NationStates Jolt Archive

CCW Saves a life in Ohio!

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/117740407596600.xml&coll=2


Damon Wells is the man gun supporters were imagining when they fought for the right to carry concealed weapons.

He had a permit to carry his gun, and he had the gun on him when a pair of teenage thieves approached him Saturday night on his front porch in Cleveland.

When one of the youths pulled a gun, Wells drew his and shot one of the boys several times in the chest, police said. Arthur Buford, 15, died after stumbling away and collapsing on a sidewalk near East 134th Street and Kinsman Road.

City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.

Excellent shooting, excellent law, excellent work all around.

Let's see.
You only want weapons for target shooting, but you refuse to use weapons that don't have some arbitrary amount of power and range. Sounds more like an obsession with big powerful guns than an interest in a pastime.

:rolleyes:

I CURRENTLY use firearms for target shooting, but that's not to say I won't get my hunting license in the future (I have mentioned in the past that I have an interest in hunting). I'd be laughed at by any deer I shoot, if I shoot it with a bb gun or pellet gun.

Also, did you know that there's shooting sports in the Olympics? They don't just use bb guns or pellet guns, they use real firearms as well. I guess the IOC has an obsession with big, powerful guns too?

And comes the lead in to the "compensating" meme's.

Instead of bitching try, you know, [B][I]debating[B][I] ? Thats waht this forumis supposed to be about after all. Your entire argument consists of "give me evidence, oh that evidence, thats bullshit, try again". WTF?

Instead of bitching try, you know, [B][I]debating[B][I] ? Thats waht this forumis supposed to be about after all. Your entire argument consists of "give me evidence, oh that evidence, thats bullshit, try again". WTF?

Debating what? Small penis jokes? Ad hominems? Strawmen?

Debating what? Small penis jokes? Ad hominems? Strawmen?

It takes more than "yeah right" to prove someone wrong you now. If they are wrong, at least make the effort and expend a litlle intellectual capacity to prove them wrong.

If you can.

Man with concealed-carry permit kills robbery suspect in Cleveland


Associated Press
CLEVELAND—A man who has a permit to carry a concealed gun shot and killed one of two teenage robbery suspects he encountered on his front porch, police said.
City prosecutors decided yesterday that the 25-year-old Cleveland man was justified and would not be charged in the shooting Saturday night of 15-year-old Arthur Buford, a freshman at John F. Kennedy High School.

Buford and another teen approached the man on his porch and one of the youths pulled a gun, prompting the resident to pull his gun and shoot Buford several times in the chest, police said.

Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson from the man as evidence, according to a police report.

Toby Hoover, director of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said she had not heard of any other fatal shooting involving someone who has a permit to carry a concealed gun under the state's 3-year-old law.

About 30 youths gathered Monday at the intersection where Buford died and set up a memorial. His cousin, Tameka Foster, 21, questioned the decision against prosecuting the shooter.

"They let that man run out freely," Foster said. "My cousin is dead."

Buford's alleged accomplice fled after and shooting and has not been caught. Police believe a .38-caliber handgun they found in the mail chute of a nearby house belonged to Buford or the other suspect, Lt. Thomas Stacho said.

Why Is Pizza Shop Owner That Shot Armed Robber Having to Defend Himself?
Monday , April 23, 2007

By John Gibson

A story in the San Francisco Chronicle today describes a shooting in East Oakland in which a beloved young rapper was gunned down in the prime of life.

The rapper's nickname was Boonie, and not far from where he was shot dead a memorial has sprung up with flowers and hand-printed messages from his many friends in the neighborhood. "The world's gonna miss u," read one message.

It is all so sad. Police and members of the community call the shooting tragic. The cop investigating the shooting said the families are devastated. "There are no winners in this situation," he said, quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Just another gang shooting, right? Another family burying one of their young adult sons, brothers, cousins.

Well, kind of. Actually Boonie was more than just another rapper. He was also a domestic abuser, a firearm brandisher, a convicted drug dealer, and on the day he died, an armed robber.

He and his swaggering crew of "rappers" came into a family owned pizza joint, Boonie stuck a 9mm in the face of the frightened owner and said this is a robbery. The owner's family was in the restaurant and he didn't know where this was going. He pulled a gun from beneath the counter and shot our young rapper hero dead.

The pizza owner might have had a parade down Market Street in San Francisco. Instead, he's scared. He won't even say he's glad he defended his family, and the cops are saying things like this from Officer Roland Holmgren, who said, "Who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did."

The owner defended himself and his family against a gun-wielding thug. The thug was shot dead. This is the way things should work.

Instead we have an Oakland cop actually saying he wants the citizens he is supposed to protect let themselves be victimized rather than defend themselves. Holmgren said: "We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."

Officer Holmgren, our rapper guy came to the pizza shop with a gun, which he pointed at the owner's head. I have one question for you: Do dead victims make good witnesses and good report-takers and good identifiers of suspects?

You need more people like the pizza shop owner in Oakland. Maybe the so-called rappers who moonlight as armed robbers will wake up one morning and read a newspaper and they'll figure it out.

That's My Word.

Instead of bitching try, you know, debating ? Thats waht this forumis supposed to be about after all. Your entire argument consists of "give me evidence, oh that evidence, thats bullshit, try again". WTF?
Yeah I think you got it right. ;)

It takes more than "yeah right" to prove someone wrong you now. If they are wrong, at least make the effort and expend a litlle intellectual capacity to prove them wrong.

If you can.

The equivalent of saying "Nyah, nyah, I dare you!"

I've made the effort. CH just keeps coming back and repeating the same things over and over even after having been shown to be wrong and asking for the same data to "prove him wrong" every time. TPH just makes things up about firearms thrown in w/ some ad hominems, insults, and meme's. Not much to "debate" there.

Yeah I think you got it right. ;)

Of course you do. You also think that people who rarely commit crimes are responsible for increases in crime and think that I want to give guns to murderers.

I've asked the question. Did your study take into account every single demographic that can affect crime before claiming it's causality of "more guns = more crime"?

Why Is Pizza Shop Owner That Shot Armed Robber Having to Defend Himself?
Monday , April 23, 2007

By John Gibson

A story in the San Francisco Chronicle today describes a shooting in East Oakland in which a beloved young rapper was gunned down in the prime of life.

The rapper's nickname was Boonie, and not far from where he was shot dead a memorial has sprung up with flowers and hand-printed messages from his many friends in the neighborhood. "The world's gonna miss u," read one message.

It is all so sad. Police and members of the community call the shooting tragic. The cop investigating the shooting said the families are devastated. "There are no winners in this situation," he said, quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Just another gang shooting, right? Another family burying one of their young adult sons, brothers, cousins.

Well, kind of. Actually Boonie was more than just another rapper. He was also a domestic abuser, a firearm brandisher, a convicted drug dealer, and on the day he died, an armed robber.

He and his swaggering crew of "rappers" came into a family owned pizza joint, Boonie stuck a 9mm in the face of the frightened owner and said this is a robbery. The owner's family was in the restaurant and he didn't know where this was going. He pulled a gun from beneath the counter and shot our young rapper hero dead.

The pizza owner might have had a parade down Market Street in San Francisco. Instead, he's scared. He won't even say he's glad he defended his family, and the cops are saying things like this from Officer Roland Holmgren, who said, "Who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did."

The owner defended himself and his family against a gun-wielding thug. The thug was shot dead. This is the way things should work.

Instead we have an Oakland cop actually saying he wants the citizens he is supposed to protect let themselves be victimized rather than defend themselves. Holmgren said: "We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."

Officer Holmgren, our rapper guy came to the pizza shop with a gun, which he pointed at the owner's head. I have one question for you: Do dead victims make good witnesses and good report-takers and good identifiers of suspects?

You need more people like the pizza shop owner in Oakland. Maybe the so-called rappers who moonlight as armed robbers will wake up one morning and read a newspaper and they'll figure it out.

That's My Word.

Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled that we are not entitled to police protection, police departments still do not want persons to be able to defend themselves. Remember, that in the US, the police are restricted by laws as to what they can do. Officers cannot take any type of enforcement action unless the crime is ocurring in their presence, or they have some type of warrant (arrest, search, etc.).

But you can always call 9-1-1 if a crime happens. Well, lets try it this way. A great 9-1-1 center takes 1-2 minutes from the time they answer the phone to process it and dispatch officers on a hot (crime in progress) call. While theh officers are responding, the telecommunicator is still gathering information from the caller about the crime in progress and relaying the info to the responding units. If you live in the city, it takes 3-5 minutes for the officers to arrive on scene. If you live in the rural county, 10-20 minutes is a great response to a hot call. So, if you are in the city, from the time the crime is reported we are talking 4-7 minutes in a best case scenario. That is a long time for you to wait while getting your ass kicked or being involved in a robbery. I am currently working as a 9-1-1 communications officer, so I can tell you that those times are pretty accurate. And don't let the fact that you live close to the PD fool you. Where do you think the patrol officers are? On the street, on patrol; or in court, processing arrests, etc. The PD is full of administrators and detectives, that do not answer calls on the street.

What Officer Holmgren said is typical of police agencies. They do not want citizens to be able to defend and protect themselves; guess they do not want the competition. That is so typical in states or areas that have ridiculuous gun control, such as Cali, DC, and NYC for example. My question to Officer Holmgren is, how many times was that gangbanger arrested for violent felony crimes, or crimes involving a weapon? How many times was the weapon charge dropped by the DA if he plead to a lesser charge?

I was a Police Officer in the most liberal town in NC for about 10 years. We spent most of our time going after the same 10% that were responsible for about 85-90% of the major crimes in our town. Many are the times that when I arrested someone, I would find that they were carrying a concealed hand gun, which is illegal without a permit. Then, I would find out that they were a convicted felon. Possession of a firearm by a felon is a felony, and carries a mandatory sentence. Of course, when it got to court, the first thing that the DA wanted to do was to drop the possession of gun by felon (felony) charge, if the poor darling would plead to a lesser charge. They want to plead down, because the person does not have a felony record, which he would have if they did not drop the felony charges!!!

As for letting people carry concealed weapons, I say let them. Since the CCW was established in NC, not a single CCW holder has committed a crime with his firearm. If you are carrying a concealed weapon, and you are approaced or stopped by an officer, you have to let the officer know that you are a ccw holder and that you are carrying a weapon. When I was a cop, I was not concerned with the law abiding citizen carrying a weapon. It was the same bad guys we kept arresting on a weekly basis that I was concerned with.

Just my two censt worth.

Y'all be careful out there.

Vic

The thing is, it's not the same thing (range and power don't evenly exchange like that).

And how, exactly, am I logically inconsistent?

While there is no direct parallel between the ballistics of the two things, that doesn't matter. Look at the logic behind the idea.

Some are basically arguing that you need a certain power of gun, so you can shoot 200 yards. Another poster suggests - not so, use a less powerful weapon and shoot a target 10 times closer.

Are the ballistics the same? No. There are a host of things that make it different, obviously - most of them probably making the closer shooting easier.

But, that doesn't matter - because you are arguing that guns are not being used for their kill power. And, taking that out of the equation... why do you need to be using a kill-friendly weapon at kill-friendly ranges?

You don't, obviously. If it was really about the target-shooting, advocates would be using much less powerful weapons at smaller ranges.

While there is no direct parallel between the ballistics of the two things, that doesn't matter. Look at the logic behind the idea.

Some are basically arguing that you need a certain power of gun, so you can shoot 200 yards. Another poster suggests - not so, use a less powerful weapon and shoot a target 10 times closer.

Are the ballistics the same? No. There are a host of things that make it different, obviously - most of them probably making the closer shooting easier.

But, that doesn't matter - because you are arguing that guns are not being used for their kill power. And, taking that out of the equation... why do you need to be using a kill-friendly weapon at kill-friendly ranges?

You don't, obviously. If it was really about the target-shooting, advocates would be using much less powerful weapons at smaller ranges.



So you admit that closer ranges /= longer ranges in any way, shape, or form yet you keep trying to state that it's not "really" about target shooting, but only some sort of subconscious desire to kill people?

