NationStates Jolt Archive

Breaking news less than 3 miles from here

Some idiot has opened fire with an AK47 at Sheriffs officers and is now holed up in his house.

SWAT teams and media are on it like white on rice.

Neighborhood is cordonned off and evacuated.

These are very early reports and facts are obviously only factoids at this juncture, but it sounds like suicide by cop to me.

Ooh! Go take pictures!

sounds more like some crazy druggie to me.

Breaking news less than 3 miles from here

Some idiot has opened fire with an AK47 at Sheriffs officers and is now holed up in his house.

SWAT teams and media are on it like white on rice.

Neighborhood is cordonned off and evacuated.

These are very early reports and facts are obviously only factoids at this juncture, but it sounds like suicide by cop to me.

I don't know, Brown rice isn't that white.

A few miles? I call lies. Just step out of the house unarmed and I'm sue they won't hurt you :D

Ooh! Go take pictures!

For half a second i actually considered this as a good idea.

I may go take pics of the canyon and river instead.

Suicide by cop is certainly a public way of killing yourself, and you do get into the news...

sounds more like some crazy druggie to me.

Cant it be both?

Anyway most druggies I know are far too paranoid to stand on their hind legs and shoot at cops in broad daylight.

Hmmm more sirens just now.

Some idiot has opened fire with an AK47

Alright. This is an argument for gun control. I rest my case, the "some guy" subject speaks on its own.

Alright. This is an argument for gun control. I rest my case, the "some guy" subject speaks on its own.

They cant hit you with bullets from here dont worry.

They cant hit you with bullets from here dont worry.

I have enough gunuts around here, thanks. The other day one militia men went crazy and appeared in TV sporting last generation G-11 and P-90 before going rampant and killing like 5 another paramilitaries.

Remember, when you have armed militias, guerrillas, paramilitary and also live in a third world hellhole...You see a lot of guns out in the street

Location?

Alright. This is an argument for gun control. I rest my case, the "some guy" subject speaks on its own.

WTF?

WTF?

It makes sense. Any idiot can buy an automatic rifle and start shooting at the police.

It makes sense. Any idiot can buy an automatic rifle and start shooting at the police.

Define "automatic"?

They can only buy a firearm if they pass a background check. Selling to someone who can't legally own one is a crime.

Location?

Where the standoff is happening?

Where the standoff is happening?

Preferrably, yes.

It makes sense. Any idiot can buy an automatic rifle and start shooting at the police.

But its a bit early yet, you don't know the gun control thats in place in that location. For all you know the guy could have a police or military background that would allow him to get a weapon, it could be replica only firing blanks, you just never know.

But your probably right

Define "automatic"?

They can only buy a firearm if they pass a background check. Selling to someone who can't legally own one is a crime.

An AK47 it's pretty much an automatic assault weapon to me...

Even if you need a gun, I think you can go for a 9mm, even a .45 or a Jericho if you want big power...But an AK47 is a bit of a...Don't know...Hyperbole?

Define "automatic"?

They can only buy a firearm if they pass a background check. Selling to someone who can't legally own one is a crime.

Guess what? Someone is a criminal after they commit a crime. Somebody with a clean record planning on going loco can buy a gun.

Preferrably, yes.

Kern County California (I think in an unincorporated area) Zip code 93308
Slightly off of Manor Drive.

Guess what? Someone is a criminal after they commit a crime. Somebody with a clean record planning on going loco can buy a gun.

Planning on going loco?:confused:

If your going to try and use that as an arguement for gun control. know this first. That gun is already illegal in CA, thus, trying to control it anymore would require you to search every person in the state's house Nazi style and sieze anything you found. Otherwise, he's somebody shooting an illegal weapon. The laws are there but *gasp* criminals dont listen to them!

Planning on going loco?:confused:

Loco: Crazy

Going crazy in spanglish...People who think that spanglish sounds funny, meh.

An AK47 it's pretty much an automatic assault weapon to me...

Even if you need a gun, I think you can go for a 9mm, even a .45 or a Jericho if you want big power...But an AK47 is a bit of a...Don't know...Hyperbole?

News agencies report AK47's as all sorts of different weapons. A real one is a select fire "assault rifle" and is heavily regulated federally. A civilian version is a semi-automatic only "assault weapon" , little differerent from a hunting rifle, and are mostly illegal in CA in the first place.

Guess what? Someone is a criminal after they commit a crime. Somebody with a clean record planning on going loco can buy a gun.

So you're a proponent of "pre-crime"?

Kern County California (I think in an unincorporated area) Zip code 93308
Slightly off of Manor Drive.

Don't see anything online yet.

But its a bit early yet, you don't know the gun control thats in place in that location. For all you know the guy could have a police or military background that would allow him to get a weapon, it could be replica only firing blanks, you just never know.

But your probably right

AK47s have been banned for some years here. If the gun is an AK47 as the news has said then it is already an illegal firearm for him to own.
Go go gun control eh?

If the weapon was misidentified AND he bought it legally then he still had a two week wait to collect the gun from the time his background check was completed.

Me Id prefer to have the situation over and to have more facts in my possession before I took this thread into the politics arena.

Some have hotter heads and bigger agendas than I do however.

Don't see anything online yet.

I can help.

Top story on the page

http://www.kget.com/

I can help.

Top story on the page

http://www.kget.com/

Thanks much.

So you're a proponent of "pre-crime"?

I'm a proponent of keeping firearms out of the hands of the common man.

Buy a crossbow if you want to defend your home from eeebil minorities and such.

If your going to try and use that as an arguement for gun control. know this first. That gun is already illegal in CA, thus, trying to control it anymore would require you to search every person in the state's house Nazi style and sieze anything you found. Otherwise, he's somebody shooting an illegal weapon. The laws are there but *gasp* criminals dont listen to them!
AK47s have been banned for some years here. If the gun is an AK47 as the news has said then it is already an illegal firearm for him to own.
Go go gun control eh?

