now it's on your own doorstep?
This is obviously not aimed at everyone in the US, but it shows that many suffer for the activities of a few misguided tossers.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 04:15PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]
Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
You're so silly, Slim.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
Or gotten them killed by an equally well-armed culprit.

You're so short-sighted it's pathetic.[/quote]
At least there would have been a fair fight.[/quote]
I must have stumbled into the superficial analysis thread.

First Slim declares, unqualifiedly, that arming the victims would necessarily have saved them.

That's absurd.

Now you're declaring that arming the victims would necessarily have resulted in a fair fight.

Balderdash.

How much skill with a firearm do the victims have compared to that of the culprit? Have they ever been in a gunfight, with people shooting at them? Does the fact that the culprit is prepared to shoot people and the victims are surprised by the situation have no bearing?

If you put me (or, I dare say, yourself) into a ring with Rhonda Rousey, neither having a weapon, would the ensuing fight be fair? Not by a long shot. Nor would this one, necessarily, be fair.

Man I wish people would think things through just a bit before posting this drivel.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 04:16PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, tommy wrote:
They would have had an equal chance if both sides were equally armed . . .[/quote]
. . . and equally skilled, and equally prepared, and . . . .

I doubt that you could come anywhere close to guaranteeing those conditions.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 04:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, tommy wrote:
If the experts in the military think it’s a good idea to be armed when going into battle, then why is it bad idea for civilians to be unarmed when they are being attacked by crazy Muslims and Christians with bombs, guns and big shiny knifes?[/quote]
The first answer that leaps to mind is the comparative level of training for battle.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 04:30PM)
It is shocking the complete lack of thinking involved in some of these posts.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 7, 2015 04:43PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]
Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
You're so silly, Slim.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
Or gotten them killed by an equally well-armed culprit.

You're so short-sighted it's pathetic.[/quote]
At least there would have been a fair fight.[/quote]
I must have stumbled into the superficial analysis thread.

First Slim declares, unqualifiedly, that arming the victims would necessarily have saved them.

That's absurd.

Now you're declaring that arming the victims would necessarily have resulted in a fair fight.

Balderdash.

How much skill with a firearm do the victims have compared to that of the culprit? Have they ever been in a gunfight, with people shooting at them? Does the fact that the culprit is prepared to shoot people and the victims are surprised by the situation have no bearing?

If you put me (or, I dare say, yourself) into a ring with Rhonda Rousey, neither having a weapon, would the ensuing fight be fair? Not by a long shot. Nor would this one, necessarily, be fair.

Man I wish people would think things through just a bit before posting this drivel. [/quote]
Interesting analogy, Bill, but hand to hand combat is much different than aiming and firing.
A U.S. Navy Seal could be shot and killed by an old lady with a pistol and an opportunity.
But I could train my butt off and not last ten seconds with Roberto Duran.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 05:38PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Interesting analogy, Bill, but hand to hand combat is much different than aiming and firing.
A U.S. Navy Seal could be shot and killed by an old lady with a pistol and an opportunity.
But I could train my butt off and not last ten seconds with Roberto Duran.[/quote]
The point, of course, which I know was not lost on you, is that merely arming the victims in no guarantees a fair fight, nor, taking it further, would it have guaranteed their safety.

I'm all for giving potential victims a fighting chance (as if anybody here is so stupid or ignorant to think otherwise). I'm not remotely convinced that merely arming everyone has any prayer of coming close to that goal.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 05:53PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If they had a gun they could have shot the knife wielding maniac ... You'd have to be a numbskull not to see that!!!!!! Arm yourselves...Save yourselves .. The cops rarely get there in time.... No matter what people say ... Don't be a victim!!!! Protect yourself and your family![/quote]
If they had had a gun, he wouldn't have been wielding a knife . . . You'd have to be a numskull not to see that.

Your analysis is so shallow, it's laughable.[/quote]
Okay, now that is a stupid statement. You are saying that if the victims had a gun than the bad guy would not have been wielding a knife??? Yay, you just made Slims point, they would not be in the hospital with serious injuries. Or are you saying that the bad guy had Superman vision and could see through their clothes and would know they had guns and the means to protect themseleves and then would not have attempted to harm them??? Or are you saying that the bad guy would have knew they "could" be armed so he himself would have brought a gun, in which case I would put my money on the good guys winning that battle as most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
This logic is perfect!!!!
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
You're so silly, Slim.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Guns would have saved them.[/quote]
Or gotten them killed by an equally well-armed culprit.

You're so short-sighted it's pathetic.[/quote]
At least there would have been a fair fight.[/quote]
I must have stumbled into the superficial analysis thread.

First Slim declares, unqualifiedly, that arming the victims would necessarily have saved them.

That's absurd.

Now you're declaring that arming the victims would necessarily have resulted in a fair fight.

Balderdash.

How much skill with a firearm do the victims have compared to that of the culprit? Have they ever been in a gunfight, with people shooting at them? Does the fact that the culprit is prepared to shoot people and the victims are surprised by the situation have no bearing?

If you put me (or, I dare say, yourself) into a ring with Rhonda Rousey, neither having a weapon, would the ensuing fight be fair? Not by a long shot. Nor would this one, necessarily, be fair.

Man I wish people would think things through just a bit before posting this drivel. [/quote]

I think a person with a gun although unskilled would do better than a person with a knife. My point is that it's fairer than unarmed. If you had a gun I would hope Rhonda couldn't take you. However much you might want it.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 7, 2015 05:59PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
I drew NO moral equivalence between anyone.

By the way not for nothing, but a monopoly means ONE race controls it. You mention Nazi Germany and Isis. So please you need to read what is written. Here is the definition so it helps you some. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

What is making you quote me when I said not one word about Christians is beyond me. [/quote

A monopoly is control within a sphere of influence. The nazi's had that. I didn't mean to link you to the ISIS/Christianity. Just an example about many here trying to make Hassidic Jews actions and those of Christian kooks appear equal.

Meant to offense to you. My apologies
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 06:11PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Interesting analogy, Bill, but hand to hand combat is much different than aiming and firing.
A U.S. Navy Seal could be shot and killed by an old lady with a pistol and an opportunity.
But I could train my butt off and not last ten seconds with Roberto Duran.[/quote]
The point, of course, which I know was not lost on you, is that merely arming the victims in no guarantees a fair fight, nor, taking it further, would it have guaranteed their safety.

I'm all for giving potential victims a fighting chance (as if anybody here is so stupid or ignorant to think otherwise). I'm not remotely convinced that merely arming everyone has any prayer of coming close to that goal. [/quote]


And this is the absolute point.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 06:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
I think a person with a gun although unskilled would do better than a person with a knife.[/quote]
And that's where I think that you're gravely mistaken.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
My point is that it's fairer than unarmed.[/quote]
Which is a far cry from saying it's fair.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
If you had a gun I would hope Rhonda couldn't take you.[/quote]
If I had a gun and she didn't, we're in exactly the unfair situation against which you're arguing.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 06:20PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Meant to offense to you.[/quote]
Telephone for Dr. Freud!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 06:33PM)
There phrase "Gods created all men, Samuel Colt made em equal" is just a falsehood.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 7, 2015 06:44PM)
Not to mention that the mere presence of a firearm, for many people, is stressful. I do not want to carry a pistol with me everywhere. I don't want to feel I have to, that my safety depends on it. A society that believes that will have a large number of people walking around constantly stressed out; very unhealthy.

(Yes, taking a bullet is unhealthy, too- but I don't want a society where those are my choices.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 07:05PM)
Don't carry one. No stress.

Please show the study that backs up your claim.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 7, 2015 09:04PM)
If you choose to remain unarmed ... No problem... You have the same options as those who were slaughtered in those gun free zones. However, I'm encouraging those who can, to get training (Certification training is mandatory here in Florida to get a permit) and always carry. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and die begging for your life hiding under a table with your family.
I really can't see how anyone would want that? It baffles me.
One man with a pistol stopped two terrorist in Texas armed with AK47's ..... It's a fact.
God Bless You All and I hope there are no more terror attacks.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 10:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If you choose to remain unarmed ... No problem... You have the same options as those who were slaughtered in those gun free zones. However, I'm encouraging those who can, to get training (Certification training is mandatory here in Florida to get a permit) and always carry. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and die begging for your life hiding under a table with your family.
I really can't see how anyone would want that? It baffles me.
One man with a pistol stopped two terrorist in Texas armed with AK47's ..... It's a fact.
God Bless You All and I hope there are no more terror attacks.[/quote]
And what baffles me is how you can conclude that if [b][i]any[/i][/b] victim had been armed, they would have prevailed over their attacker.

You can quote all of the one-off examples you want - and I give kudos to those who have defended themselves and their friends and families - but those examples offer no evidence about whether an arbitrary victim would prevail over a particular attacker.

As someone who repeatedly refers to "the ten commandments of logic", you illogically extrapolate from the specific to the general with relish.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 7, 2015 10:18PM)
I've given an example of a single Texan with a handgun refusing to allow two terrorists with AK47's to kill him and over 100 others. FACT!!!!! I think you are doing a great disservice to advise people to cast their second amendment rights aside and hide under a table while they are murdered in front of their families. But it's your first amendment right to do so ...
I, however, hope that everyone arms themselves and not only save their own lives but also the lives of their family and friends.
Protect yourselves. Don't be a victim.
God Bless you all...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2015 10:55PM)
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2015 11:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I've given an example of a single Texan with a handgun refusing to allow two terrorists with AK47's to kill him and over 100 others. FACT!!!!! I think you are doing a great disservice to advise people to cast their second amendment rights aside and hide under a table while they are murdered in front of their families.[/quote]
And I've acknowledged it. Why can't you comprehend that?

I've told you that your example of a single Texan has no bearing on the three people stabbed in the UK, nor on the murders in San Bernardino.

You seem to think that arbitrarily arming all potential victims is going to prevent these tragedies. You have no proof of this, nor any evidence beyond some unrelated anecdotes.

[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I think you are doing a great disservice to advise people to cast their second amendment rights aside and hide under a table while they are murdered in front of their families.[/quote]
The problem, Slim, is that you're not thinking at all. If you were, you'd know that I've never advised anyone to cast aside their second amendment rights and hide under a table. The mere suggestion that I would do such a thing is despicable; you should be ashamed of yourself for such a lie.

You owe me a profound apology, sir.

Let's see if you're man enough to admit that you're wrong. You've stated in black and white that you do. Prove it.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 8, 2015 06:49AM)
Slim produced some examples, now it is your turn.......give us some examples where an armed citizen, while being attacked with a knife, gun, baseball bat, whatever....pulled his gun and made things worse. Every month the NRA puts out a magazine called "The American Rifleman" and in it there are news clippings showing law abiding citizens using a firearm to save their own lives or the lives of loved ones. I could dig up thousands upon thousands of examples. Now, it is your turn, show us when a man or family is under attack, where the individuals in fear for their lives used a firearm and it made things worse.

