Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox Detroit)   Detroit high school coach shows how a good guy with a gun on campus can stop a bad guy with a gun   (myfoxdetroit.com) divider line 576
    More: Hero, MLK High School, Detroit, Martin Luther King, St. Clair Shores, video player  
•       •       •

22757 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2013 at 7:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



576 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-03 05:09:05 PM  
Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
 
2013-02-03 05:20:07 PM  

cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297

No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 05:32:42 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!


Especially to keep the count correct, since the guys who need a gun just to get an erection tend to overestimate by several magnitudes of order.
 
2013-02-03 05:37:47 PM  
There haven't even been that many school shootings, guntards
 
2013-02-03 05:41:58 PM  
Sounds like this was a mugging picking the wrong target, rather than a school shooting prevented by a hero.

Therefore quiet, all of you... they're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock.
 
2013-02-03 05:45:36 PM  

Slaxl: Sounds like this was a mugging picking the wrong target, rather than a school shooting prevented by a hero.

Therefore quiet, all of you... they're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock.


Exactly.  2 students who go to the school the guy coaches at try to rob him while he was walking them to their car.  How the hell did they think they were going to get away with that?
 
2013-02-03 05:53:12 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297

No, good guys 2,500.000


[citation needed]

And I swear, if you cite John Lott, I will cockpunch you through the Internet.
 
2013-02-03 05:59:16 PM  
Obviously the U.S. needs more firearms.
 
2013-02-03 06:26:30 PM  

jbc: Especially to keep the count correct, since the guys who need a gun just to get an erection tend to overestimate by several magnitudes of order.


Funny how it is the "progressives" that seem to like to misquote Freud, perhaps it is their way of projecting their "little issues" onto those they fear- or perhaps lust after?


kmmontandon: And I swear, if you cite John Lott, I will cockpunch you through the Internet.


So the thought of John Lott makes you wan to touch my junk, Kinky to say the least.
 
2013-02-03 06:44:11 PM  

kmmontandon: [citation needed]


I'm in
 
2013-02-03 06:59:38 PM  

Azlefty: Funny how it is the "progressives" that seem to like to misquote Freud, perhaps it is their way of projecting their "little issues" onto those they fear- or perhaps lust after?


This was enough for me to take a peek at your profile. You know you come off kinda crazy, right?
 
2013-02-03 07:15:56 PM  
Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?
 
2013-02-03 07:31:31 PM  

GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?


Use it however you want. Just don't pretend that this story will be given the same coverage as the tragic ones. My guess is that this school's choir doesn't get invited to sing at the Superbowl next year.
 
2013-02-03 07:31:54 PM  

vartian: This was enough for me to take a peek at your profile. You know you come off kinda crazy, right?


No just honest, ;)
 
2013-02-03 07:40:03 PM  

Slaxl: Sounds like this was a mugging picking the wrong target, rather than a school shooting prevented by a hero.


This.
 
2013-02-03 07:40:52 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?

Use it however you want. Just don't pretend that this story will be given the same coverage as the tragic ones. My guess is that this school's choir doesn't get invited to sing at the Superbowl next year.


When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?
 
2013-02-03 07:42:10 PM  
Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!
 
2013-02-03 07:42:54 PM  

jbc: Especially to keep the count correct, since the guys who need a gun just to get an erection tend to overestimate by several magnitudes of order.


DRINK!
 
2013-02-03 07:43:35 PM  

The Muthaship: Slaxl: Sounds like this was a mugging picking the wrong target, rather than a school shooting prevented by a hero.

Therefore quiet, all of you... they're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock.

Exactly.  2 students who go to the school the guy coaches at try to rob him while he was walking them to their car.  How the hell did they think they were going to get away with that?


Glad you can read. He was walking 2 female students to their car, 2 males, former studentsn approached and tried to rob him.
 
2013-02-03 07:44:11 PM  
Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.
 
2013-02-03 07:44:26 PM  

SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc
 
2013-02-03 07:45:31 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?
 
2013-02-03 07:45:34 PM  

austerity101: Anderson's Pooper: GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?

Use it however you want. Just don't pretend that this story will be given the same coverage as the tragic ones. My guess is that this school's choir doesn't get invited to sing at the Superbowl next year.

When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?


"Next on 11 Breaking News: Tonight, over three hundred million Americans did not die in violent gun attack.  More details after the break."
 
2013-02-03 07:46:11 PM  
Apparently God is welcome in Detroit Schools. Thanks to Jesus for preventing a tragedy.
 
2013-02-03 07:47:14 PM  
Yeah mugging not equal to shooting.
 
2013-02-03 07:47:31 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!


They should count the good guys, but there is no possible way.  A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.
 
2013-02-03 07:47:53 PM  
Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.
 
2013-02-03 07:48:04 PM  
Seems like there is a difference here. Those two guys intended to rob him according to the article. That strikes me as a little different situation than "two guys bent on killing people for shock value".

Good for the coach though.
 
2013-02-03 07:48:22 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


To the best of my knowledge, ALL schools are gun free zones. I think he did the right think, I also think he should be charged, too.

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?


Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.
 
2013-02-03 07:49:00 PM  

You know it and love it, here it is one more time:

i45.tinypic.com

http://i45.tinypic.com/hukg0i.gif
 
2013-02-03 07:49:49 PM  

pedrop357: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc


So you're 100% in favor of banning civilians from owning certain weapons, now we're just arguing over where to draw the line. Glad we cleared that up.
 
2013-02-03 07:49:49 PM  

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?


The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.
 
2013-02-03 07:50:06 PM  
Anyone who carries a gun is a bad guy.

/heeeeere fishy fishy fishy
 
2013-02-03 07:50:13 PM  

austerity101: When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?


That's my point. News stories where guns are used responsibly and effectively are typically ignored by the press. If they treated the tragic stories the same, perhaps we wouldn't see as many copycats. I blame the 24/7 news cycle for extending the life of a lot of these stories.
 
2013-02-03 07:50:18 PM  

iheartscotch: Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.


Who shouldn't be allowed unlimited access to guns?
 
2013-02-03 07:51:08 PM  
The fact that someone tried to put this story up as an example of the "Good Guy With a Gun" lie only shows how desperate for actual examples they are.


iheartscotch: It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.


So...eugenics instead of AWBs?
 
2013-02-03 07:51:43 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.


Does the government provide the internet?
 
2013-02-03 07:52:24 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Based on what?  You think it's interstate commerce?

Federal gov needs to dry up by several orders of magnitude.
 
2013-02-03 07:52:32 PM  
I wonder if any noticed that the shooter was a reserve police officer . . .
 
2013-02-03 07:52:58 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.


Nah... the internet wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. You can thank DARPA for that.

+1 for the military-industrial complex
 
2013-02-03 07:53:17 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.


In other worse, we amend the constitution to allow the government to make it a federal offense to possess a gun on school grounds?

That sounds like a good idea, and should definitely show those school shooters.
 
2013-02-03 07:53:20 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: austerity101: When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?

That's my point. News stories where guns are used responsibly and effectively are typically ignored by the press. If they treated the tragic stories the same, perhaps we wouldn't see as many copycats. I blame the 24/7 news cycle for extending the life of a lot of these stories.


Even *successful* muggings are given virtually no air time.  This story will be largely ignored not because it isn't tragic, but because it isn't as compelling a story as a larger crisis such as a school shooting.  

If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it.  Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.
 
2013-02-03 07:53:30 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: That's my point. News stories where guns are used responsibly and effectively are typically ignored by the press. If they treated the tragic stories the same, perhaps we wouldn't see as many copycats. I blame the 24/7 news cycle for extending the life of a lot of these stories.


87 people were killed by guns yesterday (and today, and tomorrow, and...) and I don't recall seeing a front page, 30-point font headline on CNN.com about any of those either.

DAMN YOU LAMESTREAM MEDIA!
 
2013-02-03 07:53:44 PM  

piperTom: Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!

They should count the good guys, but there is no possible way.  A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.


Maybe you should be encouraging your fellow "good guys with guns" to report crimes to law enforcement, so that you'd have something other than a bare assertion pulled from your ass.
 
2013-02-03 07:54:13 PM  
let's not get ahead of ourselves here - have we determined the ethnicity of this so-called "hero?"

/'cause sometimes the NRA does support gun control...
 
2013-02-03 07:55:04 PM  

austerity101: If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it. Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.


Well, given that CCW holders can't carry in schools in 46 or states, and most schools don't have even a single armed resource officer/security guard/police officer, I suppose that's why it doesn't happen.
 
2013-02-03 07:55:20 PM  
Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.
 
2013-02-03 07:55:42 PM  

dookdookdook: 87 people were killed by guns yesterday (and today, and tomorrow, and...) and I don't recall seeing a front page, 30-point font headline on CNN.com about any of those either.


did the gun pick itself up and kill the person?

How do you get 87?  Are you including suicides?
 
2013-02-03 07:56:06 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!


So simple, and yet so effective.

10/10
 
2013-02-03 07:56:20 PM  

pedrop357: Well, given that CCW holders can't carry in schools in 46 or states, and most schools don't have even a single armed resource officer/security guard/police officer, I suppose that's why it doesn't happen.


So the tens of millions of people in those 4 states isn't a large enough sample size for you?
 
2013-02-03 07:56:34 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.


An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.
 
2013-02-03 07:57:13 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.


In most places, if you have 'reasonable' fear for your life, you can defend yourself with lethal force.

Generally, it's known as the "Look out, they're coming right for us!' defense.
 
2013-02-03 07:57:39 PM  

pedrop357: austerity101: If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it. Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.

Well, given that CCW holders can't carry in schools in 46 or states, and most schools don't have even a single armed resource officer/security guard/police officer, I suppose that's why it doesn't happen.


Columbine High School had an armed security guard at the time of the attack. But by all means, do go on.
 
2013-02-03 07:58:06 PM  

pedrop357: Your Average Witty Fark User: Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.

Does the government provide the internet?


Doesn't matter, it isn't mentioned, so GFY. The Constitution doesn't mention tactical nukes either, slappy.
 
2013-02-03 07:58:52 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Well, given that CCW holders can't carry in schools in 46 or states, and most schools don't have even a single armed resource officer/security guard/police officer, I suppose that's why it doesn't happen.

So the tens of millions of people in those 4 states isn't a large enough sample size for you?


Aside from Thurston in OR in 1998, when was the last school shooting in OR, UT, AL or NH?
 
2013-02-03 07:59:04 PM  
I'd be perfectly happy to make it legal for retired (or active of course) police officers to carry fully automatic guns if in return we'd put in place regulations making it tough for the delusional 'I's gonna save everybodies with my glock' extremists to build their personal arsenals.
 
2013-02-03 08:00:07 PM  

pedrop357: did the gun pick itself up and kill the person?


derp de derp

How do you get 87?  Are you including suicides?

Link

Sorry, does 34 gun murders per day sound more acceptable?  What is the allowable number of deaths per day in your opinion?
 
2013-02-03 08:00:11 PM  

JohnnyC: pedrop357: austerity101: If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it. Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.

Well, given that CCW holders can't carry in schools in 46 or states, and most schools don't have even a single armed resource officer/security guard/police officer, I suppose that's why it doesn't happen.

Columbine High School had an armed security guard at the time of the attack. But by all means, do go on.


I never said ALL schools don't, just most.
 
2013-02-03 08:00:20 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.
 
2013-02-03 08:01:20 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: pedrop357: Your Average Witty Fark User: Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.

Does the government provide the internet?

Doesn't matter, it isn't mentioned, so GFY. The Constitution doesn't mention tactical nukes either, slappy.


It should matter since the Constitution is a document that defines and limits government.  It provides no power for them to censor speech, regardless of the media, and provides no power to ban guns in schools.
 
2013-02-03 08:02:20 PM  
Eventually society will weed out all the criminals too stupid or weak to mug people properly and then things will start to get ugly.  Fortunatly it will happen much less frequently

FYI:  To mug someone properly you just ambush and kill them and then take thier shiat afterwards.  None of this silly asking business where your mark can shoot you back, or even see before you mug them for that matter.
 
2013-02-03 08:02:32 PM  

Azlefty: kmmontandon: And I swear, if you cite John Lott, I will cockpunch you through the Internet.

So the thought of John Lott makes you wan to touch my junk, Kinky to say the least.


i hear that Mary Rosh is pretty hawt.  Cite her!
 
2013-02-03 08:02:40 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: did the gun pick itself up and kill the person?

derp de derp

How do you get 87?  Are you including suicides?

Link

Sorry, does 34 gun murders per day sound more acceptable?  What is the allowable number of deaths per day in your opinion?


Given that quite a few are gang/drug related, I'd say that ending the drug war would be a fantastic way to save thousands of lives a year.

We're a violent society as evidenced by our non-firearm murder rate alone.  Guns are only part of the story.
 
2013-02-03 08:03:11 PM  
Detroit high school coach shows how a good guy with a gun on campus can stop a bad guy with a gun

Whether he can or not is irrelevant.  That school should already have a top-notch security dept so there isn't a "bad guy with a gun" in the first place.
 
2013-02-03 08:03:20 PM  

Slaxl: Therefore quiet, all of you... they're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock.


I've never heard this one before... but I like it.
 
2013-02-03 08:03:28 PM  

pedrop357: Aside from Thurston in OR in 1998, when was the last school shooting in OR, UT, AL or NH?


Aside from 9/11, when was the last time someone killed 3,000 Americans in one day?

Aside from 2005, when was the last time Tom Brady ever won a Super Bowl?

Aside from Apollo 17, when was the last time anyone ever walked on the moon?
 
2013-02-03 08:04:29 PM  

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?


What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.
 
2013-02-03 08:04:34 PM  

doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.


Maybe we need less guns and more of these:
www.sasumata.jp
 
2013-02-03 08:04:41 PM  

doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.


That really just shifts the problem horizontally.
 
2013-02-03 08:05:27 PM  

pedrop357: Given that quite a few are gang/drug related, I'd say that ending the drug war would be a fantastic way to save thousands of lives a year.


So it's all the blacks' fault.  Got it.

Even Ann Coulter admits that looking at the white population alone, we still have a higher murder rate than the large majority of first-world nations.
 
2013-02-03 08:05:54 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
 
2013-02-03 08:05:57 PM  

JSam21: The Muthaship: Slaxl: Sounds like this was a mugging picking the wrong target, rather than a school shooting prevented by a hero.

Therefore quiet, all of you... they're approaching the Tyrannosaur paddock.

Exactly.  2 students who go to the school the guy coaches at try to rob him while he was walking them to their car.  How the hell did they think they were going to get away with that?

Glad you can read. He was walking 2 female students to their car, 2 males, former studentsn approached and tried to rob him.


Wow.  I did totally misread that.  So much so that I think it somehow makes you not a dick.
 
2013-02-03 08:06:12 PM  

iheartscotch: Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.


I thought controlling humanity is what guns are about.
 
2013-02-03 08:06:44 PM  

pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.


Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...
 
2013-02-03 08:06:52 PM  

dookdookdook: Even Ann Coulter admits

...

Link:  http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/14/ann-coulter-if-you-compare-wh ite-populations-we/192232

(Fark eats mm links)
 
2013-02-03 08:07:25 PM  

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?


Everyone knows if you make it illegal to take a gun on to school property no one would shoot 20 kids. That's what stops school shootings, rules
 
2013-02-03 08:07:51 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Given that quite a few are gang/drug related, I'd say that ending the drug war would be a fantastic way to save thousands of lives a year.

So it's all the blacks' fault.  Got it.

Even Ann Coulter admits that looking at the white population alone, we still have a higher murder rate than the large majority of first-world nations.


Not so much.  It does show what kind of person you are when you make it about race.

I also admit that we're a violent society.  See my post above about our non-firearm murder rate.

But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related, OR to pretend that drug and gang related violence only involves black people.
 
2013-02-03 08:08:35 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: That's my point. News stories where guns are used responsibly and effectively are typically ignored by the press. If they treated the tragic stories the same, perhaps we wouldn't see as many copycats. I blame the 24/7 news cycle for extending the life of a lot of these stories.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Man, doesn't he look so badass? C'mon, kids. Nobody will ever pick on you again. You'll be famous too!

/hotlink
//we idolize killers by turning them into legends
 
2013-02-03 08:09:19 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.



It also can't be denied that most people were outraged and horrified about terrorism right after 9/11. I'm sure glad that we made an emotional decision and chose to give the government all of those sweeping new powers, rather than recognizing A) media sensationalism, and B) the statistical likelihood of the events that we were wetting our pants over.
 
2013-02-03 08:09:21 PM  

pedrop357: But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related, OR to pretend that drug and gang related violence only involves black people.


Haha, sure.  "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".

www.michaelekbundit.com
 
2013-02-03 08:10:03 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...


That's scary.  I would think that some kind of disparity of force or inability to retreat would factor in.  If someone wants to beat the crap of of you and won't let you leave-that's justification; same if you try to leave and they pursue.  It's clear as mud, but I think it should need more than just a basic fear.
 
2013-02-03 08:10:52 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related, OR to pretend that drug and gang related violence only involves black people.

Haha, sure.  "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".

[www.michaelekbundit.com image 250x167]


Cute.  Is that a self portrait there?
 
2013-02-03 08:11:02 PM  
Look, The USA has the laxest gun control in the developed world, the most guns in the world per capita (by far) and the highest rate of gun violence (by far) in the developed world.

I'm not actually in support of banning any non-automatic (fully automatic) gun for civilian use outright. I'm am in support of full background checks on all gun purchases, more strenuous licensing and training for guns (and different training a licensing for different classes of firearms), tracking of ammunition purchases in excess of ordinary use, a minimum age for gun use (like we have for, say, voting, alcohol, cigarettes, military service, and driving) and banning clips in excess of 10 shots UNLESS specifically licensed (which would be limited to, say, farmers who have large to medium size mammals infesting and threatening their land). AND LAST: that we should damn well be able to research and record statistics on gun use, ownership, and purchase freely.

What is wrong with anything I just said, constitutionally, and how does any of it contain anything which could be framed as actually banning guns that aren't already banned for civilian use? And, for that matter, does anyone have statistics on how many gun crimes a year in the US are committed not with illegally obtained firearms, but banned firearms, like fully automatic weapons? Anybody?
 
2013-02-03 08:11:28 PM  

SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!


I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass
 
2013-02-03 08:11:29 PM  

cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297


As we tend to point out in every one of these threads, defensive uses of firearms actually outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude or two.  Albeit, most DGUs do not actually end in someone getting shot, because non-criminals tend to prefer not to fire unless they absolutely have to.

//Though, in all fairness to the criminals, many gun-related crimes don't involve them actually shooting someone, either.

dookdookdook: Sorry, does 34 gun murders per day sound more acceptable?  What is the allowable number of deaths per day in your opinion?



Look, it's OK to put a high value on human life.

It's  not OK to make an argument where you claim that even a single life lost is so unacceptable that it calls for rewriting national policy.  By that standard literally no law could have ever been made, so the argument is about as sensical as saying that we should ban guns because peppermint the walnut casserole.  Dublin!

I mean, we could use this logic to argue that your mother should have had an abortion before you were born, because by existing you contribute to US traffic patterns, and US traffic patterns kill 1000+ people a day.  How many deaths are you going to call acceptable, just so you can selfishly not kill yourself?  How many?
 
2013-02-03 08:13:08 PM  
Reported by Fox News.  Why am I not surprised?

I suppose there's a War on the Elderly now.  Or War on Coaches?  War on SOMETHING?
 
2013-02-03 08:13:35 PM  
MLK stood for peace. Anywhere they use his name there is violence. Way to respect the man's legacy.........
 
2013-02-03 08:14:05 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.


Sidetracking your own argument is dumb.
 
2013-02-03 08:14:20 PM  

Jim_Callahan: It's not OK to make an argument where you claim that even a single life lost is so unacceptable that it calls for rewriting national policy. By that standard literally no law could have ever been made, so the argument is about as sensical as saying that we should ban guns because peppermint the walnut casserole. Dublin!


34 corpses a day isn't the same as one guy choking to death on a peanut.

Stop making stupid arguments.
 
2013-02-03 08:14:52 PM  

FatherChaos: Reported by Fox News.  Why am I not surprised?

I suppose there's a War on the Elderly now.  Or War on Coaches?  War on SOMETHING?