If the weapon was misidentified AND he bought it legally then he still had a two week wait to collect the gun from the time his background check was completed.

Me Id prefer to have the situation over and to have more facts in my possession before I took this thread into the politics arena.

Some have hotter heads and bigger agendas than I do however.
Shhhh!

You might shatter their fragile illusion of reality! ;)

I'm a proponent of keeping firearms out of the hands of the common man.

So you support the monopoly on violence to the government and criminals.

Buy a crossbow if you want to defend your home from eeebil minorities and such.

Oh, how cute, a racism implication. You'ld better be able to back that one up.

I can. Everyone who is an opponent of gun control is actually a racist, and must have beaten up at least one innocent turkish shopkeeper. It's true, and a well-known fact.:)

Your average Joe doesn't need a gun. You want to defend your home? There are other way. Get some pepper spray, or a tazer. You want to fight dictatorial government? Don't vote in an asshat... Oh, sorry, too late.

I can. Everyone who is an opponent of gun control is actually a racist, and must have beaten up at least one innocent turkish shopkeeper. It's true, and a well-known fact.:)

Your average Joe doesn't need a gun. You want to defend your home? There are other way. Get some pepper spray, or a tazer. You want to fight dictatorial government? Don't vote in an asshat... Oh, sorry, too late.

Who's "your average Joe"? Why should ownership of property be based on "need"? Who defines the "need"? You realize that in the places w/ the most stringent firearm laws, they also have severe restrictions on pepper sprays and tazers? Did you know that pepper sprays and tazers are LESS effective? Did you know that there are numerous other reasons to own firearms than home defense?

You're also showing your BDS by the last part.

BDS? Care to enlighten an evil gun-hating idiot?

Your average Joe is anybody who isn't part of the military or law enforcement (I also happen to think that guns in the police should be restricted to special armed units).

As for tazers and pepper spray being less effective: do you need to kill people to defend yourself? A tazer will incapacitate anyone not covered in rubber thanks to the joys of electro-muscular disruption, and pepper spray hurts like a bastard. You need more laws governing those retarded boomsticks of yours and less laws covering less-lethal alternatives.

oooh, the gun freaks appeared, here we gooo again.

The normal citizen do not need a gun. Why?, because a gun is a weapon of attack and defense by counterattack. On normal conditions, you should not have the need or the priority to attack, mostly another human being. Even if you need defense, you usually have to pull out your gun against an armed opponent, who would not armed if the gun control would be established in an effective way.

By letting you, a bunch of people who likes guns, a free access to guns, you also let the weapons to fall in the hands of any potential criminal who will use deadly force to achieve a criminal end. Guess who a potential criminal is? Anyone, including yourselves.

BDS? Care to enlighten an evil gun-hating idiot?

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Your average Joe is anybody who isn't part of the military or law enforcement (I also happen to think that guns in the police should be restricted to special armed units).

So ,yes, you support a monopoly on violence for the Government and criminals.

As for tazers and pepper spray being less effective: do you need to kill people to defend yourself? A tazer will incapacitate anyone not covered in rubber thanks to the joys of electro-muscular disruption, and pepper spray hurts like a bastard. You need more laws governing those retarded boomsticks of yours and less laws covering less-lethal alternatives.

95% of defensive firearm uses do not involve even firing the weapon, merely brandishing it. Pepper spray does not affect everyone while tazers are being reevaluated by most police forces due to inconsistancy.

If the probes touch the skin, the target of a tazer goes down. Once the circuit is closed, the person on the wrong end falls down, regardless of pain tolerance.

oooh, the gun freaks appeared, here we gooo again.

Oh, the hoplophobes are hear to throw out unsupported emotional arguements again.

The normal citizen do not need a gun. Why?, because a gun is a weapon of attack and defense by counterattack. On normal conditions, you should not have the need or the priority to attack, mostly another human being. Even if you need defense, you usually have to pull out your gun against an armed opponent, who would not armed if the gun control would be established in an effective way.

Now you'ld better be able to support your hypothesis. Ever hear the phrase Defensive gun use? It's used to defend yourself, not "attack". Criminals are still armed in every place that has severe restrictions on firearms. Why would here be any different?

By letting you, a bunch of people who likes guns, a free access to guns, you also let the weapons to fall in the hands of any potential criminal who will use deadly force to achieve a criminal end. Guess who a potential criminal is? Anyone, including yourselves.

So you want to disarm everyone based on your own fears of someone "maybe" committing a crime w/ them and to hold them responsible is someone else commits a crime by stealing them.

That is what's known as "pre-crime".

You have some severe issues if you seriously believe 80 million people in the US are potential criminals just because they own firearms.

If the probes touch the skin, the target of a tazer goes down. Once the circuit is closed, the person on the wrong end falls down, regardless of pain tolerance.

Not necessarily. You also used that nice word "if". They are also one shot weapons. Once again, they also are severely restricted in many places.

Gun crime is endemic in the US. In Britain, we have severe gun restrictions and we have far less gun crime than you. We've had two major spree shootings in the last 50 years.

EDIT: everyone's a potential criminal, gun owner or not. But the gun owners have far more potential for damage.

Gun crime is endemic in the US. In Britain, we have severe gun restrictions and we have far less gun crime than you. We've had two major spree shootings in the last 50 years.

Gun crime has been plummeting in the US while it has been rising in the UK. The UK also has more violent crime than the US.

The UK has always had less firearm crime than the US even before the restrictive laws.

Edit: Just admit you're a proponent of "pre-crime" and be done w/ it. You want to punish people for what you think they "might" do.

It makes sense. Any idiot can buy an automatic rifle and start shooting at the police.

Ummm... fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted in the US since 1934. Or are you not familiar with the laws?

Since that time, there have only been a little over 100,000 fully automatic weapons legally owned in the US - most of them manufactured before 1968.

And since that time, no legally owned fully automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime.

So, tell me, when are you going to retract your statement?

We're just less psycho. You guys can't be trusted with guns. You tend to shoot people.