Why does "need" keep coming into it? I'm sure you don't "need" the majority of things you own yet you have them. You don't "need" to be on NS, yet you're here. I don't "need" to target shoot at long ranges but it is an enjoyable hobby that doesn't harm anyone.

So you admit that closer ranges /= longer ranges in any way, shape, or form yet you keep trying to state that it's not "really" about target shooting, but only some sort of subconscious desire to kill people?


The two things are not parallel, no. But that isn't important.

If ALL you are interested in, is the concept of skill being displayed through shooting targets... why use lethal weapons?

I can appreciate that you might not see lasertag as equivalent, since infrared shooting doesn't need to allow for crosswinds, recoil, or loss of velocity and altitude with range... but paintball (for example) can allow for a 'realistic' shooting experience, without anyone ever being at risk.


Why does "need" keep coming into it? I'm sure you don't "need" the majority of things you own yet you have them.


I don't need my books, movies or my music, and those are my vices... but then, (while I'm sure it's possible) no one is likely to ever be at risk of death from any of those things, either.


You don't "need" to be on NS, yet you're here.


I 'need' to be on NS to network with friends that are (often) several thousands of miles from me.

There is no parallel - I'm not sure anyone has EVER been killed by inappropriate use of NS.


I don't "need" to target shoot at long ranges but it is an enjoyable hobby that doesn't harm anyone.

It perpetuates a culture that embraces instruments of death. It is one of the reasons people can buy guns so easily.

Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason.

It perpetuates a culture that embraces instruments of death. It is one of the reasons people can buy guns so easily.

Have you ever bought a gun?

Easily?


Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason.

Bullshit. Sorry, responsibility - perhaps a concept you are familiar with - doesn't work like that. That's like saying hey, as a man, you're responsible for when another man rapes a woman. In the eyes of the law, and common sense, and reason and anything else that counts - Cho is the guilty one and no one else.

"Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason."---Grave_n_Idle

example of why you should run a sanity/stupid check before posting. Be careful kids, if you don't use your brain, this nonsensical rambling could one day be YOU

Have you ever bought a gun?

Easily?


No, of course not. Why would I want a gun?

But - could I? Easily? Yes - a lot more easily than if they were more tightly controlled.


Bullshit. Sorry, responsibility - perhaps a concept you are familiar with - doesn't work like that.


The 'responsible' thing for me to do is to not add to the market of implements of destruction. Thus - I own no gun.


That's like saying hey, as a man, you're responsible for when another man rapes a woman.


It is nothing like that at all, as well you know.

If you wanted a parallel, you'd have done better saying that male-dominated societies that treat women as chattels promote rape.

Errr... and you'd be right.


In the eyes of the law, and common sense, and reason and anything else that counts - Cho is the guilty one and no one else.

Don't like the fact that, in some form, every gun owner is a little responsible for the creation and perpetuation of a market that leads to massacres?

I have no sympathy. Suck it up.

"Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason."---Grave_n_Idle

example of why you should run a sanity/stupid check before posting. Be careful kids, if you don't use your brain, this nonsensical rambling could one day be YOU

So - you have no answer to the actual point, then? You'll attack the poster, rather than the post.

The two things are not parallel, no. But that isn't important.

If ALL you are interested in, is the concept of skill being displayed through shooting targets... why use lethal weapons?

If all you want to do is shoot targets at close ranges is what you're really saying, trying to move those goalposts. You keep admitting they're not "parallel" yet keep making the argument they are.

I can appreciate that you might not see lasertag as equivalent, since infrared shooting doesn't need to allow for crosswinds, recoil, or loss of velocity and altitude with range... but paintball (for example) can allow for a 'realistic' shooting experience, without anyone ever being at risk.

No, it can't. Once again, completely different ballistics and skill levels.



I don't need my books, movies or my music, and those are my vices... but then, (while I'm sure it's possible) no one is likely to ever be at risk of death from any of those things, either.

And noone will be at risk w/ my firearms, unless a criminal uses them. But that wouldn't be the criminals fault then, would it?



I 'need' to be on NS to network with friends that are (often) several thousands of miles from me.

No, you don't. There's no "need" for it.

There is no parallel - I'm not sure anyone has EVER been killed by inappropriate use of NS.[/quote]

And the majority of people w/ firearms haven't killed anyone or even injured anyone. Yet you keep trying to pin the blame on inanimate objects.



It perpetuates a culture that embraces instruments of death. It is one of the reasons people can buy guns so easily.


Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason.


Once again, you reach for emotional hyperbole.

It's just as valid to say that part of the blood is on the police who weren't there, the VT staff that prohibited CCW, the anti-gun groups and politicians that endorsed "gun-free" zones, and the courts who have determined the police have no responsibility nor accountablity to protect people.

So - you have no answer to the actual point, then? You'll attack the poster, rather than the post.

Which is exactly what you did trying to pin part of the blame of VT on me because I own firearms.

No, of course not. Why would I want a gun?

But - could I? Easily? Yes - a lot more easily than if they were more tightly controlled.

So you really have no idea what you're talking about but like making "factual" statements about how "easy" it is.



The 'responsible' thing for me to do is to not add to the market of implements of destruction. Thus - I own no gun.

So now all gun owers are "irresponsible". Gotcha.



It is nothing like that at all, as well you know.

If you wanted a parallel, you'd have done better saying that male-dominated societies that treat women as chattels promote rape.

Errr... and you'd be right.

So one emotional based hyperbole is acceptable but the other isn't.



Don't like the fact that, in some form, every gun owner is a little responsible for the creation and perpetuation of a market that leads to massacres?

I have no sympathy. Suck it up.

You have no arguement except your own fears and biases. I say you are a little responsible for the creation and perpetuation of a society that is dependant on the authorities to protect them while not holding them accountable.

No, of course not. Why would I want a gun?

But - could I? Easily? Yes - a lot more easily than if they were more tightly controlled.

How do you know unless you've tried?

The 'responsible' thing for me to do is to not add to the market of implements of destruction. Thus - I own no gun.

You wouldn't be adding to the market. It's not like the average gun store will custom-produce a gun just because you want to buy one.

It is nothing like that at all, as well you know.

If you wanted a parallel, you'd have done better saying that male-dominated societies that treat women as chattels promote rape.

Not at all. You weren't talking about "societies." You were talking about individuals. Individual gun owners are (according to you) responsible for Cho's crime. Individual men are logically also responsible for rape. They both have the same amount of hand in the crime - that is to say, none at all.

Don't like the fact that, in some form, every gun owner is a little responsible for the creation and perpetuation of a market that leads to massacres?

I don't like the fact that you are calling this a "fact."

A "market" didn't kill anyone. Cho did. "Every gun owner" didn't kill anyone. Cho did. Wake up to reality.

I have no sympathy. Suck it up.

Ooh, look at the tough guy bravado pseudo-machismo pouring from your self-righteous post! Clearly, this is an example of how you are responsible for rape. You should be put away before you rape anyone again.

Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason.

This is one of the most asinine, absurd, offensive, ill-conceived and downright stupid things I've ever read on NSG, including all the shit-for-brains trolls that graffiti the forum, all the chittering idiot spammers, all the agitated children...

Like holocaust denial or blood libel, this garbage doesn't rate a reply that dignifies it as being reasonable.

Which is exactly what you did trying to pin part of the blame of VT on me because I own firearms.

If you own a firearm, you are responsible. If you perpetuate a culture that embraces weapons of destruction, you don't get to act shocked when someone uses them for the function they are designed to fit.

Anyone that puts money into the gun market, is partly responsible for what Cho did.

Anyone that has argued against tough regulation for these weapons, is partly responsible for what Cho did.

We are all responsible, simply because we have allowed this culture to survive - but those who advocate and perpetuate it are more responsible.

If all you want to do is shoot targets at close ranges is what you're really saying, trying to move those goalposts. You keep admitting they're not "parallel" yet keep making the argument they are.


I'm not saying anything about "If all you want to do is shoot targets at close range". I'm saying - if you WANT to shoot, why NOT at close range?

The only argument for longerange, highpower shooting, is because it uses fatal-grade weaponry.


No, it can't. Once again, completely different ballistics and skill levels.


Obviously. Your point?

If killing people isn't the goal, it doesn't MATTER if it is a different ballistics and skill level.


And noone will be at risk w/ my firearms, unless a criminal uses them. But that wouldn't be the criminals fault then, would it?


I don't trust you. I don't know you, and I don't trust you to be responsible with implements of death.

You say, it's all safe unless 'criminals' take your gun - but I attach no weight to that, because I don't trust you.


No, you don't. There's no "need" for it.


Will I die without it? No. It's not that sort of 'need'. But then - this was your little avenue of hijackery, not mine.


And the majority of people w/ firearms haven't killed anyone or even injured anyone. Yet you keep trying to pin the blame on inanimate objects.


Nationstates is not lethal, even in the 'wrong hands'. Guns are. Thus - guns, unlike Nationstates, require very strict control to make sure they never end up in the wrong hands.


Once again, you reach for emotional hyperbole.

It's just as valid to say that part of the blood is on the police who weren't there, the VT staff that prohibited CCW, the anti-gun groups and politicians that endorsed "gun-free" zones, and the courts who have determined the police have no responsibility nor accountablity to protect people.

So - you blame the people that are trying to remove the weapons from Cho's hands... for what Cho did?

Maybe I resort to hyperbole, but at least I'm logically consistent.

So you really have no idea what you're talking about but like making "factual" statements about how "easy" it is.


Don't be absurd. Just because I personally do not own a weapon, doesn't mean I have no idea. I am related to people that own weapons - one of my (now deceased) relatives was a collector.


So now all gun owers are "irresponsible". Gotcha.


There is no 'now' about it. When there is no imminent danger (as is the case for the last century of history), it has always been irresponsible to have weapons of that kind, in the hands of random people.


So one emotional based hyperbole is acceptable but the other isn't.


I have no idea what you are talking about.


You have no arguement except your own fears and biases. I say you are a little responsible for the creation and perpetuation of a society that is dependant on the authorities to protect them while not holding them accountable.

I am a little responsible for an authoritarian state. A fact I face up to, and embrace.

Better a society where all are protected equally, than one where the safety of every citizen is continually dependent on the viccisitudes of human caprice.

If you own a firearm, you are responsible. If you perpetuate a culture that embraces weapons of destruction, you don't get to act shocked when someone uses them for the function they are designed to fit.

Anyone that puts money into the gun market, is partly responsible for what Cho did.

Anyone that has argued against tough regulation for these weapons, is partly responsible for what Cho did.

We are all responsible, simply because we have allowed this culture to survive - but those who advocate and perpetuate it are more responsible.

Oh, please. You can spew "violent gun culture" all you want. Your inane rantings only go to show that you can't accept the fact that Cho is an anomoly that had nothing to do w/ firearms.

Don't be absurd. Just because I personally do not own a weapon, doesn't mean I have no idea. I am related to people that own weapons - one of my (now deceased) relatives was a collector.

Yet you keep showing you have no clue what you're talking about.



There is no 'now' about it. When there is no imminent danger (as is the case for the last century of history), it has always been irresponsible to have weapons of that kind, in the hands of random people.

And now the red herring of "random people" is introduced. I say it's irresponsible to endorse gov't protection w/o accountability.



I have no idea what you are talking about.

Shock. You keep making connections to "gun culture", "irresponsible", "everyone being accountable for Cho" etc. but don't like it when other inane connections are made that are in the same vein as yours.



I am a little responsible for an authoritarian state. A fact I face up to, and embrace.

SO you like being at the whim of the gov't?

Better a society where all are protected equally, than one where the safety of every citizen is continually dependent on the viccisitudes of human caprice.

Ah, mythical vs reality. You think that your "happy land" will ever exist? You think that disarming everyone ends every citizen is continually dependent on the viccisitudes of human caprice?

How do you know unless you've tried?


Because I've been there when other people have tried?

Honestly - what is it with this "you can't know jumping off a bridge is bad, unless you've tried it" mentality?


You wouldn't be adding to the market. It's not like the average gun store will custom-produce a gun just because you want to buy one.


Supply-and-demand escapes you, huh?