In b4  durrr it isn't Fox News, it's one of their AFFILIATES.
 
2013-02-03 08:15:56 PM  

doglover: pussies like soft targets.


That's what she said.
 
2013-02-03 08:17:05 PM  

dookdookdook: Haha, sure. "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".


It certainly seems to be in your mind. FYI, there are large numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and White gangs as well.

i660.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-03 08:17:26 PM  

pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...

That's scary.  I would think that some kind of disparity of force or inability to retreat would factor in.  If someone wants to beat the crap of of you and won't let you leave-that's justification; same if you try to leave and they pursue.  It's clear as mud, but I think it should need more than just a basic fear.


IIRC, that was part of the training class I took. I could shoot them if I was in danger and had no way to get to safety, even if they were unarmed. I'd rather not shoot anyone at all, ever. Apparently this dude is a bit "different", so I'm glad he failed his CCW test. You're right that his attitude is scary. That's why he's a friend of a friend and not a friend of mine. I'd probably end up having to shoot him some day. ;-p
 
2013-02-03 08:17:42 PM  

clambam: iheartscotch: Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.

Who shouldn't be allowed unlimited access to guns?


The poor, obviously.  I don't want my tax dollars wasted on non-essentials.
 
2013-02-03 08:17:46 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.

Maybe we need less guns and more of these:
[www.sasumata.jp image 400x300]


Those catchpoles kill me. Some are quite clever. The favorite kind I've seen are the ones with a slinky spring around the haft so the victim can't get a grip on the pole and use it against you.

Also, the people who post about how peaceful Japan is when EVERY Japanese school has a weapon or ten stashed in the teacher's room and live training to use them once a year crack me up, too.

But personally I'd rather have guns in American schools maybe. You want them guessing and afraid, because the unknown is the scariest thing to the coward.

Also, glorify suicide like Japanese culture does. In America, people go on sprees. In Japan, those same people jump under trains or off buildings. Their suicide rate and homicide rate are the opposite of ours. Why? Suicide's a sexy way out. Many great stories and examples. Spread it around in the US. Teach people suicide is painless, and they can take or leave it if they choose. Get some of these crazies to put themselves in the ground before their little gardens of evil bear any bitter fruit.
 
2013-02-03 08:18:08 PM  
Good for him. 

Should have stayed off the school's lawn as well as his.
 
2013-02-03 08:18:31 PM  

dookdookdook: 34 corpses a day isn't the same as one guy choking to death on a peanut.

Stop making stupid arguments.


Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.
 
2013-02-03 08:19:28 PM  

iheartscotch: Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.


See, that's just it - violence, and its long lost cousin, competition, are inbred into the human psyche. It's not "learned" behavior, it's instinctual. Only own own morality/beliefs and laws keep these behaviors in check.
 
2013-02-03 08:20:09 PM  

BigNumber12: FYI, there are large numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and White gangs as well.


FYI other countries have gangs too.

You can't make the argument "Well the American murder rate would be as low as England's murder rate if we factored out all our blacks and mexicans and gangs and schizophrenics (while not doing the same thing for England) therefore Real America doesn't actually have a gun violence problem".

At least not while I, or anyone with some basic logical ability, is present.
 
2013-02-03 08:20:29 PM  

Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass


Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?
 
2013-02-03 08:20:46 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.


One of the kids pulled a gun, says TFA.  It doesn't say the other kid was unarmed.

Later reports clarify that only one kid was expelled, and his mother denies that.

This is a Fox station, remember.
 
2013-02-03 08:21:20 PM  
The coach it would seem was possibly violating the law by possessing a weapon on school grounds.

Has he been investigated?
 
2013-02-03 08:22:16 PM  

whidbey: FatherChaos: Reported by Fox News.  Why am I not surprised?

I suppose there's a War on the Elderly now.  Or War on Coaches?  War on SOMETHING?

In b4  durrr it isn't Fox News, it's one of their AFFILIATES.


Just so people can't blame this on the affiliate station, the Foxnews.com article links to the same page.
 
2013-02-03 08:22:58 PM  

doglover: Also, glorify suicide like Japanese culture does. In America, people go on sprees. In Japan, those same people jump under trains or off buildings. Their suicide rate and homicide rate are the opposite of ours. Why? Suicide's a sexy way out. Many great stories and examples. Spread it around in the US. Teach people suicide is painless, and they can take or leave it if they choose. Get some of these crazies to put themselves in the ground before their little gardens of evil bear any bitter fruit.


I'll support this, but can we glorify it in such a way that discourages the use of Mass Transit as the means? I really hate that shiat.
 
2013-02-03 08:24:18 PM  
The uncomfortable truth about firearms is that some people just NEED KILLING.
 
2013-02-03 08:25:31 PM  

FatherChaos: whidbey: FatherChaos: Reported by Fox News.  Why am I not surprised?

I suppose there's a War on the Elderly now.  Or War on Coaches?  War on SOMETHING?

In b4  durrr it isn't Fox News, it's one of their AFFILIATES.

Just so people can't blame this on the affiliate station, the Foxnews.com article links to the same page.


Can't speak for other cities, but Fox News 13 in Seattle comes off just as plasticine and hyper-moralistic as the parent organization.
 
2013-02-03 08:25:34 PM  

pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?


Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.

That's like arguing child porn would still exist even without the internet, therefore the government shouldn't try to make it harder for pedos to swap porn online.

It is a SHIATLOAD harder to kill people with knives than guns, and certainly no one would ever be able to take out dozens of people in one go
 
2013-02-03 08:26:49 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?


You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?
 
2013-02-03 08:28:09 PM  
dookdookdook:

It is a SHIATLOAD harder to kill people with knives than guns, and certainly no one would ever be able to take out dozens of people in one go

But it is a hell of a lot easier to kill that bastard with the knife if you're packing.
 
2013-02-03 08:29:48 PM  

Gdalescrboz: I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass


Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country.  Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.
 
2013-02-03 08:30:12 PM  

pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez


Act was amended to get around that.  It's still in effect and numerous lower courts have upheld it.  It's not moving towards the SCOTUS.
 
2013-02-03 08:31:20 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!


No lib has that kind of integrity
 
2013-02-03 08:32:30 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?

Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.

That's like arguing child porn would still exist even without the internet, therefore the government shouldn't try to make it harder for pedos to swap porn online.

It is a SHIATLOAD harder to kill people with knives than guns, and certainly no one would ever be able to take out dozens of people in one go


Why would cops still need them?

Mass homicides are less than 1% of all homicides.

Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc.  only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.
 
2013-02-03 08:32:40 PM  

BigNumber12: dookdookdook: Haha, sure. "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".

It certainly seems to be in your mind. FYI, there are large numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and White gangs as well.

[i660.photobucket.com image 344x226]


What a white gang may look like:
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-03 08:32:50 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL schools are gun free zones. I think he did the right think, I also think he should be charged, too.

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.


Time for some Civics 101, which you should've learned in middle school.  The Constitution is a grant of powers.  If the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can do something, then the federal government can't do it.

Time for some Civics 201.  The Supreme Court has expressly held that the federal government does NOT have the power to make possession of a gun on school grounds a crime.  The state can.  The federal government cannot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Read it.  Left to right, letters form words, words make sentences, sentences create paragraphs.


This is why we cannot have a discussion on gun control.  Because just about everyone in the discussion doesn't even know the MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS IT IS A GRANT OF POWERS.
 
2013-02-03 08:33:30 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Act was amended to get around that. It's still in effect and numerous lower courts have upheld it. It's not moving towards the SCOTUS.


What court decisions have upheld it?  To my knowledge, the GFSZA of 1996 has yet to be used to prosecute anyone.
 
2013-02-03 08:35:39 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Act was amended to get around that.  It's still in effect and numerous lower courts have upheld it.  It's not moving towards the SCOTUS.


SCOTUS is also not a court of justice.  If the lower courts uphold it and there is not a split, the supreme court will not hear it.
 
2013-02-03 08:36:14 PM  

BigNumber12: doglover: Also, glorify suicide like Japanese culture does. In America, people go on sprees. In Japan, those same people jump under trains or off buildings. Their suicide rate and homicide rate are the opposite of ours. Why? Suicide's a sexy way out. Many great stories and examples. Spread it around in the US. Teach people suicide is painless, and they can take or leave it if they choose. Get some of these crazies to put themselves in the ground before their little gardens of evil bear any bitter fruit.

I'll support this, but can we glorify it in such a way that discourages the use of Mass Transit as the means? I really hate that shiat.


My solution for Japan? Fire hoses and not stopping the train. People wouldn't pick the train if they knew no one would be inconvenienced.
 
2013-02-03 08:36:24 PM  

dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.


I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.
 
2013-02-03 08:37:15 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...


In this case, both boys were acting together to commit a crime.  If the armed one killed somebody, both could be convicted of murder.  See "felony murder."  It's entirely consistent to view both as one deadly threat even if only one was armed.
 
2013-02-03 08:39:47 PM  

pedrop357: Why would cops still need them?


Meh, I'm not necessarily against banning them for cops as well.

Mass homicides are less than 1% of all homicides.

And 9/11 accounted for about 2% of all homicides over the decade 2000-2009, but it accounted for about 99.999% of all the spending pursuing murder suspects over that time.

Or are you now arguing that the murder of 20 5-year olds deserve no more attention than the murder of 20 gang members?

Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

Right, so if there were no laws governing child porn online, it would be exactly as hard to come by, and people would still need to use Darknet and pay with Bitcoins.
 
2013-02-03 08:41:30 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?


You seem to think guns never miss. I suggest you stop playing Call of Duty and go spend some time at the range with real ones.
 
2013-02-03 08:41:49 PM  

dookdookdook: Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

Right, so if there were no laws governing child porn online, it would be exactly as hard to come by, and people would still need to use Darknet and pay with Bitcoins.


People hide their child porn trading because if they are caught AFTER trading it, they will be prosecuted.
 
2013-02-03 08:42:26 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Why would cops still need them?

Meh, I'm not necessarily against banning them for cops as well.

Mass homicides are less than 1% of all homicides.

And 9/11 accounted for about 2% of all homicides over the decade 2000-2009, but it accounted for about 99.999% of all the spending pursuing murder suspects over that time.

Or are you now arguing that the murder of 20 5-year olds deserve no more attention than the murder of 20 gang members?

Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

Right, so if there were no laws governing child porn online, it would be exactly as hard to come by, and people would still need to use Darknet and pay with Bitcoins.


You know an awful lot about childporn on line.
 
2013-02-03 08:43:39 PM  
Why is this story in the Politics tab?

Are we going to start posting every shooting on Fark/politics now?

You know, including the many hundreds where the good guys don't win?

Or don't they count because they don't feed into the right wing's fairy tales?
 
2013-02-03 08:44:21 PM  

Yogimus: You know an awful lot about childporn on line.


If you posted on 4chan for 8 years, you'd know a lot about it too.
 
2013-02-03 08:45:47 PM  

pedrop357: People hide their child porn trading because if they are caught AFTER trading it, they will be prosecuted.


The incentive not to get caught makes it harder to trade child porn.

Do you not understand the basic concepts behind having laws against things?
 
2013-02-03 08:46:11 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?


It means a weapon doesn't give a shiat who it kills.  They're all indiscriminate.

The crew of the Enola Gay didn't care who they killed, as long as they were in Hiroshima.  Lanza didn't care who he killed as long as they were inside the school.  They were indiscriminate about who they killed.
 
2013-02-03 08:46:39 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?


Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.


You know instead of changing the Constitution to suit your little snowflakeness you could always move to a nice a safe country like ;

Jamaica
Belize
St Kitts
Trinidad and Tobago
Congo
All with murder rates 6X higher than the US
 
2013-02-03 08:47:25 PM  

pedrop357: dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.

I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.


I still want a minigun chambered for .22 shells. Y'know just for kicks. Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
 
2013-02-03 08:49:03 PM  

pedrop357: dookdookdook: 34 corpses a day isn't the same as one guy choking to death on a peanut.

Stop making stupid arguments.

Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.


I think it's a cultural problem more than anything. When I was growing up and was dumped with the Norwegian relatives every summer, it was rare to hear about a murder. Still is, I think. I saw the per capita by country murder rates one or two times (I think it was from the World Fact Book or something), and I think the US murder rate (per capita) is about 10 times that of Norway. I know Norway is a wealthy country, but I grew up being told the US was wealthy as well. I've also heard the "causes" of high murder rates being everything from poverty to lack of education (which pretty much go hand in hand anyway) to the "nature vs nurture" argument to "GAWD is soooo mad you guize!" (WTF???) and probably everything in between.

There's just something in our culture that encourages, or at least excuses in the mind of the offender, this sort of behavior, I think. What it is, I do not know. I do know a gun ban/confiscation will not work and is unconstitutional. I also know not trying to do something because "it's going to happen anyway" is a defeatist attitude I just can't get behind. There are a lot of things that are going to happen anyway, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop or minimize them by addressing the underlying issues - if we can identify them.
 
2013-02-03 08:49:11 PM  
America, I'm sad that there's such a thing as carry permits of any kind, yes i understand when there is genuine need for it, but to have anyone needing it is sad case of affairs

/good for the old guy, serves the idiots right
//I love me my guns, but find it's ridiculous how America goes about it, it ain't the time of cowboys and Indians
 
2013-02-03 08:49:20 PM  

pedrop357: Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.


The very manufacture or possession of child porn is itself 100% illegal. The proper analogy would be banning gun factories.
 
2013-02-03 08:49:27 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: People hide their child porn trading because if they are caught AFTER trading it, they will be prosecuted.

The incentive not to get caught makes it harder to trade child porn.

Do you not understand the basic concepts behind having laws against things?


Sure.  BUT, it's in an invalid comparison to gun control.  UNLESS, you're interested in gun control as end unto itself.

Gun control as it relates to crime is more analogous to requiring background checks before one posts, or requiring inspection of anything posted prior to being allowed to post in order to prevent the distribution of child porn, or threats to the president, etc.
 
2013-02-03 08:49:52 PM  
Did they just fail in that cut on TV or was that just the stream?
 
2013-02-03 08:50:37 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: pedrop357: Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

The very manufacture or possession of child porn is itself 100% illegal. The proper analogy would be banning gun factories.


Leave him alone he didnt think it through.
 
2013-02-03 08:51:13 PM  
Whoops, wrong thread.
 
2013-02-03 08:51:32 PM  

pedrop357: dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.

I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.


Please, get on the rooftops with a bullhorn and tell your neighbors this. You'll do more to help gun control than that nut LaPierre ever could.
 
2013-02-03 08:52:14 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?

You seem to think guns never miss. I suggest you stop playing Call of Duty and go spend some time at the range with real ones.


Ok so you don't know what indiscriminate means. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-02-03 08:53:19 PM  

Dhusk: Why is this story in the Politics tab?

Are we going to start posting every shooting on Fark/politics now?

You know, including the many hundreds where the good guys don't win?

Or don't they count because they don't feed into the right wing's fairy tales?


Interesting projection there since it is the left that ignores all of the times firearms are used to protect self or others, since that doesn't feed into the lefts paranoia and creates less bodies for them to stand on when they push their agenda!
 
2013-02-03 08:53:24 PM  
"Hero" tag? Really??
 
2013-02-03 08:53:31 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Violating the Constitution should be a federal offense.
 
2013-02-03 08:53:44 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related, OR to pretend that drug and gang related violence only involves black people.

Haha, sure.  "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".

[www.michaelekbundit.com image 250x167]


You'd better hope the Latino and Asian gangs don't hear your race-baiting ass saying they don't get violent.  If they decide to prove you wrong you'll probably wish you'd gotten a pistol permit.
 
2013-02-03 08:54:29 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Ok so you don't know what indiscriminate means. Thanks for clearing that up.


I know what "idiot" means, its going right next to your handle.
 
2013-02-03 08:55:16 PM  

dookdookdook: FYI other countries have gangs too.

You can't make the argument "Well the American murder rate would be as low as England's murder rate if we factored out all our blacks and mexicans and gangs and schizophrenics (while not doing the same thing for England) therefore Real America doesn't actually have a gun violence problem".


Um... you're not actually arguing with what I said. I didn't make that argument.
 
2013-02-03 08:55:24 PM  

Saturn5: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Violating the Constitution should be a federal offense.


See, it's 200 years old and is different now from what it was then, so that means that the government can do whatever it things is right.  Ignore all those amendments that actually made it different, those were just formalities that can be done by legislation now.
 
2013-02-03 08:56:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297

As we tend to point out in every one of these threads, defensive uses of firearms actually outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude or two. Albeit, most DGUs do not actually end in someone getting shot, because non-criminals tend to prefer not to fire unless they absolutely have to.

//Though, in all fairness to the criminals, many gun-related crimes don't involve them actually shooting someone, either.


Self-reported DGUs outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude.  A DOJ study  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf found them to be much rarer, based upon actual crime data.  Since legitimate uses of the "self-defense" provision of homicide law are EXTREMELY rare (about 200 per year), it's likely that the difference between legitimate uses and stated uses is quite overstated, or that DGUs are somewhere in the order of 1 to 6 compared to actual crimes.  To work out the math according to the Kleck figure, one in four hundred guns is used defensively every year. That passes the smell test? The 97 survey above says that 14 million adults carried, and if we adjust that by the guns figure (they place it at 190 million compared to 2010 figures of about 300 million), then maybe 20 million adults carry nowadays. One in twenty of them used their gun this year? Wow.
 
2013-02-03 08:56:36 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Real Women Drink Akvavit: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...

In this case, both boys were acting together to commit a crime.  If the armed one killed somebody, both could be convicted of murder.  See "felony murder."  It's entirely consistent to view both as one deadly threat even if only one was armed.


I forgot all about that bit of law in the US. My cop dramas have failed me by not pounding it into my head hard enough. DAMN YOU, LAW AND ORDER FRANCHISE!!! DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO TARTARUS!!elebenty!

/did forget about that bit of law, so thanks for the reminder
//just curious how this will play out since the coach ended up being the shooter, not the wannabe felons
 
2013-02-03 08:56:44 PM  

LeGnome: "Hero" tag? Really??


Yeah. Subby wants the entire populace armed. So he can go have a beer with them and pat them on the back for being patriots, ostensibly.
 
2013-02-03 08:56:44 PM  

BigNumber12: dookdookdook: FYI other countries have gangs too.

You can't make the argument "Well the American murder rate would be as low as England's murder rate if we factored out all our blacks and mexicans and gangs and schizophrenics (while not doing the same thing for England) therefore Real America doesn't actually have a gun violence problem".

Um... you're not actually arguing with what I said. I didn't make that argument.


Like a lot of anti-gun types in these threads, he/she has a nice a strawman collection and they're going to show them off DAMMIT!
 
2013-02-03 08:57:12 PM  

Azlefty: You know instead of changing the Constitution to suit your little snowflakeness you could always move to a nice a safe country like ;

Jamaica
Belize
St Kitts
Trinidad and Tobago
Congo
All with murder rates 6X higher than the US


Ah, the reverse-Somalia argument.  Nice.
 
2013-02-03 08:57:36 PM  
Ninja problems.
 
2013-02-03 08:59:24 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?

It means a weapon doesn't give a shiat who it kills.  They're all indiscriminate.

The crew of the Enola Gay didn't care who they killed, as long as they were in Hiroshima.  Lanza didn't care who he killed as long as they were inside the school.  They were indiscriminate about who they killed.


About the closest that anyone who hasn't a clue will get so good try. Indiscriminate is when you don't target anyone in particular, a nuke doesn't target a person, it kills everyone in an are. The kids at SH were targeted, the bullets went exactly where the barrel was pointing, because a gun is a precision weapon.
 
2013-02-03 09:00:15 PM  

RsquaredW: Jim_Callahan: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297

As we tend to point out in every one of these threads, defensive uses of firearms actually outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude or two. Albeit, most DGUs do not actually end in someone getting shot, because non-criminals tend to prefer not to fire unless they absolutely have to.

//Though, in all fairness to the criminals, many gun-related crimes don't involve them actually shooting someone, either.