EDIT: waco?

So you support the monopoly on violence to the government and criminals.
I understand you do it differently in your country and have 40x the per-capita firearms murder rate. Ah well. Each society to it own. :D

I understand you do it differently in your country and have 40x the per-capita firearms murder rate. Ah well. Each society to it own. :D
We're at 16,000 murders for 300 million people.

How many do you have?

Is that really 40 times?

We're just less psycho. You guys can't be trusted with guns. You tend to shoot people.

EDIT: waco?

No, criminals tend to shoot other criminals. 75% of firearm crimes are committed by and against prior criminals.

The 80 million + other people have nothing to do w/ it.

Gun crime is endemic in the US. In Britain, we have severe gun restrictions and we have far less gun crime than you. We've had two major spree shootings in the last 50 years.

EDIT: everyone's a potential criminal, gun owner or not. But the gun owners have far more potential for damage.

Wouldnt it just be easier to just stay where Nanny keeps you safe rather than trying to change the world to fit your mold in case you should decide to travel?

In the UK, the vast majority of firearms are in the hands of the police and army. How many cases of government opression have we had?

I understand you do it differently in your country and have 40x the per-capita firearms murder rate. Ah well. Each society to it own. :D

Thank you. It isnt so hard to live and let live is it?

I love when a gaggle of screeching douchebags that know absolutely nothing about guns and the overwhelming majority of people that keep them legally and safely start spewing thier stupidity.

Now you'ld better be able to support your hypothesis. Ever hear the phrase Defensive gun use? It's used to defend yourself, not "attack". Criminals are still armed in every place that has severe restrictions on firearms. Why would here be any different?

The only need I can see to own a gun is to defend myself from a gunned assailant. If the gun control is effective, then the guy attacking me wouldn't own a gun neither, thus having no need to own a gun in any case.

I have survived assaults, muggers, even an attempt to rape without a gun, because luckily none of the aforementioned criminals had a gun too. Should they had one, I would had been defenseless, and even owning a piece wouldn't had saved me.

Thus, giving everyone a free permit to own a gun is an invitation to crime. I don't know, I do not live in the USA, but your crime levels scare even us, and we are third world. Go figure, I guess a lot of those 80 millions went criminals, and thanks to the fact they could own a firearm easily.

That's my argument. Period, I rest my case, I find boresome, pointless and tiresome to repeat it, plus I won't convince that your toys are dangerous because you're not the only one with the right to have it, but also every wacko and his cousin. For the record, you are not going to convince me of your point, even if you repeat your arguments a hundred times. I have already heard your points a thousand times.

In the UK, the vast majority of firearms are in the hands of the police and army. How many cases of government opression have we had?
In the US, we've increased from 200 million to 300 million guns - and yet our firearm murder rate has dropped from 50,000 per year to 16,000 per year - and where our population went from 240 million to 300 million.

Obviously, in the US, more guns doesn't mean more firearm murder. It appears to be less.

And remember, the US is not the UK (and vice versa).

In the UK, the vast majority of firearms are in the hands of the police and army. How many cases of government opression have we had?

Look at the camera outside and ask me that. Read on the measures your gov't is introducing to monitor travel and ask me that.

Wouldnt it just be easier to just stay where Nanny keeps you safe rather than trying to change the world to fit your mold in case you should decide to travel?

Aww, cute, the gun-crazy is being condescending. Who's a good little hick? Coo-chee-coo!

*pets Not bad*

The only need I can see to own a gun is to defend myself from a gunned assailant. If the gun control is effective, then the guy attacking me wouldn't own a gun neither, thus having no need to own a gun in any case.


94 percent of US violent crime, and 89 percent of rapes are committed by unarmed assailants in the US.

Women are beaten to death by boyfriends and spouses in every country.

I train women to carry and use firearms to stop stalking and beating. It works. Without firing a shot.

Women who don't follow the program I teach often end up dead. None of the over 200 I've trained has even suffered a single harassing phone call.

That's my argument. Period, I rest my case, I find boresome, pointless and tiresome to repeat it, plus I won't convince that your toys are dangerous because you're not the only one with the right to have it, but also every wacko and his cousin. For the record, you are not going to convince me of your point, even if you repeat your arguments a hundred times. I have already heard your points a thousand times.


Good- so that means we wont have to hear from you again on the subject, right?

Some of us feel the same way toward your opinion.

Good- so that means we wont have to hear from you again on the subject, right?

Some of us feel the same way toward your opinion.

Difference is, Aelosia's right.

They've opened up a line of communication with the idiot. Negotiations are ongoing. He may yet survive.

Sorry to interupt the worldly do-gooders telling me how things should be where I live with the actual issue of this thread.

They've opened up a line of communication with the idiot. Negotiations are ongoing. He may yet survive.

If you open fire on people in the street, you deserve to get your head blown off by the forces of law and order.

We're at 16,000 murders for 300 million people.

How many do you have?

Is that really 40 times?
In 2002, the UK had 81 gun-related deaths including suicides, for 60 million people.

The only need I can see to own a gun is to defend myself from a gunned assailant. If the gun control is effective, then the guy attacking me wouldn't own a gun neither, thus having no need to own a gun in any case.

Then you have limited vision. By your definition, there is no effective gun control as firearm crimes are committed everywhere.

I have survived assaults, muggers, even an attempt to rape without a gun, because luckily none of the aforementioned criminals had a gun too. Should they had one, I would had been defenseless, and even owning a piece wouldn't had saved me.

You can't prove a negative. There are millions of defensive gun uses each year in the US.

Thus, giving everyone a free permit to own a gun is an invitation to crime. I don't know, I do not live in the USA, but your crime levels scare even us, and we are third world. Go figure, I guess a lot of those 80 millions went criminals, and thanks to the fact they could own a firearm easily.

Did anyone say anything about "giving everyone a free permit to own a gun"? No? Then nice red herring.