Not at all. You weren't talking about "societies." You were talking about individuals. Individual gun owners are (according to you) responsible for Cho's crime. Individual men are logically also responsible for rape. They both have the same amount of hand in the crime - that is to say, none at all.


Individual gun owners are willing participants in a socially destructive mentality. Individuals that were willing participants in stopping the emancipation of women were similarly complicit in a socially destructive mentality.

Rape, and highschool shootings, are artifacts of our cultures. We are all members of those cultures, so we all share some responsibility - however, those who promote and protect the socially destructive mentality are more responsible for the harm, than those who oppose.


I don't like the fact that you are calling this a "fact."

A "market" didn't kill anyone. Cho did. "Every gun owner" didn't kill anyone. Cho did. Wake up to reality.


If there was no gun market, Cho would have been shouting 'bang' at people, rather than knocking holes in their bodies.

I'll take 'crazy person yelling bang' over fatal gunshot wound.


Ooh, look at the tough guy bravado pseudo-machismo pouring from your self-righteous post! Clearly, this is an example of how you are responsible for rape. You should be put away before you rape anyone again.

Again... I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no sympathy for your culture of death. I don't see how that makes me a rapist. I think you are attempting a fairly weak flamebait, but I'm not sure.

This is one of the most asinine, absurd, offensive, ill-conceived and downright stupid things I've ever read on NSG, including all the shit-for-brains trolls that graffiti the forum, all the chittering idiot spammers, all the agitated children...

Like holocaust denial or blood libel, this garbage doesn't rate a reply that dignifies it as being reasonable.

Let me address this response with all the respect it deserves...

Now, onto the next...

Oh, please. You can spew "violent gun culture" all you want. Your inane rantings only go to show that you can't accept the fact that Cho is an anomoly that had nothing to do w/ firearms.

"nothing to do w/ firearms"...?

What, you think 32 people died of fright?

Yet you keep showing you have no clue what you're talking about.


*sigh*

Guns are easy to obtain. That isn't me 'showing I have no clue what I'm talking about', it's a simple statement of fact.

It would be harder to buy weapons if the controls were tighter.

It would be harder still, if weapons were outlawed.

Cho is an example of just how 'easy' it really is.


And now the red herring of "random people" is introduced. I say it's irresponsible to endorse gov't protection w/o accountability.


'Random people' is not a red herring - it is the heart of the issue.

I have nothing against a gun. It is an artifact. However, I have a problem with a gun in the context of a person.

"Government protection" would be the red herring here.


Shock. You keep making connections to "gun culture", "irresponsible", "everyone being accountable for Cho" etc. but don't like it when other inane connections are made that are in the same vein as yours.


No - I simply don't understand what you were trying to say - it is incomprehensible.


SO you like being at the whim of the gov't?


I prefer being under some system of rights and responsibilities, to being a dead student with three holes in my head.


Ah, mythical vs reality. You think that your "happy land" will ever exist? You think that disarming everyone ends every citizen is continually dependent on the viccisitudes of human caprice?

The closer we get to the ideal, the less we are victims of caprice. Simply - because caprice, when it happens, is less likely to cause such a degree of harm.

"nothing to do w/ firearms"...?

What, you think 32 people died of fright?


They died due to an emotionally disturbed individual. When you start blaming the cars for all the auto accidents, we'll talk.

Let me address this response with all the respect it deserves...

Now, onto the next...

What you posted isn't any more reasonable or decent than blood libel.

The assertion that all gun owners are partly responsible for 32 people being murdered by a psychotic maniac has nothing more to do with reality than the assertion that the holocaust was made up.

All car owners are responsible for drunk drivers getting in wrecks, all dog owners for pit bulls mauling children to death, all rock climbers responsible for someone in Croatia falling to his death, all people who drink responsible for someone drinking until his liver dies, &c &c.

This senseless line of argument you've proposed simply trivialized the concept of responsibility - If everyone is partly responsible for everything, then no one is meaningfully responsible for anything.

And the position was only advanced as a slur on gun owners, which is what makes it not only unreasonable, but despicable. Shame on you.

*sigh*

Guns are easy to obtain. That isn't me 'showing I have no clue what I'm talking about', it's a simple statement of fact.

It would be harder to buy weapons if the controls were tighter.

It would be harder still, if weapons were outlawed.

Cho is an example of just how 'easy' it really is.


No it's not. You keep saying it but aren't providing any examples. He got his because a judge refused to commit him. You keep using the phrase "easy" but refuse to define it, rather going along a subjective definition that fits your personal goals.


'Random people' is not a red herring - it is the heart of the issue.

No, "random people" is just a demonizing buzz phrase w/ no real meaning.

I have nothing against a gun. It is an artifact. However, I have a problem with a gun in the context of a person.

Yet you are calling 80 million + people responsible for the deaths at VT because you don't like firearms.

"Government protection" would be the red herring here.

And what do you call relying on the police and other authorities to protect you? Who's responsible for protection then?



No - I simply don't understand what you were trying to say - it is incomprehensible.

Only to the ignorant.



I prefer being under some system of rights and responsibilities, to being a dead student with three holes in my head.

All those students had a "right to feel safe" in a "gun free" zone. Worked out well for them, didn't it?



The closer we get to the ideal, the less we are victims of caprice. Simply - because caprice, when it happens, is less likely to cause such a degree of harm.

When you can show absolute proof for the "ideal" can happen, then you might have an argument. I prefer to live in the real world.

They died due to an emotionally disturbed individual. When you start blaming the cars for all the auto accidents, we'll talk.

By his senseless argument, it isn't the cars that are responsible, it is other drivers - anyone who drives a car, anyone who owns a car, and in his own words: "no matter what reason."

They died due to an emotionally disturbed individual. When you start blaming the cars for all the auto accidents, we'll talk.

I do blame SUV's for the inordinate number of deaths in accidents in which they are involved. If you are impacted by an SUV while you are in any other standard passenger vehicle, you are something like 40 times more likely to be a fatality.

I think there needs to be a lot of work done in making the roads a safer place.

But, the fact remains, cars are not deigned to kill people... and guns are. If you kill someone with a car, it might be an accident. If you kill someone with a gun, I don't think you can legitimately claim any accident - you were, after all, the one who chose to be holding a machinery designed purely to hurt or kill.

What you posted isn't any more reasonable or decent than blood libel.

The assertion that all gun owners are partly responsible for 32 people being murdered by a psychotic maniac has nothing more to do with reality than the assertion that the holocaust was made up.

All car owners are responsible for drunk drivers getting in wrecks, all dog owners for pit bulls mauling children to death, all rock climbers responsible for someone in Croatia falling to his death, all people who drink responsible for someone drinking until his liver dies, &c &c.

This senseless line of argument you've proposed simply trivialized the concept of responsibility - If everyone is partly responsible for everything, then no one is meaningfully responsible for anything.

And the position was only advanced as a slur on gun owners, which is what makes it not only unreasonable, but despicable. Shame on you.

Shame on you, for allowing your desire to protect a culture of harm, to overshadow what might have been a worthwhile option for debate.

I don't see why you think 'collective responsibility' is a bad thing. Well - no, let me correct... I can see why it would be a bad thing, if it makes you responsible for something.

Does our collective responsibility make Cho any less responsible? No - of course it doesn't. But it does make us all partially instrumental in what he did - and those that have been his 'advocates' in the past, are more responsible than those who would have disarmed him before he started.

I do blame SUV's for the inordinate number of deaths in accidents in which they are involved. If you are impacted by an SUV while you are in any other standard passenger vehicle, you are something like 40 times more likely to be a fatality.


So blame the little cars that aren't as safe.

I think there needs to be a lot of work done in making the roads a safer place.

By your logic, it would involve taking away all cars.

But, the fact remains, cars are not deigned to kill people... and guns are. If you kill someone with a car, it might be an accident. If you kill someone with a gun, I don't think you can legitimately claim any accident - you were, after all, the one who chose to be holding a machinery designed purely to hurt or kill.

Round and round we go. How many times do I have to prove you wrong GNI?

This is why "debates" w/ hoplophobes is pointless. No matter how many times you point out the facts, they keep returning to their meme's.

Shame on you, for allowing your desire to protect a culture of harm, to overshadow what might have been a worthwhile option for debate.

Your repeated ad hominem is what's removing any potential for debate.

I don't see why you think 'collective responsibility' is a bad thing. Well - no, let me correct... I can see why it would be a bad thing, if it makes you responsible for something.

Alright, then you would support the families suing you for disallowing CCW on campus?

Does our collective responsibility make Cho any less responsible? No - of course it doesn't. But it does make us all partially instrumental in what he did - and those that have been his 'advocates' in the past, are more responsible than those who would have disarmed him before he started.

Only in your view. I say you're more responsible than others for not allowing the students to defend themselves. Would you accept that?

No it's not. You keep saying it but aren't providing any examples. He got his because a judge refused to commit him. You keep using the phrase "easy" but refuse to define it, rather going along a subjective definition that fits your personal goals.


What examples do you want me to provide?

In England - it is much harder to buy a gun. Thus, here, it is 'easy'.


No, "random people" is just a demonizing buzz phrase w/ no real meaning.



Yet you are calling 80 million + people responsible for the deaths at VT because you don't like firearms.


It isn't that I don't 'like' firearms. I am just a realist about what they are for. And - since I am also a realist about what people are like - I don't wish the two things to be associated with one another.


And what do you call relying on the police and other authorities to protect you? Who's responsible for protection then?


I don't care what you call it. It's a red herring. You are trying to change the focus to governmental responsibility or something... which isn't what we were debating.


Only to the ignorant.


Squid. Bargle. Frug-nups.


All those students had a "right to feel safe" in a "gun free" zone. Worked out well for them, didn't it?


It didn't work because someone had easy access to firearms, and chose to 'break the law'.

I don't accept the argument that a law is bad, purely because someone breaks it.


When you can show absolute proof for the "ideal" can happen, then you might have an argument. I prefer to live in the real world.

I don't prefer to live in YOUR real world. People get killed on college campuses in your world. I'll look toward an ideal, rather than participate in the perpetuation of that world.

Shame on you, for allowing your desire to protect a culture of harm, to overshadow what might have been a worthwhile option for debate.

I don't see why you think 'collective responsibility' is a bad thing. Well - no, let me correct... I can see why it would be a bad thing, if it makes you responsible for something.

Does our collective responsibility make Cho any less responsible? No - of course it doesn't. But it does make us all partially instrumental in what he did - and those that have been his 'advocates' in the past, are more responsible than those who would have disarmed him before he started.

Me buying a gun for my purposes does not make me responsible for what someone else does with a gun.

Just like me buying a car doesn't make me responsible for someone who decides to run people over with a car, me buying an ax doesn't make me responsible for someone killing people with an ax, me buying a hose doesn't make me responsible for someone getting strangled with a hose, me buying a tank of gas doesn't make me responsible for someone who sets things on fire with gas. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

A gun didn't kill 32 people, Seung Cho did. "Gun culture" didn't kill 32 people, Seung Cho did.

In a perfect world of fairies, pixies, unicorns and chocolate rivers, there would be no weapons and no need for them, no "gun culture," no insane people.

So blame the little cars that aren't as safe.


Logic not your strong suit? 'Little cars' are no perfect, but they are pretty safe, until you ride a much heavier vehicle with a much higher impact zone into the side of them. They cause more fatalities because they hit above most of the body work of small cars, thus decapitating passengers in the smaller vehicle.

Your 'logic', such as it is, that the small vehicle is 'not as safe', is like saying a bulletproof vest is not safe, because it doesn't stop grenades.


By your logic, it would involve taking away all cars.


Or really restricting their access and use. I'd say remove them completely if we could, but our culture is so widespread, we need the transport.

Guns have no such requirement.


Round and round we go. How many times do I have to prove you wrong GNI?


Once would be a BIG improvement.


This is why "debates" w/ hoplophobes is pointless. No matter how many times you point out the facts, they keep returning to their meme's.

How trite. Trot that cliche out just for the occassion?

What examples do you want me to provide?

In England - it is much harder to buy a gun. Thus, here, it is 'easy'.

In England it's harder to buy a gun legally, yet there are still gun crimes. In Mexico, it's near impossible to buy a gun legally, yet crime is astronomical.