Self-reported DGUs outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude.  A DOJ study  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf found them to be much rarer, based upon actual crime data.  Since legitimate uses of the "self-defense" provision of homicide law are EXTREMELY rare (about 200 per year), it's likely that the difference between legitimate uses and stated uses is quite overstated, or that DGUs are somewhere in the order of 1 to 6 compared to actual crimes.  To work out the math according to the Kleck figure, one in four hundred guns is used defensively every year. That passes the smell test? The 97 survey above says that 14 million adults carried, and if we adjust that by the guns figure (they place it at 190 million compared to 2010 figures of about 300 million), then maybe 20 million adults carry nowadays. One in twenty of them used their gun this year? Wow.


GAO says there are 8 million active ccw permits.
 
2013-02-03 09:00:43 PM  

piperTom: They should count the good guys, but there is no possible way. A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.


If a situation arises where you had a good reason to point a gun at someone, then they must have been doing something that required reporting.
 
2013-02-03 09:01:43 PM  
Self defense shooting during a robbery ≠ preventing a mass shooting at a school

So... yippie ding
 
2013-02-03 09:02:17 PM  

dookdookdook: Gdalescrboz: I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country.  Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.


I absolutely agree.

The government is infringing on my second amendment rights by not allowing me to own a nuclear warhead and develop biological and chemical weapons.
 
2013-02-03 09:03:04 PM  

Xetal: I absolutely agree.

The government is infringing on my second amendment rights by not allowing me to own a nuclear warhead and develop biological and chemical weapons.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc
 
2013-02-03 09:08:00 PM  

Xetal: dookdookdook: Gdalescrboz: I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country.  Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.

I absolutely agree.

The government is infringing on my second amendment rights by not allowing me to own a nuclear warhead and develop biological and chemical weapons.


It is completely legal to create nuclear and biological "weapons".
 
2013-02-03 09:09:12 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: pedrop357: dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.

I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.

Please, get on the rooftops with a bullhorn and tell your neighbors this. You'll do more to help gun control than that nut LaPierre ever could.


in fact, you should mount loudspeakers on your car and drive around shouting this for 3 or 4 hours ever day.  It's your duty.
 
2013-02-03 09:09:41 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: In this case, both boys were acting together to commit a crime. If the armed one killed somebody, both could be convicted of murder. See "felony murder." It's entirely consistent to view both as one deadly threat even if only one was armed.


More to the point, how do you know who is and is not armed?  Two men try to rob you, one of them pointing a gun; you shoot both.  The other one may or may not have had a gun; you won't know until he is searched, after the fact.
 
2013-02-03 09:10:44 PM  

RsquaredW: Azlefty: You know instead of changing the Constitution to suit your little snowflakeness you could always move to a nice a safe country like ;

Jamaica
Belize
St Kitts
Trinidad and Tobago
Congo
All with murder rates 6X higher than the US

Ah, the reverse-Somalia argument.  Nice.


Reverse?
Somalia has some pretty strict gun laws. Permit system and all.
...just that no one listens to what there is of its government, ever.

/people ignoring laws is kind of a problem everywhere.
/Law alone is not what makes one safe.
 
2013-02-03 09:14:06 PM  
Has no one yet complained that the death penalty is not typically applied to muggers, and argued that the coach was in the wrong for using deadly force?
 
2013-02-03 09:15:00 PM  

way south: Ah, the reverse-Somalia argument. Nice.

Reverse?
Somalia has some pretty strict gun laws. Permit system and all.
...just that no one listens to what there is of its government, ever.

/people ignoring laws is kind of a problem everywhere.
/Law alone is not what makes one safe.


Usually it's the "go to Somalia, libertarian paradise" argument.  So saying "move to these delightful 3rd world countries with strict gun laws" would be a reverse-Somalia.
 
2013-02-03 09:15:09 PM  
The only way to prevent minimize the number of mass shootings is to prepare for mass shootings, and have full time "mass shooting" prevention squads. Also stop referring to anything less than double digits as a "mass" shooting.
 
2013-02-03 09:17:09 PM  

RsquaredW: reverse-Somalia


Somalia has fewer(per capita) gun deaths than the US.
 
2013-02-03 09:18:02 PM  

Dimensio: Has no one yet complained that the death penalty is not typically applied to muggers, and argued that the coach was in the wrong for using deadly force?


Tired of building your own straw men?
 
2013-02-03 09:19:36 PM  
i.imgur.com

You're slipping, Fark.
 
2013-02-03 09:20:36 PM  

doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.


A) To the idea that i) shooters are only stopped by guns, ii) shooters choose schools because they're 'soft targets' instead of just picking what fits a preconceived, batshiat narrative, and iii) they  kill themselves because  bullets hurt: Citation needed.

B) Countries that have widespread gun-control laws have fewer mass shootings. Dramatically. So unless you can prove, with pre-existing case studies (in this case, a country with widespread gun-control laws would count as a case study) that CCW among teachers is equally or more effective, why the hell should we listen to you?
 
2013-02-03 09:23:38 PM  

Dimensio: Has no one yet complained that the death penalty is not typically applied to muggers, and argued that the coach was in the wrong for using deadly force?


Keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-02-03 09:23:59 PM  

Dimensio: Has no one yet complained that the death penalty is not typically applied to muggers, and argued that the coach was in the wrong for using deadly force?


No, we're pretty much concentrating on real arguments, like private citizens should not  encouraged to take the place of paid law enforcement professionals.
 
2013-02-03 09:25:54 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!


wow, that's precise, but only 2,500 points seems a bit low for the good guys.
 
2013-02-03 09:27:40 PM  

PsiChick: B) Countries that have widespread gun-control laws have fewer mass shootings. Dramatically. So unless you can prove, with pre-existing case studies (in this case, a country with widespread gun-control laws would count as a case study) that CCW among teachers is equally or more effective, why the hell should we listen to you?


States with 'lax' gun laws like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon, etc. have much lower crime rates than gun control happy states.
 
2013-02-03 09:27:52 PM  

Gdalescrboz: BarkingUnicorn: Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?

It means a weapon doesn't give a shiat who it kills.  They're all indiscriminate.

The crew of the Enola Gay didn't care who they killed, as long as they were in Hiroshima.  Lanza didn't care who he killed as long as they were inside the school.  They were indiscriminate about who they killed.

About the closest that anyone who hasn't a clue will get so good try. Indiscriminate is when you don't target anyone in particular, a nuke doesn't target a person, it kills everyone in an are. The kids at SH were targeted, the bullets went exactly where the barrel was pointing, because a gun is a precision weapon.


You know when someone posts something so mind-bogglingly stupid you get like an ice-cream headache just from reading it?

That happened to me just now.

You have physically caused me pain over the internet, congratulations.
 
2013-02-03 09:28:18 PM  

whidbey: No, we're pretty much concentrating on real arguments, like private citizens should not encouraged to take the place of paid law enforcement professionals.


self-defense is now the exclusive province of the police?
 
2013-02-03 09:28:20 PM  
A 2002 survey shows gun ownership among people age 65 and older is on the rise. Firearms instructor Rick Ector has seen an increase of older people taking control of their personal safety, buying guns, and being trained on how to use them.

cue the "I'm okay with this.jpeg"

Now they need something to use against bankers . . .
 
2013-02-03 09:29:41 PM  
CPP
 
2013-02-03 09:29:59 PM  
media.washtimes.com
 
2013-02-03 09:32:20 PM  
Psi Chick : have you researched the Korean war since you found out about it last week? Why would anyone listen to you? AverageAmericanGuy : a mancatcher? Subby : misleading headline, lets be better than that. Sorry folks, hotmail not working on my tab and I'm not tab savy enough to figure it out.
 
2013-02-03 09:32:23 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Gdalescrboz: BarkingUnicorn: Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?

It means a weapon doesn't give a shiat who it kills.  They're all indiscriminate.

The crew of the Enola Gay didn't care who they killed, as long as they were in Hiroshima.  Lanza didn't care who he killed as long as they were inside the school.  They were indiscriminate about who they killed.

About the closest that anyone who hasn't a clue will get so good try. Indiscriminate is when you don't target anyone in particular, a nuke doesn't target a person, it kills everyone in an are. The kids at SH were targeted, the bullets went exactly where the barrel was pointing, because a gun is a precision weapon.

You know when someone posts something so mind-bogglingly stupid you get like an ice-cream headache just from reading it?

That happened to me just now.

You have physically caused me pain over the internet, congratulations.


Good idea, go eat ice cream while adults talk
 
2013-02-03 09:36:36 PM  
2 kids shot at a school, one dead.  This is the gun nuts' version of a victory.  WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.
 
2013-02-03 09:37:54 PM  

Emposter: WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.


Suggestions?
 
2013-02-03 09:39:06 PM  
So some "hero" with murder fantasies kills a young male who just wanted some cash, and that makes guns cool now? The coach could have just given him his wallet. Is a young man's life worth the few bucks you have in your pocket? Yes the guy was wrong for trying to rob the coach, but he was a product of his surroundings who shows time and time again that they don't care about the black man. The coach could have tried to open a line of dialogue with him. Maybe helped him understand what he was doing was wrong, and helped him turn his life around.
Instead he got the moment he had been waiting his whole life for, the chance to use his penis extention to murder someone and get away with it. If states would be resonsible and not issue 'concealed murder permits' this young man would still be alive.


/Thats a lot of derp, right? Thats what you anti gun people sound like.
 
2013-02-03 09:39:56 PM  

pedrop357: PsiChick: B) Countries that have widespread gun-control laws have fewer mass shootings. Dramatically. So unless you can prove, with pre-existing case studies (in this case, a country with widespread gun-control laws would count as a case study) that CCW among teachers is equally or more effective, why the hell should we listen to you?

States with 'lax' gun laws like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon, etc. have much lower crime rates than gun control happy states.


...Okay, but let's pretend that 'state' and 'nation' are different things, and when the experiment is repeated on the  appropriate scale, your argument does not hold true.

This is a very important thing to know for your own personal life choices--one of the ways advertisers make their products sound better than they are is to cite a study that uses the wrong sample size or demographic. For example, a lot of painkillers advertised for PMS were never tested on women.
 
2013-02-03 09:40:23 PM  
Queue the  self-righteous  mother screaming. "He didnt need to kill my babhe".
 
2013-02-03 09:42:33 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: did the gun pick itself up and kill the person?

derp de derp

How do you get 87?  Are you including suicides?

Link

Sorry, does 34 gun murders per day sound more acceptable?  What is the allowable number of deaths per day in your opinion?


Are the people shot leftist tyrants or criminals? Well , same thing, but if so there should be no limit until the commie/criminal problem is erradicated.
 
2013-02-03 09:42:48 PM  

Emposter: 2 kids shot at a school, one dead.  This is the gun nuts' version of a victory.  WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.


Make robbery illegal? More free government money for the poor robbers? "Education," so that they suddenly realize that robbery is bad?
 
2013-02-03 09:44:46 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dimensio: Has no one yet complained that the death penalty is not typically applied to muggers, and argued that the coach was in the wrong for using deadly force?

Tired of building your own straw men?


Asking if an argument seriously presented in previous discussions has yet been presented in this discussion is not construction of a "straw man".
 
2013-02-03 09:45:26 PM  

clambam: iheartscotch: Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.

Who shouldn't be allowed unlimited access to guns?


We have figured out how to breed violence out: we make laws target violent natured people and punishments that remove them from society. It's called social justice. People are less violent now then they have been historically because of how we remove those who won't comply with what we deem acceptable. If someone doesn't want to play nice, they can go sit in a prison and take their violent genetics with them.

We are getting better, but we still have a way to go.
 
2013-02-03 09:45:28 PM  

MythDragon: So some "hero" with murder fantasies kills a young male who just wanted some cash, and that makes guns cool now? The coach could have just given him his wallet. Is a young man's life worth the few bucks you have in your pocket? Yes the guy was wrong for trying to rob the coach, but he was a product of his surroundings who shows time and time again that they don't care about the black man. The coach could have tried to open a line of dialogue with him. Maybe helped him understand what he was doing was wrong, and helped him turn his life around.
Instead he got the moment he had been waiting his whole life for, the chance to use his penis extention to murder someone and get away with it. If states would be resonsible and not issue 'concealed murder permits' this young man would still be alive.


/Thats a lot of derp, right? Thats what you anti gun people sound like.


Some people need killing.
 
2013-02-03 09:45:35 PM  
MythDragon : absent your name and the last line, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.
 
2013-02-03 09:47:52 PM  
Are the people shot leftist tyrants or criminals? Well , same thing, but if so there should be no limit until the commie/criminal problem is erradicated.
 
2013-02-03 09:47:57 PM  

pedrop357: Emposter: WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.

Suggestions?


Students could choose not to commit armed robbery.
 
2013-02-03 09:49:31 PM  
Are the people shot leftist tyrants or criminals? Well , same thing, but if so there should be no limit until the commie/criminal problem is erradicated.
 
2013-02-03 09:49:52 PM  
I'm really surprised that rape-victim blaming hasn't made "she shoulda been packin' a glock" a regular talking point.
 
2013-02-03 09:50:39 PM  

Emposter: 2 kids armed robbers shot at a school, one dead.  This is the gun nuts' everyone's version of a victory.  WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all leave them at the mercy of armed criminals.


Fixed
 
2013-02-03 09:51:14 PM  

Dimensio: pedrop357: Emposter: WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.

Suggestions?

Students could choose not to commit armed robbery.


Hopefully a few will after hearing about this.
 
2013-02-03 09:52:59 PM  

s2s2s2: I'm really surprised that rape-victim blaming hasn't made "she shoulda been packin' a glock" a regular talking point.


No, she shouldn't have been asking for it.
 
2013-02-03 09:56:28 PM  

The Muthaship: WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all leave them at the mercy of armed criminals.

Fixed


The victim could be armed and very well-trained, have a buddy with them who's also armed and even have their gun drawn at the time and still have it do jack squat to prevent their deaths.
 
2013-02-03 09:57:26 PM  

cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297


Absolutely. I bet right now the 70 year old coach is working out the statistics and cursing himself for being an outlier, rather than being happy to have survived...
 
2013-02-03 09:58:15 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: The victim could be armed and very well-trained, have a buddy with them who's also armed and even have their gun drawn at the time and still have it do jack squat to prevent their deaths.


Yep, but they have a better chance that they would without them.  And this coach is also a cop.  Understandable that he'd have a gun.
 
2013-02-03 10:01:43 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: That's my point. News stories where guns are used responsibly and effectively are typically ignored willfully suppressed by the press.


/Fixed
 
2013-02-03 10:01:58 PM  
Somebody confuse their alts and double comment?
 
2013-02-03 10:02:19 PM  

The Muthaship: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: The victim could be armed and very well-trained, have a buddy with them who's also armed and even have their gun drawn at the time and still have it do jack squat to prevent their deaths.

Yep, but they have a better chance that they would without them.  And this coach is also a cop.  Understandable that he'd have a gun.


With that slightly better chance of successful self-defense comes a significantly increased chance of causing a wrongful death or acting on suicidal impulses, however.
 
2013-02-03 10:02:31 PM  

winterbraid: let's not get ahead of ourselves here - have we determined the ethnicity of this so-called "hero?"

/'cause sometimes the NRA does support gun control...


Hey look, someone who is unaware that the democrats in the 60's tried to use gun control to keep African Americans defenseless.  But that's ok, just keep listening to the people who tell you they are good people.  They would never lie to you.  They promise.
 
2013-02-03 10:03:09 PM  

Yogimus: s2s2s2: I'm really surprised that rape-victim blaming hasn't made "she shoulda been packin' a glock" a regular talking point.

No, she shouldn't have been asking for it.


It's her murder fantasy, so I guess she was, huh?
 
2013-02-03 10:04:34 PM  

spacelord321: Somebody confuse their alts and double comment?


www.youlaughyoulose.org
 
2013-02-03 10:06:27 PM  
HeadPound : not everyone has suicidal impulses.
 
2013-02-03 10:06:59 PM  

The Muthaship: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: The victim could be armed and very well-trained, have a buddy with them who's also armed and even have their gun drawn at the time and still have it do jack squat to prevent their deaths.

Yep, but they have a better chance that they would without them.  And this coach is also a cop.  Understandable that he'd have a gun.


Oh, if he is a cop, then its all good.  Cops deserve to be able to protect themselves.
 
2013-02-03 10:09:00 PM  
HeadPound : I was talking about gunner666 and redmid17. Why would you think I was refering to you?
 
2013-02-03 10:11:02 PM  

Yogimus: Oh, if he is a cop, then its all good.  Cops deserve to be able to protect themselves.


Yes, yes.  The government and its agents deserve our complete trust.....
 
2013-02-03 10:12:41 PM  

spacelord321: HeadPound : I was talking about gunner666 and redmid17. Why would you think I was refering to you?


It's called "dog-piling". I'm mocking your naivete, much as <b>redmid17</b> was mocking <b>gunner666</b>'s need to repeat himself.
 
2013-02-03 10:22:39 PM  
Missed the first double comment. Point to you.
 
2013-02-03 10:29:34 PM  
Every time I read one of these threads, I'm reminded that everyone on both of the extreme ends of the political spectrum are complete morons.
 
2013-02-03 10:34:12 PM  

Xploder: Every time I read one of these threads, I'm reminded that everyone on both of the extreme ends of the political spectrum are complete morons.


Only morons and the Dutch make complete sweeping generalizations.
 
2013-02-03 10:50:57 PM  

austerity101: Anderson's Pooper: GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?

Use it however you want. Just don't pretend that this story will be given the same coverage as the tragic ones. My guess is that this school's choir doesn't get invited to sing at the Superbowl next year.

When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?


I think that if this had been a successful mugging, it wouldn't have even made the news in the first place, ya know?
 
2013-02-03 10:52:36 PM  

pedrop357: Your Average Witty Fark User: pedrop357: Your Average Witty Fark User: Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.

Does the government provide the internet?

Doesn't matter, it isn't mentioned, so GFY. The Constitution doesn't mention tactical nukes either, slappy.

It should matter since the Constitution is a document that defines and limits government.  It provides no power for them to censor speech, regardless of the media, and provides no power to ban guns in schools.


For the stupid in here, I'll repeat myself:

There is a lot of shiat not mentioned in the Constitution. It should all be banned, if it isn't in there, according to you. We should only have what is specifically mentioned.

Now GFY. Again.
 
2013-02-03 10:53:49 PM  

Bananarchy: austerity101: Anderson's Pooper: GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?

Use it however you want. Just don't pretend that this story will be given the same coverage as the tragic ones. My guess is that this school's choir doesn't get invited to sing at the Superbowl next year.

When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?

I think that if this had been a successful mugging, it wouldn't have even made the news in the first place, ya know?


No, but it WOULD add to the statistics.
 
2013-02-03 10:56:10 PM  
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/date/2013/1/#homicide_link_2802900

A fun little website to track how a gun free utopia functions.
 
2013-02-03 10:57:52 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: For the stupid in here, I'll repeat myself:

There is a lot of shiat not mentioned in the Constitution. It should all be banned, if it isn't in there, according to you. We should only have what is specifically mentioned.

Now GFY. Again.



It's not a stretch to suggest that weapons the military possesses are allowed under the power to have a military; nor is it a stretch to say that the prohibition on interfering with free speech applies to new speech methods the way it does old speech.

The powers granted to the government do not allow them to infringe on the right to bear arms, nor does it allow something like banning possession of firearms in schools.
 
2013-02-03 11:09:40 PM  

pedrop357: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc


i'll raise you...
/at 1 minute in.
 
2013-02-03 11:11:42 PM  
Nothing ever good happens near a school or street named after MLK.

State streets too.
 
2013-02-03 11:12:39 PM  

GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?


Yeah, and where I have to point out that law enforcement doctrine at the time was to NOT engage armed persons in a school when sighted.

The presumption up until that point was that an armed individual at a school was there to take hostages, not start shooting.  The standard response plan was to let him take hostages, get a hostage negotiator and SWAT team on site, let the negotiator do his work, and expect him to eventually talk the gunman into surrendering.

By the time the guard at Columbine realized that it wasn't a hostage scenario, it was a massacre, he was not in a good position to end the situation.

It's much like how until 9/11 the standard law enforcement reply about handling a hijacking was to not resist, that the hijackers just wanted to take the plane to some other country, maybe for a political statement, maybe for ransom, but everybody would be unharmed as long as nobody resisted.