I don't understand the second part.

giving everyone a free permit to own a gunThat's my argument. Period, I rest my case, I find boresome, pointless and tiresome to repeat it, plus I won't convince that your toys are dangerous because you're not the only one with the right to have it, but also every wacko and his cousin. For the record, you are not going to convince me of your point, even if you repeat your arguments a hundred times. I have already heard your points a thousand times.[/QUOTE]

Then you must like remaining ignorant. I don't try and say you "must" own a firearm, but you say I should relinnquish mine and rely completely on the authorities.

it's nice to know you can only resort to dehumanizing your opponent and using insulting lanquage when you have no arguement.

This reminds me of the movie called Hostage?

Gun crime has been plummeting in the US while it has been rising in the UK. The UK also has more violent crime than the US.
In the UK, it has risen by a few percent from a negligible base.

Your latter point is absurd.

Difference is, Aelosia's right.


Thats not the case. Perhaps only in your unexperienced and naive opinions.

Difference is, Aelosia's right.

No, Aelosia' has no defenedable arguement and has resorted to insults and running away.

In the UK, it has risen by a few percent from a negligible base.

Your latter point is absurd.

But it is rising regardless of the laws.

The latter point is according to the UN and numerous crime agencies.

No, Aelosia' has no defenedable arguement and has resorted to insults and running away.

Okay, Aelosia certainly doesn't have a defenedable arguement, but definately has a defendable argument.

Difference is, Aelosia's right.

She probably is for where she lives, you might be spot on for where you live. Neither probably know much more than media hype about here however.

In 2002, the UK had 81 gun-related deaths including suicides, for 60 million people.
And how many non-firearm murders? We're killing people without guns at nearly the same rate as the firearms here.

Not to mention that 94 percent of violent crime occurs here without a gun, knife, or other instrument.

Okay, Aelosia certainly doesn't have a defenedable arguement, but definately has a defendable argument.

Run and hide! It is the spelling Nazi!

Run and hide! It is the spelling Nazi!

Only when it makes me feel even more superior than I obviously am.

MODEDIT - Swastikas removed.

Okay, Aelosia certainly doesn't have a defenedable arguement, but definately has a defendable argument.

Which is why the "cut n run" occured, right?

Okay, Aelosia certainly doesn't have a defenedable arguement, but definately has a defendable argument.

No she doesn't.

And I know over 200 women who would tell her she's wrong.

But, then again, people like you would rather these women be beaten to death waiting for the police to arrive, rather than have them defend themselves effectively.

Only when it makes me feel even more superior than I obviously am.

That probably doesn't take much.

94 percent of US violent crime, and 89 percent of rapes are committed by unarmed assailants in the US.

Women are beaten to death by boyfriends and spouses in every country.

I train women to carry and use firearms to stop stalking and beating. It works. Without firing a shot.

Women who don't follow the program I teach often end up dead. None of the over 200 I've trained has even suffered a single harassing phone call.

Hi Kimchi, I was missing you, after all this is about gun control :D

Wait, I want a source for those first numbers.

Second, you are right, something must be done about that, like women starting to denounce it, actually I colaborate with an organization to motivate beaten women to break their silence. The not denouncing of it out of fear is the main problem.

I find your program interesting, Kimchi, should I llive nearby, I would take it just out of curiosity. Just a question...Every woman that do not take your program is dead?, I guess I misunderstood that part.

the problem about gun freedom, is that every criminal has the same access to it that honest citizens that perhaps you or your pupils are. Then two people face each other carrying a weapon, what happens, wild wild west? I do not want society to reach that point (then again, USA is not my society, I am just issuing an opinion here)

Regarding you, Carnivorous Lickers...First, I do not think I was adressing you, so, if at the beginning I was ignoring you without purpose, now I'll do it purposedly, as you extraordinarily fitted into the stereotype I was criticizing. Luckily, I have a rational partner to argue with, so you and your cadre of gunturbators can go to enjoy your favourite hobby or anything you might like. Just ignore my further posts, as they are not indeed wrote for be read by you.

That probably doesn't take much.

Ooh, zing!

Go rub down your gun or something.

If you open fire on people in the street, you deserve to get your head blown off by the forces of law and order.

Probably. But they tend to try negotiating first whenever the guy stops shooting.

But it is rising regardless of the laws.

The latter point is according to the UN and numerous crime agencies.
The rise is as a result of changes in the ownership of elements of the international drug market. You have foreign criminals occasionally shooting each other in London, for example. This is nothing with which the ordinary citizen needs to concern themselves. We do not have a phenomenon whereby criminals regularly rob ordinary people at gunpoint. Virtually all gun crime in internally-directed "scum on scum" crime. We have a completely different culture here, not just among law abiding citizens, but criminals too.

And the UN and those agencies are probably talking out of their ass on this one.

Difference is, Aelosia's right.
But he never made a real argument/point... :rolleyes:

I have to say, I've lived in Britain all my life and never been brutally murdered whilst waiting for the police.

The rise is as a result of changes in the ownership of elements of the international drug market. You have foreign criminals occasionally shooting each other in London, for example. This is nothing with which the ordinary citizen needs to concern themselves. We do not have a phenomenon whereby criminals regularly rob ordinary people at gunpoint. Virtually all gun crime in internally-directed "scum on scum" crime. We have a completely different culture here, not just among law abiding citizens, but criminals too.

ANd most US gun crime is the same way. I stated that earlier.

ANd most US gun crime is the same way. I stated that earlier.

I bet the number of spree sootings you've had is disproportionate in comparison to the gun-controlled or 'free from fear' world.

No, Aelosia' has no defenedable arguement and has resorted to insults and running away.

1.- Insults? I called you gun freak. You love guns, right?, then you are a gun freak. I do love Tolkien, thus I am an elven freak. It is just that you people have a tendency to appear at the same time over a thread and closing files just desestimating everything else the other position says.

2.- Running away?, please...I am here, and I am both reading and writing. Plus, I cannot see how anyone can "run away" of a thread in an internet forum. Relax, there are more life in this world far from the end of the barrel of your baby.