No causality. Try again.


It isn't that I don't 'like' firearms. I am just a realist about what they are for. And - since I am also a realist about what people are like - I don't wish the two things to be associated with one another.

No, you're a hoplophobe that wants to demonize firearms and their owners to push your own personal agenda.

I don't care what you call it. It's a red herring. You are trying to change the focus to governmental responsibility or something... which isn't what we were debating.

Nice dodge. Answer the question. If I can't defend myself adequately, who is responsible to?



Squid. Bargle. Frug-nups.

Which is about what your "argument" boils down to.



It didn't work because someone had easy access to firearms, and chose to 'break the law'.

No, he had access because the ones responsible to commit him didn't do it, even when they recognized he was potentially dangerous.

I don't accept the argument that a law is bad, purely because someone breaks it.

So CCW laws should be acceptable then.


I don't prefer to live in YOUR real world. People get killed on college campuses in your world. I'll look toward an ideal, rather than participate in the perpetuation of that world.

So you admit you live in a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Good. At least we agree on that.

Me buying a gun for my purposes does not make me responsible for what someone else does with a gun.

Just like me buying a car doesn't make me responsible for someone who decides to run people over with a car, me buying an ax doesn't make me responsible for someone killing people with an ax, me buying a hose doesn't make me responsible for someone getting strangled with a hose, me buying a tank of gas doesn't make me responsible for someone who sets things on fire with gas. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

A gun didn't kill 32 people, Seung Cho did. "Gun culture" didn't kill 32 people, Seung Cho did.

In a perfect world of fairies, pixies, unicorns and chocolate rivers, there would be no weapons and no need for them, no "gun culture," no insane people.

Pixies and unicorns, eh? If my platform were as indefensible as yours, I'd probably be appealing to ridicule, too.

"Gun culture" did kill 32 people. It stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Cho. One only has to look at examples (provided by gun advocates, funnily enough) of other nations that have access to weapons... but no 'gun culture', to see 'gun culture' has to accept the lion's share of responsibility for just such acts as Cho's.

Logic not your strong suit? 'Little cars' are no perfect, but they are pretty safe, until you ride a much heavier vehicle with a much higher impact zone into the side of them. They cause more fatalities because they hit above most of the body work of small cars, thus decapitating passengers in the smaller vehicle.

So it's the little cars that aren't safe. Seems it's not the ones in the SUV's getting killed.

Your 'logic', such as it is, that the small vehicle is 'not as safe', is like saying a bulletproof vest is not safe, because it doesn't stop grenades.

A bullet = a grenade now? You do live in a fantasy world.



Or really restricting their access and use. I'd say remove them completely if we could, but our culture is so widespread, we need the transport.

Guns have no such requirement.

In your biased opinion that has no foundation (by your own admission) in reality.



Once would be a BIG improvement.

Then try actually reading the thread and the others showing all the different designs for firearms and their purposes. Of course you won't though and just keep repeating yourself ad nauseum in ignorance.



How trite. Trot that cliche out just for the occassion?

Special, just for you. See above.

Pixies and unicorns, eh? If my platform were as indefensible as yours, I'd probably be appealing to ridicule, too.

"Gun culture" did kill 32 people. It stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Cho. One only has to look at examples (provided by gun advocates, funnily enough) of other nations that have access to weapons... but no 'gun culture', to see 'gun culture' has to accept the lion's share of responsibility for just such acts as Cho's.


"Gun Culture" did no such thing. If you want to go along those lines, you better start attacking Hollywood, the music industry, video games, etc. who promote a lot more violence than most people who own firearms.

But since you like to demonize firearms and thier owners, recognizing that fact would be impossible for you.

In England it's harder to buy a gun legally, yet there are still gun crimes. In Mexico, it's near impossible to buy a gun legally, yet crime is astronomical.

No causality. Try again.


causality is irrelevent. You may have lost track of what we were discussing, but the point of this little episode is whether or not guns are relatively 'easy' to get hold of.

Guncrime statistics in Mexico or England don't impact that. Only how hard it is to obtain weapons there.


No, you're a hoplophobe that wants to demonize firearms and their owners to push your own personal agenda.


My personal agenda? What would that be, exactly?


Nice dodge. Answer the question. If I can't defend myself adequately, who is responsible to?


It isn't a 'dodge'.

You are trying to change the topic. Me not following your hijack is not a 'dodge'.


Which is about what your "argument" boils down to.


Funny that you didn't respond to it. It's almost like you didn't see the logic in the statement, and thought it might be incomprehensible.


No, he had access because the ones responsible to commit him didn't do it, even when they recognized he was potentially dangerous.


I'm not arguing to argue the facts too specifically here, since you seem to have no interest... but the 'person responsible' was Cho, according to the law. There was no authority for anyone else to 'commit' him, unless there was proof of (I believe the specific legal wording is) "imminent danger" to self or others.

When Cho was asked if he intended to hurt anyone, he said no. Thus - no legal recourse. He could only (under those circumstances) be commited on his own recognizance.


So CCW laws should be acceptable then.


Which part of the 'guns are bad' thing is so hard for you to grasp?


So you admit you live in a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Good. At least we agree on that.

No - I admit I live in the real world, but I'm trying for a world you consider a fantasy. I don't think 'your' world exists, because you seem to see no connection between guns and gun-related-death. That sounds delusional, to me.

So it's the little cars that aren't safe. Seems it's not the ones in the SUV's getting killed.


So - being a student isn't safe, since it wasn't Cho that was getting killed?


A bullet = a grenade now?

That was the point. Try re-reading it.


In your biased opinion that has no foundation (by your own admission) in reality.


Good morning, Mr Fawkes.


Then try actually reading the thread and the others showing all the different designs for firearms and their purposes. Of course you won't though and just keep repeating yourself ad nauseum in ignorance.


Irrelevent.

"Gun culture" did kill 32 people. It stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Cho. One only has to look at examples (provided by gun advocates, funnily enough) of other nations that have access to weapons... but no 'gun culture', to see 'gun culture' has to accept the lion's share of responsibility for just such acts as Cho's.


But you argued that access to weapons = gun culture = responsibility for killing 32 people (perhaps you should look to press charges, if we are indeed responsible...)

Why am I responsible for what Cho did because I bought a gun, but someone in another country who bought the same kind of gun isnt responsible?


Also, why does buying a car make me responsible for people who run people over with cars?

Why does my buying some gas make me responsible for people who set fires with gas?

Why does my buying a gun for self-protection make me responsible for someone who uses a gun to murder people?

Why does my buying a garden hose make me responsible for someone who gets strangled with a garden hose?

Why does my buying a swimming pool make me responsible for someone who drowns people in swimming pools?

Why does my buying an airplane ticket make me responsible for the people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11?

Why does my buying a baseball bat to play baseball make me responsible for someone who beats a person to death with a baseball bat?

Why does my buying an ax for cutting wood make me responsible for an ax murderer?

"Gun Culture" did no such thing. If you want to go along those lines, you better start attacking Hollywood, the music industry, video games, etc. who promote a lot more violence than most people who own firearms.

But since you like to demonize firearms and thier owners, recognizing that fact would be impossible for you.

Video games, movies and music have some impact on the people in a culture. Of course - one could always argue that the bloody brutality of the Christian scripture has an even greater imapct.

After all - people that have killed in the name of The Beatles = one guy and his crazy friends. People that have killed in the name of 'god'... way more.

But - of course - this would still be a diversionary tactic. 'Gun-culture' is only a problem when there are guns. Which, in the US, we have easy access to.

By his senseless argument, it isn't the cars that are responsible, it is other drivers - anyone who drives a car, anyone who owns a car, and in his own words: "no matter what reason."
I think there's a point to be made, though limiting it to the scope of the owners is perhaps being too narrow-minded. It is true that society collectively chooses to permit the driving of a vehicle and accepts the possibility that this might result in injury. Thus, the entire community, whether the individuals themselves drive a car or not, is as a whole in part responsible when a car runs someone over, because they communally took responsibility for the slim risk of car accidents.

This extends to the general case. When an agreement or law is ratified by the members of a society that creates the potential for harm, all of those members have a proportion of a part of the blame when that harm sees realisation.

I do not think the gun owners are the society, of course, and making them the villains in this piece is possibly counterproductive. In this case, the entire country is the society, whether they own a gun or otherwise, and everyone has a share of the blame in permitting the circumstances that lead to homicide.

I don't think this does "trivialise the concept of responsibility", either. Society can never take the full responsibility, and the conscious choice to allow the possibility does not make the third party as guilty as the one who actually drives the car in negligence, or fires the gun in the intent to harm, nor am I saying it should. But its responsibility is there, and nobody in this can throw stones without hitting their own glass ceilings.

But you argued that access to weapons = gun culture = responsibility for killing 32 people (perhaps you should look to press charges, if we are indeed responsible...)


Easy access to weapons helps promote a gun culture. It doesn't equate to it. Don't misrepresent me.

Easy acces to weapons AND a gun culture leads to exactly the sort of situation that saw Cho gunning down 32 people.


Why am I responsible for what Cho did because I bought a gun, but someone in another country who bought the same kind of gun isnt responsible?


Because they live in another country...? You kind of answered your own question there...


Also, why does buying a car make me responsible for people who run people over with cars?

Why does my buying some gas make me responsible for people who set fires with gas?

Why does my buying a gun for self-protection make me responsible for someone who uses a gun to murder people?

Why does my buying a garden hose make me responsible for someone who gets strangled with a garden hose?

Why does my buying a swimming pool make me responsible for someone who drowns people in swimming pools?

Why does my buying an airplane ticket make me responsible for the people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11?

Why does my buying a baseball bat to play baseball make me responsible for someone who beats a person to death with a baseball bat?

Why does my buying an ax for cutting wood make me responsible for an ax murderer?

Do you agree that attitudes that insisted women were mere possessions, institutionalised the crime of rape?

Do you agree that attitudes that insisted women were mere possessions, institutionalised the crime of rape?

Non sequitur - the attitude that a mere possession (a gun) is a mere possession is not equivalent to the attitude that a human being is a mere possession.


lso, why does buying a car make me responsible for people who run people over with cars? I am after all contributing to car culture

Why does my buying some gas make me responsible for people who set fires with gas? I am after all contributing to gas culture

Why does my buying a gun for self-protection make me responsible for someone who uses a gun to murder people?

Why does my buying a garden hose make me responsible for someone who gets strangled with a garden hose? I am after all contributing to hose culture

Why does my buying a swimming pool make me responsible for someone who drowns people in swimming pools? I am after all contributing to pool culture

Why does my buying an airplane ticket make me responsible for the people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11? I am after all contributing to plane culture

Why does my buying a baseball bat to play baseball make me responsible for someone who beats a person to death with a baseball bat? I am after all contributing to bat culture

Why does my buying an ax for cutting wood make me responsible for an ax murderer? I am after all contributing to ax

Ax culture, the culture where axes can be easily bought, makes us all responsible for all ax murders.

Bat culture, where bat's can be purchased - no matter the reason - makes us all responsible for bat murders.

Gas culture, where gas can be purchased easily - no matter the reason - makes us all responsible for bat murders.

Gun culture, where guns can be purchased easily - regardless of reason - makes us all responsible for gun murders.

Right?

http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html

The big problem with Gun Control is, like Prohibition, it relies on criminals obeying the law. It just doesn't happen. People have said that the gun-control laws in the UK have made it harder to obtain guns. I've also seen articles online that say that the violent crime rate in the UK has INCREASED in response to these laws. I've never once heard a gun control advocate respond to this. And as for switching all arms-manufacturers over to the production of non-lethals as was mentioned earlier in this thread, if we do that, then were the heck are we supposed to get the weapons for our military? Or are they going to be issued non-lethals too? Does the same thing go for our police force? And what do we do when people start using these non-lethals to commit crimes? Enact Taser-control laws? Humans are a violent species. We always have been, and we always will be. This will never change. So unless you can find some way to disarm 100% of the population at the same time, there will always be gun violence. Even if you succeed at that, there will still be violent crimes. I think a better solution than trying to enact Prohibition style gun bans that will only increase the power of Organized Crime and other groups with access to illegal firearms we should empower our police forces and get them better equipped to respond to these crimes. Because no matter what you do, they aren't going to go away.

causality is irrelevent. You may have lost track of what we were discussing, but the point of this little episode is whether or not guns are relatively 'easy' to get hold of.