And to assume since the criminal attacker is so much more trained than you, that you should not fight is a joke. If Rhonda Rousey were to attack you S2000magician, I am sure you would not attempt to fight back and would just lay there and take a good whipping. I bet Slims family feels secure with him as the head of the household. Not so sure your family could possibly feel safe with you.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 8, 2015 06:56AM)
Http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 8, 2015 10:45AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Slim produced some examples, now it is your turn.......give us some examples where an armed citizen, while being attacked with a knife, gun, baseball bat, whatever....pulled his gun and made things worse. Every month the NRA puts out a magazine called "The American Rifleman" and in it there are news clippings showing law abiding citizens using a firearm to save their own lives or the lives of loved ones. I could dig up thousands upon thousands of examples. Now, it is your turn, show us when a man or family is under attack, where the individuals in fear for their lives used a firearm and it made things worse.[/quote]
I don't have any examples. But Slim's examples don't prove a universal truth.

Sorry you're so unskilled in logic to understand that.

[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
And to assume since the criminal attacker is so much more trained than you, that you should not fight is a joke.[/quote]
I agree. That's why I've never assumed that.

[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
And to assume since the criminal attacker is so much more trained than you, that you should not fight is a joke. If Rhonda Rousey were to attack you S2000magician, I am sure you would not attempt to fight back and would just [b][i]lay[/i][/b] there and take a good whipping.[/quote]
If you're going to be an ass, at least be a grammatically correct ass: it's [b][i]lie[/i][/b], not [i]lay[/i].
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
I bet Slims family feels secure with him as the head of the household. Not so sure your family could possibly feel safe with you.[/quote]
Which only betrays your complete ignorance about me and my family.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 8, 2015 10:46AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/ [/quote]
Perfect.

Now . . . tell me how that [b]proves[/b] that the victims in San Bernardino would have stopped their mass shooting.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 8, 2015 10:58AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Slim produced some examples, now it is your turn.......give us some examples where an armed citizen, while being attacked with a knife, gun, baseball bat, whatever....pulled his gun and made things worse. Every month the NRA puts out a magazine called "The American Rifleman" and in it there are news clippings showing law abiding citizens using a firearm to save their own lives or the lives of loved ones. I could dig up thousands upon thousands of examples. Now, it is your turn, show us when a man or family is under attack, where the individuals in fear for their lives used a firearm and it made things worse.

And to assume since the criminal attacker is so much more trained than you, that you should not fight is a joke. If Rhonda Rousey were to attack you S2000magician, I am sure you would not attempt to fight back and would just lay there and take a good whipping. I bet Slims family feels secure with him as the head of the household. Not so sure your family could possibly feel safe with you. [/quote]

I could ask "how dare you post such contemptible nonsense" but I won't since there is something clearly wrong with you.

I used to think that people with intractable mindsets could eventually see their own errors. Now I've realized that the only way to rid the collective consciousness of it is through attrition.

People who think like you have been in control of the world for a long time and look at the mess.
Yet despite the evidence that you can clearly see with your own eyes, you STILL think that the answers can be found in more guns, more violence, more death.
No exceptions.

You speak of courage?
Show some yourself and admit that you're part of the problem.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2015 11:06AM)
It was, in fact, violence that stopped the San Bernardino shooters, who had planned on killing many more.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 8, 2015 11:12AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It was, in fact, violence that stopped the San Bernardino shooters, who had planned on killing many more.[/quote]
Nobody's disputing that.

But it was violence brought on by trained professionals, not by the victims.

By the way, wasn't there an incident in New York comparatively recently - fairly well publicized with lawsuits and whatnot - in which the police shot bystanders?

(I don't follow this with the rabidity of some of those posting here, so I may have the details wrong, but I know that such incidents have occurred.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2015 11:28AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It was, in fact, violence that stopped the San Bernardino shooters, who had planned on killing many more.[/quote]
Nobody's disputing that.

But it was violence brought on by trained professionals, not by the victims.

By the way, wasn't there an incident in New York comparatively recently - fairly well publicized with lawsuits and whatnot - in which the police shot bystanders?

(I don't follow this with the rabidity of some of those posting here, so I may have the details wrong, but I know that such incidents have occurred.) [/quote]

There are some who seem to believe that violence is never the answer. They're not much less dangerous than those who seem to believe that violence is always the answer.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 8, 2015 11:33AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It was, in fact, violence that stopped the San Bernardino shooters, who had planned on killing many more.[/quote]
Nobody's disputing that.

But it was violence brought on by trained professionals, not by the victims.

By the way, wasn't there an incident in New York comparatively recently - fairly well publicized with lawsuits and whatnot - in which the police shot bystanders?

(I don't follow this with the rabidity of some of those posting here, so I may have the details wrong, but I know that such incidents have occurred.)[/quote]
There are some who seem to believe that violence is never the answer. They're not much less dangerous than those who seem to believe that violence is always the answer.[/quote]
A . . . and I know that I risk having this thread locked . . . men!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2015 11:36AM)
I do not believe anything is always the answer in these situations.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 8, 2015 07:27PM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/ [/quote]
RM5 has posted more examples to prove his point in just one link than all of you have this entire discussion.

Thousands of armed citizens save themselves and others every year. Let's see all those examples where they make it worse.

How many of the survivors said ... "I'm sure glad I didn't have a gun! It would have been so much worse!"...?

BTW .. ALL of my adult children exercise their 2nd amendment rights, so it is ME that feels secure around my family ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2015 12:54AM)
[quote]By the way, wasn't there an incident in New York comparatively recently - fairly well publicized with lawsuits and whatnot - in which the police shot bystanders? [/quote]
Yep, middle of Times Square IIRC. No clue what they were thinking.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Dec 9, 2015 10:03AM)
The thought of Slim King walking amongst us with a gun as constant companion concerns me far more than do the infinitesimal odds of being the victim of a terror attack. Contemplating the millions of Slims out there: armed imbeciles playing Wyatt Earp, in our offices, schools, homes, shops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants. All the time. Every day. THAT is terrifying.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 9, 2015 10:49AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
The thought of Slim King walking amongst us with a gun as constant companion concerns me far more than do the infinitesimal odds of being the victim of a terror attack. Contemplating the millions of Slims out there: armed imbeciles playing Wyatt Earp, in our offices, schools, homes, shops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants. All the time. Every day. THAT is terrifying.[/quote]
I wouldn't worry about Slim carrying a gun.

If he lacks the courage to apologize for libeling me, he certainly lacks the courage to pull out his gun and start shooting when under attack.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 9, 2015 10:53AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
The thought of Slim King walking amongst us with a gun as constant companion concerns me far more than do the infinitesimal odds of being the victim of a terror attack. Contemplating the millions of Slims out there: armed imbeciles playing Wyatt Earp, in our offices, schools, homes, shops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants. All the time. Every day. THAT is terrifying. [/quote]

I love the old saying, "Don't know what you got till it's gone".

It's really depressing to see how the left has their heads in the sand.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2015 10:59AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
The thought of Slim King walking amongst us with a gun as constant companion concerns me far more than do the infinitesimal odds of being the victim of a terror attack. Contemplating the millions of Slims out there: armed imbeciles playing Wyatt Earp, in our offices, schools, homes, shops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants. All the time. Every day. THAT is terrifying. [/quote]

Your odds of being killed by an armed, law-abiding citizen are pretty infinitesimal, too.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2015 12:28PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
The thought of Slim King walking amongst us with a gun as constant companion concerns me far more than do the infinitesimal odds of being the victim of a terror attack. Contemplating the millions of Slims out there: armed imbeciles playing Wyatt Earp, in our offices, schools, homes, shops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants. All the time. Every day. THAT is terrifying. [/quote]

Your odds of being killed by an armed, law-abiding citizen are pretty infinitesimal, too. [/quote]

I would think if you added both situations odds together it would still be well under 1%.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2015 12:35PM)
Below 1% of 1%, even.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2015 12:45PM)
A point that seems to be lost in the fear mongering on both sides.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Dec 9, 2015 02:38PM)
Considering that more than three times the number of people killed in the Paris attacks die in the U.S. each year from accidental discharges of guns alone, not dying in a terror attack is clearly the safer bet than not dying by accidental shooting in a heavily armed United States.

Add in the 11,000 of us murdered each year by Americans with firearms, the 20,000 of us killed each year by firearm-assisted suicide, and the 300 of us killed each year by shootings of "undetermined intent," and it is plain that the proliferation of firearms in America poses the far greater threat to public safety than do terrorist attacks. Does that mean we should abolish the antiquated Second Amendment and outlaw the private ownership of guns? Absolutely. Why? Because we and our loved ones would be safer. Much, much safer. Yes, even figuring in deaths from terrorism that could conceivably be prevented by a privately-owned gun. By a landslide. Not even close. We pose an astronomically greater threat to ourselves as an armed citizenry than the threat posed to our safety by terrorism if we weren't allowed to own guns. How astronomically safer would we be? Try 12,000 to 1 safer.

From 2001 to 2013, a period of twelve years, 406,496 Americans died here by firearms. In those same twelve years, 3,030 Americans died here by acts labeled as terrorism. All but 34 of those deaths occurred in the September 11 airplane attacks, which were not thwarted, and could not be thwarted, by an armed citizenry. For argument's sake, let's say that each of the 34 non-9/11 terrorism deaths in the United States from 2001 to 2013 would have been prevented if one or more of the victims had been carrying a firearm (there is no evidence to support this, mind you). Let's assume that none of those 34 had a gun on their person because America had come to its senses and outlawed private ownership of firearms. Personally, I would happily forego the right to strap a loaded pistol to my hip and fantasize that I’m John Wayne if it meant saving as many as 406,462 American lives (406,496 - 34) every twelve years.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2015 02:47PM)
Convenient mathematics and disingenuous comparisons aside so what?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2015 03:15PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Considering that more than three times the number of people killed in the Paris attacks die in the U.S. each year from accidental discharges of guns alone, not dying in a terror attack is clearly the safer bet than not dying by accidental shooting in a heavily armed United States. [/quote]
Which doesn't change the fact that it's infinitesimal. You're still talking about less than 1,000 accidental deaths in a country with over 300 million people. Moreover, even that comparison could change in a day in any given year. How did the numbers look in 2001?

[quote]
Add in the 11,000 of us murdered each year by Americans with firearms,
[/quote]
"Gun homicides" is not translatable to "gun murders." The homicide figure includes self-defense, defense of third parties, police shootings, and more. Additionally, a number of the unlawful homicides are directly attributable to things like gang membership, etc. as low a figure as 1 in 30,000 is, the actual risk of a law-abiding citizen being killed by someone with a gun is much lower.

[quote]
the 20,000 of us killed each year by firearm-assisted suicide, [/quote]. Other people's gun ownership probably doesn't raise your personal risk of suicide by any perceptible degree. If you think it might, sign off of the Café and dial 911 immediately.

[quote]and the 300 of us killed each year by shootings of "undetermined intent," [/quote]
million-to-one shots are probably not a great basis for setting Constitutional Law.

[quote]and it is plain that the proliferation of firearms in America poses the far greater threat to public safety than do terrorist attacks.[/quote]

As do swimming pools. But of course, your argument doesn't prove this point at all. The actual number of past deaths does not indicate the current risk. Successful terrorist attacks (depending on their nature) could kill as many people in a day than die in gun-related crime in the course of months.

[quote] Does that mean we should abolish the antiquated Second Amendment and outlaw the private ownership of guns? [/quote]
Comparing gun deaths to terrorism deaths is an irrelevant metric for this conclusion.