1.- Insults? I called you gun freak. You love guns, right?, then you are a gun freak. I do love Tolkien, thus I am an elven freak. It is just that you people have a tendency to appear at the same time over a thread and closing files just desestimating everything else the other position says.

2.- Running away?, please...I am here, and I am both reading and writing. Plus, I cannot see how anyone can "run away" of a thread in an internet forum. Relax, there are more life in this world far from the end of the barrel of your baby.

But his gun has 21 gears and a built-in sound system with amazing subwoofers!

But he never made a real argument/point... :rolleyes:

She, thanks, and I did several, if your intellectual capability does not enable you to understand them or to accept them, as I accept yours, then I feel sorry.

And how many non-firearm murders? We're killing people without guns at nearly the same rate as the firearms here.

Not to mention that 94 percent of violent crime occurs here without a gun, knife, or other instrument.
The UK typically has 900 murders per year, for 60 million population, of which fewer than 80 are firearms-related.

The US has around 16,000 murders annually for 300 million population, of which fewer than 12,000 are firearms-related.

As you can see, along with far lower firearms usage both per capita and as a proportion of all killings, the UK is on the whole a less lethally violent society.

Since it is a different country, I do not see what can be disputed here. Things simply work differently.

Then you have limited vision. By your definition, there is no effective gun control as firearm crimes are committed everywhere.



You can't prove a negative. There are millions of defensive gun uses each year in the US.



Did anyone say anything about "giving everyone a free permit to own a gun"? No? Then nice red herring.

I don't understand the second part.

giving everyone a free permit to own a gunThat's my argument. Period, I rest my case, I find boresome, pointless and tiresome to repeat it, plus I won't convince that your toys are dangerous because you're not the only one with the right to have it, but also every wacko and his cousin. For the record, you are not going to convince me of your point, even if you repeat your arguments a hundred times. I have already heard your points a thousand times.



Aelosia purports to have fought off violent felons. She must have some extra skills or strength to be able to defeat the various rapists muggers and killers that have singled her out.

But for some reason, she condems those of lesser strength or ability to be victims to predators.

Edit: Not really sure what happened with that mixed post

Regarding you, Carnivorous Lickers...First, I do not think I was adressing you, so, if at the beginning I was ignoring you without purpose, now I'll do it purposedly, as you extraordinarily fitted into the stereotype I was criticizing. Luckily, I have a rational partner to argue with, so you and your cadre of gunturbators can go to enjoy your favourite hobby or anything you might like. Just ignore my further posts, as they are not indeed wrote for be read by you.


Your incorrectly assuming again that I'm concerned about your opinion of me or your smug condescension.
Save your breath. As well as your tales. And ignore this.
Dont respond.

Then you must like remaining ignorant. I don't try and say you "must" own a firearm, but you say I should relinnquish mine and rely completely on the authorities.

it's nice to know you can only resort to dehumanizing your opponent and using insulting lanquage when you have no arguement.

Aelosia purports to have fought off violent felons. She must have some extra skills or strength to be able to defeat the various rapists muggers and killers that have singled her out.

But for some reason, she condems those of lesser strength or ability to be victims to predators.

Guess what? on several times I ran, in other case I slammed the guy in the face with the door of my car and then started it, I even broke his ankle when I passed over it with the wheel. Once I got a purse to defend myself from a knife wielding assailant. I never saw the need of a gun.

I am 26 years old, and I am a woman living in a South American metropolis with a high level of crime, so I have seen my own quote of violence. And yet I have feel defenseless only when in front of a gun, and that has happened twice, and I had to give everything I had without being able to oppose resistance. Should that rapist had a gun instead of a knife my purse would had been of no help, for example.

Anyone with a gun has the automatic ability and strenght to be an uncontested predator, so when you let anyone own a weapon you are condeming all those not holding a gun victims to those who have them and want to have their way with them. you just bring more unbalance to the equation instead of balancing it.

Gun loonies all seem to ignore the fact that in a society with proper gun controls nobody has guns. Period.

I have to say, I've lived in Britain all my life and never been brutally murdered whilst waiting for the police.

Ive lived in the US for 46 years and have yet to stop a bullet with my body.

Ive lived in the US for 46 years and have yet to stop a bullet with my body.

Obviously, in your perfect gun-filled society everyone's too busy participating in the daily nationwide mexican standoff.

Obviously, in your perfect gun-filled society everyone's too busy participating in the daily nationwide mexican standoff.


Yeah. That must be it. :rolleyes:

When was the last time you ever saw a gun?

Gun loonies all seem to ignore the fact that in a society with proper gun controls nobody has guns. Period.
Hear hear.

A couple of years ago, a man was killed just down the road from where I lived. He was foreign, on a brief visit. He was shot dead by another foreigner, who came specially for him, and only for him.

That's not a failure of gun control. That is as things should be. Sure, I can never have a gun with which to protect myself, but all that shit is happening in a whole different world anyway. If everyone had them, they would just be paperweights that for many people would be way too easy to grab in a fit of irrationality.

Yeah. That must be it. :rolleyes:

When was the last time you ever saw a gun?

Well, it was the summer of '08, and Squire Beatwife had challenged Parson Smith to a duel, pistols at dawn...

Gun loonies all seem to ignore the fact that in a society with proper gun controls nobody has guns. Period.

Hoplophobes all seem to ignore the fact that there is no such place. Period.

Hoplophobes all seem to ignore the fact that there is no such place. Period.


most of them already live in Xanadu

I bet the number of spree sootings you've had is disproportionate in comparison to the gun-controlled or 'free from fear' world.


And you would lose. There are numerous countries w. much stricter gun control that have higher crime/murder rates.

I hear that if you pour wet ammonium triiodide down the barrel of your gun and leave it to dry it becomes 97% better at killing criminals, or something.

I hear that if you pour wet ammonium triiodide down the barrel of your gun and leave it to dry it becomes 97% better at killing criminals, or something.
Criminals or anyone?