Guncrime statistics in Mexico or England don't impact that. Only how hard it is to obtain weapons there.

So you use the arguement that legally obtaining guns in England is hard =/ it's "easy" in the US making more crime yet it bieng hard in other places w/ astronomical crime is irrelevant. Gotcha.



My personal agenda? What would that be, exactly?

You've admitted to the complete abolition of firearms. Deny it.



It isn't a 'dodge'.

You are trying to change the topic. Me not following your hijack is not a 'dodge'.

Yes it is, like this. You've claimed "rights" yet ignore the right of self-defense. Who's responsible then?



Funny that you didn't respond to it. It's almost like you didn't see the logic in the statement, and thought it might be incomprehensible.

Nice straw man. What words did you use?



I'm not arguing to argue the facts too specifically here, since you seem to have no interest... but the 'person responsible' was Cho, according to the law. There was no authority for anyone else to 'commit' him, unless there was proof of (I believe the specific legal wording is) "imminent danger" to self or others.

When Cho was asked if he intended to hurt anyone, he said no. Thus - no legal recourse. He could only (under those circumstances) be commited on his own recognizance.

And what "facts" would those be? All your generalizations, subjective phrases, and ad hominems. The judge stated he was a threat to himself but didn't commit him. Apparently you haven't been keeping up.

Which part of the 'guns are bad' thing is so hard for you to grasp?

The part where you've been unable to show that.



No - I admit I live in the real world, but I'm trying for a world you consider a fantasy. I don't think 'your' world exists, because you seem to see no connection between guns and gun-related-death. That sounds delusional, to me.

Boy, talk about a red herring. I don't see a connection? Seems you're the delusional one. I recognize people can kill w/ guns. I don't recognize that the "gun culture" promotes it, or any other bit of hyperbole you keep spouting.

Non sequitur - the attitude that a mere possession (a gun) is a mere possession is not equivalent to the attitude that a human being is a mere possession.


I think you misused 'non sequitur' there...but that's the least of the problems.

I notice you didn't answer the question - that's a bigger deal.


Ax culture, the culture where axes can be easily bought, makes us all responsible for all ax murders.

Bat culture, where bat's can be purchased - no matter the reason - makes us all responsible for bat murders.

Gas culture, where gas can be purchased easily - no matter the reason - makes us all responsible for bat murders.

Gun culture, where guns can be purchased easily - regardless of reason - makes us all responsible for gun murders.

Right?

Are you saying that each of these 'cultures' is caused purely by ease of availability? Or are you discussing a 'culture' in each case that glorifies violence AND mentioning that there is easy availability?

So - being a student isn't safe, since it wasn't Cho that was getting killed?

Not at that school, or any other that prevents self-defense.



That was the point. Try re-reading it.

So your little fallacy is supposed to mean anything? SUV = car, compact = car. That works. Bullet proof vest = stopping bullet, bullet proof vest = stopping grenade. That no workey.



Good morning, Mr Fawkes.



Irrelevent.

And just like I said, you ignore the facts.

Video games, movies and music have some impact on the people in a culture. Of course - one could always argue that the bloody brutality of the Christian scripture has an even greater imapct.

After all - people that have killed in the name of The Beatles = one guy and his crazy friends. People that have killed in the name of 'god'... way more.

But - of course - this would still be a diversionary tactic. 'Gun-culture' is only a problem when there are guns. Which, in the US, we have easy access to.

So you admit to only focusing your attention on one thing that you stereotype yet refuse to recognize the impact of other "cultures". I guess all those gangs listen to the Beatles when they push drugs, prostitution, etc.

Please.

I think you misused 'non sequitur' there...but that's the least of the problems.

I notice you didn't answer the question - that's a bigger deal.



Are you saying that each of these 'cultures' is caused purely by ease of availability? Or are you discussing a 'culture' in each case that glorifies violence AND mentioning that there is easy availability?

Boy, talking about not responding to questions. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that you are just as responsible by advocating not being able to defend oneself? You pay money for the internet. Cho bought stuff over the internet. You are just as responsible.

So you use the arguement that legally obtaining guns in England is hard =/ it's "easy" in the US making more crime yet it bieng hard in other places w/ astronomical crime is irrelevant. Gotcha.


England has 'astronomical' crime? Astronomical gun crime?

This little part of the debate was about ease of availability. Guns are easily abailable, which I see you now admit. So this point can now be dropped.


You've admitted to the complete abolition of firearms. Deny it.


I deny it.


Yes it is, like this. You've claimed "rights"


I have?


...yet ignore the right of self-defense. Who's responsible then?


It's still a red herring. I don't have to provide alternatives.


Nice straw man. What words did you use?


Eh?


And what "facts" would those be? All your generalizations, subjective phrases, and ad hominems. The judge stated he was a threat to himself but didn't commit him. Apparently you haven't been keeping up.


That'd be it. Can you show where I'm wrong about the 'imminent threat' thing in Virginia law?


The part where you've been unable to show that.


I was being flippant. Your response to: "I don't accept the argument that a law is bad, purely because someone breaks it..." didn't make any sense. And, since it was opinion, your question about CCW doesn't need me to 'show' anything... just reference the opinion.


Boy, talk about a red herring. I don't see a connection?


It could be argued that is your weakness, not mine.


Seems you're the delusional one. I recognize people can kill w/ guns. I don't recognize that the "gun culture" promotes it, or any other bit of hyperbole you keep spouting.

You honestly don't think 'gun culture' contributes to the high gun crime rates in the US?

I think you misused 'non sequitur' there...but that's the least of the problems.

I notice you didn't answer the question - that's a bigger deal.



Are you saying that each of these 'cultures' is caused purely by ease of availability? Or are you discussing a 'culture' in each case that glorifies violence AND mentioning that there is easy availability?


American popular culture glorifies violence. Actual gun culture- the culture of gun enthusiasts, does not glorify violence.

I ask: are more violent crimes committed by gun enthusiasts, collectors, &c or by scummy rabble who wouldn't be welcome in the dens of gun culture?

Gun safety is paramount in gun culture. The first thing any "gun nut" can tell you are the four rules of gun safety.

It is disingenuous to pretend that the culture of glorifying violence is "gun culture." Other countries have lots of guns, and therefore a gun culture, but not a culture that glorifies violence.

Culture of violence + ax is just as dangerous as culture of violence + gun, culture of violence + hose, culture of violence + bat, or culture of violence + car.

Guns are mere things, and are not responsible for the culture of violence. Just like bats, knives, axes, cars, pools and hoses.

You honestly don't think 'gun culture' contributes to the high gun crime rates in the US?

Gun culture does not contribute to violent crime - culture of violence does.

If gun culture created violent crime, then crime would always be proportional to gun ownership. This isn't the case.

Culture of violence in combination with anything that can be used as a weapon, be it a car, a hose, a pool, a can of gasoline, a gun, an ax, a plane - anything, creates violent problems.

People are not violent in America because they have guns, they are violent for some other reason. Because of this, it is unreasonable to blame guns for violence - my point from the very beginning.

Case in point:
I own 5 firearms, a Mosin-Nagant, an Ithica 16 gauge shotgun, a Mossburg 20 gauge shotgun, a Lee-Enfeild, and a Yugo M-48 Mauser. The only times I have ever used any of these to kill was when I was hunting. And all I killed was some very tasty wildlife. I have never committed a violent crime. In fact, about the only crime I have ever committed is jaywalking. Guns do not cause violence. People cause violence. Ergo, if we seriously want to end violence, we should get rid of people.

If ALL you are interested in, is the concept of skill being displayed through shooting targets... why use lethal weapons?

As I've said before, less lethal weapons have neither the range or accuracy I'm looking to shot at, and I'm looking to display my skill at hitting targets at medium to long range.

I can appreciate that you might not see lasertag as equivalent, since infrared shooting doesn't need to allow for crosswinds, recoil, or loss of velocity and altitude with range... but paintball (for example) can allow for a 'realistic' shooting experience, without anyone ever being at risk.

Have you ever fired a paintball marker? First off, the recoil isn't anywhere near realistic compared to a firearm. Second off, the accuracy sucks in comparison to a firearm.The reason has a lot to do with the fact that the paintball projectiles are spherical (spheres aren't a very aerodynamically efficient shape), the weight is too low, and the projectiles are shot from a smooth bore. Thirdly, it does not have the range of a firearm.

I don't need my books, movies or my music, and those are my vices...

Just as target shooting with a firearm is one ov my vices.

There is no parallel - I'm not sure anyone has EVER been killed by inappropriate use of NS.

Just as nobody has ever been killed by me firing my rifle.

Part of the blood of every one of Cho's victims, is on the hands of anyone that owns a gun, no matter what reason.

Alright, that's just a stupid, ignorant thing to say. I have no blood on my hands, as I have never killed anyone. The only person who has blood on their hands (from the VT shootings) is/was Cho.

Not at that school, or any other that prevents self-defense.


It didn't. It doesn't.


So your little fallacy is supposed to mean anything? SUV = car, compact = car. That works. Bullet proof vest = stopping bullet, bullet proof vest = stopping grenade. That no workey.


Why are you making me remember your own arguments for you?

You raised the subject of blaming cars. I agreed - SUVs are dangerous. I discussed how much more likely someone hit by an SUV is to be killed - to which YOUR response was: "So blame the little cars that aren't as safe."

I merely pointed out that they are safe for what they are intended for. And that SUV's make them 'unsafe' only in as much as SUV's are an additional danger. Like grenades against a bulletproof vest, the fact that SUVs kill normal passengers is not a flaw in the normal car design.


And just like I said, you ignore the facts.

You said: "In your biased opinion that has no foundation (by your own admission) in reality."

This is a strawman.

Guy Fawkes attempted to blow-up Parliament, and is burned in effigy. A 'Guy' is another example of a 'straw-man'. I didn't 'ignore facts'... I just didn't indulge your little straw friend.

So you admit to only focusing your attention on one thing that you stereotype yet refuse to recognize the impact of other "cultures". I guess all those gangs listen to the Beatles when they push drugs, prostitution, etc.

Please.

Do even you have any idea what you are talking about?

If I 'focus' on guns, it is because gun-culture without guns leads to less people dead than gun culture with guns.

England has 'astronomical' crime? Astronomical gun crime?

Nice dodge. Try again.

This little part of the debate was about ease of availability. Guns are easily abailable, which I see you now admit. So this point can now be dropped.

Now you're at the point of making things up. Show me where I "admitted" this. It must be in an invisible post.

I deny it.

So you admit to being disingenuous.

I have?

Not even reading your own posts then?

It's still a red herring. I don't have to provide alternatives.

Of course not. Nice way to dodge away.

Eh?

I'll type slowly for you. I used words. What words did you use?



That'd be it. Can you show where I'm wrong about the 'imminent threat' thing in Virginia law?

What?Are you not reading. The judge called him an imminent threat but didn't commit him.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html

Here, try reading this. Use a dictionary for the big words.


It could be argued that is your weakness, not mine.

Selective editing is frowned upon. Can you actually be honest w/ yourself at least?



You honestly don't think 'gun culture' contributes to the high gun crime rates in the US?

No, that would be CRIMINAL culture.

Do even you have any idea what you are talking about?

If I 'focus' on guns, it is because gun-culture without guns leads to less people dead than gun culture with guns.


I know what I'm talking about. You just keep trying to blame others for the actions of one mentally disturbed individual.

And as for switching all arms-manufacturers over to the production of non-lethals as was mentioned earlier in this thread, if we do that, then were the heck are we supposed to get the weapons for our military? Or are they going to be issued non-lethals too? Does the same thing go for our police force?
For Law enforcement officers I don't think there'd be any problem in a switch to non-lethals. In fact, I see little flaw in doing so. The Police exist to prevent crime, not to kill perceived offenders as the judge and executioner as well. As for the armed forces, I personally despise offensive military action. The military exists for defence, not to invade, and its equipment should be based around how best to protect and repel rather than how to overthrow and oppress. How to do this is anyone's guess, but I can't help but imagine there must be better ways than firing streams of thin bullets at your attackers.