[quote]Absolutely. Why? Because we and our loved ones would be safer. Much, much safer. Yes, even figuring in deaths from terrorism that could conceivably be prevented by a privately-owned gun. By a landslide. Not even close. [/quote]

This is an amazing leap of math. The risk of death by not-self-inflicted gunshot is maybe 50,000-1. It would still be nonzero in the absence of the Second Amendment. We have a porous border, thousands of miles of coastline, a horrendous gang problem, and an enormous black market for drugs and other contraband. Criminals, by definition, don't follow laws. Even if we accepted that gun deaths would go down, would the reduction in risk be "a landslide"? From what, a 0.002% chance to a 0.0015% chance?

[quote]We pose an astronomically greater threat to ourselves as an armed citizenry than the threat posed to our safety by terrorism if we weren't allowed to own guns. How astronomically safer would we be? Try 12,000 to 1 safer.

From 2001 to 2013, a period of twelve years, 406,496 Americans died here by firearms. In those same twelve years, 3,030 Americans died here by acts labeled as terrorism. All but 34 of those deaths occurred in the September 11 airplane attacks, which were not thwarted, and could not be thwarted, by an armed citizenry. For argument's sake, let's say that each of the 34 non-9/11 terrorism deaths in the United States from 2001 to 2013 would have been prevented if one or more of the victims had been carrying a firearm (there is no evidence to support this, mind you). Let's assume that none of those 34 had a gun on their person because America had come to its senses and outlawed private ownership of firearms. Personally, I would happily forego the right to strap a loaded pistol to my hip and fantasize that I’m John Wayne if it meant saving as many as 406,462 American lives (406,496 - 34) every twelve years. [/quote]

This is almost too specious to respond to. Let's start with the obvious - Making it illegal to own guns wouldn't mean that nobody would be killed by a gun. So I'm afraid it's obviously cheating to claim the 406,462 figure as your starting point. For those of us who aren't going to kill ourselves this year, the figure is inflated by 300% before we get to that point, and after we deflate it for the non-suicidal, we also have to deflate it for the gun suicides, because a substantial nonzero number of those suicides will simply choose another means. Moreover, I'll never be killed because I'm in the wrong gang, or because a security guard shot me as I was robbing a bank - yes, those are homicides, and they're included in your 406,462 figure. So 12,000-1 is really a contrived number that's too silly to respond to.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 9, 2015 04:50PM)
I'm still not seeing how a terrorism-related mass shooting is much different than a white male "crazy" mass shooting, when they are done using the same types of guns, clips, and ammo, and in many cases, a lot of the same tactics. Some of the supposedly non-terrorist shooters even had bombs or other devices ready to go.

On a side note, apparently the San Bernardino shooters where following the ISIS handbook, which encourages them to lay low, not grow a beard, act normal, etc. The only thing that would draw attention to a terrorist following that handbook would be the weapons and ammunition they are stockpiling... things which we don't track in the USA.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 9, 2015 05:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
. . . most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
I'd love to see the data that you have to back up your claim about "most bad guys".

Personally, I don't recall bad guys stepping up to reply to a Gallup poll.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, it's been demonstrated that this particular bad guy did, in fact, go to the range to learn to "point and squeeze".

So much for your superficial analysis.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 9, 2015 08:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
The thought of Slim King walking amongst us with a gun as constant companion concerns me far more than do the infinitesimal odds of being the victim of a terror attack. Contemplating the millions of Slims out there: armed imbeciles playing Wyatt Earp, in our offices, schools, homes, shops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants. All the time. Every day. THAT is terrifying. [/quote]
I've been exercising my 2nd amendment right since I was about 10 or 11. Took my first safety class at 10 and hunted with high powered rifles for a couple decades. I've carried pistols for business reasons since I was 18 or so.
Perhaps dying while hiding under a table appeals to you. I personally don't intend on letting any of my family members or myself die begging for mercy while a terrorist shoots us one by one.

Two terrorists in Texas with AK47's were killed by an "IMBECILE"(Your words) with a pistol exercising his second amendment rights. He saved hundreds of innocent artists that day. It's painfully obvious what kind of person you are.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 9, 2015 08:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Two terrorists in Texas with AK47s were killed by an "IMBECILE" (Your words) with a pistol exercising his second amendment rights. He saved hundreds of innocent artists that day.[/quote]
Does everyone who "exercises their second amendment rights" have the skill and training to do what the gentleman in Texas did?

Is there anyone who "exercises their second amendment rights" who would make the situation more dangerous rather than less?

Do you understand what happened in the incident I cited in Times Square?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 9, 2015 08:42PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Two terrorists in Texas with AK47s were killed by an "IMBECILE" (Your words) with a pistol exercising his second amendment rights. He saved hundreds of innocent artists that day.[/quote]
Does everyone who "exercises their second amendment rights" have the skill and training to do what the gentleman in Texas did?

Is there anyone who "exercises their second amendment rights" who would make the situation more dangerous rather than less?

Do you understand what happened in the incident I cited in Times Square? [/quote]
I have no idea why you persist in wanting people to remain defenseless. It's a FACT ... People who shoot back give everyone involved a much better chance of survival. I'm POSITIVE that if the 34 people who were shot in California would have been armed and returned fire there would have been many less deaths. In fact .. If only one of them had been as good as the Texan, they ALL might have survived ... Still ... Why do you insist that people just roll over and give up ...??? It's just INSANE!!!!
Arm yourselves. Protect your loved ones. I don't want to see any more people die needlessly!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 9, 2015 08:58PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Two terrorists in Texas with AK47s were killed by an "IMBECILE" (Your words) with a pistol exercising his second amendment rights. He saved hundreds of innocent artists that day.[/quote]
Does everyone who "exercises their second amendment rights" have the skill and training to do what the gentleman in Texas did?

Is there anyone who "exercises their second amendment rights" who would make the situation more dangerous rather than less?

Do you understand what happened in the incident I cited in Times Square? [/quote]
I have no idea why you persist in wanting people to remain defenseless.[/quote]
I don't. You're insistence that I to is sheer stupidity on your part, and your refusal to apologize is cowardice.

In a life-threatening situation I'd rather be next to someone courageous without than a coward with a gun.

Stop saying that I want people to be defenseless. It's a lie and you know it.

You're pathetic.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 10, 2015 01:37PM)
Well- the news is out that one of the scumbag terrorist, Syed Farook , was an American that BECAME radicalized while in America. Sooooo, those who think it's OK to bring in more Muslims and that , "they will be fine and contribute/integrate to society", can NOT say that for sure knowing what we know now. I agree that we need to close the borders and not let anyone in UNTIL our government gets a handle on those Illegals that are already here. Once that's completed, fine, cautiously open the borders again.

I think our government owes it to the hundres of million legal American people to ensure our safety before letting more illegals come into America. After all, it's the legal American citizens that are going to initially support the Illegals. So let's focus on keeping us safe first.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 10, 2015 01:46PM)
Wait, I don't get that logic. American citizen becomes radicalized while in America. So therefore... we must keep out all immigrants?

Oh- I see! You want to protect the immigrants from us! That's very noble of you.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 10, 2015 02:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Wait, I don't get that logic. American citizen becomes radicalized while in America. So therefore... we must keep out all immigrants?

Oh- I see! You want to protect the immigrants from us! That's very noble of you. [/quote]

It's ok. I didn't expect you to understand the logic. When it comes to legal Americans and their safety I see you are not on our side. You know it's a world spiraling out of control when your own citizen cares about immigrants more than their own citizens.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 10, 2015 03:27PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Wait, I don't get that logic. American citizen becomes radicalized while in America. So therefore... we must keep out all immigrants?

Oh- I see! You want to protect the immigrants from us! That's very noble of you. [/quote]

It's ok. I didn't expect you to understand the logic. When it comes to legal Americans and their safety I see you are not on our side. You know it's a world spiraling out of control when your own citizen cares about immigrants more than their own citizens. [/quote]
No. Seriously. I don't get your logic. If he was an immigrant who entered already radicalized, or an immigrant who became radicalized, I'd understand your desire to keep immigrants out. Or if you were just saying all Muslims are dangerous, let's keep any more from coming in, I could understand that logic.

But you're saying that [i]because[/i] an American citizen became radicalized, we need to keep the immigrants out. It's a complete non sequitur, logically.

Besides, they just put on trial another radicalized American terrorist yesterday: the guy who shot up that Planned Parenthood clinic. He killed three people and injured nine others, and he was certainly [i]not[/i] a Muslim.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Dec 10, 2015 07:03PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Considering that more than three times the number of people killed in the Paris attacks die in the U.S. each year from accidental discharges of guns alone, not dying in a terror attack is clearly the safer bet than not dying by accidental shooting in a heavily armed United States.

Add in the 11,000 of us murdered each year by Americans with firearms, the 20,000 of us killed each year by firearm-assisted suicide, and the 300 of us killed each year by shootings of "undetermined intent," and it is plain that the proliferation of firearms in America poses the far greater threat to public safety than do terrorist attacks. Does that mean we should abolish the antiquated Second Amendment and outlaw the private ownership of guns? Absolutely. Why? Because we and our loved ones would be safer. Much, much safer. Yes, even figuring in deaths from terrorism that could conceivably be prevented by a privately-owned gun. By a landslide. Not even close. We pose an astronomically greater threat to ourselves as an armed citizenry than the threat posed to our safety by terrorism if we weren't allowed to own guns. How astronomically safer would we be? Try 12,000 to 1 safer.

From 2001 to 2013, a period of twelve years, 406,496 Americans died here by firearms. In those same twelve years, 3,030 Americans died here by acts labeled as terrorism. All but 34 of those deaths occurred in the September 11 airplane attacks, which were not thwarted, and could not be thwarted, by an armed citizenry. For argument's sake, let's say that each of the 34 non-9/11 terrorism deaths in the United States from 2001 to 2013 would have been prevented if one or more of the victims had been carrying a firearm (there is no evidence to support this, mind you). Let's assume that none of those 34 had a gun on their person because America had come to its senses and outlawed private ownership of firearms. Personally, I would happily forego the right to strap a loaded pistol to my hip and fantasize that I’m John Wayne if it meant saving as many as 406,462 American lives (406,496 - 34) every twelve years. [/quote]

As long as you like fact checking go back and tell me the numbers of gang and drug related deaths in those gun incidents. Then go back and give me the stats of how many firearms are here in the U.S. and no one gets hurt with them. According to you my guns must be broke because they have not harmed or killed anyone in all of the many years I have owned them. Why do you think that is? Maybe,just maybe because I am not a drug dealer or belong to a gang nor am I a criminal. Also I am a responsible firearms owner. So why should I as a law abiding citizen and responsible firearms owner be punished because of what criminals and terrorists do with firearms? Just to let you know the only people who would surrender their firearms are law abiding citizens and not the criminal element. So keeping the criminal element armed and disarming the good guys seems counterproductive to me. You may see things differently.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 10, 2015 07:19PM)
Unfortunately some of the members here wish for us to lie down and take an execution rather than defend ourselves by exercising our second amendment rights. I wonder how the human mind can get so confused.