Criminals or anyone?

Neither. Ammonium triiodide is highly volatile when dry...

1.- Insults? I called you gun freak. You love guns, right?, then you are a gun freak. I do love Tolkien, thus I am an elven freak. It is just that you people have a tendency to appear at the same time over a thread and closing files just desestimating everything else the other position says.

2.- Running away?, please...I am here, and I am both reading and writing. Plus, I cannot see how anyone can "run away" of a thread in an internet forum. Relax, there are more life in this world far from the end of the barrel of your baby.

1. Please, be disingenous on your own time. We all know what you meant. You're also reffering to us as "you people", completely ignoring everywhere else that we post in an attempt to dehumanize those who support firearm rights.

2. You "rested your case" w/o presenting anything. Yet you're still here.

How did this stupid thread about a nut shooting at cops become another debate on gun controll ? the only gun controll issuee I see here is that of the police having enough pratice to hit the guy without having to fire 140 rounds . Although most of these standoffs usally end up with the idiot being arrested after having been talked into a coma by a negotiating team .

She, thanks, and I did several, if your intellectual capability does not enable you to understand them or to accept them, as I accept yours, then I feel sorry.
*sad

She, sorry.

Oh I understand all too well the fatuousness and fallacy of your argument, and said types of logic/ideology.

Guess what? on several times I ran, in other case I slammed the guy in the face with the door of my car and then started it, I even broke his ankle when I passed over it with the wheel. Once I got a purse to defend myself from a knife wielding assailant. I never saw the need of a gun.

I am 26 years old, and I am a woman living in a South American metropolis with a high level of crime, so I have seen my own quote of violence. And yet I have feel defenseless only when in front of a gun, and that has happened twice, and I had to give everything I had without being able to oppose resistance. Should that rapist had a gun instead of a knife my purse would had been of no help, for example.

Anyone with a gun has the automatic ability and strenght to be an uncontested predator, so when you let anyone own a weapon you are condeming all those not holding a gun victims to those who have them and want to have their way with them. you just bring more unbalance to the equation instead of balancing it.


So you got lucky a few times. Good for you.

80 million people in the US own firearms. This has been increasing for decades. Crime dropped consistently for nearly 15 years even w/ a variety of strictor or more relaxed firearm laws. Your own fear of firearms and the people that own them doesn't justify trying to ban them.

How did this stupid thread about a nut shooting at cops become another debate on gun controll ? the only gun controll issuee I see here is that of the police having enough pratice to hit the guy without having to fire 140 rounds . Although most of these standoffs usally end up with the idiot being arrested after having been talked into a coma by a negotiating team .

By the usual hoplophobes coming in and screaming that we must restrict firearms further because someone has one that is already illegal.

Gun loonies all seem to ignore the fact that in a society with proper gun controls nobody has guns. Period.

Wtf rofl lmao hahahah.

Ok. Sorry. I just found that so amusingly funny. You know, in Utopia, everything is perfect. Shame that Utopia doesn't work.

These sort of fallacious arguments are extremely tiring. Someone gets shot? Take away everyone's guns. Someone gets stabbed. Best take away everyone's knives. People can butter their bread somehow else. Forks look dangerous too. Best ban cars so that people can't commit hit-and-runs. And chop people's hands off so they can't wield any implements that might cause harm. :rolleyes:

Guns might facilitate crime more. They may also facilitate greater ability to defend against crime.

Anyone who thinks the problem can be solved by take away a specific tool is simply fooling themselves.

Guess what? In Britain we have forks, knives (even big ones, SHOCK HORROR) and cars, but no guns. That slippery slope bullshit holds less water than the Sahara.

Guess what? In Britain we have forks, knives (even big ones, SHOCK HORROR) and cars, but no guns. That slippery slope bullshit holds less water than the Sahara.
*cough* *cough* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5032794.stm)



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5032794.stm

Guess what? In Britain we have forks, knives (even big ones, SHOCK HORROR) and cars, but no guns. That slippery slope bullshit holds less water than the Sahara.

And yet UK gun crime has increased. And yet US has decreased even w/ more firearms. Go figure. Got anyother myths I can debunk?

As somebody said before, it's up a very small amount from a very small amount. Whereas yours is down a lot from a huge amount, and is still wildly disproportionate.

As somebody said before, it's up a very small amount from a very small amount. Whereas yours is down a lot from a huge amount, and is still wildly disproportionate.

And was also said before, the UK's was lower BEFORE the various restrictions while the US's dropped even w/ lessening of laws and more firearms.

Want me to throw out the countries w/ more restrictive laws and higher gun crime rates?

Keep wanting to claim causality?

Hi Kimchi, I was missing you, after all this is about gun control :D

Wait, I want a source for those first numbers.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

I've posted that source many times before, and no one has refuted it.

Second, you are right, something must be done about that, like women starting to denounce it, actually I colaborate with an organization to motivate beaten women to break their silence. The not denouncing of it out of fear is the main problem.
Denouncing it has nothing to do with saving someone who is being attacked.

I find your program interesting, Kimchi, should I llive nearby, I would take it just out of curiosity. Just a question...Every woman that do not take your program is dead?, I guess I misunderstood that part.

There are two things that effectively double an abused woman's chances of death by her husband/boyfriend in an abusive relationship. 1 - leaving. 2 - filing for a protective order without obtaining a firearm.

the problem about gun freedom, is that every criminal has the same access to it that honest citizens that perhaps you or your pupils are. Then two people face each other carrying a weapon, what happens, wild wild west? I do not want society to reach that point (then again, USA is not my society, I am just issuing an opinion here)

Not true. If you're an abusive husband, the police come and pick up his guns. He also cannot buy firearms at any legal outlet.

I was taught to shoot by my Grandfather when I was a boy.
I have been target shooting for nearly twenty years.

I have owned firearms
I have never hurt another person in my entire life.

I follow all the relevant laws and use prudent safety measures when it comes to using and storing my firearms.