And what do we do when people start using these non-lethals to commit crimes? Enact Taser-control laws?
It's harder to commit a crime when everyone owns a concealed carry weapon, and even a successful crime becomes less damaging when the mortality rate is kept to a minimum. Once non-lethals demonstrably work, they can become as widespread as we please, but I reckon we can't reasonably ethically justify CCW until that's the case.

It didn't. It doesn't.

Really? So they didn't suspend a student for legally carrying then ban it?



Why are you making me remember your own arguments for you?

You raised the subject of blaming cars. I agreed - SUVs are dangerous. I discussed how much more likely someone hit by an SUV is to be killed - to which YOUR response was: "So blame the little cars that aren't as safe."

I merely pointed out that they are safe for what they are intended for. And that SUV's make them 'unsafe' only in as much as SUV's are an additional danger. Like grenades against a bulletproof vest, the fact that SUVs kill normal passengers is not a flaw in the normal car design.

More red herrings. A car is a car. A bullet is not a grenade.



You said: "In your biased opinion that has no foundation (by your own admission) in reality."

This is a strawman.

Guy Fawkes attempted to blow-up Parliament, and is burned in effigy. A 'Guy' is another example of a 'straw-man'. I didn't 'ignore facts'... I just didn't indulge your little straw friend.

And you still continue to respond to selectively edited posts. You want to be "flippant" but then don't like it when others are.

Gun culture does not contribute to violent crime - culture of violence does.

If gun culture created violent crime, then crime would always be proportional to gun ownership. This isn't the case.

Culture of violence in combination with anything that can be used as a weapon, be it a car, a hose, a pool, a can of gasoline, a gun, an ax, a plane - anything, creates violent problems.

People are not violent in America because they have guns, they are violent for some other reason. Because of this, it is unreasonable to blame guns for violence - my point from the very beginning.

'Gun culture' is a specific aspect of the culture of violence.

People are violent in America for some reason, but it centres around the worship of guns.

Also, as I've said before, the 'culture of violence' PLUS the easy availability of guns exacerbates the problems in the violent culture. It means someone like Cho that buys into the culture of violence, can easily account for fatalities to three dozen people, single-handed.

He's blaming a system that allows a mentally disturbed individual to legally obtain a lethal weapon.

Then blame the judge who let him go free after naming him an imminent threat.

He's blaming a system that allows a mentally disturbed individual to legally obtain a lethal weapon.
Which is of secondary importance to the system that created that imbalance in the first place, which others are similarly responsible for anyway.

I know what I'm talking about. You just keep trying to blame others for the actions of one mentally disturbed individual.

He's blaming a system that allows a mentally disturbed individual to legally obtain a lethal weapon.

'Gun culture' is a specific aspect of the culture of violence.

People are violent in America for some reason, but it centres around the worship of guns.

Also, as I've said before, the 'culture of violence' PLUS the easy availability of guns exacerbates the problems in the violent culture. It means someone like Cho that buys into the culture of violence, can easily account for fatalities to three dozen people, single-handed.

Oh, BS. There is more violence w/o firearms than there are w/. If you would stop trying to demonize firearms and there owners, you might recognize that the two are not "centered" except in your own fantasy world.

Do even you have any idea what you are talking about?

If I 'focus' on guns, it is because gun-culture without guns leads to less people dead than gun culture with guns.

Gun culture without guns is a contradiction in terms.

At any rate, the problem is not "gun culture" - which exists wherever there is guns, in peaceful Switzerland, for example.

Americans have violent culture, and when it is combined with anything that can be used as a weapon, people get hurt.

American violence is not caused by guns, it is caused by something else. For this reason, it is unreasonable to blame guns for violence.

Something to think about there for sure. Thanks for that. I think it is time that us anti-gun people got the idea that guns don't kill, people kill.

However, if, as you admit, Americans have such a violent culture, do you not think it sensible to somehow limit their access to such dangerous tools?

Those who have committed a violent act are heavily restricted. Unfortunately, the revolving door courts and plea bargains keep putting them out on the street to commit more crimes while the people who are supposed to enforce the firearm laws spend more time harping on typos on the paperwork (ie. my local FFL dealer was almost fined for putting 4/10/07 instead of 04/10/07) than pursuing and prosecuting those who are committing actual crimes. .

Gun culture without guns is a contradiction in terms.

At any rate, the problem is not "gun culture" - which exists wherever there is guns, in peaceful Switzerland, for example.

Americans have violent culture, and when it is combined with anything that can be used as a weapon, people get hurt.

American violence is not caused by guns, it is caused by something else. For this reason, it is unreasonable to blame guns for violence.

Something to think about there for sure. Thanks for that. I think it is time that us anti-gun people got the idea that guns don't kill, people kill.

However, if, as you admit, Americans have such a violent culture, do you not think it sensible to somehow limit their access to such dangerous tools?

I could also blame the state for allowinf hima gun, his mother for giving birth to him, the US immigration service for allowing his family into the country..... on and on and on. Nice strawman.

It's not a "strawman" The judge found him to be a threat but didn't committ him. Why not?

Then blame the judge who let him go free after naming him an imminent threat.

I could also blame the state for allowinf hima gun, his mother for giving birth to him, the US immigration service for allowing his family into the country..... on and on and on. Nice strawman.

Those who have committed a violent act are heavily restricted. Unfortunately, the revolving door courts and plea bargains keep putting them out on the street to commit more crimes while the people who are supposed to enforce the firearm laws spend more time harping on typos on the paperwork (ie. my local FFL dealer was almost fined for putting 4/10/07 instead of 04/10/07) than pursuing and prosecuting those who are committing actual crimes. .

So you admit that your controls arn't tight enough then?

Your changing the subject again. The question is not why didn't the judge commit him, the question is why did someone with a history of mental disturbance have access to firearms. So why?

Had he been committed, it would/should have been in the state level database. VA has a state level background check that requires it. The medical center did not forward the information to the proper authorities.

It's not a "strawman" The judge found him to be a threat but didn't committ him. Why not?

Your changing the subject again. The question is not why didn't the judge commit him, the question is why did someone with a history of mental disturbance have access to firearms. So why?

Your changing the subject again. The question is not why didn't the judge commit him, the question is why did someone with a history of mental disturbance have access to firearms. So why?

Because that history was not documented in such a way that it showed up on a police background check.

If a history of mental illness shows up on a background check, that is cause to deny the sale of a handgun.

So I think a better question is, 'Why do police background checks not display histories of mental disturbance?'

So you admit that your controls arn't tight enough then?

It's not the controls, it's the lack of enforcing them.

Because that history was not documented in such a way that it showed up on a police background check.

If a history of mental illness shows up on a background check, that is cause to deny the sale of a handgun.

So I think a better question is, 'Why do police background checks not display histories of mental disturbance?'

Thanks for that answer.

Am I the only one who finds that a ridiculous state of affairs? Surely that should be one of the first conditions of gun ownership.

It's not the controls, it's the lack of enforcing them.

So you do agree with me that there should be at least some basic level of control of gun ownership?

So you do agree with me that there should be at least some basic level of control of gun ownership?

Basic levels? Yes. I have no problem w/ non-restrictive criminal back ground checks and inclusion of mental violence, etc.

It's when the "controls" are exclusively designed to restrict/inhibit ownership for the only purpose of inhibiting/restricting or when measures have been used for such that I have problems w/.

Nice dodge. Try again.


How is that a dodge? You raised the issue of 'astronomic' crime rates. We were talking about England. I called you on it.

A simple admission that you were talking crap would have sufficed.


Now you're at the point of making things up. Show me where I "admitted" this. It must be in an invisible post.


Here's your own wording:

"...it's "easy" in the US making more crime yet it bieng hard in other places w/ astronomical crime is irrelevant."


So you admit to being disingenuous.


That's not the way it works. Now you have to prove I said it.


Not even reading your own posts then?


Again, if you are going to lie, expect to be called on it.


Of course not. Nice way to dodge away.


It's not a dodge. If I was advocating banning alcohol, I don't have to provide an alternate method of getting inebriated.


I'll type slowly for you. I used words. What words did you use?


Your post didn't make any sense. If this is your idea of expanding upon it, or explaining it, it is a dismal failure.


What?Are you not reading. The judge called him an imminent threat but didn't commit him.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html

Here, try reading this. Use a dictionary for the big words.


I'm not sure what you are reading. From what I can gather, the Judge on the court form did order him to be remanded as an 'imminent danger', but he was then, instead, relocated according to "Special Justice Paul M. Barnett".

If you looked at the documents provided - a judge ordered the temporary stay on the 13th of December, and this 'Special Justice Paul M. Barnett' decided that this course could be over-ridden on the 14th, despite his 'imminent danger' status - because he was 'ordered to follow all recommended treatments' instead.


Selective editing is frowned upon. Can you actually be honest w/ yourself at least?


You didn't mean you don't see a connection?


No, that would be CRIMINAL culture.

No. 'Criminal' culture covers a myriad of sins. Someone stealing bread contributes little (if anything) to the violent gun crime statistics.

I know what I'm talking about. You just keep trying to blame others for the actions of one mentally disturbed individual.

Not at all. I blame Cho for his actions.

I accuse you of complicity.

Thanks for that answer.

Am I the only one who finds that a ridiculous state of affairs? Surely that should be one of the first conditions of gun ownership.

Sanity? Yeah, one would think that would be a prerequisite. ;)

Really? So they didn't suspend a student for legally carrying then ban it?


I don't know. 'Self-defense' and 'carrying a gun' are not actually equivalent.


More red herrings. A car is a car. A bullet is not a grenade.


Actually, an SUV is probably technically a truck.

I don't know why you're getting your knickers in such a twist over the semantics, though.


And you still continue to respond to selectively edited posts. You want to be "flippant" but then don't like it when others are.

I don't care if you are flippant or not, knock yourself out. But I'm still not going to dignify your strawman arguments.

How is that a dodge? You raised the issue of 'astronomic' crime rates. We were talking about England. I called you on it.

A simple admission that you were talking crap would have sufficed.

You might have forgotten about that place called Mexico I mentioned.



Here's your own wording:

"...it's "easy" in the US making more crime yet it bieng hard in other places w/ astronomical crime is irrelevant."

See above the Selective editing.



That's not the way it works. Now you have to prove I said it.

And Mr. Disingenuous strikes again.



Again, if you are going to lie, expect to be called on it.

And again.



It's not a dodge. If I was advocating banning alcohol, I don't have to provide an alternate method of getting inebriated.

Dodge dodge dodge.



Your post didn't make any sense. If this is your idea of expanding upon it, or explaining it, it is a dismal failure.

SO now you're just completely making crap up. The same thing you accuse me of doing.

Did I use words? Did you?



I'm not sure what you are reading. From what I can gather, the Judge on the court form did order him to be remanded as an 'imminent danger', but he was then, instead, relocated according to "Special Justice Paul M. Barnett".

If you looked at the documents provided - a judge ordered the temporary stay on the 13th of December, and this 'Special Justice Paul M. Barnett' decided that this course could be over-ridden on the 14th, despite his 'imminent danger' status - because he was 'ordered to follow all recommended treatments' instead.

So "imminent danger" but not committed. Right. Just like I said. The judge did not commit him.



You didn't mean you don't see a connection?

Why don't you try using the whole section of post instead of your selectively edited parts.



No. 'Criminal' culture covers a myriad of sins. Someone stealing bread contributes little (if anything) to the violent gun crime statistics.

Yet you're trying to lump "gun culture" and criminal culture together when it doesn't mesh.

Oh, BS. There is more violence w/o firearms than there are w/. If you would stop trying to demonize firearms and there owners, you might recognize that the two are not "centered" except in your own fantasy world.

More violence without firearms than with... maybe. How much of it is fatal? How much of it is as 'easy' as Cho's little rampage?

Shouldn't we be making it harder for things like Cho's little episode to happen?