Here in Florida we have floods. Sometimes the flood waters infiltrate our drinking water system. People could die by drinking from that system...So it is shut down until it can be fixed. It's the logical thing to do.

If you continue to ship in more Jihadi Terrorist Mail Order Brides, we will be having a slaughter every week or more.

ALSO ... The terrorist bride was from an affluent/wealthy family ... To say she was motivated by global warming is a total and unadulterated lie ;)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2015 07:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, Slim King wrote:
The terrorist bride was from an affluent/wealthy family ... To say she was motivated by global warming is a total and unadulterated lie ;) [/quote]
Sort of like you saying that I advocate hiding under a table is a total and unadulterated lie.

Are you man enough to apologize for that and admit that you were wrong?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 10, 2015 07:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, RNK wrote:

Well- the news is out that one of the scumbag terrorist, Syed Farook , was an American that BECAME radicalized while in America. Sooooo, those who think it's OK to bring in more Muslims and that , "they will be fine and contribute/integrate to society", can NOT say that for sure knowing what we know now.
[/quote]
Syed Farook was American born, so according to your line of reasoning is it not even more sensible that all American born citizens should immediately be deported until their loyalty to America can be determined?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 10, 2015 07:46PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Wait, I don't get that logic. American citizen becomes radicalized while in America. So therefore... we must keep out all immigrants?

Oh- I see! You want to protect the immigrants from us! That's very noble of you. [/quote]

It's ok. I didn't expect you to understand the logic. When it comes to legal Americans and their safety I see you are not on our side. You know it's a world spiraling out of control when your own citizen cares about immigrants more than their own citizens. [/quote]
I agree!!!! We are basically being invaded by illegal( pseudo legal) aliens from around the globe, and US citizens are dying as a result. No one is vetting these Jihadists.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 11, 2015 09:56PM)
[img]http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/02/us/california-mass-shooting-san-bernardino-1449088093897/california-mass-shooting-san-bernardino-1449088093897-master495-v9.png[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 11, 2015 10:02PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2015, balducci wrote:
[img]http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/02/us/california-mass-shooting-san-bernardino-1449088093897/california-mass-shooting-san-bernardino-1449088093897-master495-v9.png[/img] [/quote]

I'm torn between making the obvious observation about what the per capita chart would look like, and creating my own similar chart illustrating the breakdown of the perpetrators of homicides of African Americans and sending it to BLM.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 11, 2015 10:06PM)
And the connection between Muslim extremists and African Americans is...?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2015 10:11PM)
Just as spurious as the first chart.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 11, 2015 10:22PM)
IT JUST GOT REAL IN ORLANDO!!!!!!

AN ILLEGAL ALIEN FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ARRESTED WITH AMMUNITION...

Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif has been living in a hotel for two months visiting firing ranges while illegally buying and selling guns. Looks like no one is chasing these guys down. Local police had to notify the FBI. This is RIGHT HERE in Central Florida!!!!!!!!! They say he rented shooting room for 4 people at one specific firing range. Hamid frequented more than one. It didn't state if others where practicing with him. The former student had a hunting license and a waiver according to the firing range employee.

http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/56980742-story
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 11, 2015 10:26PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
And the connection between Muslim extremists and African Americans is...? [/quote]

Not that I suggested that there was one, but I suppose, inter alia, each is the subject of great interest by political advocates who seem ignorant of or desirous of obscuring some statistical realities.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 11, 2015 11:06PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
. . . most bad guys are not at the range learning how to "point and squeeze" like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners do.[/quote]
And another example of a bad guy learning to "point and squeeze":

[quote]On Dec 11, 2015, Slim King wrote:
They say he rented shooting room for 4 people at one specific firing range. Hamid frequented more than one.[/quote]
So your cohort is . . . you'll pardon the expression . . . shooting down your argument.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 11, 2015 11:43PM)
Unfortunately the government has chosen NOT to arrest the illegal aliens in this country. Unfortunately this government is allowing illegal aliens to have rights that are reserved for citizens. This government is failing to vet aliens that come here to do us harm. It's sad that so many are blinded by the propaganda.
Terrorists are indeed training. They are getting ready to achieve their agenda. They killed 14 innocent people in California and they are preparing to kill more ...
Arm yourselves. Use your second amendment right!
People are in danger.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 11, 2015 11:55PM)
I think it is something for each to chose. I would not advise my son to carry a gun at the moment in England but I might if things got far worse.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 12, 2015 12:05AM)
Someone really needs to cut Slim's access to Fox News.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 12, 2015 07:05AM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2015, tommy wrote:
I think it is something for each to chose. I would not advise my son to carry a gun at the moment in England but I might if things got far worse. [/quote]
They're going to. Very much so.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 12, 2015 09:05AM)
As the old gambler said, predicting the future is ****ing hard.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 12, 2015 11:04AM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Someone really needs to cut Slim's access to Fox News. [/quote]
BTW ... I don't watch news on the TV. I don't have cable. I think Fox is just the good cop in the scenario ... Since the 70's the CIA has had hundreds of operatives in the new agencies .. Operation Mockingbird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0

Still in effect!!!
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/feds-exposed-planting-talking-points-questions-60-minutes-episode-wikileaks/
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 12, 2015 01:02PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

I'm torn between making the obvious observation about what the per capita chart would look like, ...[/quote]
If you have the data, yes, a per capita chart differentiated by various religions would be interesting to see.

I think the point of the original chart, though, was to illustrate how few of these extremist attacks there really are. And possibly also how it is actually the non-Islamic extremist attacks that have spiked a little more in the last decade.

Per capita charts are fun ... maybe you can do also one for mass killings per capita done by vegetarians versus non-vegetarians. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 12, 2015 01:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2015, balducci wrote:
I think the point of the original chart, though, was to illustrate how few of these extremist attacks there really are. [/quote]

I think that's an extremely valid and important point, particularly as there over 300 million people in the country; unfortunately, I disagree strongly that it's the point they were trying to make. I think the point was to emphasize that even after the latest mass attack, the number of deaths from non-Islamic attacks is greater than the number of deaths from Islamic attacks, while ignoring the fact the Islamic population in the USA is well under 10%.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 12, 2015 01:11PM)
Those numbers whatever they be make no difference to folks who have been killed by the Islamist extremists. More people will die of cold this winter but it doesn't make the Islamist extremist any less dangerous.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 12, 2015 11:51PM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 12, 2015, balducci wrote:
I think the point of the original chart, though, was to illustrate how few of these extremist attacks there really are. [/quote]

I think that's an extremely valid and important point, particularly as there over 300 million people in the country; unfortunately, I disagree strongly that it's the point they were trying to make. I think the point was to emphasize that even after the latest mass attack, the number of deaths from non-Islamic attacks is greater than the number of deaths from Islamic attacks, while ignoring the fact the Islamic population in the USA is well under 10%. [/quote]
It's actually under 1%. (Depending on who you believe ..still well below 10%)

But, at this point it's more like the beginning of an epidemic. Look at Europe. It's excellerating at an alarming rate.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2015 08:49AM)
How many times have your used your gun to defend yourself or your family?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 13, 2015 09:47AM)
Christian Pastor in North Texas talks about his Muslim problem:

http://www.omarrikabi.com/my-muslim-problem/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 13, 2015 09:59AM)
How many times have you used yourself or your family to defend your gun?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 13, 2015 10:10AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2015, tommy wrote:

How many times have you used yourself or your family to defend your gun? [/quote]
That's a good one!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 14, 2015 08:29AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Dec 13, 2015, tommy wrote:

How many times have you used yourself or your family to defend your gun? [/quote]
That's a good one! [/quote]

Thank the good Lord we (my wife included) have not had to use it yet. I pray we never have to. Though, I am thankful we have the right to carry and use it if need be!
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 15, 2015 07:51AM)
To anyone with any common sense, if a bad guy is walking through a classroom and shooting people in the head one at a time, and you were next to be shot, or worse, your child was next in line, would you "wish" you had a gun??? Or would you instead prefer, as S2000Magician feels, NOT to have a means to protect yourself because you are not trained well enough so you might accidentally hurt or kill the next victim in line??? Ridiculous.

Buy a gun, train with it, learn to point and squeeze and take responibility for your and your families safety. If you have a choice, run! Call 911, if you and your family face certain death, shoot and fight! Or die!

To quote from a movie, and those of you who are Clint Eastwood fans will know this one: "Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." don't give up, choose to survive!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 15, 2015 08:10AM)
In that situation I would like to have a gun but I have known many people wish they had never decided to carry a gun in other situations.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 08:42AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
To anyone with any common sense, if a bad guy is walking through a classroom and shooting people in the head one at a time, and you were next to be shot, or worse, your child was next in line, would you "wish" you had a gun??? Or would you instead prefer, as S2000Magician feels, NOT to have a means to protect yourself because you are not trained well enough so you might accidentally hurt or kill the next victim in line??? Ridiculous.

Buy a gun, train with it, learn to point and squeeze and take responibility for your and your families safety. If you have a choice, run! Call 911, if you and your family face certain death, shoot and fight! Or die!

To quote from a movie, and those of you who are Clint Eastwood fans will know this one: "Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." don't give up, choose to survive! [/quote]
100% correct!!! Don't listen to those who want you to disarm. Don't die begging for your life under a table at a Christmas party!!!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 15, 2015 08:56AM)
Don't get drunk at a Christmas party and shoot your wife for giving somebody a Christmas kiss under the mistletoe.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 15, 2015 08:59AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
"Here's a ridiculous hypothetical situation. Doesn't it make you so scared you want a gun?!"[/quote]
No. And that kind of foolish argument is what's making gun companies billions of dollars.

When people despair that we will never get even the smallest piece of common-sense legislation to help abate gun violence, this is why- there's too much profit to be made in death.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 15, 2015 09:09AM)
I wonder how many little children this Christmas are going to blow their little heads off playing with big guns. I wonder if they ever see the downside of guns. Guns, they good and bad, like everything else.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 09:16AM)
LA SHUTTING DOWN SOME OF THEIR SCHOOLS DUE TO BOMB THREATS.... It is escalating....
Arm yourselves, protect your children ... They will attack soft targets .. Eliminate the gun free zones. They don't work.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 15, 2015 09:20AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
"Here's a ridiculous hypothetical situation. Doesn't it make you so scared you want a gun?!"[/quote]
No. And that kind of foolish argument is what's making gun companies billions of dollars.

When people despair that we will never get even the smallest piece of common-sense legislation to help abate gun violence, this is why- there's too much profit to be made in death. [/quote]

What common sense gun legislation do you propose?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 15, 2015 09:25AM)
So what are you going to do about them BOMB THREATS with your guns?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 09:32AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, tommy wrote:
So what are you going to do about them BOMB THREATS with your guns? [/quote]
Great Question!!!!!! The bomb is planted in a GUN FREE ZONE!!!!! The bomber has no fear of being caught or shot. It is likely that He or She was armed when they placed the bomb itself. I'm proud of the school system risking a huge lawsuit like the $15 million dollar one by the Clock Bomb Boy!

Unfortunately the Mail Order Terrorist was making bombs too!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 15, 2015 09:40AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
"Here's a ridiculous hypothetical situation. Doesn't it make you so scared you want a gun?!"[/quote]
No. And that kind of foolish argument is what's making gun companies billions of dollars.