Why I should be denied the right to own a firearm because criminals use them to commit crimes?

I was taught to shoot by my Grandfather when I was a boy.
I have been target shooting for nearly twenty years.

I have owned firearms
I have never hurt another person in my entire life.

I follow all the relevant laws and use prudent safety measures when it comes to using and storing my firearms.

Why I should be denied the right to own a firearm because criminals use them to commit crimes?

Because according to our local Nannystaters, you should have your property confiscated and your rights restricted because you "might" commit a crime.

Just the guns. You can't predict who's going to commit a crime, so yout ake away the worst means of committing crimes. Do you let people buy napalm?

Just the guns. You can't predict who's going to commit a crime, so yout ake away the worst means of committing crimes. Do you let people buy napalm?
I have a friend who once thought as you do.

He refused to buy, own, or carry a gun.

He was robbed by six young men armed with machetes outside of a popular movie theater.

He was extremely cooperative. He gave them his wallet and his car keys. In return, they laughed as they chopped his hands off.

Now he wishes that he had done as I do.

Just the guns. You can't predict who's going to commit a crime, so yout ake away the worst means of committing crimes. Do you let people buy napalm?
*cough* *cough* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5032794.stm)



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5032794.stm
:rolleyes:

What's wrong with legislating against weapons with no purpose other than to injure?

What's wrong with legislating against weapons with no purpose other than to injure?
Because it leaves women essentially defenseless against men who want to beat them to death.

Just the guns. You can't predict who's going to commit a crime, so yout ake away the worst means of committing crimes. Do you let people buy napalm?

Worse. We let them buy and carry pocket knives.

If we just took away knives think how many drive by bayonettings we could stop.

Just the guns. You can't predict who's going to commit a crime, so yout ake away the worst means of committing crimes. Do you let people buy napalm?

Alright! Now we've gone from claiming slippery slopes are BS to using one yourself. Outstanding. Are you saying you consider napalm, an area effect weapon, to be equivalent to a handgun? Please say you are.

I'm glad you support "pre-crime" laws. According to reports, 50% of crime in the UK is connected to alcohol. Do you support prohibition?

Worse. We let them buy and carry pocket knives.
Not to mention the fact that we let them play ball in the street.

Worse. We let them buy and carry pocket knives.

If you haven't got a good reason to carry one, why carry one at all? Are you likely to need a variety of miniaturised tools on the high street?

I'm glad you support "pre-crime" laws. According to reports, 50% of crime in the UK is connected to alcohol. Do you support prohibition?

Prohibition would be a good idea in the UK.

What's wrong with legislating against weapons with no purpose other than to injure?

Because that use is the only one your mind can come up w/ while associating firearm owners w/ automatically being criminals doesn't mean that's the only purpose they have.

If you haven't got a good reason to carry one, why carry one at all? Are you likely to need a variety of miniaturised tools on the high street?
I've had three occasions where people attempted to rob me. In all occasions, I was able to stop it with my pistol. Without shooting.

You never know.

UK Gun Crime-2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm)

So, was there anything more about that standoff?

Not to mention the fact that we let them play ball in the street.

Not just soccer either. (Which leads to assault by headbutt) We let them use baseball bats!

Oh the humanity

If you haven't got a good reason to carry one, why carry one at all? Are you likely to need a variety of miniaturised tools on the high street?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Are you saying you should define who "needs" things?

I've had three occasions where people attempted to rob me. In all occasions, I was able to stop it with my pistol. Without shooting.

You never know.

Super. What does that have to do with the use of pocket knives?

UK Gun Crime-2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm)

So, was there anything more about that standoff?

Read the entire thread, please.

Super. What does that have to do with the use of pocket knives?

They're both tools.

If you haven't got a good reason to carry one, why carry one at all? Are you likely to need a variety of miniaturised tools on the high street?

We dont have the moral equivalent of high streets here so no.

Super. What does that have to do with the use of pocket knives?
You're the one saying guns are useless. I carry a knife as well.

They're both tools.

What use is a gun beyong making something/one dead? Can you hammer nails with it? Plane wood? Perhaps you can paint your house with a gun?

The gun is a weapon. It was invented as such, and it continues to be nothing but a waepon.

Read the entire thread, please.

So he can learn that the majority of people trying to ban other people's property don't know anything about firearms except they're "scary".

So he can learn people can defend themselves w. firearms effectively.

So he can learn that US crime decreased even though there were more firearms present.

So he can learn that most people who oppose firearm ownership support the notion of punishing people who haven't committed any crimes because they "might", at some time, commit one.

What use is a gun beyong making something/one dead? Can you hammer nails with it? Plane wood? Perhaps you can paint your house with a gun?

The gun is a weapon. It was invented as such, and it continues to be nothing but a waepon.

It prevents a woman from dying while waiting for the police to arrive.

That's an option that she does not have if she is unarmed.

Come to Herndon, and I'll introduce you to over 200 women who will call you a fool.

If you consider losing your god-given right to kill and maim a punishment, then hell yeah, you'd be punished under my evil anti-gun iron fist!

What use is a gun beyong making something/one dead? Can you hammer nails with it? Plane wood? Perhaps you can paint your house with a gun?

The gun is a weapon. It was invented as such, and it continues to be nothing but a waepon.


Oh, look, false analogies. How fun. Can you plane wood w/ a hammer? Paint your house w. a screwdriver? Make more stupid analogies? Oh, wait, you are the right tool for that job.

People collect firearms, use them for reenactments, target shooting, etc.

It prevents a woman from dying while waiting for the police to arrive.

That's an option that she does not have if she is unarmed.

Come to Herndon, and I'll introduce you to over 200 women who will call you a fool.

And what makes guns s terrifying? They're weapons! There isn't the same amount of fear with your average alan key.

UK Gun Crime-2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm)

So, was there anything more about that standoff?

Not per se but apparantly the cops showed up to get shot at because a woman walked into a house and saw the idiot with the gun and ran out to call said cops.