Columbine changed the doctrine of how armed intruders at schools were handled just as much as 9/11 changed air hijacking response doctrine.
 
2013-02-03 11:18:11 PM  
I wouldn't want to go to a high school in Detroit with any less firepower than Rambo.
 
2013-02-03 11:27:07 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related, OR to pretend that drug and gang related violence only involves black people.

Haha, sure.  "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".


Plenty of ethnic diversity in gangs. You must really need an excuse for your failure of a life huh.

/ turns out it's the shiatty attitude not the appearance.
 
2013-02-03 11:30:50 PM  
Silverstaff : nice contribution. Nailed it.
 
2013-02-03 11:35:12 PM  

spacelord321: Silverstaff : nice contribution. Nailed it.


I'll put my +1/This for his post here.
 
2013-02-03 11:42:26 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Maybe we need less guns and more of these:
[www.sasumata.jp image 400x300]


No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.
 
2013-02-03 11:45:24 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL schools are gun free zones. I think he did the right think, I also think he should be charged, too.

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
2013-02-03 11:48:03 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.



Still... what part of the Constitution says it's okay for the feds to pass a law like that?
 
2013-02-03 11:50:26 PM  
Of course the mother of the dead one is saying "He was a good boy...

Did you see the interview with the instructor at the gun range? You can rent a M-72 LAW rocket there. Farkin' awesome!!!

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-02-03 11:51:42 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: In this case, both boys were acting together to commit a crime. If the armed one killed somebody, both could be convicted of murder. See "felony murder." It's entirely consistent to view both as one deadly threat even if only one was armed.

I forgot all about that bit of law in the US. My cop dramas have failed me by not pounding it into my head hard enough. DAMN YOU, LAW AND ORDER FRANCHISE!!! DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO TARTARUS!!elebenty!

/did forget about that bit of law, so thanks for the reminder
//just curious how this will play out since the coach ended up being the shooter, not the wannabe felons


We really have only sketchy info from a Fox affiliate, and some of it's already proven wrong.  This could play out any number of ways.

Maybe the pedophilic coach was kidnapping the girls, and these fine young men were trying to rescue them.
 
2013-02-03 11:52:27 PM  
www.tshirthell.com

It's a little outdated now...sadly


I don't know what changed, but something about the generation of kids who hit high school in the mid to late 90's (myself included) led to the current culture. Sorry about that.

/I blame Heathers
media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com
 var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c , s);})();
 
2013-02-03 11:53:24 PM  

Tsar_Bomba1: Of course the mother of the dead one is saying "He was a good boy...

Did you see the interview with the instructor at the gun range? You can rent a M-72 LAW rocket there. Farkin' awesome!!!

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x478]



"Priscilla Scott, family members and her son's friends, gathered in the snowy parking lot where it's believed her 16 year old son, Michael Scott was shot. Detroit police say Scott and his 16 year old friend were attempting to rob the 70 year old girl's assistant basketball coach Friday around 7:30pm. "


Hmm...
 
2013-02-03 11:53:24 PM  

LaughingRadish: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.

Still... what part of the Constitution says it's okay for the feds to pass a law like that?


Until you take this to the Supreme Court and they find that law unconstitutional, it already is a federal offense... no matter how much you whine about it.
 
2013-02-03 11:53:24 PM  

piperTom: Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!

They should count the good guys, but there is no possible way.  A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.


So its a matter of faith then, since you don't actually know of any such encounter.
 
2013-02-03 11:55:16 PM  
sorry about the gibberish in the above post, not sure where it came from...
 
2013-02-04 12:07:19 AM  
What do you expect us to use man, harsh language?
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
It's farkin' Detroit fer Christ's sake!
 
2013-02-04 12:13:24 AM  
Why would someone try and rob a 70 year old jr. high school coach? Chances are good they don't have any money.

/I keed
 
2013-02-04 12:24:24 AM  

Brainsick: sorry about the gibberish in the above post, not sure where it came from...


It's a gun thread.  High levels of radiation and all that.
 
2013-02-04 12:25:53 AM  

unregenerate: clambam: iheartscotch: Blah blah blah, guns bad; blah blah blah

It's not a gun control problem; it's a people control problem. Until someone figures out how to either control humanity or breed violence out; we will be a small people; a silly people; barbarous and cruel.

Who shouldn't be allowed unlimited access to guns?

We have figured out how to breed violence out: we make laws target violent natured people and punishments that remove them from society. It's called social justice. People are less violent now then they have been historically because of how we remove those who won't comply with what we deem acceptable. If someone doesn't want to play nice, they can go sit in a prison and take their violent genetics with them.

We are getting better, but we still have a way to go.


Guns control people and weed the violent out of the gene pool quite effectively.
 
2013-02-04 12:28:05 AM  

ZeroPly: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297

Absolutely. I bet right now the 70 year old coach is working out the statistics and cursing himself for being an outlier, rather than being happy to have survived...


Nah. He's probably banging the two girls.
 
2013-02-04 12:37:39 AM  
This just in, Chicago is a shiatty place to live! No wonder Obama wanted to leave so bad.
 
2013-02-04 12:38:33 AM  
So basically a fluke happened?  Good for him.

But you're still putting yourself and your children even more at risk by insisting that you need to carry one with you 24/7.
 
2013-02-04 12:40:06 AM  

GUTSU: This just in, Chicago is a shiatty place to live! No wonder Obama wanted to leave so bad.


That's exactly the kind of witty insight we've come to expect from you.
 
2013-02-04 12:40:29 AM  

pheelix: Your Average Witty Fark User: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL schools are gun free zones. I think he did the right think, I also think he should be charged, too.

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, as amended, applies only to guns that have moved in or may affect interstate commerce.

Yes, really, that's the fix they threw on after the SCOTUS struck down the original.
 
2013-02-04 12:41:19 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GUTSU: This just in, Chicago is a shiatty place to live! No wonder Obama wanted to leave so bad.

That's exactly the kind of witty insight we've come to expect from you.


Hey, if you think chicago is such a nice place to raise a family, by all means move there.
 
2013-02-04 12:42:03 AM  

Azlefty: jbc: Especially to keep the count correct, since the guys who need a gun just to get an erection tend to overestimate by several magnitudes of order.

Funny how it is the "progressives" that seem to like to misquote Freud, perhaps it is their way of projecting their "little issues" onto those they fear- or perhaps lust after?


kmmontandon: And I swear, if you cite John Lott, I will cockpunch you through the Internet.

So the thought of John Lott makes you wan to touch my junk, Kinky to say the least.


gtfo n00b qft
 
2013-02-04 12:43:48 AM  
Mugging of one person ends up with only 1 dead, 1 critically injured. A new record!

We should cheer this.
 
2013-02-04 12:46:41 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: So basically a fluke happened?  Good for him.

But you're still putting yourself and your children even more at risk by insisting that you need to carry one with you 24/7.


Hurr we should arm the teachers. With opportunities for target practice during recess. HURRRR.
 
2013-02-04 12:47:13 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Your technique seems overly simplistic to me, but you are a very effective troll. Maybe I should take a lesson from you and stop over-estimating the mental capacities of trollees.
 
2013-02-04 12:47:16 AM  
Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.
 
2013-02-04 12:48:49 AM  

justtray: Mugging of one person ends up with only 1 dead, 1 critically injured. A new record!

We should cheer this.


That old guy probably isn't so cheery, because he didn't kill both of them he most likely has a massive legal headache to deal with.
 
2013-02-04 12:49:12 AM  

justtray: Mugging of one person ends up with only 1 dead, 1 critically injured. A new record!

We should cheer this.


Different lives hold different values.  The death of the "kid" was an over-all gain for society.
 
2013-02-04 12:49:28 AM  

ransack.: Your technique seems overly simplistic to me,


Who are you talking to?  I keep seeing this bolded name, but no comments.  Oh.  I've had him on ignore for being an obvious troll for a good year now  Never mind.
 
2013-02-04 12:51:18 AM  

justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.


Exactly, he should have just bared his neck and threw everything valuable at two people who would potentially killed him. How dare him not allowing himself and those two girls to be victims?
 
2013-02-04 12:52:02 AM  

justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.


Easy way these little shiats could have avoided being shot..

maybe not try mugging people..


Blame the person for defending the little money he has... Liberal Amurica
 
2013-02-04 12:52:39 AM  

GUTSU: justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.

Exactly, he should have just bared his neck and threw everything valuable at two people who would potentially killed him. How dare him not allowing himself and those two girls to be victims?


Successfully removes a boil from the ass of society.
 
2013-02-04 12:54:28 AM  

Yogimus: GUTSU: justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.

Exactly, he should have just bared his neck and threw everything valuable at two people who would potentially killed him. How dare him not allowing himself and those two girls to be victims?

Successfully removes a boil from the ass of society.


I thought that was what happened, he about removed two but apparently one boil was a little more lucky then the other.
 
2013-02-04 12:55:08 AM  

Yogimus: GUTSU: justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.

Exactly, he should have just bared his neck and threw everything valuable at two people who would potentially killed him. How dare him not allowing himself and those two girls to be victims?

Successfully removes a boil from the ass of society.


Eh? Well since I've had a bit to much cherry whiskey I'm just goin' go, because I have no idea what you mean.
 
2013-02-04 01:03:57 AM  

Yogimus: GUTSU: justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.

Exactly, he should have just bared his neck and threw everything valuable at two people who would potentially killed him. How dare him not allowing himself and those two girls to be victims?

Successfully removes a boil from the ass of society.


Truly he is a hero. The only question is, who is more of a hero? Him or the sniper that had 160 confirmed brown people kills for Jesus?

I think it's about even.
 
2013-02-04 01:05:21 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.


Eighteenth century people problems. I agree with you, but too many people out there worship the founding fathers that we'll never see this sort of amendment.
 
2013-02-04 01:06:20 AM  

GUTSU: justtray: Mugging of one person ends up with only 1 dead, 1 critically injured. A new record!

We should cheer this.

That old guy probably isn't so cheery, because he didn't kill both of them he most likely has a massive legal headache to deal with.


Michigan law prohibits civil suits in self defense cases:

Sec. 2922b. An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:

(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.

(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual.


Additionally the court can and will award attorneys fees and other costs to the defendant if he is sued by the other party:


Sec. 2922c. The court shall award the payment of actual attorney fees and costs to an individual who is sued for civil damages for allegedly using deadly force or force other than deadly force against another individual if the court determines that the individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act and that the individual is immune from civil liability under section 2922b.


So yeah he might have to deal with a civil suit, but he pretty much has a summary judgment plus costs ruling waiting for him.
 
2013-02-04 01:10:24 AM  
I'm gonna go with this guy, not the sniper. I'm a pro-gun, anti-imperialist. What else you got?
 
2013-02-04 01:12:04 AM  

pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.


Then what's the point of owning any weapons? An unarmed good guy should be able to fight back against an unarmed bad guy. Or do you just like the idea of unarmed people getting shot?
 
2013-02-04 01:12:17 AM  
About a year ago I was in Baltimore downtown and some kids asked me if they could borrow my phone to call their parents. I obliged. They took it, started to dial some numbers, then ran away. Fortunately I was carrying so I shot the one who didn't run in the head, then fired at the other two running, hitting one in the leg disabling him, and the other in the back. He later succumed to his wounds. I picked up my phone from the kid (high schoolers) and called the cops.
 
2013-02-04 01:15:32 AM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: did the gun pick itself up and kill the person?

derp de derp

How do you get 87?  Are you including suicides?

Link

Sorry, does 34 gun murders per day sound more acceptable?  What is the allowable number of deaths per day in your opinion?


He doesn't care, as long as HIS rights aren't being violated.
 
2013-02-04 01:16:23 AM  

justtray: About a year ago I was in Baltimore downtown and some kids asked me if they could borrow my phone to call their parents. I obliged. They took it, started to dial some numbers, then ran away. Fortunately I was carrying so I shot the one who didn't run in the head, then fired at the other two running, hitting one in the leg disabling him, and the other in the back. He later succumed to his wounds. I picked up my phone from the kid (high schoolers) and called the cops.


You did the right thing and society is grateful to you.
 
2013-02-04 01:21:49 AM  

pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez


I see you have a reading comprehension issue:

"Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws. The revised Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. None of the convictions occurring under the revised law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision."
 
2013-02-04 01:27:49 AM  

Abacus9: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Then what's the point of owning any weapons? An unarmed good guy should be able to fight back against an unarmed bad guy. Or do you just like the idea of unarmed people getting shot?


You are correct. Because all individuals are equally capable of using unarmed attacks as a means of defense against unprovoked aggressors, the carrying of defensive firearms is demonstrably unnecessary.
 
2013-02-04 01:32:53 AM  
And he would still be able to do this if all of Obama's gun regulations passes.
 
2013-02-04 01:33:18 AM  
Every man has a gun.

kubrickfilms.tripod.com
 
2013-02-04 01:35:59 AM  

Abacus9: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Then what's the point of owning any weapons? An unarmed good guy should be able to fight back against an unarmed bad guy. Or do you just like the idea of unarmed people getting shot?


I'll remember that the next time a 90 year old woman is getting raped by an 18 year old guy.

http://www.mizozo.com/weird/01/2011/07/maurice-randall-teenager-sent en ced-to-30-60-years-....html

She should have done better next time.
 
2013-02-04 01:54:22 AM  

Abacus9: Then what's the point of owning any weapons? An unarmed good guy should be able to fight back against an unarmed bad guy. Or do you just like the idea of unarmed people getting shot?


1/10
 
2013-02-04 02:00:42 AM  

justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

Amurica.


Not allowed to defend yourself or your property

I'd say France, but they are physically unable to do so, legalities just ensure it, so...
England?
 
2013-02-04 02:27:46 AM  

Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass


The argument is about where to draw the line. I've heard from a few farkers that they should be allowed to carry loaded rocket launchers down the street, and should be allowed to carry anything that constitutes "arms."
 
2013-02-04 02:31:03 AM  
Guns don't save people, people save people.
 
2013-02-04 02:32:44 AM  

Jim_Callahan: It's not OK to make an argument where you claim that even a single life lost is so unacceptable that it calls for rewriting national policy. By that standard literally no law could have ever been made, so the argument is about as sensical as saying that we should ban guns because peppermint the walnut casserole. Dublin!


"It's better that a hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly incarcerated." That's not word for word, but the idea stands. And no one claimed a single life lost. Seriously, is this acceptable to you?

I mean, we could use this logic to argue that your mother should have had an abortion before you were born, because by existing you contribute to US traffic patterns, and US traffic patterns kill 1000+ people a day. How many deaths are you going to call acceptable, just so you can selfishly not kill yourself? How many?

Maximum derpitude.
 
2013-02-04 02:37:18 AM  

Dimensio: Abacus9: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Then what's the point of owning any weapons? An unarmed good guy should be able to fight back against an unarmed bad guy. Or do you just like the idea of unarmed people getting shot?

You are correct. Because all individuals are equally capable of using unarmed attacks as a means of defense against unprovoked aggressors, the carrying of defensive firearms is demonstrably unnecessary.

less lethal.
 
2013-02-04 02:43:27 AM  

jbc: Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!

Especially to keep the count correct, since the guys who need a gun just to get an erection tend to overestimate by several magnitudes of order.


Gun haters have an unhealthy obsession with penises.  You should probably seek therapy for that.
 
2013-02-04 02:44:01 AM  
Sometimes "lethal" is the desired effect.
 
2013-02-04 02:46:54 AM  

pedrop357: Your Average Witty Fark User: Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.

Does the government provide the internet?


The government invented the internet.  BTW, the government did not provide me with any guns.  It seems I didn't qualify for that since I'm not a Mexican drug lord.
 
2013-02-04 02:48:52 AM  

Azlefty: dookdookdook: pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?


Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.

You know instead of changing the Constitution to suit your little snowflakeness you could always move to a nice a safe country like ;

Jamaica
Belize
St Kitts
Trinidad and Tobago
Congo
All with murder rates 6X higher than the US


Yay! We have a smaller murder rate than 3rd world countries!
 
2013-02-04 02:51:18 AM  

JohnnyC: pedrop357: austerity101: If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it. Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.

Well, given that CCW holders can't carry in schools in 46 or states, and most schools don't have even a single armed resource officer/security guard/police officer, I suppose that's why it doesn't happen.

Columbine High School had an armed security guard at the time of the attack. But by all means, do go on.


And he was credited with saving dozens of lives.  He was, unfortunately, unable to get off a clean shot to take out one of the perps.  You see, people trained with firearms and shooting for the good guys* don't generally fire into crowds hitting innocents is considered "a very bad thing".  The bad guys, however, typically don't have that limitation.

* trained good guys excludes NYPD
 
2013-02-04 03:00:05 AM  

Saturn5: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Violating the Constitution should be a federal capital offense.


FTF Justice.
 
2013-02-04 03:01:59 AM  

Emposter: 2 kids shot at a school, one dead.  This is the gun nuts' version of a victory.  WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.


How typical.  Turn it around and make the victim the criminal.  Your kind makes me sick.
 
2013-02-04 03:08:07 AM  

spacelord321: MythDragon : absent your name and the last line, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.


redmid17:Are the people shot leftist tyrants or criminals? Well , same thing, but if so there should be no limit until the commie/criminal problem is erradicated.

Are all trolls alts? Well, same thing, but there should be no limit until the trolls/alts problem is erradicated.
 
2013-02-04 03:08:54 AM  

justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.


The amount of money doesn't matter.  Whether it is a single dollar or a million dollars, the right to defend yourself and your property remains the same.
 
2013-02-04 03:18:26 AM  

Abacus9: spacelord321: MythDragon : absent your name and the last line, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.

redmid17:Are the people shot leftist tyrants or criminals? Well , same thing, but if so there should be no limit until the commie/criminal problem is erradicated.

Are all trolls alts? Well, same thing, but there should be no limit until the trolls/alts problem is erradicated.


If you're going to call me an alt, at least reply to something I posted. I'm not sure how you managed to drag my handle into something in haven't even replied to but it doesn't surprise me judging by the content of some of your posts.
 
2013-02-04 03:24:24 AM  

Yogimus: Sometimes "lethal" is the desired effect.


I'm not sure if you're a sociopath or just a troll, but either way:
0/10.
 
2013-02-04 03:28:07 AM  

redmid17: Abacus9: spacelord321: MythDragon : absent your name and the last line, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.

redmid17:Are the people shot leftist tyrants or criminals? Well , same thing, but if so there should be no limit until the commie/criminal problem is erradicated.

Are all trolls alts? Well, same thing, but there should be no limit until the trolls/alts problem is erradicated.

If you're going to call me an alt, at least reply to something I posted. I'm not sure how you managed to drag my handle into something in haven't even replied to but it doesn't surprise me judging by the content of some of your posts.


Yeah, I misquoted, not sure how. I intended to quote gunner666 not spacelord321.
 
2013-02-04 03:34:39 AM  
Yep. My fault redmid17. Didn't realize it was a "dogpile". A new term to me, although the concept is not. Just missed the initial gunner666 comment.
 
2013-02-04 03:37:16 AM  

Abacus9: Yogimus: Sometimes "lethal" is the desired effect.

I'm not sure if you're a sociopath or just a troll, but either way:
0/10.


I don't value all life equally.
 
2013-02-04 03:42:59 AM  
I gotta go with Yogimus on this one. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
 
2013-02-04 04:10:57 AM  

Yogimus: Abacus9: Yogimus: Sometimes "lethal" is the desired effect.

I'm not sure if you're a sociopath or just a troll, but either way:
0/10.

I don't value all life equally.


Based on many of your posts, you don't seem to value any at all.
 
2013-02-04 04:30:42 AM  
How many people do you think Yogimus robbed today?
 
2013-02-04 04:51:41 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: justtray: About a year ago I was in Baltimore downtown and some kids asked me if they could borrow my phone to call their parents. I obliged. They took it, started to dial some numbers, then ran away. Fortunately I was carrying so I shot the one who didn't run in the head, then fired at the other two running, hitting one in the leg disabling him, and the other in the back. He later succumed to his wounds. I picked up my phone from the kid (high schoolers) and called the cops.

You did the right thing and society is grateful to you.


/and you should be in jail for murder.
 