When people despair that we will never get even the smallest piece of common-sense legislation to help abate gun violence, this is why- there's too much profit to be made in death. [/quote]

What common sense gun legislation do you propose? [/quote]

Can't wait to hear EsnRedshirt's response to this?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 15, 2015 09:52AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, tommy wrote:
Guns, they good and bad, like everything else. [/quote]


[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, tommy wrote:
In that situation I would like to have a gun but I have known many people wish they had never decided to carry a gun in other situations. [/quote]


Personally, I love any thread where Tommy is the voice of reason.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Dec 15, 2015 10:35AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, tommy wrote:
So what are you going to do about them BOMB THREATS with your guns? [/quote]
Great Question!!!!!! The bomb is planted in a GUN FREE ZONE!!!!! The bomber has no fear of being caught or shot. It is likely that He or She was armed when they placed the bomb itself. I'm proud of the school system risking a huge lawsuit like the $15 million dollar one by the Clock Bomb Boy!

Unfortunately the Mail Order Terrorist was making bombs too! [/quote]

Do you ever listen to yourself?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 15, 2015 10:58AM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, imgic wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, tommy wrote:
So what are you going to do about them BOMB THREATS with your guns? [/quote]
Great Question!!!!!! The bomb is planted in a GUN FREE ZONE!!!!! The bomber has no fear of being caught or shot. It is likely that He or She was armed when they placed the bomb itself. I'm proud of the school system risking a huge lawsuit like the $15 million dollar one by the Clock Bomb Boy!

Unfortunately the Mail Order Terrorist was making bombs too! [/quote]

Do you ever listen to yourself? [/quote]

My guess is no he does not, which makes him way better off than us.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 15, 2015 01:52PM)
Danny- one piece of common-sense regulation that Congress refuses to push through is closing the gun show loophole on background checks. You buy a gun in a shop, they run a background check. You buy a gun at a show, they take your money and give you the gun, regardless of whether or not you're a violent felon.

Most people support background checks on gun purchases, but Congress won't close that loophole.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 15, 2015 02:18PM)
I think you will find that most jihadists have clean criminal records and so background checks are pretty useless for them and also criminals are most unlikely to do these sort of shootings. How many of these shooters have had criminal records?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 15, 2015 02:22PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny- one piece of common-sense regulation that Congress refuses to push through is closing the gun show loophole on background checks. You buy a gun in a shop, they run a background check. You buy a gun at a show, they take your money and give you the gun, regardless of whether or not you're a violent felon.

Most people support background checks on gun purchases, but Congress won't close that loophole. [/quote]

How many mass murders have been accomplished with a firearm purchased through a "gun show loophole"?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 15, 2015 03:04PM)
Gun show loophole is just more stupid posturing by gun control advocates. Most sellers at gun shows are federally licensed dealers and they do checks. Only 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows. You may notice that most large killings have come from guns purchased for the killer by someone else. Why, since it all comes out after the fact, escapes me. Most criminals buy from the black market. They're readily available in that world and the prices are good since many are stolen.

Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. Our own government was one of the leading sellers of illegal guns to straw purchasers if you remember. Let's close the ATF loophole while we're at it.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 03:40PM)
Fast and Furious ... 300 dead already!!!!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 15, 2015 03:47PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, Congress could certainly invoke the Commerce Clause and survive a constitutional challenge to gun show legislation.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 15, 2015 04:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, Congress could certainly invoke the Commerce Clause and survive a constitutional challenge to gun show legislation. [/quote]

They can shut them down tomorrow with an onerous tax as well. However, there is no real loophole problem. Of all guns used in a crime, 2% came from gun shows, but that number contains stolen and borrowed weapons. Gun show laws are kabuki theater by the government, gun control activists or Rothschilds as the case may be. Gun shows are the source of a lot of legitimate tax producing gun sales. They are for hunters and gun sportsmen. They are attended by lots of law enforcement. If I was a criminal, that's the last place I would want to go.

The cities with the highest murder rates/gun deaths have the strictest gun laws. We have proven laws don't stop criminals. The logic on this is self evident. To argue for more law outside of confiscation, is pointless. And, confiscation can never work. Also, I suspect criminals will still get guns as they do in Australia and other countries with strict laws.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 15, 2015 04:55PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, Congress could certainly invoke the Commerce Clause and survive a constitutional challenge to gun show legislation. [/quote]

They can shut them down tomorrow with an onerous tax as well. However, there is no real loophole problem. Of all guns used in a crime, 2% came from gun shows, but that number contains stolen and borrowed weapons. Gun show laws are kabuki theater by the government, gun control activists or Rothschilds as the case may be. Gun shows are the source of a lot of legitimate tax producing gun sales. They are for hunters and gun sportsmen. They are attended by lots of law enforcement. If I was a criminal, that's the last place I would want to go.

The cities with the highest murder rates/gun deaths have the strictest gun laws. We have proven laws don't stop criminals. The logic on this is self evident. To argue for more law outside of confiscation, is pointless. And, confiscation can never work. Also, I suspect criminals will still get guns as they do in Australia and other countries with strict laws. [/quote]


What's the self-evident logic?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 05:48PM)
The gun laws and gun free zones have failed .. THAT'S self evident!
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 15, 2015 06:13PM)
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed.
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 15, 2015 06:24PM)
Or we could just get used to the idea that in America nuts with guns are going to regularly massacre innocent people. You know, like if you live in the desert you get used to it being hot. Nothing you can do about it.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 06:46PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

1) Shut down the crazy Kill Zones ... Let people protect themselves. Almost All of these slaughters take place in these No Gun Zone soft targets.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 15, 2015 07:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Or we could just get used to the idea that in America nuts with guns are going to regularly massacre innocent people. You know, like if you live in the desert you get used to it being hot. Nothing you can do about it. [/quote]

That's how we did it with cars and swimming pools.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 15, 2015 07:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

1) Shut down the crazy Kill Zones ... Let people protect themselves. Almost All of these slaughters take place in these No Gun Zone soft targets. [/quote]
Balonga. Oscar Meyer certified. Stop reading Alex Jones, he's a nutbag.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 15, 2015 07:23PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

1) Shut down the crazy Kill Zones ... Let people protect themselves. Almost All of these slaughters take place in these No Gun Zone soft targets. [/quote]
Balonga. Oscar Meyer certified. Stop reading Alex Jones, he's a nutbag. [/quote]

So are you contending that a substantial number of mass shootings take place in areas open to armed citizens?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 15, 2015 07:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

1) Shut down the crazy Kill Zones ... Let people protect themselves. Almost All of these slaughters take place in these No Gun Zone soft targets. [/quote]
Balonga. Oscar Meyer certified. Stop reading Alex Jones, he's a nutbag. [/quote]

So are you contending that a substantial number of mass shootings take place in areas open to armed citizens? [/quote]Read into it what you will, the "No Gun Zone" argument is a lie. Do you support massive profits to gun manufacturers?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 15, 2015 07:34PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

1) Shut down the crazy Kill Zones ... Let people protect themselves. Almost All of these slaughters take place in these No Gun Zone soft targets. [/quote]
Balonga. Oscar Meyer certified. Stop reading Alex Jones, he's a nutbag. [/quote]

So are you contending that a substantial number of mass shootings take place in areas open to armed citizens? [/quote]Read into it what you will, the "No Gun Zone" argument is a lie. Do you support massive profits to gun manufacturers? [/quote]


What's your source for contending that it's a lie?
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Dec 15, 2015 07:36PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Or we could just get used to the idea that in America nuts with guns are going to regularly massacre innocent people. You know, like if you live in the desert you get used to it being hot. Nothing you can do about it. [/quote]

That's how we did it with cars and swimming pools. [/quote]
Cars are a good example. You never see national news reports about the people killed in cars on any given day. As blood splattered schoolrooms and work places and theaters, ect, become more common, the news media will doubtless begin to ignore it the same way it does the daily highway carnage. Mass shootings will become such a boring, everyday occurrence that ratings hungry news outlets will have to move on to something more unique to hold viewers' attention between the commercials. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 15, 2015 10:39PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

1) Shut down the crazy Kill Zones ... Let people protect themselves. Almost All of these slaughters take place in these No Gun Zone soft targets. [/quote]
Balonga. Oscar Meyer certified. Stop reading Alex Jones, he's a nutbag. [/quote]

So are you contending that a substantial number of mass shootings take place in areas open to armed citizens? [/quote]Read into it what you will, the "No Gun Zone" argument is a lie. Do you support massive profits to gun manufacturers? [/quote]

What do profits to gin companies have to do with anything? Why do you so dislike capitalism?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 15, 2015 11:09PM)
If EsnRedshirt disputes the fact that MASS KILLINGS take place in Gun Free Zones he's lost all ability to think logically....

A good figure is 92% of these mass terror/murder attacks take place in gun free zones. We aren't counting the Thugs that shoot each other over drug turf in Chicago.... let the community organizers take care of that...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

The folks in California were sitting ducks unfortunately....
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 16, 2015 04:28AM)
If Slim King thinks breitbart is a nonbiased source, he's lost all ability to think logically...

But we knew that already.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 16, 2015 06:45AM)
I have never been to a gun show yet where they didn't run the background checks. 99% of the tables are local gun dealers or gun dealers in the same state as the gun show. So this whole gun show loophole is a joke, just go to the next gun show in your area and check it out, there are no "gang-bangers" in there, just a bunch of hunters and good old boys.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 16, 2015 06:51AM)
Http://humorpix.com/pictures/My_next_door_neighbor_wants_to_ban_all_guns
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 16, 2015 07:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
If Slim King thinks breitbart is a nonbiased source, he's lost all ability to think logically...

But we knew that already. [/quote]
To ignore information( also verified on other sources) because of it's origin is in itself illogical.
All sources have some bias. It's illogical to ignore the truth!

You can find the evidence here...
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

Here is the actual report!!!!! Looks like you are 100% wrong on this one!!!!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 16, 2015 07:22AM)
:)

I just watched this about Gardena, which Ron Conelly put up at the Gambling Spot and its fascinating the way places can change.

http://www.freewaycity.org/home
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2015 07:24AM)
Logic is wrong with diagrams.
Ignorance is an active process to avoid affronts to vanity.
Some words, like should, distract from the actual with the imaginary.

At least till we have guns roaming the streets in packs, absconding with dumpsters to melt into more ammo.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2015 09:07AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
If Slim King thinks breitbart is a nonbiased source, he's lost all ability to think logically...

But we knew that already. [/quote]

Ahh yes the old I can't dispute the fact and the fact is going to blow apart my opinion and my opinion is right so I attack the source and the messenger.

That is usually Slim's thing. Toy have adopted it perfectly.

Now maybe you want to deal in accrual proposals? No all you want to do is implement your world view and look down on anyone who disagrees.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 16, 2015 09:47AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
If Slim King thinks breitbart is a nonbiased source, he's lost all ability to think logically...

But we knew that already. [/quote]

Do you have any source at all for contending that it's a lie?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 16, 2015 09:51AM)
The counter argument seems to be:

1. If the gun-free zones claim is correct, it will contribute to gun manufacturers making big profits.
2. I don't want to see gun manufacturers making big profits.
3. Therefore, the gun-free zone claim is a lie.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2015 09:58AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
If Slim King thinks breitbart is a nonbiased source, he's lost all ability to think logically...