I may or may not update this. Ive seen literally hundreds of imternet discussions where brits try to tell the US how to run guns in the US and I find it too tedious to read again to be perfectly honest.

If the guy dies in a hail of bullets it'll be BIG NEWS and easy to find. If not...meh.

If you consider losing your god-given right to kill and maim a punishment, then hell yeah, you'd be punished under my evil anti-gun iron fist!

More dehumanizing, YAY!! Now gun owners are not only potential criminals, but all have the desire to "kill and maim" because of it.

And what makes guns s terrifying? They're weapons! There isn't the same amount of fear with your average alan key.

This is all because you are scared?

Get over it.

These guns cant hit you from here.

Stiff upper lip and all that.

Oh, the hoplophobes are hear to throw out unsupported emotional arguements again.



Now you'ld better be able to support your hypothesis. Ever hear the phrase Defensive gun use? It's used to defend yourself, not "attack". Criminals are still armed in every place that has severe restrictions on firearms. Why would here be any different?



So you want to disarm everyone based on your own fears of someone "maybe" committing a crime w/ them and to hold them responsible is someone else commits a crime by stealing them.

That is what's known as "pre-crime".

You have some severe issues if you seriously believe 80 million people in the US are potential criminals just because they own firearms.

this ad nauseam argument makes my head hurt...the ban gun crazies that is.

if someone hates guns,then dont have one.

if someone wants to wait for the cops while they are elsewhere and gets killed..go right ahead.

but because of your fears and misinformation about legal gunowners,i fear you will never understand.

but bugger off if you try to tell me i cant defend myself with any means at my disposal,if crimminals have guns,then i damn sure will too.

disarm the crimminals,then you have a leg to stand on,but tossing your hollyweird elite fears on me is b.s i aint buying.

yes,millions of guns in legal hands,and nary a crime commited..i bet cops wrongfully kill more people then law abiding gun owners every year...let alone cars/fists/knives and clubs.

get a grip.

whine all you want about guns,they have been around along time,nothing is gonna change that,but your deluded idea that disarming or banning guns will change crime,or allieve your fears..is laughable...it will increase crime.

this response was not directed towards you,as you have a grip on reality,but was directed at whom you responded to.

This is all because you are scared?

Get over it.

These guns cant hit you from here.

Stiff upper lip and all that.

Bah! Classless colonial.

I think that the suicide by cop is an easy way out by a coward too stupid to take his own life...Even though he deserves death, he should not have to rely on another human being to take it and have to live with that the rest of their life...pretty stupid:sniper: :mp5: :headbang:

Bah! Classless colonial.

Brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dotterel, dull, dumb, foolish, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thickheaded, unintelligent, unthinking, witless elite.

Do I win? :p

Brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, dodo, doltish, dopy, dotterel, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless elite.

Do I win? :p

No.

*dusts off his red frock coat and applies more wig powder*

Now out of my way, or shine my shoes and I'll give you a shiny shilling!

No.

*dusts off his red frock coat and applies more wig powder*

Now out of my way, or shine my shoes and I'll give you a shiny shilling!

Just how shiny of a shilling are we talking?

Just how shiny of a shilling are we talking?

It's pretty fucking shiny. It has to be, I've stepped on some nasty stuff today.

It's pretty fucking shiny. It has to be, I've stepped on some nasty stuff today.

I'll shoot a hole in it and hang it around my neck :D

I'll shoot a hole in it and hang it around my neck :D

Zounds! If you do, I'll beat you squarely about the head with my cane, so I will!

I think that the suicide by cop is an easy way out by a coward too stupid to take his own life...Even though he deserves death, he should not have to rely on another human being to take it and have to live with that the rest of their life...pretty stupid:sniper: :mp5: :headbang:
Yeah, he should really go with one of the more heroic methods of suicide.

Not per se but apparantly the cops showed up to get shot at because a woman walked into a house and saw the idiot with the gun and ran out to call said cops.

I may or may not update this. Ive seen literally hundreds of imternet discussions where brits try to tell the US how to run guns in the US and I find it too tedious to read again to be perfectly honest.

If the guy dies in a hail of bullets it'll be BIG NEWS and easy to find. If not...meh.


Yeah, I just looked at that link put up earlier. Nothing new has been said about it, guess I'll have to keep an eye on that news link.

Yeah, I just looked at that link put up earlier. Nothing new has been said about it, guess I'll have to keep an eye on that news link.

UPDATE

The police talked the guy out without further incident. He is now in the hospital with a broken leg and police guard. No word on how the leg was broken at this time. He will soon be in a holding cell awaiting arraignment and trial.

He has a shopping list of misdemeanors and felonies going back to 1989, so he was also criminally in possession of the firearm.

He has two strikes already. This will be his third. He will be going to prison for the rest of his natural life in the likely instance that he is found guilty of violrnt crime.

The weapon will be destroyed after all appeals heve been used up in the case.

Nothing more to see here, move along or continue arguing for or against gun control at your leisure.

It would be interesting, considering his background, to find out what set him off? If he had even half a functional brain, he would have had to realized just how much trouble he would have gotten into for that cock-up. It's obvious, now, that he wasn't trying to get himself killed, otherwise he never would have given up peacefully.

Interesting.

UPDATE

The police talked the guy out without further incident. He is now in the hospital with a broken leg and police guard. No word on how the leg was broken at this time. He will soon be in a holding cell awaiting arraignment and trial.

He has a shopping list of misdemeanors and felonies going back to 1989, so he was also criminally in possession of the firearm.

He has two strikes already. This will be his third. He will be going to prison for the rest of his natural life in the likely instance that he is found guilty of violrnt crime.

The weapon will be destroyed after all appeals heve been used up in the case.

Nothing more to see here, move along or continue arguing for or against gun control at your leisure.


Thanks for the update.

Yeah, he should really go with one of the more heroic methods of suicide.

Like using a chainsaw to cut your own headoff. Man, that dude must have been seriously into that....