2013-02-04 05:25:55 AM  
Its Detroit. Call me if it happens in a place not living in "Mad Max Times".

cdn4.getnetworth.com

"Who run Bartertown?"
 
2013-02-04 05:38:23 AM  

austerity101: Anderson's Pooper: austerity101: When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?

That's my point. News stories where guns are used responsibly and effectively are typically ignored by the press. If they treated the tragic stories the same, perhaps we wouldn't see as many copycats. I blame the 24/7 news cycle for extending the life of a lot of these stories.

Even *successful* muggings are given virtually no air time.  This story will be largely ignored not because it isn't tragic, but because it isn't as compelling a story as a larger crisis such as a school shooting.  

If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it.  Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.


It does happen actually, but I ask you this.  If a school shooting was stopped by someone with a gun, how would you know?  By the sheer lack of the school shooting?  Maybe a mention like this article about a guy stopping 2 people?  If, hypothetically, the 2 guys in this article were going to shoot the victims after, can you tell?  No.
 
2013-02-04 05:43:44 AM  

OgreMagi: justtray: Victim bravely defends himself, killing one, possibly two kids who try to mug him. Successfully defends the $3.50 in his wallet.

The amount of money doesn't matter.  Whether it is a single dollar or a million dollars, the right to defend yourself and your property remains the same.


In the grand scheme of things, acts of self defense save money and lives.
Kids who take to crime might attack dozens of people during their predatory "career" before either ending up in jail or killing someone.  If they go to jail and don't learn their lesson (and many don't) then they only come out to commit more brazen crimes, and the process repeats until something tragic happens.

No, someone's life is not worth the contents of your wallet. But a mugger thinks nothing of threateningYOUR life or assaulting you for the same fistful of money.  They create dangerous situations and will continue to do so until stopped.
When one is injured or removed from the gene pool it prevents attacks and discourages others from taking up mugging as a hobby.

On the flip side, people confronted with guns aren't stupid. They are faster to comply and less likely to be injured.
So its mainly those committing the crime that face risk and the loss when attacking armed victims.
Darwin suggests that this form of crime won't persist for long if the predators keep dying for such small rewards.

The principle of self defense extends very far behind that $3.50 which was saved.
 
2013-02-04 05:45:11 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: piperTom: Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!

They should count the good guys, but there is no possible way.  A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.

Maybe you should be encouraging your fellow "good guys with guns" to report crimes to law enforcement, so that you'd have something other than a bare assertion pulled from your ass.


One man was killed and another was at large Wednesday after a woman put her father's lesson in firearms to use during a burglary in southeast Oak Cliff. "I just hate that she didn't get both of them,' said Charles Brown, the homeowner. Dallas police say Brown's daughter was upstairs about 11:30 a.m. when the two men kicked down the front door of the family's home... The woman, alerted by a home alarm, fired several shots at the men, striking at least one of them as they charged up the stairs. Both men ran out of the front door, where one of them collapsed. The armed intruder was taken to Methodist Dallas Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. (The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX, 10/18/12)

While at home with his wife and daughter, a homeowner prepared to go outside to investigate a sudden power outage. His wife asked him to carry his firearm with him as a precaution. As he opened the front door to step outside, three men charged him in an attempt to gain entry. The homeowner pushed his wife aside as he fell backward and fired at the intruders. His daughter, a student in her early 20s, hid in another room and called police. One of the three home invaders suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was listed in serious condition. The remaining two suspects managed to escape. The homeowner and his family were not seriously injured. (Sun Sentinel, Miramar, FL, 10/2/12)

As he stared down the barrel of a would-be robber's gun Tuesday, the 70-year-old owner of Eddie's Market had one thought. "He said, 'Don't move. Don't move.' I thought, 'This is my house. Why am I not going to move? You don't move,'" recalled Edilberto Fontanez, who has run the corner store for four decades. So, when the armed assailant tried to jump the high counter, the shop-keeper grabbed his own handgun and fired two shots. The robber fled, but was apprehended a short time later-and police now are eying him as a suspect in a series of other armed robberies in the Hill neighborhood. (The New Haven Register, New Haven, CT, 9/27/12)

George Polanin, 66, went to bed early one evening only to be awakened by noises coming from inside his home. He was upstairs and followed the sound of footsteps to the basement. when he reached the stairs. Polanin said he could see only the intruder's feet. "... I got my weapon and basically told him I had a weapon, it was loaded and I will use it," Polanin said. He then ordered the intruder to come out as he dialed 911. Polanin held the intruder at gunpoint until police arrived. (Kenosha News, Kenosha, WI, 10/17/12)
 George Polanin, 66, went to bed early one evening only to be awakened by noises coming from inside his home. He was upstairs and followed the sound of footsteps to the basement. when he reached the stairs. Polanin said he could see only the intruder's feet. "... I got my weapon and basically told him I had a weapon, it was loaded and I will use it," Polanin said. He then ordered the intruder to come out as he dialed 911. Polanin held the intruder at gunpoint until police arrived. (Kenosha News, Kenosha, WI, 10/17/12)


Jack Thompson estimates it was three seconds between his back door being kicked in until his bedroom door began opening, and he started shooting. "It's terrifying when you see somebody in your bedroom door," said Thompson, 78, of Brewers. Thompson got off three shots with his Walther .32-caliber semiautomatic about 4 a.m. Monday when the pistol jammed. "Then I was in trouble," Thompson said. He grabbed the loaded 12-gauge shotgun that always lies on his dresser and fired once. "All I could see was the silhouette of him coming in the door," he said of the intruder. Deputy sheriffs found Mitchell Saddoris, 22, of Kirskey lying in a pool of blood on the back porch of Jack and Judy Thompson's home on Oak Grove Church Road minutes later. He had a pistol wound to the abdomen and had taken a shotgun blast to his shoulder. He was going in and out of consciousness. Sheriff Kevin Byars said investigators believe a second person was with Saddoris at the home, but escaped. "Mr. Thompson did exactly what he was allowed to do," Byars said. "There won't be any kind of criminal charges against Mr. Thompson, because he was definitely defending his home." Byars believes the shooting was a burglary gone wrong. The intruders didn't realize the Thompsons had slept with their windows open, and Thompson had time to get his pistol when the couple heard talking and footsteps. Marshall sheriff's detective Matt Hilbrecht said investigators tried to interview Saddoris at Marshall County Hospital, but emergency room staff had put a tube down his throat. Afterward, Saddoris was transferred to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., where he was in critical condition and having surgery. Hilbrecht said Saddoris would face robbery, burglary and possibly other charges once released from the hospital, if he survives. "I'm sorry, but I had no other choice," Thompson said of shooting Saddoris, and added, "That's all that saved my life, I guess, was having a weapon." (The Paducah Sun, Paducah, KY, 3/20/12)

Kendra St. Clair, a 12-year-old at home alone one day during her fall break, called her mother at work to say there was a man repeatedly ringing the doorbell and banging on the door. When no one answered the door, she said he disappeared. St. Clair's mother instructed her daughter to get her .40-cal. Glock pistol and go into a bathroom closet. St. Clair heard him break in through the back door. As the man made his way through her home, 911 dispatchers kept St. Clair on the phone. He was inside the home for approximately six minutes before he made his way to the bathroom where St. Clair was hiding. When she saw the door knob begin to turn, she fired the gun. The 32-year-old intruder was taken into custody after being treated for a gunshot to the chest. (The Oklahoman, Durant, OK, 10/20/12)

Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?
 
2013-02-04 06:12:19 AM  

Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?


By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.
 
2013-02-04 06:16:50 AM  

Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.


So what is your point?
 
2013-02-04 06:22:33 AM  

Yogimus: Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.

So what is your point?


His point is to be willfully ignorant that there might possibly be two sides to every controversy.
 
2013-02-04 06:26:02 AM  

dookdookdook: Gdalescrboz: I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country.  Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.


You don't understand what "Bear Arms" means, do you?  To carry.  You can't carry a nuke, therefore you can't bear it.  In addition, a nuke isn't "Arms", it's ordinance.
 
2013-02-04 06:33:03 AM  

Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.


So if I showed you 71 reports like those (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook combined), you would bow your head in defeat?  Because given the fact I found the 6 that I previously posted in under 5 minutes, this will be easy.  Or an even better idea, why don't you try looking into things for yourself instead of being such an uneducated tool?  That might be fun.  You know...learning n stuff...
 
2013-02-04 06:49:30 AM  

Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.

So if I showed you 71 reports like those (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook combined), you would bow your head in defeat?  Because given the fact I found the 6 that I previously posted in under 5 minutes, this will be easy.  Or an even better idea, why don't you try looking into things for yourself instead of being such an uneducated tool?  That might be fun.  You know...learning n stuff...


Are you pretending that there are more occasions of people defending themselves with a firearm than that of people being shot?
 
2013-02-04 07:14:49 AM  
Sadly, in Illinois, we aren't given the right for a CCW to defend ourselves. You either have to 1. Carry for self defense and hope you don't get caught, 2. Don't carry and if you get mugged at gun or knifepiont, you don't get stabbed / killed. We are not given the right to defend ourselves in Illinois. Apparently, we are just supposed to lay down and take it deep like a good sheep.
 
2013-02-04 07:17:07 AM  

Ablejack: Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.

So if I showed you 71 reports like those (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook combined), you would bow your head in defeat?  Because given the fact I found the 6 that I previously posted in under 5 minutes, this will be easy.  Or an even better idea, why don't you try looking into things for yourself instead of being such an uneducated tool?  That might be fun.  You know...learning n stuff...

Are you pretending that there are more occasions of people defending themselves with a firearm than that of people being shot?


Facts =/= pretending.  Sorry to burst your bubble...
Besides, what you said was, "I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook.", and that's quite easy to do.  Or are you now going with moving the goalpost?
 
2013-02-04 07:28:40 AM  

Ablejack: Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.

So if I showed you 71 reports like those (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook combined), you would bow your head in defeat?  Because given the fact I found the 6 that I previously posted in under 5 minutes, this will be easy.  Or an even better idea, why don't you try looking into things for yourself instead of being such an uneducated tool?  That might be fun.  You know...learning n stuff...

Are you pretending that there are more occasions of people defending themselves with a firearm than that of people being shot?


Even people that completely disagree with the NRA have the lowest of the low estimates of defensive use being 10X the number of times.  As I said, try learning a little.  Truth doesn't always go along with your preconceived "facts"
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use- gu ns-in-self-defense
 
2013-02-04 07:31:22 AM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: did the gun pick itself up and kill the person?

derp de derp

How do you get 87?  Are you including suicides?

Link

Sorry, does 34 gun murders per day sound more acceptable?  What is the allowable number of deaths per day in your opinion?


More than 34.
 
2013-02-04 07:47:30 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Sadly, in Illinois, we aren't given the right for a CCW to defend ourselves. You either have to 1. Carry for self defense and hope you don't get caught, 2. Don't carry and if you get mugged at gun or knifepiont, you don't get stabbed / killed. We are not given the right to defend ourselves in Illinois. Apparently, we are just supposed to lay down and take it deep like a good sheep.


Illinois has about to 150 days to put together a ccw law or IL becomes an default unlimited carry state, IIRC.

Thanks seventh circuit
 
2013-02-04 07:59:27 AM  

piperTom: A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.


True story. I used to work with a guy who carried. He told me about a time when another driver got to a parking space before him. He showed his gun and the guy pulled out and let him have the space.
 
2013-02-04 08:22:12 AM  
collider.com

I CAN TYPING
 
2013-02-04 08:25:19 AM  

Without Fail: piperTom: A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.

True story. I used to work with a guy who carried. He told me about a time when another driver got to a parking space before him. He showed his gun and the guy pulled out and let him have the space.



Your co-worker is a dumbass, the other guy could have reported him for aggervated assault, a stupid way to go to jail for a parking space
 
2013-02-04 08:34:24 AM  

justtray: About a year ago I was in Baltimore downtown and some kids asked me if they could borrow my phone to call their parents. I obliged. They took it, started to dial some numbers, then ran away. Fortunately I was carrying so I shot the one who didn't run in the head, then fired at the other two running, hitting one in the leg disabling him, and the other in the back. He later succumed to his wounds. I picked up my phone from the kid (high schoolers) and called the cops.


About 6 months ago I was in Chicago when a couple of sweet little misunderstood minorities walked up to me armed with the big scary thing called a gun. I instantly about shiat myself! These two sweet cherished angels all dressed in matching colors demanded my money and my car keys. I quickly informed them that Chicago was a gun free zone, and these poor little sweeties must have been tricked by a angry white man into getting a gun and robbing me, and if they told me who did that then I would gladly plead my case before a court in order to convict the dirty whitey of a hate crime. The two misguided youths then proceeded to shoot me twice in the gut accidentally and rummage threw my pockets for what I assumed was my cell phone to call the police and rescue me from their mistake. They took my wallet, my car keys, my cell phone, and even had my home address now. I thought for sure when I bled all over them that they would see the error of their ways and my pleading would not go on deaf ears. The two youths sprinted away with all my possessions in a robin hood-esque moment! I assured myself it was to give to the local orphanage and they were definitely worthy of forgiveness when all of a sudden a cis gendered white scum approached and offered to aid me. NO SIR! NO! You have done enough I shouted. Either way the little dirty tyrant called the police and I survived.

I am so glad I met those boys that day, it really showed me how useless guns are and I am SO glad I didn't have one. They might have been injured! Later on I saw the two darlings on the news and apparently that god damn white devil reported what he saw and lo and behold ANOTHER cis gendered white tyrant had reported that they raped someone! WHAT LIARS! This is the republican america everyone!
 
2013-02-04 08:34:35 AM  
Aw, not this shiat again
 
2013-02-04 08:34:46 AM  

Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.

So if I showed you 71 reports like those (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook combined), you would bow your head in defeat?  Because given the fact I found the 6 that I previously posted in under 5 minutes, this will be easy.  Or an even better idea, why don't you try looking into things for yourself instead of being such an uneducated tool?  That might be fun.  You know...learning n stuff...

Are you pretending that there are more occasions of people defending themselves with a firearm than that of people being shot?

Even people that completely disagree with the NRA have the lowest of the low estimates of defensive use being 10X the number of times.  As I said, try learning a little.  Truth doesn't always go along with your preconceived "facts"
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use- gu ns-in-self-defense


Ok, so I read that dudes actual report.http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pd f He concludes that with 95% accuracy he can claim that there are anywhere from 0 to 2.5 million accounts of self defense using a firearm. The 100,000 is extrapolated from sampling polls and estimating how many are probably lying or exaggerating.  And most of these are situations between two armed citizens where an argument escalates and guns are drawn. The shooter in these circumstances always claims self defense as his reason for using his weapon. From the same report, using the same methods, the number of people who have been in contact with aliens he estimates is about half that or fifty thousand. Anyway, none of this is documented fact and the author admits as much. And all this includes simply brandishing a weapon, not necessarily firing it. Are we to include crimes where a offender had a weapon but did not use it in the gun violence tally as well. If we are going to use hard facts (I realized you will be quite strapped by limiting to only factual evidence as most defense may indeed be anecdotal) such as homicides it would be interesting to see how often a firearm was used for 'good' rather than not. As you alluded to earlier there are an average of ten thousand criminal homicides each year.
But now I'll move the goal posts again as a good lib is apt to do. How many self defense acts do you suppose involved any weapon (anecdotal or not) that is being considered to be more strictly regulated? Zero? Probably somewhere near zero.
 
2013-02-04 08:35:37 AM  

dantheman195: Without Fail: piperTom: A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.

True story. I used to work with a guy who carried. He told me about a time when another driver got to a parking space before him. He showed his gun and the guy pulled out and let him have the space.


Your co-worker is a dumbass, the other guy could have reported him for aggervated assault, a stupid way to go to jail for a parking space


Something tells me he made that up...
 
2013-02-04 08:39:57 AM  

Ablejack: Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Ablejack: Farkage: Should I keep going or does the truth make you sad?

By all means go on, I'll start being impressed when you reach the number of kindergartners killed at Sandy Hook. But of course you and I both know you ultimately lose this morbid scorecard game.
The truth is; a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun. Simply because the world does not really consist of "good guys" and "bad guys".  That's only true in Hollywood and children's stories. LaPierre's NRA fantasy is included in the children's stories part.

So if I showed you 71 reports like those (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook combined), you would bow your head in defeat?  Because given the fact I found the 6 that I previously posted in under 5 minutes, this will be easy.  Or an even better idea, why don't you try looking into things for yourself instead of being such an uneducated tool?  That might be fun.  You know...learning n stuff...

Are you pretending that there are more occasions of people defending themselves with a firearm than that of people being shot?

Even people that completely disagree with the NRA have the lowest of the low estimates of defensive use being 10X the number of times.  As I said, try learning a little.  Truth doesn't always go along with your preconceived "facts"
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use- gu ns-in-self-defense

Ok, so I read that dudes actual report.http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pd f He concludes that with 95% accuracy he can claim that there are anywhere from 0 to 2.5 million accounts of self defense using a firearm. The 100,000 is extrapolated from sampling polls and estimating how many are probably lying or exaggerating.  And most of these are situations between two armed citizens where an argument escalates and guns are drawn. The shooter in these circumstances always claims self defense as his reason for using his weapon. From the same report, using the same ...


So are you honestly telling me that even though people that don't like other people having guns for any reason came up with a number at the lowest end of the spectrum of 100,000x annual use to prevent a crime and you still don't believe that it happens...ever?  Even though in under 5 minutes I found 6 newspaper reports of it happening???  Really?
 
2013-02-04 08:44:01 AM  
Regardless of whether or not this was a "school shooting" attempt or a mugging, the hero tag still applies.  This is how society should be dealing with useless pieces of living garbage like these "kids".  If someone is willing to endanger another purely for greed they deserve to die.   If anything, the one who was critically wounded should have been left to bleed out.  It would save everyone a lot of money in the long run.  Won't have to pay for a long drawn out court case to show what is already self evident, because some scumbag lawyer decides to game the system.
 
2013-02-04 08:47:33 AM  

CPennypacker: Aw, not this shiat again


Of all the gun threads in all of Fark, this has got to be the worst one yet.  This thread is what happens when you gather the most idiotic idiots of Idiotville and give them computers.  In other words, it closely resembles the US Congress.
 
2013-02-04 08:58:20 AM  

Farkage: So are you honestly telling me that even though people that don't like other people having guns for any reason came up with a number at the lowest end of the spectrum of 100,000x annual use to prevent a crime and you still don't believe that it happens...ever?  Even though in under 5 minutes I found 6 newspaper reports of it happening???  Really?


Yup. That report says there are perhaps 100,000 self defense uses of firearms extrapolated from the 2.5 million cases that a self defense use was claimed. In the same report, using the same methods, and the same weight of evidence the author claims that there are perhaps 48,000 cases of people coming into actual physical contact with aliens (with 1.2 million cases claimed).
 
2013-02-04 09:01:45 AM  
So the 6 I found with no trouble at all didn't happen because you said so.  Got it.
 
2013-02-04 09:06:19 AM  

piperTom: A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.


Like when my downstairs neighbor came upstairs with a gun to express his displeasure with my wife walking on the floor with heels.  No explicit threat, just had it with him.

/// Yeah, we moved...
 
2013-02-04 09:08:57 AM  
There are too many people on this earth. Guns are good. Many, many more need to die.
 
2013-02-04 09:19:38 AM  

Without Fail: piperTom: A great majority of "good" gun encounters are the kind where the good guy shows his/her gun and the bad guy just backs off; no report is ever made.

True story. I used to work with a guy who carried. He told me about a time when another driver got to a parking space before him. He showed his gun and the guy pulled out and let him have the space.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFc1pr2yUU
 
2013-02-04 09:19:59 AM  

OgreMagi: Emposter: 2 kids shot at a school, one dead.  This is the gun nuts' version of a victory.  WAY better to arm victims than try to prevent the shooting from happening at all.

How typical.  Turn it around and make the victim the criminal.  Your kind makes me sick.


Perhaps you'll be less sick when you learn how to read.
 
2013-02-04 09:23:22 AM  

CPennypacker: Aw, not this shiat again


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-02-04 09:29:21 AM  
Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.
 
2013-02-04 09:32:37 AM  

Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.


That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.
 
2013-02-04 09:36:08 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.

That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.


Advocates of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the victim of a violent crime.

Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.
 