But we knew that already. [/quote]

Ahh yes the old I can't dispute the fact and the fact is going to blow apart my opinion and my opinion is right so I attack the source and the messenger.

That is usually Slim's thing. Toy have adopted it perfectly.

Now maybe you want to deal in accrual proposals? No all you want to do is implement your world view and look down on anyone who disagrees. [/quote]

Wow stupid auto correct. Should read "YOU have adopted it perfectly."

Also "Now maybe you want to deal in ACTUAL proposals."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2015 10:46AM)
@danny, the few folks I've met that own weapons are also safety conscious. by and large cars are much more dangerous. The entire social discussion about a few military rogues is... Unhelpful.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2015 12:42PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. When I get annoyed that nothing's being done, someone cries out, "Nothing can be done!" And someone else cries out, "Fine, smartypants, what would you do?" While knowing that the 'nothing can be done!" people will pick apart anything suggested as nearly useless. And if I say I don't know, I'll be called a 'typical anti-gun liberal who wants control without knowing anything about it.' Well, fine. I don't know. But here's the thing- eventually, something's going to happen* that will make Australia-style gun control not only viable, but politically beneficial. And when that happens, you pro-gun people better have some workable, effective solutions you're willing to live with, or you are going to end up with Australia-style gun control.

So- what's -your- suggestion?

* Though I'm sadly forced to admit, if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to be a turning point, it's going to require a massacre with scores of victims. Probably including some who were armed. [/quote]

Your problem is you "feel" something must be done, but don't want to think about what it should be. The thinking is the hard part. Just put some heavy lifting into a proposal that is not so knee jerk. Use facts and statistics and not your MSNBC talking points.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 16, 2015 02:03PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Or we could just get used to the idea that in America nuts with guns are going to regularly massacre innocent people. You know, like if you live in the desert you get used to it being hot. Nothing you can do about it. [/quote]

That's how we did it with cars and swimming pools. [/quote]
Cars are a good example. You never see national news reports about the people killed in cars on any given day. As blood splattered schoolrooms and work places and theaters, ect, become more common, the news media will doubtless begin to ignore it the same way it does the daily highway carnage. Mass shootings will become such a boring, everyday occurrence that ratings hungry news outlets will have to move on to something more unique to hold viewers' attention between the commercials. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. [/quote]


Puhleeze, such nonsense. We all know that in using cars or pools there is risk involved. The risk is quite small and manageable. I could have a wreck but if I drive right and watch out, I probably won't. We also have police that watch for bad drivers and sometimes lifeguards at pools.

A terror attack is not part of our daily routine that has risk reward. It's all risk and the government seems to not know how to contain or a plan to mitigate. It's not something we have to assume is normal in our daily life unless we want it to be. Your comparisons are assinine.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2015 02:04PM)
Almost agree. that "feel" comes after giving up responsibility and after regressing to confuse our government with an ideal doting parent.

Have others noticed the uptrend of story plots involving vigilante rogue agency/agents who claim "for the greater good" as cause. Look at the first Mission: Impossible movie. Good evening Mister Phelps...your mission is to revitalize our economy and bolster traditional values...if caught or captured the secretary will disavow all knowlege of...

Idea: Deniable?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 16, 2015 02:37PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, Congress could certainly invoke the Commerce Clause and survive a constitutional challenge to gun show legislation. [/quote]

They can shut them down tomorrow with an onerous tax as well. However, there is no real loophole problem. Of all guns used in a crime, 2% came from gun shows, but that number contains stolen and borrowed weapons. Gun show laws are kabuki theater by the government, gun control activists or Rothschilds as the case may be. Gun shows are the source of a lot of legitimate tax producing gun sales. They are for hunters and gun sportsmen. They are attended by lots of law enforcement. If I was a criminal, that's the last place I would want to go.

The cities with the highest murder rates/gun deaths have the strictest gun laws. We have proven laws don't stop criminals. The logic on this is self evident. To argue for more law outside of confiscation, is pointless. And, confiscation can never work. Also, I suspect criminals will still get guns as they do in Australia and other countries with strict laws. [/quote]


What's the self-evident logic? [/quote]

Criminals don't abide by laws, laws restricting guns have no effect. Making more/stronger laws won't change the criminal from using a gun because they don't see obeying any law as something to do.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2015 02:43PM)
...but if you were a frightened child and someone offered you public assurance that your neighbor could not legally have...

Selling candy to babies so the dentists don't come and get you.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2015 02:45PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Almost agree. that "feel" comes after giving up responsibility and after regressing to confuse our government with an ideal doting parent.

Have others noticed the uptrend of story plots involving vigilante rogue agency/agents who claim "for the greater good" as cause. Look at the first Mission: Impossible movie. Good evening Mister Phelps...your mission is to revitalize our economy and bolster traditional values...if caught or captured the secretary will disavow all knowlege of...

Idea: Deniable? [/quote]

You are just going to fight communicating in sentences people can undetstand aren't you?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 16, 2015 02:47PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, Congress could certainly invoke the Commerce Clause and survive a constitutional challenge to gun show legislation. [/quote]

They can shut them down tomorrow with an onerous tax as well. However, there is no real loophole problem. Of all guns used in a crime, 2% came from gun shows, but that number contains stolen and borrowed weapons. Gun show laws are kabuki theater by the government, gun control activists or Rothschilds as the case may be. Gun shows are the source of a lot of legitimate tax producing gun sales. They are for hunters and gun sportsmen. They are attended by lots of law enforcement. If I was a criminal, that's the last place I would want to go.

The cities with the highest murder rates/gun deaths have the strictest gun laws. We have proven laws don't stop criminals. The logic on this is self evident. To argue for more law outside of confiscation, is pointless. And, confiscation can never work. Also, I suspect criminals will still get guns as they do in Australia and other countries with strict laws. [/quote]


What's the self-evident logic? [/quote]

Criminals don't abide by laws, laws restricting guns have no effect. Making more/stronger laws won't change the criminal from using a gun because they don't see obeying any law as something to do. [/quote]


Some truth to that, but it's also oversimplified. On the one hand, it's certainly true that people who purchase guns intending to use them to commit robberies, murders, etc. won't balk at gun possession laws, it overlooks that in other situations, there would be an effect. Undoubtedly there have been shootings that were accidents, heat of passion, etc., involving a gun that was legally owned by someone who would not have purchased one had he not been legally permitted to do so.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2015 02:51PM)
If there are guns there will indeed be accidents, heat of passion and those things. It does not matter how it is obtained things happen.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2015 05:48PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
If there are guns there will indeed be accidents, heat of passion and those things. It does not matter how it is obtained things happen. [/quote]

Agreed. We don't often run people over around here. There are places where running people over seems to be happening more often. And we do try to watch over children near pools.

What can we do to help the tempermental reconsider having tantrums with weapons? The older way was to teach them very early on that their neighbors would not be amused and they too have guns. What could work today?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 16, 2015 07:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
Or would you instead prefer, as S2000Magician feels, NOT to have a means to protect yourself because you are not trained well enough so you might accidentally hurt or kill the next victim in line???[/quote]
I don't feel that way.

Try to keep up.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 16, 2015 07:53PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
100% correct!!![/quote]
No, it isn't.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 16, 2015 08:25PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
If there are guns there will indeed be accidents, heat of passion and those things. It does not matter how it is obtained things happen. [/quote]

Agreed. We don't often run people over around here. There are places where running people over seems to be happening more often. And we do try to watch over children near pools.

What can we do to help the tempermental reconsider having tantrums with weapons? The older way was to teach them very early on that their neighbors would not be amused and they too have guns. What could work today? [/quote]

More guns?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 16, 2015 10:55PM)
Every single one of the dead in the California Slaughter wishes they'd had a gun to save their lives and the lives of everyone else!!!!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 17, 2015 12:27AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Every single one of the dead in the California Slaughter wishes they'd had a gun to save their lives and the lives of everyone else!!!![/quote]
That's a nice sound bite, but you cannot know that for certain.

You wish that they did, of course, but you cannot presume to know whether they did.

And that's the problem.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Dec 17, 2015 10:27AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Also, gun shows are state controlled and the fed has no say over how they're run. [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, Congress could certainly invoke the Commerce Clause and survive a constitutional challenge to gun show legislation. [/quote]

They can shut them down tomorrow with an onerous tax as well. However, there is no real loophole problem. Of all guns used in a crime, 2% came from gun shows, but that number contains stolen and borrowed weapons. Gun show laws are kabuki theater by the government, gun control activists or Rothschilds as the case may be. Gun shows are the source of a lot of legitimate tax producing gun sales. They are for hunters and gun sportsmen. They are attended by lots of law enforcement. If I was a criminal, that's the last place I would want to go.

The cities with the highest murder rates/gun deaths have the strictest gun laws. We have proven laws don't stop criminals. The logic on this is self evident. To argue for more law outside of confiscation, is pointless. And, confiscation can never work. Also, I suspect criminals will still get guns as they do in Australia and other countries with strict laws. [/quote]


What's the self-evident logic? [/quote]

Criminals don't abide by laws, laws restricting guns have no effect. Making more/stronger laws won't change the criminal from using a gun because they don't see obeying any law as something to do. [/quote]


Some truth to that, but it's also oversimplified. On the one hand, it's certainly true that people who purchase guns intending to use them to commit robberies, murders, etc. won't balk at gun possession laws, it overlooks that in other situations, there would be an effect. Undoubtedly there have been shootings that were accidents, heat of passion, etc., involving a gun that was legally owned by someone who would not have purchased one had he not been legally permitted to do so. [/quote]

That's quite a reach and a small part of all gun deaths. The only way to fix that is confiscation. Which is what gun control people want but are too afraid to say.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 17, 2015 10:54AM)
Actually, the reach was you saying that laws restricting guns have "no" effect.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 17, 2015 11:28AM)
That so far we don't have news reports of rogue cop or black shooters in a white suburb... means we have a little more time to have productive dialogue.

To make claim of communication with the dead in pubic argument seems suspiciously like a danger to self and others signal. More on point, how could one distinguish between an inner voice of vanity and an unknown source of malice?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 17, 2015 08:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Every single one of the dead in the California Slaughter wishes they'd had a gun to save their lives and the lives of everyone else!!!![/quote]
That's a nice sound bite, but you cannot know that for certain.

You wish that they did, of course, but you cannot presume to know whether they did.

And that's the problem. [/quote]
I know it for a FACT ... And so does everyone here ;)
Self preservation demands it ... The only exception would be if they were suicidal, and even then I'm positive they would have fought back to save the ones who weren't.
Let's have a little common sense here!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 17, 2015 08:22PM)
Would Gandahi be included in your group?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 17, 2015 08:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Every single one of the dead in the California Slaughter wishes they'd had a gun to save their lives and the lives of everyone else!!!![/quote]
That's a nice sound bite, but you cannot know that for certain.

You wish that they did, of course, but you cannot presume to know whether they did.

And that's the problem.[/quote]
I know it for a FACT ... And so does everyone here ;)[/quote]
You don't know it for a fact.

Some people would never consider taking a life, even to save their own.