Sanity? Yeah, one would think that would be a prerequisite. ;)
Hah. Like anyone's really sane.

I don't know. 'Self-defense' and 'carrying a gun' are not actually equivalent.



Actually, an SUV is probably technically a truck.

I don't know why you're getting your knickers in such a twist over the semantics, though.



I don't care if you are flippant or not, knock yourself out. But I'm still not going to dignify your strawman arguments.

And since now GNI is only trying to mince words and dodge out of comparing bullets to grenades, this has become a true lesson in ignorance.

More violence without firearms than with... maybe. How much of it is fatal? How much of it is as 'easy' as Cho's little rampage?

Shouldn't we be making it harder for things like Cho's little episode to happen?

You mean like having the laws actually followed?

It's not the controls, it's the lack of enforcing them.

No - I'd say the controls aren't tight enough, either.

It doesn't help that the application of what little control there is, is so lacksadaisical.

Thanks for that answer.

Am I the only one who finds that a ridiculous state of affairs? Surely that should be one of the first conditions of gun ownership.

Actually - here I cross the fence.

If you are going to allow people access to guns, it is unfair to discriminate based on something as nebulous as mental state.

IF we allow all sane, non-criminal, persons access to weapons, is it fair to stop someone from being allowed because: they were depressed as a teen? or - they are obsessive compulsive disorder? or they have some harmless delusion?

Now - if they have a history of violence, that should count against them, whether it is a psychologically recorded 'problem' or not.

Basic levels? Yes. I have no problem w/ non-restrictive criminal back ground checks and inclusion of mental violence, etc.

It's when the "controls" are exclusively designed to restrict/inhibit ownership for the only purpose of inhibiting/restricting or when measures have been used for such that I have problems w/.

Heres the main problem I have Kecubikia. It is, purely and simply, one of culture.

I, and many other non Americans, just CANNOT grasp the American obsession with firearms. We just don't get it. Period.

Firstly, in the UK, and most of the rest of Europe, we have never had the widespread use of guns, be that for criminal or non-criminal use. We certainly have our gun enthusiasts, but they are few and far between, and are generally lumped in the same social class as other obsessives, such as train enthusiasts or car enthusiasts. For this reason I suspect, most of us view gun enthusiasts as either slightly nerdy or slightly dangerous. Sorry about that, but thats the way it is over here. We certainly don't feel the need for a firearm for self protection. Why would we? I myself do quite a dangerous job (well, compared to sitting in an office) interacting with the public on public transport, collecting tickets and sorting out trouble makers. Have I ever been threatened with a gun? No. Have I ever even seen a gun not being handled by a soldier or a copper? No. Have I ever felt the need to have a gun? It has never even entered my head. This is why we don't understand you when Americans say "I need a gun for self protection", etc.

Secondly, there seems to be a big difference between the European and American ideas of individual and social responsibility. Americans tend to come down on the idea of individual rather than social responsiblity - hardly surprising considering your history and how your nation was founded, Europeans tend to come down with social responsiblity. In the USA, you view iit as your personal rsponsiblity to defend yoursefl against crime and criminals, here we see it as the responsibilty of society as a whole (and by extension the government and police).

To conclude IMHO; UK style gun control in the USA? No, it would never work, but you do need to work on the notion of banning certain people from having guns, and ensuring they stay banned. US style gun ownership in the UK? Never, wer'e not used to guns legal or illegal, and I don't think we ever will be.

EDIT thats my rant, sorry it is now very late and I have work tommorrow. Night night

Hah. Like anyone's really sane.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-004.gif

Actually - here I cross the fence.

If you are going to allow people access to guns, it is unfair to discriminate based on something as nebulous as mental state.

IF we allow all sane, non-criminal, persons access to weapons, is it fair to stop someone from being allowed because: they were depressed as a teen? or - they are obsessive compulsive disorder? or they have some harmless delusion?

Now - if they have a history of violence, that should count against them, whether it is a psychologically recorded 'problem' or not.

A permit in Virginia bypasses a number of these protections, as it is designed to. So someone with a documented history of mental illness may require a permit to purchase a firearm, but that same person should be denied a firearm without that permit.

For Law enforcement officers I don't think there'd be any problem in a switch to non-lethals. In fact, I see little flaw in doing so. The Police exist to prevent crime, not to kill perceived offenders as the judge and executioner as well. As for the armed forces, I personally despise offensive military action. The military exists for defence, not to invade, and its equipment should be based around how best to protect and repel rather than how to overthrow and oppress. How to do this is anyone's guess, but I can't help but imagine there must be better ways than firing streams of thin bullets at your attackers.


It's harder to commit a crime when everyone owns a concealed carry weapon, and even a successful crime becomes less damaging when the mortality rate is kept to a minimum. Once non-lethals demonstrably work, they can become as widespread as we please, but I reckon we can't reasonably ethically justify CCW until that's the case.


So you want to send police officers into potentially dangerous situations, where there is the possibility that they'll be outgunned, and unable to engage a threat until they're close (all while a suspect can engage the police at further ranges, and with better accuracy than current less-lethal weapons can offer)? I have 1 uncle (had 2 uncles, but one retired, then passed away), as well as 3 cousins that are police officers, and I would not want them to be forced to give up their firearms in favor of less-lethal weapons (if they willingly chose the less-lethal weapons however, ....).

Also, as I've said before, CCW is not only for protection. In CT, I need a CCW to purchase a handgun, whether I want it for protection (not likely, as I live in a pretty decent area), target shooting (most likely, as I like target shooting as a hobby), or hunting (yes, there are hunting handguns out there). While less-lethal weapons may be somewhat useful for self defense (although it's arguable whether it's as useful as a firearm), I really don't want to take a taser to a target shooting competition, and I'd hate the idea that I'd be laughed at by a deer, if I were to shoot it with a bb/pellet/paintball gun.

Heres the main problem I have Kecubikia. It is, purely and simply, one of culture.

I, and many other non Americans, just CANNOT grasp the American obsession with firearms. We just don't get it. Period.

..
EDIT thats my rant, sorry it is now very late and I have work tommorrow. Night night

Rant accepted. Have a good night.

I've cut out a lot of stuff here. I want people to see what you are doing.


And Mr. Disingenuous strikes again.


You said: "You've admitted to the complete abolition of firearms. Deny it."

This is a lie. You made a false claim about what I stated, and are consistently refusing to support your claim.

Of course you are - it's a lie. You can't support your claim.

Now you accuse me of being 'disingenuous' because I have called you on it.

You are caught in a lie. Put up, or shut up.


And again.


This is another lie. You said: "Yes it is, like this. You've claimed "rights" yet ignore the right of self-defense." I claimed no such thing.

Again you have refused to support your claims, and again - it is because they are not true.


Dodge dodge dodge.


You say "dodge dodge dodge" because I refuse to follow your hijack about whether or not the government is responsible for our defense.


So "imminent danger" but not committed. Right. Just like I said. The judge did not commit him.


The Judge did commit him, according to the documents.

This other 'special justice' fellow changed the recommended 'sentence' a day later.

No - I'd say the controls aren't tight enough, either.

It doesn't help that the application of what little control there is, is so lacksadaisical.

Of course the fact that even w/ "loosening" of laws, crime dropped for years doesn't matter.

And since now GNI is only trying to mince words and dodge out of comparing bullets to grenades, this has become a true lesson in ignorance.

I didn't try to compare bullets to grenades.

I didn't try to compare bullets to grenades.

Grenades are usually bigger and often have pull pins. Bullets are usually small and require some sort of delivery system. :)

So you do agree with me that there should be at least some basic level of control of gun ownership?

I think that we should enforce the firearms laws we already have (no more dropping a firearms charge, in order to make a plea deal), since making more, then not enforcing them, wouldn't change anything.

I've cut out a lot of stuff here. I want people to see what you are doing.

Translation: You've selectively edited and responded falsley. Again.



You said: "You've admitted to the complete abolition of firearms. Deny it."

This is a lie. You made a false claim about what I stated, and are consistently refusing to support your claim.

So you lie again. Shock. Read the fricking thread.

Of course you are - it's a lie. You can't support your claim.

I'm not going to bother digging through the thread to repost things you know you said and are now denying.

Now you accuse me of being 'disingenuous' because I have called you on it.

You are caught in a lie. Put up, or shut up.

Ah, Mr. Disingenuous makes the demand. I guess selectively editing and responding along w/ denying your own words is the best you can do.



This is another lie. You said: "Yes it is, like this. You've claimed "rights" yet ignore the right of self-defense." I claimed no such thing.

Again you have refused to support your claims, and again - it is because they are not true.

In your happy little fantasy land.



You say "dodge dodge dodge" because I refuse to follow your hijack about whether or not the government is responsible for our defense.

More like because you want disarmament and can't respond to who's then responsible when things go wrong.



The Judge did commit him, according to the documents.

This other 'special justice' fellow changed the recommended 'sentence' a day later.

Then he wasn't committed by the judge? Was he?

I didn't try to compare bullets to grenades.

Oh, Bullshit. You clearly correlated compact cars to SUV's to equalling bullets to grenades.

Thank you for showing the everyone just how disingenuous you can be.

Astounding. You claimed I said two things. Both of them were lies.

I have presented them to you here, and you still refuse to admit you lied, or to prove you didn't.

(Of course, you can't prove you didn't).



I call you a liar. Present your evidence.



No - you misunderstand. I want something done about the easy availability of guns, and I don't care about who is responsible after the fact.



Yes. He was. He was 'committed' by the Judge.

What someone else did, later, is irrelevent.

You state lots of things, all shown to be wrong you disingenuous little prick. I'm not going to dance around showing your own posts when you know for a fact that you stated these things along w/ selectively editing posts to respond to.

Thank you for once again showing how honest the gun control movement is.

So you lie again. Shock. Read the fricking thread.


Astounding. You claimed I said two things. Both of them were lies.

I have presented them to you here, and you still refuse to admit you lied, or to prove you didn't.

(Of course, you can't prove you didn't).


I'm not going to bother digging through the thread to repost things you know you said and are now denying.


I call you a liar. Present your evidence.


More like because you want disarmament and can't respond to who's then responsible when things go wrong.


No - you misunderstand. I want something done about the easy availability of guns, and I don't care about who is responsible after the fact.


Then he wasn't committed by the judge? Was he?

Yes. He was. He was 'committed' by the Judge.

What someone else did, later, is irrelevent.

Oh, Bullshit. You clearly correlated compact cars to SUV's to equalling bullets to grenades.

Thank you for showing the everyone just how disingenuous you can be.

Anyone who has been reading the thread can see you are misrepresenting me.

I didn't make any comparisons of bullets and grenades. I said that a compact car succumbing to an SUV impact is only as much of a 'failure' of it's 'safety' design... as a bulletproof vest succumbing to a grenade.

That's nothing like what you are claiming I said.

You state lots of things, all shown to be wrong you disingenuous little prick. I'm not going to dance around showing your own posts when you know for a fact that you stated these things along w/ selectively editing posts to respond to.

Thank you for once again showing how honest the gun control movement is.

You have lied, specifically, and provably, twice.

Twice, you have claimed I said specific things that I didn't say.

You have failed to address that, and you have failed to admit you lied. How much worth can be placed in your assertions about "how honest the gun control movement is"?

As for calling me... wait, let me quote: "you disingenuous little prick"... if I were the sort of person to report people to moderation... this would certainly be a classic example of a flame.

I choose not to respond in kind. Indeed, I choose not to respond to you at all, any more - until you address your dishonest claims.

Anyone who has been reading the thread can see you are misrepresenting me.

I didn't make any comparisons of bullets and grenades. I said that a compact car succumbing to an SUV impact is only as much of a 'failure' of it's 'safety' design... as a bulletproof vest succumbing to a grenade.

That's nothing like what you are claiming I said.

So a car is not designed to be safe from another car yet a "bullet proof" vest is no designed to be safe from an explosive?

Thank you for admitting you made the connection and then denied it.