2013-02-04 09:38:31 AM  

Dimensio: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.

That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.

Advocates of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the victim of a violent crime.

Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.


HA HA HA Oh Wow.jpg
 
2013-02-04 09:40:02 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: That's the thing about self defense with firearms, you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.


Apparently so.  It seems that coach decided to shoot the guy without the gun just for shiats and giggles.

At the end of the day though, I guess the guy who pulled the gun deserved to get shot because according to the story, he had already pulled his gun and he allowed a 70 year old man to fish out his concealed weapon and didn't manage to stop it at any point.   I dunno, maybe he was one of the exceptionally dumb people that will brandish a gun without any intention of using it whatsoever.
 
2013-02-04 09:41:24 AM  

Tomahawk513: Dimensio: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.

That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.

Advocates of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the victim of a violent crime.

Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

HA HA HA Oh Wow.jpg


I find the attitude of defense opponents to be disturbing, not amusing. I question the intelligence and the rationality of an individual who claims that using deadly force against an attacker armed with a weapon, such as a knife, constitutes "murder".
 
2013-02-04 09:42:55 AM  

Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.


Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.
 
2013-02-04 09:44:14 AM  
2 less thugs on the street, and thats a good thing.
 
2013-02-04 09:45:23 AM  

Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.


Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?
 
2013-02-04 09:45:32 AM  

Yogimus: The uncomfortable truth about firearms is that some people just NEED KILLING.


I was gonna go for maximum irony points and suggest that indeed, and the people who think like this are at the top of the list.

But then I realized you probably don't need killing.  You just really, really, really like killing.
 
2013-02-04 09:47:16 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.


You know what is important about your statement?  The underlined part.

You might want to look at murder rates over the last few decades.  I think you'll be quite surprised.

Keep on with the gun grab and I think you'll be surprised at the congressional mid terms too.
 
2013-02-04 09:53:20 AM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: That's the thing about self defense with firearms, you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.

Apparently so.  It seems that coach decided to shoot the guy without the gun just for shiats and giggles.


first, ftfa - "Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.  The coach, who has a concealed pistol license, fired shots killing one of the individuals and critically wounding the other. "

second, I'm not sure about the law there, but in CT this is our jury instruction:

B.  Surrender property § 53a-19 (b) (2)

(One such / Another) circumstance under which a person is not justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the use of physical force with complete safety by surrendering an object of personal property to the assailant.

Under this provision, if the assailant's conduct appears motivated by (his/her) claim to property that the defendant possesses and the defendant knows that if (he/she) surrendered the property that the assailant would cease the assault upon the defendant, then the defendant may not use deadly physical force in defense and must surrender the property.

It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to prove that (he/she) knew that <insert name of assailant> would cease the assault upon the defendant if the defendant surrendered <insert property in question>.  To the contrary, you may only reject (his/her) defense on the basis of this statutory disqualification if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that <insert name of assailant> would flee without harming (him/her) if (he/she) surrendered <insert property in question>.


If you think any harm at all may come to you, you can defend yourself with lethal force in CT.  People do not need a weapon to cause "any harm", do they?  We aren't obligated to see an unarmed person threatening us, and assume that they'll only beat us "a little bit".
 
2013-02-04 09:55:51 AM  

Dimensio: Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.

Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?


I can't speak for Mercutio, but I think it's acceptable to use deadly force most of the time, but as a matter of respect for human life, even thugs and gangsters, I would expect the officer to exhaust nonlethal alternatives first, such as pepper spray or a taser (tazer?), if the situation allows for it.
 
2013-02-04 09:55:57 AM  

Dimensio: Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?


Not at all.  I'm saying that carrying a weapon in public with the goal of protecting yourself and society is a huge undertaking and I think that many people who are willing and able to do so lack not only the training, but also likely the mentality to do so safely.  I'm no great friend of police forces, but at least there is training on tactics and procedure for dealing with a violent offender.

For example... I have no idea on the details of this specific situation because the story is only a couple of sentences, but I have questions about the shooting of the guy who didn't have a gun.  The police would have to explain why they popped the other guy too.  You can't just shoot everyone in the general vicinity if you see a single gun.
 
2013-02-04 09:58:05 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you think any harm at all may come to you, you can defend yourself with lethal force in CT. People do not need a weapon to cause "any harm", do they? We aren't obligated to see an unarmed person threatening us, and assume that they'll only beat us "a little bit".


Yikes.  With the way you read that law it seems that in CT if you're a 5'5" 140lb dude and some 6' 200lb guy starts giving you a furious talking to over a parking spot, you'd be justified in putting a bullet between his eyes.
 
2013-02-04 10:00:14 AM  

Mercutio74: I have questions about the shooting of the guy who didn't have a gun.


leadership.gwabbit.com
Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.
 
2013-02-04 10:02:38 AM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you think any harm at all may come to you, you can defend yourself with lethal force in CT. People do not need a weapon to cause "any harm", do they? We aren't obligated to see an unarmed person threatening us, and assume that they'll only beat us "a little bit".

Yikes.  With the way you read that law it seems that in CT if you're a 5'5" 140lb dude and some 6' 200lb guy starts giving you a furious talking to over a parking spot, you'd be justified in putting a bullet between his eyes.


If that's your interpretation of my interpretation of the jury instructions, then I guess we can see why the telephone game is interesting.  No, that is not my interpretation.
 
2013-02-04 10:04:50 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mercutio74: I have questions about the shooting of the guy who didn't have a gun.

[leadership.gwabbit.com image 300x225]
Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.


New from MFX: Two Criminals, One Gun
 
2013-02-04 10:07:17 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.


The story only mentions one of the robbers having a gun.  If you've got a better link, I'd be happy to see it.
 
2013-02-04 10:09:53 AM  

Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.


I'm pretty sure the coach wasn't quibbling about pricing. He was reacting to a threat of violence with appropriate force. Trying to make him into some kind of monster for protecting himself can only be the result of a embarrassingly naive view of the world.
 
2013-02-04 10:12:30 AM  

Farkage: So are you honestly telling me that even though people that don't like other people having guns for any reason came up with a number at the lowest end of the spectrum of 100,000x annual use to prevent a crime and you still don't believe that it happens...ever?  Even though in under 5 minutes I found 6 newspaper reports of it happening???  Really?


Kleck is still not a credible source.  see my previously posted DOJ report on the subject.   http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
 
2013-02-04 10:16:14 AM  
I'm calling bullshiat on this story. I hear daily how people who want to carry guns for self defense are just living in in a fantasy world and nobody ever attacks anybody.

Yes, this is what I get told(Right here on Fark) when I state that the only time I personally carry is on long road trips, in case I break down. I then get informed on a regular basis that nobody ever attacks people out in the middle of the desert broken down on the road. I 'm also surprised because this guy was supposed to either shoot himself, or someone i his household, as opposed to the actual bad guys.
 
2013-02-04 10:18:43 AM  

odinsposse: I'm pretty sure the coach wasn't quibbling about pricing. He was reacting to a threat of violence with appropriate force. Trying to make him into some kind of monster for protecting himself can only be the result of a embarrassingly naive view of the world.


I guess if you're going to have a society where citizens are free to defend their life and property with concealed firearms you're going to have to have to live with the consequences that people are going to get shot and killed.  All I'm saying is that if this ever becomes a problem where someone can shoot someone else on the barest suspicion of threat to life or property (I'm looking at you George Zimmerman) then the exercise of this right to a well organized militia becomes a big problem for society.

So what's the solution?  There is no easy one, clearly.  But going out of your way to defend someone who takes the life of a fellow human being isn't the answer.  Each individual case has to be looked at on it's merits.  This specific incident, at least as much as it's described in the article, seems like a reasonable use of force in a society that values an armed citizenry.  Like I said earlier, the main question I would have is did the unarmed guy need to get shot?  If his reaction to his buddy getting capped was to rush the old guy, then yes, absolutely I could see that shooting the other robber would be a reasonable response.  If he reaction was to run and the coach shot him in the back...  then we're into territory I'm not so comfortable with.
 
2013-02-04 10:19:59 AM  

Mikey1969: I'm calling bullshiat on this story. I hear daily how people who want to carry guns for self defense are just living in in a fantasy world and nobody ever attacks anybody.

Yes, this is what I get told(Right here on Fark) when I state that the only time I personally carry is on long road trips, in case I break down. I then get informed on a regular basis that nobody ever attacks people out in the middle of the desert broken down on the road. I 'm also surprised because this guy was supposed to either shoot himself, or someone i his household, as opposed to the actual bad guys.


Additionally, the criminals should have been able to take the coach's firearm from him and use it against him.
 
2013-02-04 10:20:16 AM  
Couple years ago I was on a bike tour in the NYS Finger Lakes. One day the public campsite we had planned to stay at was full so we were given directions to a private site by the State Rangers. On our way to this site there were some children (4 kids approx.12-15 yrs old.) playing in their front yard. We supposed we were near this unplanned site but not sure exactly where it was. So we stopped, straddling our bikes on the road, to ask the kids if they knew where it was or if the road was nearby. Their father came out pointing a shotgun at us, screaming for us to our "homophobic expiltives" outta there. We obliged. Now we were clearly threatened with gun violence, would we have been the 'good guys' with a gun had we shot the man dead? Or were we the 'bad guys' that this man successfully defended his family from with his 2nd amendment rights?
 
2013-02-04 10:21:16 AM  

SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!


Yeah, THAT'S how to appear serious about the discussion at hand.

And the anti-gun crowd can't figure out why nobody trusts them.
 
2013-02-04 10:22:26 AM  

Dimensio: Additionally, the criminals should have been able to take the coach's firearm from him and use it against him.


You have to admit... if you've got a gun drawn on someone and they can actually beat you to the kill when they're 70, their weapon is concealed and the safety is on...  that's some shiatty criminal behaviour right there.  You might be doing the gene pool a favour by allowing yourself to get killed.
 
2013-02-04 10:24:43 AM  

austerity101: Anderson's Pooper: GAT_00: Is this another thread where we pretend that there wasn't an armed security guard at Columbine who actually shot at the gunmen there?

Use it however you want. Just don't pretend that this story will be given the same coverage as the tragic ones. My guess is that this school's choir doesn't get invited to sing at the Superbowl next year.

When was the last time that a thwarted mugging was given a lot of coverage on the news?


This is on the local Fox station in Detroit. When I searched Google, there was a single other hit. This isn't a "lot of coverage".
 
2013-02-04 10:25:05 AM  

Ablejack: Couple years ago I was on a bike tour in the NYS Finger Lakes. One day the public campsite we had planned to stay at was full so we were given directions to a private site by the State Rangers. On our way to this site there were some children (4 kids approx.12-15 yrs old.) playing in their front yard. We supposed we were near this unplanned site but not sure exactly where it was. So we stopped, straddling our bikes on the road, to ask the kids if they knew where it was or if the road was nearby. Their father came out pointing a shotgun at us, screaming for us to our "homophobic expiltives" outta there. We obliged. Now we were clearly threatened with gun violence, would we have been the 'good guys' with a gun had we shot the man dead? Or were we the 'bad guys' that this man successfully defended his family from with his 2nd amendment rights?


You were in a public place, he had no right to aim a gun at you. Why didn't you call the cops?
 
2013-02-04 10:33:33 AM  

Dimensio: Mikey1969: I'm calling bullshiat on this story. I hear daily how people who want to carry guns for self defense are just living in in a fantasy world and nobody ever attacks anybody.

Yes, this is what I get told(Right here on Fark) when I state that the only time I personally carry is on long road trips, in case I break down. I then get informed on a regular basis that nobody ever attacks people out in the middle of the desert broken down on the road. I 'm also surprised because this guy was supposed to either shoot himself, or someone i his household, as opposed to the actual bad guys.

Additionally, the criminals should have been able to take the coach's firearm from him and use it against him.


You're right, I forgot that part. So here's the chronological order of events as explained by the anti-gun crowd:

1. It never happened, the guy was just having a small-penis fantasy.

2. While it was not happening, he shot someone close to him.

3. Next, while it was still not happening, they took his gun and shot him with it.

4. Rinse, repeat...
 
2013-02-04 10:34:43 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.

That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.


Why not?  And if it's self-defense with a bat, or a knife, am I still absolved of any wrong-doing?
And the 'apparent and reasonable worst case scenario' is subjective as all hell.
A mugging's apparent, and reasonable, worst case scenario is 'having your cash and credit cards taken from you'.

You will still have to explain how two dead is worth the time to make a few phone calls to the credit card companies and the loss of twenty bucks.
 
2013-02-04 10:35:41 AM  

Ablejack: Couple years ago I was on a bike tour in the NYS Finger Lakes. One day the public campsite we had planned to stay at was full so we were given directions to a private site by the State Rangers. On our way to this site there were some children (4 kids approx.12-15 yrs old.) playing in their front yard. We supposed we were near this unplanned site but not sure exactly where it was. So we stopped, straddling our bikes on the road, to ask the kids if they knew where it was or if the road was nearby. Their father came out pointing a shotgun at us, screaming for us to our "homophobic expiltives" outta there. We obliged. Now we were clearly threatened with gun violence, would we have been the 'good guys' with a gun had we shot the man dead? Or were we the 'bad guys' that this man successfully defended his family from with his 2nd amendment rights?


Depends. Were you there to rob him? Kill his family? Rape his kids?

If not, then no, you weren't the "bad guys". I knew the anti gun crowd was stupid, but I'm starting to see JUST how stupid.
 
2013-02-04 10:37:10 AM  

Cinaed: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.

That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.

Why not?  And if it's self-defense with a bat, or a knife, am I still absolved of any wrong-doing?
And the 'apparent and reasonable worst case scenario' is subjective as all hell.
A mugging's apparent, and reasonable, worst case scenario is 'having your cash and credit cards taken from you'.

You will still have to explain how two dead is worth the time to make a few phone calls to the credit card companies and the loss of twenty bucks.


Please demonstrate, with absolute certainty, that the shooter would not have been injured had he given his property to the criminals who accosted him. Explain also why criminals are entitled to the property of their intended victims.
 
2013-02-04 10:37:20 AM  
Mercutio74: odinsposse: I'm pretty sure the coach wasn't quibbling about pricing. He was reacting to a threat of violence with appropriate force. Trying to make him into some kind of monster for protecting himself can only be the result of a embarrassingly naive view of the world.

I guess if you're going to have a society where citizens are free to defend their life and property with concealed firearms you're going to have to have to live with the consequences that people are going to get shot and killed.  All I'm saying is that if this ever becomes a problem where someone can shoot someone else on the barest suspicion of threat to life or property (I'm looking at you George Zimmerman) then the exercise of this right to a well organized militia becomes a big problem for society
.

The problem with the Zimmerman situation is that he followed and approached someone, pretty much initializing the conflict. That's why he was charged with 2nd degree murder. That isn't a good example of self-defense.

So what's the solution?  There is no easy one, clearly.  But going out of your way to defend someone who takes the life of a fellow human being isn't the answer.  Each individual case has to be looked at on it's merits.  This specific incident, at least as much as it's described in the article, seems like a reasonable use of force in a society that values an armed citizenry.  Like I said earlier, the main question I would have is did the unarmed guy need to get shot?  If his reaction to his buddy getting capped was to rush the old guy, then yes, absolutely I could see that shooting the other robber would be a reasonable response.  If he reaction was to run and the coach shot him in the back...  then we're into territory I'm not so comfortable with.

The problem is that it is generally impossible for someone to judge intent in the moment. Were these two muggers militant pacifists acting dangerously but with no intention of following through on their threat? Were they going to murder these people regardless of whether or not they complied? There's no way for the coach to know. Shooting someone in the back is a pretty clear sign they were retreating but otherwise it's hard to say if that person was a threat or not. The coach was an old guy and the unarmed mugger could have rushed and overpowered him.

Self-defense rules are pretty well covered in case law these days. The rules and situations where self defense is appropriate are covered and should be fairly easy to figure out at this point.
 
2013-02-04 10:39:16 AM  

Cinaed: Why not?  And if it's self-defense with a bat, or a knife, am I still absolved of any wrong-doing?
And the 'apparent and reasonable worst case scenario' is subjective as all hell.
A mugging's apparent, and reasonable, worst case scenario is 'having your cash and credit cards taken from you'.

You will still have to explain how two dead is worth the time to make a few phone calls to the credit card companies and the loss of twenty bucks.


Why don't you put more effort into reading the jury instructions I just posted?  They thoroughly explain exactly why everything you just said has absolutely no merit.  I even took time to underline key points for special people just like yourself!
 
2013-02-04 10:41:00 AM  

Cinaed: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.

That's the thing about self defense with firearms,  you're not obligated to weigh the situation based on what you hope they'll do, you weigh it on the the apparent and reasonable worst case scenario.

Why not?  And if it's self-defense with a bat, or a knife, am I still absolved of any wrong-doing?
And the 'apparent and reasonable worst case scenario' is subjective as all hell.
A mugging's apparent, and reasonable, worst case scenario is 'having your cash and credit cards taken from you'.

You will still have to explain how two dead is worth the time to make a few phone calls to the credit card companies and the loss of twenty bucks.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-04 10:52:47 AM  

odinsposse: The problem is that it is generally impossible for someone to judge intent in the moment. Were these two muggers militant pacifists acting dangerously but with no intention of following through on their threat? Were they going to murder these people regardless of whether or not they complied? There's no way for the coach to know. Shooting someone in the back is a pretty clear sign they were retreating but otherwise it's hard to say if that person was a threat or not. The coach was an old guy and the unarmed mugger could have rushed and overpowered him.

Self-defense rules are pretty well covered in case law these days. The rules and situations where self defense is appropriate are covered and should be fairly easy to figure out at this point.


Unfortunately, the fact that a 70 year old man was able to get the drop on both of them when they already had their gun out probably suggests that they didn't really have much intent of shooting anyone.  I'll definitely grant you that the only way we know this for sure is that they both got shot and never fired on or physically assaulted the coach and the girls, but it seems they really were just after cash otherwise once coach starts going for his gun, you'd think they'd have done something about it.

Don't get me wrong, I consider the muggers ultimately responsible for trying to mug innocent civilians, but it would be a shame if this story emboldened people into thinking that carrying a concealed handgun is a magical talisman that will protect you from gun-wielding criminals.

If these guys were in fact murderers or at least the one that held the gun, the old guy would be so very dead.  They had the element of surprise by waiting in ambush, their weapon was (or at least should have been) loaded with a bullet in the chamber and the safety off, and they likely had a physical advantage over their prey.  If the coach wasn't lucky, and the muggers painfully stupid we would be reading a far different story.
 
2013-02-04 10:54:32 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you think any harm at all may come to you, you can defend yourself with lethal force in CT. People do not need a weapon to cause "any harm", do they? We aren't obligated to see an unarmed person threatening us, and assume that they'll only beat us "a little bit".

Yikes.  With the way you read that law it seems that in CT if you're a 5'5" 140lb dude and some 6' 200lb guy starts giving you a furious talking to over a parking spot, you'd be justified in putting a bullet between his eyes.

If that's your interpretation of my interpretation of the jury instructions, then I guess we can see why the telephone game is interesting.  No, that is not my interpretation.



I bolded the parts where this person replying supports your assertion.
 
2013-02-04 10:56:07 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: Couple years ago I was on a bike tour in the NYS Finger Lakes. One day the public campsite we had planned to stay at was full so we were given directions to a private site by the State Rangers. On our way to this site there were some children (4 kids approx.12-15 yrs old.) playing in their front yard. We supposed we were near this unplanned site but not sure exactly where it was. So we stopped, straddling our bikes on the road, to ask the kids if they knew where it was or if the road was nearby. Their father came out pointing a shotgun at us, screaming for us to our "homophobic expiltives" outta there. We obliged. Now we were clearly threatened with gun violence, would we have been the 'good guys' with a gun had we shot the man dead? Or were we the 'bad guys' that this man successfully defended his family from with his 2nd amendment rights?

You were in a public place, he had no right to aim a gun at you. Why didn't you call the cops?


Oh I know he had no right. But had I been armed, I don't think it would have been wise to try to shoot this guy, nor do I think it would be "good" to do so; although it would probably be legal. But I'll bet his story is about how he defended his home from big city paedophiles. We did tell our story to Rangers at the next State Park we stayed at two days later. But we did not know where the hell we were exactly and did not wish to pursue litigation as we were well on our way and just glad to have this behind us. Still not a good feeling to have a gun pointed at you - way worse than being 'swept' by some moron while shooting clays.
 