You're projecting here; don't pretend that it's anything more than that.

[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Let's have a little common sense here!!!!![/quote]
Yes: let's.

And the common sense is that there are more reasons than suicide that a person would not want to have a gun in the situation under discussion.

You're not omniscient.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 17, 2015 08:54PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Every single one of the dead in the California Slaughter wishes they'd had a gun to save their lives and the lives of everyone else!!!![/quote]
That's a nice sound bite, but you cannot know that for certain.

You wish that they did, of course, but you cannot presume to know whether they did.

And that's the problem.[/quote]
I know it for a FACT ... And so does everyone here ;)[/quote]
You don't know it for a fact.

Some people would never consider taking a life, even to save their own.

You're projecting here; don't pretend that it's anything more than that.

[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Let's have a little common sense here!!!!![/quote]
Yes: let's.

And the common sense is that there are more reasons than suicide that a person would not want to have a gun in the situation under discussion.

You're not omniscient. [/quote]

You're kind of taking an unnecessarily difficult side of the argument. There are numerous people who never used their guns in self-defense, but whose guns accidentally killed their children. Surely the neutral debate judges would agree that THOSE people would rather have not had a gun.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 17, 2015 09:26PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Every single one of the dead in the California Slaughter wishes they'd had a gun to save their lives and the lives of everyone else!!!![/quote]
That's a nice sound bite, but you cannot know that for certain.

You wish that they did, of course, but you cannot presume to know whether they did.

And that's the problem.[/quote]
I know it for a FACT ... And so does everyone here ;)[/quote]
You don't know it for a fact.

Some people would never consider taking a life, even to save their own.

You're projecting here; don't pretend that it's anything more than that.

[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Let's have a little common sense here!!!!![/quote]
Yes: let's.

And the common sense is that there are more reasons than suicide that a person would not want to have a gun in the situation under discussion.

You're not omniscient.[/quote]
You're kind of taking an unnecessarily difficult side of the argument. There are numerous people who never used their guns in self-defense, but whose guns accidentally killed their children. Surely the neutral debate judges would agree that THOSE people would rather have not had a gun.[/quote]
I'd agree if we were talking about people having guns under general circumstances.

However, Slim's claim is that everyone in the specific circumstance of being attacked by people with guns would rather have a gun than not. The argument needs to address the specific circumstance.

And the claim's still wrong. And the claim that he (and everyone here) knows that they'd rather have a gun than not is wronger still.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 17, 2015 09:27PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Would Gandahi be included in your group? [/quote]
Of course not. He's dead. He wasn't even there. What a stupid question!!!!! Re-read the subject matter ... Was Gandahi in California???

Every single victim(Of sound mind) wished they had a gun!!!!! I guarantee it....

You want to believe that they just wanted to give in, lay down, beg for their lives and then be slaughtered... Go ahead .. It's 100% wrong and you know it. NO ONE WANTS THAT!!!!!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 17, 2015 09:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
NO ONE WANTS THAT!!!!![/quote]
Can you prove that?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 17, 2015 09:54PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Would Gandahi be included in your group? [/quote]
Of course not. He's dead. He wasn't even there. What a stupid question!!!!! Re-read the subject matter ... Was Gandahi in California???

Every single victim(Of sound mind) wished they had a gun!!!!! I guarantee it....

You want to believe that they just wanted to give in, lay down, beg for their lives and then be slaughtered... Go ahead .. It's 100% wrong and you know it. NO ONE WANTS THAT!!!!! [/quote]

So now you can speak for dead people. Do you even read what you troll with?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 17, 2015 10:09PM)
And today we learn that Slim King does not know the difference between fact and opinion. We can't blame him, really- most of the so called journalists he reads don't know the difference, either.

As for the hypothetical situation where the guy with the gun was going down a row and shooting people, one by one, in the head, no, I wouldn't want a gun. I'd just pull out my lightsaber and- oh, sorry. I guess my response should be grounded in real life even if the problem isn't. There's actually training videos related to such a situation; the proper response is to grab anything you can, throw it at the shooter, then tackle and restrain him in any way possible. I could probably clock him pretty good with a desk or even a table through sheer adreneline. And I'd probably do it before he worked his way too far down the line- probably right after the first victim, if not right when he pulled his gun out.

As I said above, more guns is not the solution. Think about it- by just letting everyone have guns, you're giving them to the 'bad guys' as well as the 'good guys.'

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm still waiting for one of the pro-gun guys to suggest some sort of regulation they can live with. Otherwise I'll just assume they want either leave things exactly as they are, or else hand every man, woman, and child a loaded gun regardless of mental state or criminal inclinations and let natural selection finish the job.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 17, 2015 11:36PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Or we could just get used to the idea that in America nuts with guns are going to regularly massacre innocent people. You know, like if you live in the desert you get used to it being hot. Nothing you can do about it. [/quote]

That's how we did it with cars and swimming pools. [/quote]
Cars are a good example. You never see national news reports about the people killed in cars on any given day. As blood splattered schoolrooms and work places and theaters, ect, become more common, the news media will doubtless begin to ignore it the same way it does the daily highway carnage. Mass shootings will become such a boring, everyday occurrence that ratings hungry news outlets will have to move on to something more unique to hold viewers' attention between the commercials. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. [/quote]


Puhleeze, such nonsense. We all know that in using cars or pools there is risk involved. The risk is quite small and manageable.[/quote]
My apologies if someone posted this already today (I'm only sampling this thread from time to time, not reading the entire thing):

"For the first time in more than 60 years, firearms and automobiles are killing Americans at an identical rate, according to new mortality data released this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, the age-adjusted death rate for both firearms (including homicides, suicides and accidental deaths) and motor vehicle events (car crashes, collisions between cars and pedestrians, etc) stood at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people. The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950."

[img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/12/cars_guns1.png[/img]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 17, 2015 11:39PM)
However, the vast majority of people who die in cars don't do so intentionally.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 17, 2015 11:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
And today we learn that Slim King does not know the difference between fact and opinion. We can't blame him, really- most of the so called journalists he reads don't know the difference, either.

As for the hypothetical situation where the guy with the gun was going down a row and shooting people, one by one, in the head, no, I wouldn't want a gun. I'd just pull out my lightsaber and- oh, sorry. I guess my response should be grounded in real life even if the problem isn't. There's actually training videos related to such a situation; the proper response is to grab anything you can, throw it at the shooter, then tackle and restrain him in any way possible. I could probably clock him pretty good with a desk or even a table through sheer adreneline. And I'd probably do it before he worked his way too far down the line- probably right after the first victim, if not right when he pulled his gun out.

As I said above, more guns is not the solution. Think about it- by just letting everyone have guns, you're giving them to the 'bad guys' as well as the 'good guys.'

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm still waiting for one of the pro-gun guys to suggest some sort of regulation they can live with. Otherwise I'll just assume they want either leave things exactly as they are, or else hand every man, woman, and child a loaded gun regardless of mental state or criminal inclinations and let natural selection finish the job. [/quote]


Is your position on gun-free zones fact, or an opinion?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 18, 2015 12:10AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
And today we learn that Slim King does not know the difference between fact and opinion. We can't blame him, really- most of the so called journalists he reads don't know the difference, either.

As for the hypothetical situation where the guy with the gun was going down a row and shooting people, one by one, in the head, no, I wouldn't want a gun. I'd just pull out my lightsaber and- oh, sorry. I guess my response should be grounded in real life even if the problem isn't. There's actually training videos related to such a situation; the proper response is to grab anything you can, throw it at the shooter, then tackle and restrain him in any way possible. I could probably clock him pretty good with a desk or even a table through sheer adreneline. And I'd probably do it before he worked his way too far down the line- probably right after the first victim, if not right when he pulled his gun out.

As I said above, more guns is not the solution. Think about it- by just letting everyone have guns, you're giving them to the 'bad guys' as well as the 'good guys.'

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm still waiting for one of the pro-gun guys to suggest some sort of regulation they can live with. Otherwise I'll just assume they want either leave things exactly as they are, or else hand every man, woman, and child a loaded gun regardless of mental state or criminal inclinations and let natural selection finish the job. [/quote]


Is your position on gun-free zones fact, or an opinion? [/quote]I guess I'll have to say opinion, because even if I link to statistics that disprove the majority of shootings happened in gun-free zones, I'll be accused of cherry-picking and using biased data.

You know, I'd never even heard the term "gun-free zone" until a few mass-shootings ago (and the fact I can use the term "a few mass shootings ago" is in and of itself appalling,) when NRA shills started blaming the "gun-free zone" for causing the shooting, instead of blaming the actual shooter.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2015 12:16AM)
It seems like a large number of these mass shootings occur at public schools where guns aren't permitted.

There can be a fine line between fact and opinion. A lot of beliefs are called opinions, when they're unverified statements of fact.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Dec 18, 2015 07:33AM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
And today we learn that Slim King does not know the difference between fact and opinion. We can't blame him, really- most of the so called journalists he reads don't know the difference, either.

As for the hypothetical situation where the guy with the gun was going down a row and shooting people, one by one, in the head, no, I wouldn't want a gun. I'd just pull out my lightsaber and- oh, sorry. I guess my response should be grounded in real life even if the problem isn't. There's actually training videos related to such a situation; the proper response is to grab anything you can, throw it at the shooter, then tackle and restrain him in any way possible. I could probably clock him pretty good with a desk or even a table through sheer adreneline. And I'd probably do it before he worked his way too far down the line- probably right after the first victim, if not right when he pulled his gun out.


As I said above, more guns is not the solution. Think about it- by just letting everyone have guns, you're giving them to the 'bad guys' as well as the 'good guys.'

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm still waiting for one of the pro-gun guys to suggest some sort of regulation they can live with. Otherwise I'll just assume they want either leave things exactly as they are, or else hand every man, woman, and child a loaded gun regardless of mental state or criminal inclinations and let natural selection finish the job. [/quote]




That is hilarious. Police Officers need to turn their guns in. In an event of an emergecy, if someone pulls a gun on them, they can always grab a "desk" or some other object available and "clock" them with it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 18, 2015 08:53AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

However, the vast majority of people who die in cars don't do so intentionally. [/quote]
Yes. Whereas the vast majority of those who die by guns in the U.S. do. ("Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.")

Another difference is that the "steady decline in motor vehicle deaths over the past 65 years can be attributed to a combination of improved technology and smarter regulation". Obviously, not so with guns. ("Technological advances ... have been stymied by opposition from the National Rifle Association and from many gun owners. Modest regulatory changes ... enjoy overwhelming support from gun owners and the American public. But those, too, have been thwarted under pressure from gun-rights advocates and the NRA.")
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 18, 2015 09:05AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
And today we learn that Slim King does not know the difference between fact and opinion. We can't blame him, really- most of the so called journalists he reads don't know the difference, either.

As for the hypothetical situation where the guy with the gun was going down a row and shooting people, one by one, in the head, no, I wouldn't want a gun. I'd just pull out my lightsaber and- oh, sorry. I guess my response should be grounded in real life even if the problem isn't. There's actually training videos related to such a situation; the proper response is to grab anything you can, throw it at the shooter, then tackle and restrain him in any way possible. I could probably clock him pretty good with a desk or even a table through sheer adreneline. And I'd probably do it before he worked his way too far down the line- probably right after the first victim, if not right when he pulled his gun out.