So you want to send police officers into potentially dangerous situations, where there is the possibility that they'll be outgunned, and unable to engage a threat until they're close (all while a suspect can engage the police at further ranges, and with better accuracy than current less-lethal weapons can offer)? I have 1 uncle (had 2 uncles, but one retired, then passed away), as well as 3 cousins that are police officers, and I would not want them to be forced to give up their firearms in favor of less-lethal weapons (if they willingly chose the less-lethal weapons however, ....).

Also, as I've said before, CCW is not only for protection. In CT, I need a CCW to purchase a handgun, whether I want it for protection (not likely, as I live in a pretty decent area), target shooting (most likely, as I like target shooting as a hobby), or hunting (yes, there are hunting handguns out there). While less-lethal weapons may be somewhat useful for self defense (although it's arguable whether it's as useful as a firearm), I really don't want to take a taser to a target shooting competition, and I'd hate the idea that I'd be laughed at by a deer, if I were to shoot it with a bb/pellet/paintball gun.
As I noted earlier, my stance is largely based on speculation surrounding future technolology advances in the field of ranged non-lethals (namely, that a solution exists) and in taking the edge out of sporting equipment. I'm not in a position to say that we currently have these things, but rather I'm suggesting two things to bear in mind on where to go next:

a) We should be putting in a serious effort to encourage the R&D of these advances, whether privately, publicly or both
b) Our legislative measures should include provisions dealing with the eventual obsolence and replacement of lethal weaponry should part (a) be successful

You have lied, specifically, and provably, twice.

Twice, you have claimed I said specific things that I didn't say.

You have failed to address that, and you have failed to admit you lied. How much worth can be placed in your assertions about "how honest the gun control movement is"?

As for calling me... wait, let me quote: "you disingenuous little prick"... if I were the sort of person to report people to moderation... this would certainly be a classic example of a flame.

I choose not to respond in kind. Indeed, I choose not to respond to you at all, any more - until you address your dishonest claims.

You choose to respond w/ selectively edited posts and denials of your intentions that you have stated.

Go ahead and stop responding. It's about as accurate as most of your posts.

Grenades are usually bigger and often have pull pins. Bullets are usually small and require some sort of delivery system. :)

Grenades require a delivery system too, whether it's an arm or a launcher.

Also, grenades tend to make a big boom.

So a car is not designed to be safe from another car yet a "bullet proof" vest is no designed to be safe from an explosive?
there are some "bullet proof" vests that can withstand an explosion, like the new dragonskin body armor :D
btw im kinda new at posts so dont blame me if i dont do everything exactly as I should

As I noted earlier, my stance is largely based on speculation surrounding future technolology advances in the field of ranged non-lethals (namely, that a solution exists) and in taking the edge out of sporting equipment. I'm not in a position to say that we currently have these things, but rather I'm suggesting two things to bear in mind on where to go next:

a) We should be putting in a serious effort to encourage the R&D of these advances, whether privately, publicly or both
b) Our legislative measures should include provisions dealing with the eventual obsolence and replacement of lethal weaponry should part (a) be successful

I encourage weapons manufacturers to develop newer, better less-lethal weapons. That development takes time though, especially considering the increases in range and accuracy a less-lethal weapon would need, to compete with a firearm. Will I ever buy a less-lethal weapon? Probably not, as I live in a pretty nice area, and would probably never need it.

Firearms won't become obsolete, even if less lethal weapons start to obtain the range and accuracy of firearms, because hunters can't kill a deer with a pepperball, and farmers can't kill a predator with a taser.

there are some "bullet proof" vests that can withstand an explosion, like the new dragonskin body armor :D
btw im kinda new at posts so dont blame me if i dont do everything exactly as I should


They actually showed that on Future Weapons, on the Discovery Channel. The only thing is, they took out the standard grenade fuse, so that they could run a remote detonator (for safety issues).

They actually showed that on Future Weapons, on the Discovery Channel. The only thing is, they took out the standard grenade fuse, so that they could run a remote detonator (for safety issues).

I know, saw the episode, like the show, watch it whenever I can but its still an accurate test

'Gun culture' is a specific aspect of the culture of violence.

People are violent in America for some reason, but it centres around the worship of guns.

Also, as I've said before, the 'culture of violence' PLUS the easy availability of guns exacerbates the problems in the violent culture. It means someone like Cho that buys into the culture of violence, can easily account for fatalities to three dozen people, single-handed.

I don't accept that an insane person like Seung Cho "bought in" to any culture. He was a maniac who went nuts. Cho wasn't part of American gun culture, he bought his weapons for the purpose of going on a rampage. American gun culture stresses law, order and safety.

Street trash hoodlums, gang bangers, people like that "buy into the culture of violence."

Guns are not the reason for violence in America. Look in prisons, where there is some of the most concentrated violence in the country and no guns. Violent people kill each other with anything they can use, a gun doesn't play into it.

American culture is violent for some reason, but guns are conclusively not the cause, or else guns would cause violent culture in Switzerland and other armed nations.

Heres the main problem I have Kecubikia. It is, purely and simply, one of culture.

I, and many other non Americans, just CANNOT grasp the American obsession with firearms. We just don't get it. Period.

Firstly, in the UK, and most of the rest of Europe, we have never had the widespread use of guns, be that for criminal or non-criminal use. We certainly have our gun enthusiasts, but they are few and far between, and are generally lumped in the same social class as other obsessives, such as train enthusiasts or car enthusiasts. For this reason I suspect, most of us view gun enthusiasts as either slightly nerdy or slightly dangerous. Sorry about that, but thats the way it is over here. We certainly don't feel the need for a firearm for self protection. Why would we? I myself do quite a dangerous job (well, compared to sitting in an office) interacting with the public on public transport, collecting tickets and sorting out trouble makers. Have I ever been threatened with a gun? No. Have I ever even seen a gun not being handled by a soldier or a copper? No. Have I ever felt the need to have a gun? It has never even entered my head. This is why we don't understand you when Americans say "I need a gun for self protection", etc.

Secondly, there seems to be a big difference between the European and American ideas of individual and social responsibility. Americans tend to come down on the idea of individual rather than social responsiblity - hardly surprising considering your history and how your nation was founded, Europeans tend to come down with social responsiblity. In the USA, you view iit as your personal rsponsiblity to defend yoursefl against crime and criminals, here we see it as the responsibilty of society as a whole (and by extension the government and police).

To conclude IMHO; UK style gun control in the USA? No, it would never work, but you do need to work on the notion of banning certain people from having guns, and ensuring they stay banned. US style gun ownership in the UK? Never, wer'e not used to guns legal or illegal, and I don't think we ever will be.

EDIT thats my rant, sorry it is now very late and I have work tommorrow. Night night


I think the dissonance between American and British/European perceptions of guns and gun ownership comes from a few things.

1) Most basically, it is a fundamental right granted us in our constitution.

2) Few living Americans know anything of war beyond "we win gloriously, with guns!" America hasn't been made to face war since the 1860s, and the European memories of WW1 and WW2 are quite different from the american ones. No jackbooted soldiers have ever marched through times square with rifles, no SS officers have ever shot civilian prisoners with their Lugers in the US.

3) Many europeans and brits, yourself included, have admittedly never handled handguns or seen them handled by civilians. This has to engender a very different attitude from an American, who more likely than not has seen guns in the hands of family and friends, if not shot them himself.

I for one do not come from a family of gun enthusiasts, but my father had an old winchester rifle in a locked room, and when we would go on road-trip vacations and camping, he would bring a small old pistol that he kept in the same room. I think both guns have had the same ammo locked up with them for 20 years.



All these things being different, the American and the Brit probably can't see eye-to-eye on guns.

Of course you do. You also think that people who rarely commit crimes are responsible for increases in crime and think that I want to give guns to murderers.
Well........indirectly you DO support allowing guns to fall into criminal hands, by supporting less restrictive gun laws. You just fail to make the connection. :p

[QUOTE=Gataway_Driver;12571506]I don't see the point in everyone owning guns -snip-[QUOTE]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Seems to me that it's a pretty good idea. For further example: Switzerland

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Lowest instancing of almost every type of crime in the international community, with almost 50% of crimes comitted by foreigners.


See, the problem is that people see guns as some sort of 'magic wand' for crime. It's not, and getting rid of guns doesn't cut down on crime. Crime is a willingness to do harm to another human being.


-Wow, this is a bit late into the conversation for me. Sorry, got hung up with schoolwork. Anyways.

Speaking as someone with a cousin in the FBI, a retired Uncle who was on the Police force, and a former girlfriend who was in the Sherrif's department, you NEED lethal firepower. Why? Because the bad guys aren't going to obey the laws. They aren't going to go "OH guns are illegal. I guess I'll just have to use a tazer when I rob the McDonald's."

They're going to bring the largest gun they have.
Carrying the most rounds possible.
And pepper spray and tazers won't stop them.

Hell, if the two above examples aren't enough, you like extreme examples and movies are your thing, take a look at Demolition Man (1993).

You choose to respond w/ selectively edited posts and denials of your intentions that you have stated.

Go ahead and stop responding. It's about as accurate as most of your posts.

I have shown, explicitly, quoting your own words, where you lied. Twice.

You have failed to address that.

Whether or not you think my posts 'accurate' becomes irrelevent in the face of the fact that your approach to 'debate' is to lie.

It's simple. If you have the courage of your convictions, find the evidence that I said the things you claim I said.

When, on searching back through the thread, you cannot find me saying those things, simply admit you were wrong. I'll accept that.

You might think me an ill-informed debater. You might not like my 'tactics'. You might think I'm wrong. All that is fine, I don't mind opinion.

You are lying. That makes your 'debate' worthless.

FYI- Here are a few of GW the 1st comments on guns.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
George Washington

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
George Washington

And yes he owned slaves and was wrong however he did (selfishly, belatedly and shamefully) write in his will that all his slaves be freed after his and Martha's death. That act as well as outright condemnation of the institution ("I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.") indicate that he did have personal conflict, mental and/or moral, over the practice.

Now, In contrast I see NO such internal conflict over the concept of EVERY person armed. The intensity of conviction is evident in the quotes.
It seems the main main difference between his thoughts and those who oppose guns is what they fear (not the size of the gun). Washington feared the State gone bad as wells your average bad guy and assume every man had a right to be able to protect himself. Those who oppose guns seem to fear their neighbors and trust the State with firearms and also to protect them.

Well........indirectly you DO support allowing guns to fall into criminal hands, by supporting less restrictive gun laws. You just fail to make the connection. :p

Then inversely, you allow for criminals to victimize people by supporting highly restrictive laws preventing them from defending themselves. You just fail to make the connection. Why do you support criminals? :p

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon)

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon)

Read the entire thing.

Not at all. I blame Cho for his actions.

I accuse you of complicity.

So I guess that every current and retired police officer in the US, any person in the US that has ever served in the military or is serving in the military (talk about having powerful and automatic weapons) are also in complicity?

Well, it looks like this thread is dead or dying, after 43 pages.

Well, it looks like this thread is dead or dying, after 43 pages.

Yeah... Too bad most of the posts are not about gun control, though...

*Shoots thread*

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon)

Read the entire thing.
Why bother???? It was a waste of time. :eek:

Then inversely, you allow for criminals to victimize people by supporting highly restrictive laws preventing them from defending themselves. You just fail to make the connection. Why do you support criminals? :p
Nice try old sport, but again you fail to prove your point? :eek:

Well........indirectly you DO support allowing guns to fall into criminal hands, by supporting less restrictive gun laws. You just fail to make the connection.

Then inversely, you allow for criminals to victimize people by supporting highly restrictive laws preventing them from defending themselves. You just fail to make the connection. Why do you support criminals? :p

Nice try old sport, but again you fail to prove your point?

He did make his point. His point was, as absurd is the fact that you support criminals victimizing people by preventing potential victims from defending themselves, so too is supporting criminals getting guns by simple ownership of guns, is just as absurd.

I saw a quote from Freud that bears repeating...
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity

He did make his point. His point was, as absurd is the fact that you support criminals victimizing people by preventing potential victims from defending themselves, so too is supporting criminals getting guns by simple ownership of guns, is just as absurd.

I saw a quote from Freud that bears repeating...
Making a point and actually PROVING a point are two different things entirely? Perhaps you don't realize that?

As far as the Freud quote is concerned, it is totally irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Try again. :D