2013-02-04 11:02:30 AM  

BeesNuts: Yogimus: The uncomfortable truth about firearms is that some people just NEED KILLING.

I was gonna go for maximum irony points and suggest that indeed, and the people who think like this are at the top of the list.

But then I realized you probably don't need killing.  You just really, really, really like killing.


I really really like hearing criminals get shot while committing a crime.  Especially when they team up against a 70 year old man.
 
2013-02-04 11:04:15 AM  

Yogimus: I really really like hearing criminals get shot while committing a crime. Especially when they team up against a 70 year old man.


Sir, you're supposed to cross the street at the stoplight down there.

Well, officer, I had to...*BANG*
 
2013-02-04 11:05:52 AM  

Mercutio74: Yogimus: I really really like hearing criminals get shot while committing a crime. Especially when they team up against a 70 year old man.

Sir, you're supposed to cross the street at the stoplight down there.

Well, officer, I had to...*BANG*


O.o
 
2013-02-04 11:07:07 AM  

justtray: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you think any harm at all may come to you, you can defend yourself with lethal force in CT. People do not need a weapon to cause "any harm", do they? We aren't obligated to see an unarmed person threatening us, and assume that they'll only beat us "a little bit".

Yikes.  With the way you read that law it seems that in CT if you're a 5'5" 140lb dude and some 6' 200lb guy starts giving you a furious talking to over a parking spot, you'd be justified in putting a bullet between his eyes.

If that's your interpretation of my interpretation of the jury instructions, then I guess we can see why the telephone game is interesting.  No, that is not my interpretation.


I bolded the parts where this person replying supports your assertion.


Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.
 
2013-02-04 11:12:10 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.


I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.
 
2013-02-04 11:18:13 AM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.


You walk away.
 
2013-02-04 11:21:19 AM  

Yogimus: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

You walk away.


I agree with that.  Which was kind of my point.
 
2013-02-04 11:23:42 AM  
ablejack: We obliged. Now we were clearly threatened with gun violence, would we have been the 'good guys' with a gun had we shot the man dead? Or were we the 'bad guys' that this man successfully defended his family from with his 2nd amendment rights?

Mikey1969: Depends. Were you there to rob him? Kill his family? Rape his kids?
If not, then no, you weren't the "bad guys". I knew the anti gun crowd was stupid, but I'm starting to see JUST how stupid.


ablejack: I asked these questions using the Good Guy/Bad Guy language espoused by LaPierre and his ilk with a purpose. It was to show that in many situations there are not good guys and bad guys, at least not clearly delineated. Perhaps you missed the point. Simply put, bad guys don't always go around with black cowboy hats. Oftentimes a person might be considered a 'good guy' with a gun right up to the moment he kills somebody. And wait a minute, whoever said I was "anti-gun"?
 
2013-02-04 11:25:34 AM  
Gee, if more people had guns at this shooting range, these 2 guys probably wouldn't have died.  Oh wait...  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/03/sniper-chris-kyle-shot-de a d
 
2013-02-04 11:26:10 AM  
"Good guy bad guy" distinction is misleading in another way:  It doesn't address the "bad guy vs bad guy" element.
 
2013-02-04 11:26:10 AM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.


from the instructions -a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend (himself/herself/a third person) from what (he/she) reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and (he/she) may use such degree of force which (he/she) reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-1.htm
 
2013-02-04 11:26:26 AM  

RsquaredW: Farkage: So are you honestly telling me that even though people that don't like other people having guns for any reason came up with a number at the lowest end of the spectrum of 100,000x annual use to prevent a crime and you still don't believe that it happens...ever?  Even though in under 5 minutes I found 6 newspaper reports of it happening???  Really?

Kleck is still not a credible source.  see my previously posted DOJ report on the subject.   http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf


Again, I did NOT quote Kleck.  He is way off.  I quoted the guy that SAYS Kleck is way off, and THAT guy came up with a minimum of 100K times a year.  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-g u ns-in-self-defense
 
2013-02-04 11:30:27 AM  

Mercutio74: Yogimus: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

You walk away.

I agree with that.  Which was kind of my point.


Oh, well if that's what you were getting at, it was covered in the instructions I already posted "(One such / Another) circumstance under which a person is not justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the use of physical force with  complete safety "
 
2013-02-04 11:33:41 AM  

Yogimus: "Good guy bad guy" distinction is misleading in another way:  It doesn't address the "bad guy vs bad guy" element.


It's true. There are also a great deal of cases where gun violence occurs because two armed people get into an escalating argument. Both parties maintain to be the 'good guy' acting in self defense in these cases. The exceptions are when only one party is left to make his case. Then the other guy was the 'bad guy'.
 
2013-02-04 11:34:00 AM  

Yogimus: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

You walk away.



Not bravenewworld, he apparently shoots people.
 
2013-02-04 11:34:08 AM  
The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.
 
2013-02-04 11:34:13 AM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you think any harm at all may come to you, you can defend yourself with lethal force in CT. People do not need a weapon to cause "any harm", do they? We aren't obligated to see an unarmed person threatening us, and assume that they'll only beat us "a little bit".

Yikes.  With the way you read that law it seems that in CT if you're a 5'5" 140lb dude and some 6' 200lb guy starts giving you a furious talking to over a parking spot, you'd be justified in putting a bullet between his eyes.


If you are in fear for your life because that 6' tall, 200 lb. guy is threatening you as he smashes shiat up, you ARE justified in that bullet between the eyes.

Of course, you knew this already.
 
2013-02-04 11:34:23 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

from the instructions -a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend (himself/herself/a third person) from what (he/she) reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and (he/she) may use such degree of force which (he/she) reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-1.htm


I believe you that this instruction exists, I just don't agree with your interpretation of it where you suggest that any threat of physical harm can be met by gunfire even if the person doing the threatening doesn't have a weapon of any kind.  Your interpretation of it seems to allow for a verbal  threat to be followed by a lethal gunshot.  I doubt that's how it was intended and I can't see any judge giving the jury instruction with that being a possible outcome.

For what it's worth, the entirety of the jury instruction does deal with this issue but I didn't take up a big argument against you earlier in the thread because it doesn't matter what YOU think the instruction says (or what I think, for that matter) because it's very clearly and specifically laid out in that link of yours.  But someone else brought it up later, so I refined my hypothetical and here we are.

It's not even worth arguing about something that's pretty clearly defined in the law, and it's only colour for this story because the law you quote is in CT and this story takes place in Michigan.
 
2013-02-04 11:35:40 AM  

Mikey1969: If you are in fear for your life because that 6' tall, 200 lb. guy is threatening you as he smashes shiat up, you ARE justified in that bullet between the eyes.

Of course, you knew this already.


Really?  That seems excessive, don't you think?
 
2013-02-04 11:36:48 AM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: If you are in fear for your life because that 6' tall, 200 lb. guy is threatening you as he smashes shiat up, you ARE justified in that bullet between the eyes.

Of course, you knew this already.

Really?  That seems excessive, don't you think?


Nope. He stated intent, showed capability, and has the opportunity.  At that point, you would be justified in honoring his threat.
 
2013-02-04 11:38:30 AM  
Damn, I guess that's why so many people get shot in the US every year.
 
2013-02-04 11:38:38 AM  
When one pulled a gun, the coach fired back, shooting both teens.

How does one "fire back" when no one fires at him?

Christ, today's journalists are shait.
 
2013-02-04 11:39:25 AM  

Cinaed: Why not? And if it's self-defense with a bat, or a knife, am I still absolved of any wrong-doing?
And the 'apparent and reasonable worst case scenario' is subjective as all hell.
A mugging's apparent, and reasonable, worst case scenario is 'having your cash and credit cards taken from you'.

You will still have to explain how two dead is worth the time to make a few phone calls to the credit card companies and the loss of twenty bucks.


Are supposed to take the criminal's word that all they want to do is rob them?  Many, rapes, murders, and kidnappings have started out looking like robberies.
 
2013-02-04 11:39:29 AM  

Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.


That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?
 
2013-02-04 11:40:35 AM  

austerity101: If a school shooting were stopped by a guy with a gun, we'd hear about it.  Sadly, that doesn't happen very often, if ever.


Except that it happened LAST FARKING WEEK.

"If ever", my ass...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-atlanta-middle -s chool-shooting-victim-20130131,0,981348.story

So no, the collective "we" din't hear about it. Half the stories don't even mention how the shooter was apprehended and taken into custody.
 
2013-02-04 11:40:52 AM  

Mercutio74: I believe you that this instruction exists, I just don't agree with your interpretation of it where you suggest that any threat of physical harm can be met by gunfire even if the person doing the threatening doesn't have a weapon of any kind.  Your interpretation of it seems to allow for a verbal  threat to be followed by a lethal gunshot.  I doubt that's how it was intended and I can't see any judge giving the jury instruction with that being a possible outcome.


So you think you should wait until after you're injured to draw your weapon?  Do you think you have a good chance of drawing a weapon after someone's already slugging away at you?  Are you sure this person who's slugging away at you is going to stop before injuries become serious?
 
2013-02-04 11:42:41 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?


He killed himself before he could be brought to a trial.  It is happening now for that scumbag in Colorado though.
 
2013-02-04 11:44:29 AM  

Mercutio74: Damn, I guess that's why so many people get shot in the US every year.


No, people get shot in the U.S. every year because Americans, as a society, have abandoned teaching children how to deal with conflict and adversity. We grow up surrounded by an overwhelming message of victory through violence.  Think about it:  When was the last time conflict was resolved in media in a manner that did not involve violence?  People just do not know how to be adults anymore.  Their sense of "pride" is unchecked by any form of parentage (because parents lack this skill as well, or are absent) and slights against pride must be avenged.
 
2013-02-04 11:46:16 AM  

pedrop357: rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?

He killed himself before he could be brought to a trial.  It is happening now for that scumbag in Colorado though.


Had Colorado substantially restricted the carrying of firearms by civilians in public, Mr. Lanza would not have been able to commit any criminal action.
 
2013-02-04 11:46:21 AM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

The story only mentions one of the robbers having a gun.  If you've got a better link, I'd be happy to see it.


No it doesn't. You have to dig pretty deep. This is buried all the way down to the second sentence of the story. Took me an full second of reading to get to it.

Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

I can see where the confusion happens, though.

When one pulled a gun, the coach fired back, shooting both teens.

It doesn't say anything here about what the second person did, just that the shooting started when the first one pulled a gun.
 
2013-02-04 11:46:56 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?


As I said: The newtown massacre is a reasonable price to pay for the right to bear arms.
 
2013-02-04 11:47:11 AM  
Cinaed: Trying to figure out how much two lives are worth.

I'm sure the pocket change was worth the loss.


and...

Ablejack: Couple years ago I was on a bike tour in the NYS Finger Lakes. One day the public campsite we had planned to stay at was full so we were given directions to a private site by the State Rangers. On our way to this site there were some children (4 kids approx.12-15 yrs old.) playing in their front yard. We supposed we were near this unplanned site but not sure exactly where it was. So we stopped, straddling our bikes on the road, to ask the kids if they knew where it was or if the road was nearby. Their father came out pointing a shotgun at us, screaming for us to our "homophobic expiltives" outta there. We obliged. Now we were clearly threatened with gun violence, would we have been the 'good guys' with a gun had we shot the man dead? Or were we the 'bad guys' that this man successfully defended his family from with his 2nd amendment rights?


Humans aren't mind readers.  Some are really good at interpreting body-language and other non-verbal cues, but most aren't.  So people have to assume the worst when situations like this arise.  For Ablejack's situation, no you weren't the bad guys, but neither was the father.  He was on his own property defending what he saw as potential "stranger-danger" to his children, not unlike many wild animals.  The gun was his "snake-rattle" and it worked: you guys skedaddled out of there.  No harm done to anyone.  If you shot him in response to his threat, you'd be murdering since he was on his own land, his "castle" if you will.  Everyone did the right thing in that case. (Although, I will give you that he was probably overreacting.)

For Cinaed: giving in to crime "because it's only $10, 20, 40, etc...  only encourages the mugger to try again.  Success breeds confidence.  Stopping a crime might well demoralize a criminal so that they might not try to mug again for a while, or at all.

A mugging usually goes like this:  Mugger demands your stuff, usually with a threat of harm in the form of a weapon.  The choice now lies with the victim: comply or resist.  We know what compliance gets: mugger takes your stuff and everyone lives.  The mugger will mug again.  Probably you again sometime since you were so easy. It's bad business to kill your repeat customers.  But if the victim resists, armed or not, the decision is now back on the mugger: to carry out the implied threat of violence, or discontinue the mugging event.  The mugger will probably base this decision on several factors, the most important of which would be "will I win the fight?" which, in turn, can be heavily influenced by the perceived threat of the potential victim.  A gun-brandishing victim would have a high-threat potential, IMHO.  I'd bet that most muggers would flee at that point and the mugging becomes a statistical non-event.  I don't know about you, but I'm all for preventing crime rather than encouraging it.

And as far as the news goes: where are all the stories about muggers being shot by these gun-wielding self defenders?  Aren't they all just "crazed heros spoiling for a good shooting"?  We don't hear about muggings all that much regardless of the outcome.  This story just made the news because it was school-related.
 
2013-02-04 11:49:13 AM  

Dimensio: pedrop357: rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?

He killed himself before he could be brought to a trial.  It is happening now for that scumbag in Colorado though.

Had Colorado Connecticut substantially restricted the carrying of firearms by civilians in public, Mr. Lanza would not have been able to commit any criminal action.


I have corrected my error.
 
2013-02-04 11:51:10 AM  

Dimensio: pedrop357: rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?

He killed himself before he could be brought to a trial.  It is happening now for that scumbag in Colorado though.

Had Colorado substantially restricted the carrying of firearms by civilians in public, Mr. Lanza would not have been able to commit any criminal action.


I guess that explains why his entire apartment wasn't rigged with home made explosives, huh?
 
2013-02-04 11:51:16 AM  

Cinaed: You will still have to explain how two dead is worth the time to make a few phone calls to the credit card companies and the loss of twenty bucks.


What two dead? This story mentions one dead. Granted, it's buried way deep, in the headline, in 200 point type, but it is buried. Between the comma and the word "outside".

And yeah, it's worth it to me. Why? Because if someone is willing to threaten MY life, that means that their life is a fair exchange. If the guys hadn't been threatening the coach's life, then you would have a point.
 
2013-02-04 11:53:10 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So you think you should wait until after you're injured to draw your weapon? Do you think you have a good chance of drawing a weapon after someone's already slugging away at you? Are you sure this person who's slugging away at you is going to stop before injuries become serious?


That's why I don't understand concealed carry at all. In order for self-defense to be effective if you are the target of a crime, you would have to act pre-emptively.  This would mean shooting a guy before they point a gun at you, or before they assault you.  As you've correctly asserted, if you wait for trouble to actually begin, it's probably already too late.  The likelihood of such an act working is low, which is why we aren't inundated with hundreds of stories a day about "Man saves himself from mugging with handgun."  So the solution that the pro-gun lobby and legislators have come up with is, as long as the shooter has an honest belief that bad stuff is about to happen, you can kill the person yelling/threatening/acting aggressive.

I ask the pro-concealed carry farkers in this thread.  Put yourself in this situation.  You've got a concealed carry permit.  Since you're responsible gun owners you've got it in a nice shoulder holster under your jacket and the safety is on.  You're out for a walk and you hear a voice behind you say that they've got a gun on you and that they want your wallet.  Are you legitimately going to draw, spin around and fire?

I'd say that coach is a very, very lucky man.  Lucky that the muggers were of the very stupid and non-shooty variety.
 
2013-02-04 11:54:57 AM  

Yogimus: No, people get shot in the U.S. every year because Americans, as a society, have abandoned teaching children how to deal with conflict and adversity. We grow up surrounded by an overwhelming message of victory through violence. Think about it: When was the last time conflict was resolved in media in a manner that did not involve violence? People just do not know how to be adults anymore. Their sense of "pride" is unchecked by any form of parentage (because parents lack this skill as well, or are absent) and slights against pride must be avenged.


I'm Canadian and grew up in Southern Ontario.  I watched exactly the same moves and TV as any American growing up as did nearly 30 million of my fellow countrymen (most of us live near the border and pretty much all of us consume US media).  The reason is not the media.
 
2013-02-04 11:56:24 AM  

Yogimus: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

You walk away.


Yeah, because turning your back on a violent, angry person is really safe. Let us know when you plan on testing this theory, I'm sure after covering your medical bills, the ticket revenue would still be enough to buy you a couple of quads for weekend fun.
 
2013-02-04 11:57:17 AM  
The easiest way for these two sweet little angels to have not been shot: Don't try to mug someone.

It was that simple, they were not shot for being black in public, they were not shot for freedom riding, they were shot because they tried to commit a crime.

It is not that someone else decided their lives was worth 10 bucks at most, it was THEM that decided their lives was worth only that. They decided to gamble for that amount and they lost.
 
2013-02-04 11:58:51 AM  

Mercutio74: Yogimus: No, people get shot in the U.S. every year because Americans, as a society, have abandoned teaching children how to deal with conflict and adversity. We grow up surrounded by an overwhelming message of victory through violence. Think about it: When was the last time conflict was resolved in media in a manner that did not involve violence? People just do not know how to be adults anymore. Their sense of "pride" is unchecked by any form of parentage (because parents lack this skill as well, or are absent) and slights against pride must be avenged.

I'm Canadian and grew up in Southern Ontario.  I watched exactly the same moves and TV as any American growing up as did nearly 30 million of my fellow countrymen (most of us live near the border and pretty much all of us consume US media).  The reason is not the media.


I agree, and I phrased my thought incoherently.

The media is not the cause, but a reflection of the mentality that pervades the sub-30 year old age brackets.  Think of what the largest consumer group out there is now. Pre-teens. Since they have money, the world begins to cater to americans at a VERY young age, and provides the illusion that they are the center of the world.  When reality hits, and they are confronted with adversity, they lack the skills to cope.
 
2013-02-04 11:59:57 AM  

Mikey1969: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

The story only mentions one of the robbers having a gun.  If you've got a better link, I'd be happy to see it.

No it doesn't. You have to dig pretty deep. This is buried all the way down to the second sentence of the story. Took me an full second of reading to get to it.

Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

I can see where the confusion happens, though.

When one pulled a gun, the coach fired back, shooting both teens.

It doesn't say anything here about what the second person did, just that the shooting started when the first one pulled a gun.


Only two guns were mentioned in the story.  We'll call him Mugger One's gun and the coach's gun.  "Two armed males" could very well just be a convenience for the already poor journalist because it would be weird to say "One armed male and his male accomplice".  Also, if there were three guns there what was the other guy doing?

Honestly, they already sound like the least effective pair of muggers in history.  If the other guy got shot while his gun was nestled in his buttcrack that would just be insulting to the whole profession of mugging.
 
2013-02-04 12:00:55 PM  

Mikey1969: Yogimus: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

You walk away.

Yeah, because turning your back on a violent, angry person is really safe. Let us know when you plan on testing this theory, I'm sure after covering your medical bills, the ticket revenue would still be enough to buy you a couple of quads for weekend fun.


HI! I AM A PUCKTARD WHO THINKS WALKING AWAY IS THE ACT OF TAKING AN ABOUT FACE AND MARCHING OFF!  I WILL DELIBERATELY DUMB THINGS DOWN AND MISINTERPRET STATEMENTS UNTIL I CAN EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST THEM!

Walk away.
 
2013-02-04 12:01:59 PM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

The story only mentions one of the robbers having a gun.  If you've got a better link, I'd be happy to see it.

No it doesn't. You have to dig pretty deep. This is buried all the way down to the second sentence of the story. Took me an full second of reading to get to it.

Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.

I can see where the confusion happens, though.

When one pulled a gun, the coach fired back, shooting both teens.

It doesn't say anything here about what the second person did, just that the shooting started when the first one pulled a gun.

Only two guns were mentioned in the story.  We'll call him Mugger One's gun and the coach's gun.  "Two armed males" could very well just be a convenience for the already poor journalist because it would be weird to say "One armed male and his male accomplice".  Also, if there were three guns there what was the other guy doing?