As I said above, more guns is not the solution. Think about it- by just letting everyone have guns, you're giving them to the 'bad guys' as well as the 'good guys.'

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm still waiting for one of the pro-gun guys to suggest some sort of regulation they can live with. Otherwise I'll just assume they want either leave things exactly as they are, or else hand every man, woman, and child a loaded gun regardless of mental state or criminal inclinations and let natural selection finish the job. [/quote]




That is hilarious. Police Officers need to turn their guns in. In an event of an emergecy, if someone pulls a gun on them, they can always grab a "desk" or some other object available and "clock" them with it. [/quote]
Oh please. You're twisting the hypothetical and my words. The hypothetical was a room full of unarmed people and a lone gunman walking down the line shooting them one by one. Police officers are trained and expected to use firearms; they don't even factor into the equation.

Besides, it's no more ridiculous than some of the things I've read on this board where people expressed their desire to [i]grab their gun and[/i] [b]run [i]into[/i] an active shooter situation[/b] to kill themselves a "bad guy."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 18, 2015 09:15AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]On Dec 17, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
And today we learn that Slim King does not know the difference between fact and opinion. We can't blame him, really- most of the so called journalists he reads don't know the difference, either.

As for the hypothetical situation where the guy with the gun was going down a row and shooting people, one by one, in the head, no, I wouldn't want a gun. I'd just pull out my lightsaber and- oh, sorry. I guess my response should be grounded in real life even if the problem isn't. There's actually training videos related to such a situation; the proper response is to grab anything you can, throw it at the shooter, then tackle and restrain him in any way possible. I could probably clock him pretty good with a desk or even a table through sheer adreneline. And I'd probably do it before he worked his way too far down the line- probably right after the first victim, if not right when he pulled his gun out.


As I said above, more guns is not the solution. Think about it- by just letting everyone have guns, you're giving them to the 'bad guys' as well as the 'good guys.'

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm still waiting for one of the pro-gun guys to suggest some sort of regulation they can live with. Otherwise I'll just assume they want either leave things exactly as they are, or else hand every man, woman, and child a loaded gun regardless of mental state or criminal inclinations and let natural selection finish the job. [/quote]




That is hilarious. Police Officers need to turn their guns in. In an event of an emergecy, if someone pulls a gun on them, they can always grab a "desk" or some other object available and "clock" them with it. [/quote]
Oh please. You're twisting the hypothetical and my words. The hypothetical was a room full of unarmed people and a lone gunman walking down the line shooting them one by one. Police officers are trained and expected to use firearms; they don't even factor into the equation.

Besides, it's no more ridiculous than some of the things I've read on this board where people expressed their desire to [i]grab their gun and[/i] [b]run [i]into[/i] an active shooter situation[/b] to kill themselves a "bad guy." [/quote]

So your goal is to be no more ridiculous than the dumbest person on the other side?

Your problem is you speak in hyperbole and sound bites. Fantastic it makes you feel clever and you can have the smartest guy in the room feel of you like. But so weekday? Try talking in actual examples and not ridiculous hypothetical situations that never ever happen.

Why do gun owners have to submit to regulation? To make you feel better?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2015 09:26AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

However, the vast majority of people who die in cars don't do so intentionally. [/quote]
Yes. Whereas the vast majority of those who die by guns in the U.S. do. ("Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.")
[/quote]

Right. That's was the unstated part of my point.

Or to put it another way, even if the per capita deaths from cars and guns are the same, for those of us not planning on killing ourselves, guns are still about three times safer than cars.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 18, 2015 09:28AM)
Danny, I was responding to a ridiculous hypothetical upthread. It was then taken out of context that I was advocating disarming cops.

I think a [b]lot[/b] of people would feel better- safer- if there was a bit more regulation on firearms. (Or, as you argue, the existing regulations on firearms were better enforced.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2015 09:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
The hypothetical was a room full of unarmed people and a lone gunman walking down the line shooting them one by one.[/quote]

I think the gun advocates would agree that [i]if you're unarmed [/i]in such a situation, then the best you can do is throw* a stapler (or whatever) at the gumnan. They just don't find that scenario to be better than the one in which they're armed



*It's not so clear that you support this line of defense; you did also mention that the police are trained in the use of firearms, so perhaps civilians who haven't watched the "throw something at your attacker" training video shouldn't throw things.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 18, 2015 09:41AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny, I was responding to a ridiculous hypothetical upthread. It was then taken out of context that I was advocating disarming cops.

I think a [b]lot[/b] of people would feel better- safer- if there was a bit more regulation on firearms. (Or, as you argue, the existing regulations on firearms were better enforced.) [/quote]

I think a LOT of peole would feel less safe if there were a bit more regulation. So what?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2015 09:41AM)
I have to say, if my goal were to shoot a lot of people and live long enough to either escape or to kill the greatest number of people possible, I'd prefer an environment where someone might throw something at me and rush me to one where someone might pull a gun and shoot back at me. Your mileage may vary, but I don't think I'm over thinking this.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 18, 2015 09:59AM)
There are gun owners and there are gun owners: If America was invaded by foreigners would they have the right to bear arms?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 18, 2015 10:00AM)
That would be my preference Lobo.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2015 11:25AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Or we could just get used to the idea that in America nuts with guns are going to regularly massacre innocent people. You know, like if you live in the desert you get used to it being hot. Nothing you can do about it. [/quote]

That's how we did it with cars and swimming pools. [/quote]
Cars are a good example. You never see national news reports about the people killed in cars on any given day. As blood splattered schoolrooms and work places and theaters, ect, become more common, the news media will doubtless begin to ignore it the same way it does the daily highway carnage. Mass shootings will become such a boring, everyday occurrence that ratings hungry news outlets will have to move on to something more unique to hold viewers' attention between the commercials. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. [/quote]


Puhleeze, such nonsense. We all know that in using cars or pools there is risk involved. The risk is quite small and manageable.[/quote]
My apologies if someone posted this already today (I'm only sampling this thread from time to time, not reading the entire thing):

"For the first time in more than 60 years, firearms and automobiles are killing Americans at an identical rate, according to new mortality data released this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, the age-adjusted death rate for both firearms (including homicides, suicides and accidental deaths) and motor vehicle events (car crashes, collisions between cars and pedestrians, etc) stood at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people. The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950."

[img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/12/cars_guns1.png[/img]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/ [/quote]


I am curious as to the "age-adjusted" aspect of the graph, specially, what sort of adjustment is made, and why one needs to be made at all, when the entire raw data are available. The default at the CDC website is [i]not[/i] to adjust for age; I'd be willing to bet (though I don't have the time to browse through and click all of oodles of categories) that using the actual numbers of deaths would show a result more favorable to the gun advocates.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 18, 2015 11:34AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
However, the vast majority of people who die in cars don't do so intentionally. [/quote]


Yes, it's true, the cars snuck up on them, lured them inside, then strapped and locked them inside. They were victims of automobile abduction and vehicular terrorism. Militant motorcars are killing innocents. Something must be done!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 18, 2015 11:37AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
However, the vast majority of people who die in cars don't do so intentionally. [/quote]


Yes, it's true, the cars snuck up on them, lured them inside, then strapped and locked them inside. They were victims of automobile abduction and vehicular terrorism. Militant motorcars are killing innocents. Something must be done! [/quote]

Yea because that was what he meant.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 18, 2015 11:42AM)
So you agree that people in cars wanted to be there?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 18, 2015 11:43AM)
I agree talking with you is a waste of time. When when you try to use normal sentences it is pointless.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2015 11:45AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So you agree that people in cars wanted to be there? [/quote]

Did anyone suggest otherwise?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 18, 2015 11:49AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So you agree that people in cars wanted to be there? [/quote]

Did anyone suggest otherwise? [/quote]

Yes please make the tag in. I am exhausted LOL.

And nobody suggested or implied otherwise.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 18, 2015 01:29PM)
There is a global revolution going on at the moment and as Albert Pike said, we never start a premature revolution. “We” first plough the fields and scatter the seeds and so on so forth. Long term planning that is the thing. What we see in revolutions more often than not is a reign of terror. You are going to be very lucky to not have had your chopped off by the end this revolution which will last the whole of this 21 century, which has only just started and you ain’t seen nothing yet. There is really nothing you can do about it with or without a gun.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 18, 2015 01:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, tommy wrote:
There is a global revolution going on at the moment and as Albert Pike said, we never start a premature revolution. “We” first plough the fields and scatter the seeds and so on so forth. Long term planning that is the thing. What we see in revolutions more often than not is a reign of terror. You are going to be very lucky to not have had your chopped off by the end this revolution which will last the whole of this 21 century, which has only just started and you ain’t seen nothing yet. There is really nothing you can do about it with or without a gun. [/quote]

What should we expect?

What precautions CAN we take?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 18, 2015 01:32PM)
While everyone was screaming "Workplace Violence" their accomplice could have easily gotten away. Luckily he didn't!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 18, 2015 02:37PM)
I don’t know but guess, expect things to get worse step by step. The people who go through change are last one to notice according to Plato. Day to day things become the new normal. There are official ministry of defence documents that predict what to expect. Mass refugees moving across the continent carrying with diseise and a gun is not going save you from that and starvation and so on. People in England are today facing a choice of eating or heating as they can’t afford both. What are they going to do with gun apart from shoot themselves? The natives as it gets worse will get restless and that which follows will follow. Who knows what to expect, when people lose everything there is nothing left to lose and lose their heads. We are seeing negative interest rates in banks. We are seeing the slow collapse of the industrial revolution. Look at the changes the industrial revolution brought and now reverse it and imagine what that is going to be like. It is not good but good for a few of course. The biggest killer is poverty and that is what to expect. In the mean time well, Merry Christmas and have a nice day. :)
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 18, 2015 03:04PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, tommy wrote:
There is a global revolution going on at the moment and as Albert Pike said, we never start a premature revolution. “We” first plough the fields and scatter the seeds and so on so forth. Long term planning that is the thing. What we see in revolutions more often than not is a reign of terror. You are going to be very lucky to not have had your chopped off by the end this revolution which will last the whole of this 21 century, which has only just started and you ain’t seen nothing yet. There is really nothing you can do about it with or without a gun. [/quote]

What should we expect?

What precautions CAN we take? [/quote]
Don't be a banker, lawyer, or CEO, or have one as a parent, and you'll probably be okay.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 20, 2015 06:04PM)
Looks like an involved conspiracy as I earlier stated! Failure to assume this from the start is exactly what the Jihadists are counting on.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 20, 2015 09:21PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
I agree talking with you is a waste of time. When when you try to use normal sentences it is pointless. [/quote]

Knee jerks are not our best reaction in these moments. Have you noticed how few of these shooters have made their motivations, planning, intentions, social cause... ? So what is going on with the violence(? rhetorical question) - it seems to have people more agitated and less able to engage in useful dialogue.

Let's try this from a step back in our social framework, our constitution as we currently understand it. Much talk about amendments 1 and 2. But in background we have lots of 5 to keep the ball rolling and we keep avoiding questions about things which encroach upon 4.

If there's a line, premise or reference in my arguments that doesn't line up with the facts or works referenced...