Honestly, they already sound like the least effective pair of muggers in history.  If the other guy got shot while his gun was nestled in his buttcrack that would just be insulting to the whole profession of mugging.


Once the group presents a firearm, the group is considered armed (legally)
 
2013-02-04 12:04:19 PM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: If you are in fear for your life because that 6' tall, 200 lb. guy is threatening you as he smashes shiat up, you ARE justified in that bullet between the eyes.

Of course, you knew this already.

Really?  That seems excessive, don't you think?


Think about it... Let's call this guy Jock. Pretend you're in a bar, you see a nice lady(Jock's girlfriend), and you start to hit on her. She's alone, Jock's in the bathroom, and you haven't noticed them together. Suddenly, Jock comes out, sees you talking to his lady, and gets in your face. He's huge, bent over the top of you, and screaming in your face. You back up, and Jock advances, throwing some shiat around, grabbing a pool cue off the table, maybe breaking it. All while telling you that he's "Going to break your little pipsqueak neck.". Now, in a perfect world, at the first sign of trouble, every single person in the bar went and simultaneously called 911, and The End.

of course, in reality, everyone turned to watch, the bar is noisy and crowded, and the bartender can't see what's going on . People in the crowd are cheering Jock on and calling for blood. Not because they know what's going on, but because we like to see fights. Unless you decided to teleport through the wall, something very, VERY bad is most likely to happen to YOU before anyone in authority shows up.

You make the call... I'm sure Jock is nice enough to agree on a "fair fight", maybe you can logic him in to the hospital.
 
2013-02-04 12:05:29 PM  

atomicmask: The easiest way for these two sweet little angels to have not been shot: Don't try to mug someone.

It was that simple, they were not shot for being black in public, they were not shot for freedom riding, they were shot because they tried to commit a crime.

It is not that someone else decided their lives was worth 10 bucks at most, it was THEM that decided their lives was worth only that. They decided to gamble for that amount and they lost.



Its always easier when you dehumanize and strip all context away. Let me ask, why do you think they were trying to rob a 70 year old coach? How desperate would you have to be to try to steal about tree fiddy? Further, what factors do you believe led these two 'muggers' to have personas that think this is a solution? And finally, for bonus points, if the mother of these two had known she wouldn't have been able to raise them appropriately when she was pregnant, would you have denied her an abortion, morally speaking? Or is life only worthless after being born?
 
2013-02-04 12:06:20 PM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, because turning your back on a violent, angry person is really safe. Let us know when you plan on testing this theory, I'm sure after covering your medical bills, the ticket revenue would still be enough to buy you a couple of quads for weekend fun.


I don't think you necessarily have to actually turn your back and plug your ears.  "Walk away" is a phrase that is used colloquially to connote changing one's location or leaving a situation.  In fact, the more I think about it, even if you WERE carrying and were planning on using your gun you'd probably want to put some distance between you and the guy that's intimidating you.

It also gives you a couple of advantages.  If you back away from the situation and the guy goes away, no one dies and you don't get charged with anything.  If the guy follows you and you eventually reach your threshold and do shoot the guy, you've got some evidence that you attempted to leave and yet the guy followed you in an increasingly agitated state.
 
2013-02-04 12:06:27 PM  

Yogimus: Mikey1969: Yogimus: Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Explain exactly why "talking to" reasonably implies imminent harm.

I was taking artistic liberty by using the phrase "furious talking to".  If you want me to change the hypothetical let's pretend the angry guy threatens grievous bodily harm to the smaller man.

You walk away.

Yeah, because turning your back on a violent, angry person is really safe. Let us know when you plan on testing this theory, I'm sure after covering your medical bills, the ticket revenue would still be enough to buy you a couple of quads for weekend fun.

HI! I AM A PUCKTARD WHO THINKS WALKING AWAY IS THE ACT OF TAKING AN ABOUT FACE AND MARCHING OFF!  I WILL DELIBERATELY DUMB THINGS DOWN AND MISINTERPRET STATEMENTS UNTIL I CAN EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST THEM!

Walk away.


Wow, I must say, that for a forehead-typer, you have a great grasp of basic English. You have no concept of actual grammar, but just being able to type actual words by banging your head on the keyboard is a strong first step.

Why don't you get back to us after the meds have kicked in?
 
2013-02-04 12:06:28 PM  

Mercutio74: Yogimus: No, people get shot in the U.S. every year because Americans, as a society, have abandoned teaching children how to deal with conflict and adversity. We grow up surrounded by an overwhelming message of victory through violence. Think about it: When was the last time conflict was resolved in media in a manner that did not involve violence? People just do not know how to be adults anymore. Their sense of "pride" is unchecked by any form of parentage (because parents lack this skill as well, or are absent) and slights against pride must be avenged.

I'm Canadian and grew up in Southern Ontario.  I watched exactly the same moves and TV as any American growing up as did nearly 30 million of my fellow countrymen (most of us live near the border and pretty much all of us consume US media).  The reason is not the media.


I agree.  It's a good thing that the VAST majority of people in the Northern Americas are rational and sane reagarding conflict resolution or these issues would we much worse than they are.  It's like people who are passionate about an issue (regardless of which side) exaggerate their talking points!  I'm not saying gun violence isn't an issue.  I'm saying there is a landslide majority of responsible gun users in relation to those that abuse that right.  (Gut feeling.  No data. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.  I'm logical like that.)
 
2013-02-04 12:07:12 PM  

Dimensio: Dimensio: pedrop357: rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?

He killed himself before he could be brought to a trial.  It is happening now for that scumbag in Colorado though.

Had Colorado Connecticut substantially restricted the carrying of firearms by civilians in public, Mr. Lanza would not have been able to commit any criminal action.

I have corrected my error.


Very true.  He must not have known that one needs a permit for any kind of carry-open or concealed. I wish someone had also told him that k-12 schools are off limits for firearm possession.  If only he had known the law, all of this could have been avoided.


//Have non-res CT permit.  reasonably easy process-2 sets of fingerprints, proof of training, money orders, application, SASE.
 
2013-02-04 12:08:11 PM  

Yogimus: Once the group presents a firearm, the group is considered armed (legally)


Ouch...  well, fark, if I'm ever in a street gang, I'm not going to be the one that has the tree branch on the ground that kinda looks like a gun in the dark.
 
2013-02-04 12:11:07 PM  

Yogimus: Walk away.


A friend of mine was walking home to her apartment in Philly when a would-be mugger pulls a gun on her and demands her belongings. She told him that she "doesn't have time for this crap" and continued on her way.
 
2013-02-04 12:12:02 PM  

Mikey1969: Think about it... Let's call this guy Jock. Pretend you're in a bar, you see a nice lady(Jock's girlfriend), and you start to hit on her. She's alone, Jock's in the bathroom, and you haven't noticed them together. Suddenly, Jock comes out, sees you talking to his lady, and gets in your face. He's huge, bent over the top of you, and screaming in your face. You back up, and Jock advances, throwing some shiat around, grabbing a pool cue off the table, maybe breaking it. All while telling you that he's "Going to break your little pipsqueak neck.". Now, in a perfect world, at the first sign of trouble, every single person in the bar went and simultaneously called 911, and The End.

of course, in reality, everyone turned to watch, the bar is noisy and crowded, and the bartender can't see what's going on . People in the crowd are cheering Jock on and calling for blood. Not because they know what's going on, but because we like to see fights. Unless you decided to teleport through the wall, something very, VERY bad is most likely to happen to YOU before anyone in authority shows up.

You make the call... I'm sure Jock is nice enough to agree on a "fair fight", maybe you can logic him in to the hospital.


A) I seriously doubt Jock's going to kill me.
B) Bars usually have bouncers if they're the size and type you're talking about
C) Even if I were a gun owner, and even if I did have a concealed carry permit, there's no farking way I'm going to take a gun drinking with me
D) Sometimes life hands you a situation where there's no short term victory, this sounds like one of those times
 
2013-02-04 12:13:06 PM  

Mercutio74: Also, if there were three guns there what was the other guy doing?


Look, I know you seem to be having trouble grasping this concept, but I'll try again.

First: The coach walks out to the car.

Second: Bad guys approach.

Third: 1st bad guy pulls gun.

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth: Coach pulls gun and shoots bad guy 1, Coach, gun already drawn, shoots Bad guy 2, Bad guy 2 pulls his own gun. These can be in any order, maybe the second bad guy tried to draw his own gun only after he got hit, maybe he drew it just after the first guy, but all of the witnesses consider the action to have really started after the first guy pulled his gun.

Regardless, you claimed the story only mentioned one of the two people having a gun, I pointed out that it specifically didn't, and your response was to ignore that and try for the extra point.
 
2013-02-04 12:13:12 PM  

Mercutio74: Yogimus: Once the group presents a firearm, the group is considered armed (legally)

Ouch...  well, fark, if I'm ever in a street gang, I'm not going to be the one that has the tree branch on the ground that kinda looks like a gun in the dark.


If your street gang is threatening someone and you happen to be holding a tree branch that looks like a gun, they would be considered justified in shooting along with the rest of your gang.

/Don't be in street gangs
//Don't threaten people while in street gangs
///Don't hold objects that look like guns while your street gang threatens people
 
2013-02-04 12:15:29 PM  

justtray: Its always easier when you dehumanize and strip all context away

.

This is where I think we depart.  I consider them human, I just don't consider them to be valuable humans. You are defined by what you do, all else is just fodder for your obituary.

justtray: Let me ask, why do you think they were trying to rob a 70 year old coach?


What do you consider an acceptable reason?

justtray: How desperate would you have to be to try to steal about tree fiddy?


Not desperate at all.  That amount would be a crime of opportunity.

justtray: Further, what factors do you believe led these two 'muggers' to have personas that think this is a solution?


That is simply not relevant to me. Once this becomes an acceptable option, that human being is inherently broken.  I am NOT saying broken beyond repair, but one that can reasonably be discarded.

justtray: And finally, for bonus points, if the mother of these two had known she wouldn't have been able to raise them appropriately when she was pregnant, would you have denied her an abortion, morally speaking? Or is life only worthless after being born?


You are attributing your stereotypes too broadly.  I support abortion.  (Yes, you are killing a fetus, which is a baby and a life. Good for you.)
 
2013-02-04 12:16:31 PM  

pedrop357: If your street gang is threatening someone and you happen to be holding a tree branch that looks like a gun, they would be considered justified in shooting along with the rest of your gang.

/Don't be in street gangs
//Don't threaten people while in street gangs
///Don't hold objects that look like guns while your street gang threatens people


No farking kidding.  In any case, the gang from my hood would probably mostly consist of 50-something suburban males loitering near the golf course.
 
2013-02-04 12:16:44 PM  

pedrop357: Dimensio: Dimensio: pedrop357: rufus-t-firefly: Yogimus: The answer isn't to remove my ability to carry a gun, but to hold me to the letter of the law for when I do.  One way treats me like a child, the other as an adult.

That worked out well in Newtown, didn't it?

When is Adam Lanza's trial?

He killed himself before he could be brought to a trial.  It is happening now for that scumbag in Colorado though.

Had Colorado Connecticut substantially restricted the carrying of firearms by civilians in public, Mr. Lanza would not have been able to commit any criminal action.

I have corrected my error.

Very true.  He must not have known that one needs a permit for any kind of carry-open or concealed. I wish someone had also told him that k-12 schools are off limits for firearm possession.  If only he had known the law, all of this could have been avoided.


//Have non-res CT permit.  reasonably easy process-2 sets of fingerprints, proof of training, money orders, application, SASE.


Would have been even easier if someone had just told him that murder and theft were illegal. THen he would have never killed his mother and stolen the guns in the first place.
 
2013-02-04 12:16:52 PM  

Mikey1969: Wow, I must say, that for a forehead-typer, you have a great grasp of basic English. You have no concept of actual grammar, but just being able to type actual words by banging your head on the keyboard is a strong first step.


I was attempting to portray you.  I may have made it too complicated for you to grasp.
 
2013-02-04 12:17:19 PM  

Mercutio74: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So you think you should wait until after you're injured to draw your weapon? Do you think you have a good chance of drawing a weapon after someone's already slugging away at you? Are you sure this person who's slugging away at you is going to stop before injuries become serious?

That's why I don't understand concealed carry at all. In order for self-defense to be effective if you are the target of a crime, you would have to act pre-emptively.  This would mean shooting a guy before they point a gun at you, or before they assault you.  As you've correctly asserted, if you wait for trouble to actually begin, it's probably already too late.  The likelihood of such an act working is low, which is why we aren't inundated with hundreds of stories a day about "Man saves himself from mugging with handgun."  So the solution that the pro-gun lobby and legislators have come up with is, as long as the shooter has an honest belief that bad stuff is about to happen, you can kill the person yelling/threatening/acting aggressive.

I ask the pro-concealed carry farkers in this thread.  Put yourself in this situation.  You've got a concealed carry permit.  Since you're responsible gun owners you've got it in a nice shoulder holster under your jacket and the safety is on.  You're out for a walk and you hear a voice behind you say that they've got a gun on you and that they want your wallet.  Are you legitimately going to draw, spin around and fire?

I'd say that coach is a very, very lucky man.  Lucky that the muggers were of the very stupid and non-shooty variety.


Just because being under attack lowers the chance of your gun serving you, doesn't mean there aren't other situations where your gun can't serve you or someone else.  Quite honestly, it's a bit ridiculous to discuss how we may react in a hypothetical situation, because there's so many variables that tip the scales back and forth, each case has to be decided upon at the time.  If someone has a gun on me, and I believe they're going to kill me, it would be stupid not to try something though, wouldn't it?  I may have to wait for an opportune moment, and one may never show up, but it's better to have an option than no options.

which is why we aren't inundated with hundreds of stories a day about "Man saves himself from mugging with handgun." - no, the reason for that is because there's more interesting news, and it would become pretty repetitive.  It happens every day.
 
2013-02-04 12:18:51 PM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: Think about it... Let's call this guy Jock. Pretend you're in a bar, you see a nice lady(Jock's girlfriend), and you start to hit on her. She's alone, Jock's in the bathroom, and you haven't noticed them together. Suddenly, Jock comes out, sees you talking to his lady, and gets in your face. He's huge, bent over the top of you, and screaming in your face. You back up, and Jock advances, throwing some shiat around, grabbing a pool cue off the table, maybe breaking it. All while telling you that he's "Going to break your little pipsqueak neck.". Now, in a perfect world, at the first sign of trouble, every single person in the bar went and simultaneously called 911, and The End.

of course, in reality, everyone turned to watch, the bar is noisy and crowded, and the bartender can't see what's going on . People in the crowd are cheering Jock on and calling for blood. Not because they know what's going on, but because we like to see fights. Unless you decided to teleport through the wall, something very, VERY bad is most likely to happen to YOU before anyone in authority shows up.

You make the call... I'm sure Jock is nice enough to agree on a "fair fight", maybe you can logic him in to the hospital.

A) I seriously doubt Jock's going to kill me.
B) Bars usually have bouncers if they're the size and type you're talking about
C) Even if I were a gun owner, and even if I did have a concealed carry permit, there's no farking way I'm going to take a gun drinking with me
D) Sometimes life hands you a situation where there's no short term victory, this sounds like one of those times


Also, you can't legally carry in an establishment that serves alcohol as a primary business.
 
2013-02-04 12:22:29 PM  

Mikey1969: Look, I know you seem to be having trouble grasping this concept, but I'll try again.

First: The coach walks out to the car.

Second: Bad guys approach.

Third: 1st bad guy pulls gun.

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth: Coach pulls gun and shoots bad guy 1, Coach, gun already drawn, shoots Bad guy 2, Bad guy 2 pulls his own gun. These can be in any order, maybe the second bad guy tried to draw his own gun only after he got hit, maybe he drew it just after the first guy, but all of the witnesses consider the action to have really started after the first guy pulled his gun.

Regardless, you claimed the story only mentioned one of the two people having a gun, I pointed out that it specifically didn't, and your response was to ignore that and try for the extra point.


Well, here's the thing.  The article never said that bad guy 2 pulled a gun.  It never even says that bad guy 2 had a gun on his person.  In fact, the article implies that the coach only saw one gun, as after the first one pulled a gun, he shot the two muggers one after the other... right in the same sentence.

Here...

"When one pulled a gun, the coach fired back, shooting both teens."

I will grant you that the "journalists" suck because if the coach indeed "fired back" they failed to mention the first shot being fired by the muggers.  Also, I would suggest that if they use a phrase like "fired back" when the only shots fired were from the coach, is it not actually also likely that even those the men were "armed" that they'd be treating them as a group even if they only had one gun?
 
2013-02-04 12:25:58 PM  

Mercutio74: A) I seriously doubt Jock's going to kill me.
B) Bars usually have bouncers if they're the size and type you're talking about
C) Even if I were a gun owner, and even if I did have a concealed carry permit, there's no farking way I'm going to take a gun drinking with me
D) Sometimes life hands you a situation where there's no short term victory, this sounds like one of those times


A: You missed the point. Not everyone is as "sure" as you are. All you have to do is feel that your life is in danger, period.
B: Bars SOMETIMES have bouncers. Not only that, I've been to plenty of small bars with bad layouts and hidden corners... Also, the bars that have bouncers don't have them everywhere at all times.
C: Me either, but the bar choice was just to give a setting where you might piss someone off who was in a state of mind to be less than rational, a situation where you could be literally backed into a corner, one where bystanders are less likely to call the police, and one where the opportunity might exist to piss someone off(As in hitting on their girlfriend). Way to play the literal card... It's not like people use metaphor to set up theoretical situations ever...
D: You're right, you know. Successfully defending your life is a LONG term victory.
 
2013-02-04 12:27:46 PM  

pedrop357: //Have non-res CT permit.  reasonably easy process-2 sets of fingerprints, proof of training, money orders, application, SASE.


Getting my CT permit was not pleasant.  Apparently the police chief in my town tries to get you angry during the application process, so they can reject you on grounds that you have a hostile temper.  They lost my applications, 6 times if I recall correctly. My last submission, I hand delivered it (even though the instructions specifically say it must be mailed) and wrote down the names of several people who accepted it.
 
2013-02-04 12:28:31 PM  

Yogimus: I was attempting to portray you.


That's why you typed in all caps in 3rd grade language? Yeah, because that accurately reflected MY post.

You ass...
 
2013-02-04 12:30:50 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Just because being under attack lowers the chance of your gun serving you, doesn't mean there aren't other situations where your gun can't serve you or someone else. Quite honestly, it's a bit ridiculous to discuss how we may react in a hypothetical situation, because there's so many variables that tip the scales back and forth, each case has to be decided upon at the time. If someone has a gun on me, and I believe they're going to kill me, it would be stupid not to try something though, wouldn't it? I may have to wait for an opportune moment, and one may never show up, but it's better to have an option than no options.


Yes, true.  However, I see far more opportunity that you'd be able to protect someone else from harm with your gun than you would be able to protect yourself with a gun.  And honestly as far as I'm concerned, if you're a sane and responsible gun owner, you can take it pretty much wherever you want and I don't have a problem with that. If you want to take it to dinner and feed it little bits of steak from your plate... knock yourself out, my friend.

But here's the thing.  How do we separate out "sane and responsible" from Mikey?  That's the issue I have.  I think it's too easy to get a permit.  I think that if carrying a gun in public (when not performing the duties as a militia member) is that important to you, detailed training and certification should be required.  Including not only tactics for dealing with armed threats, but also education on the psychology of non-violent conflict resolution and also situational awareness on when pulling a gun is apt to do more harm than good (like say in a crowded hallway during confusion generated by a public shooting).
 
2013-02-04 12:32:00 PM  

Mikey1969: D: You're right, you know. Successfully defending your life is a LONG term victory.


Unless that victory ends up with you either bankrupting yourself defending yourself in court or going to jail.  Bar altercations are rarely fatal.
 
2013-02-04 12:33:47 PM  

Mikey1969: Yogimus: I was attempting to portray you.

That's why you typed in all caps in 3rd grade language? Yeah, because that accurately reflected MY post.

You ass...


Hey, now you're getting it.
 
2013-02-04 12:34:59 PM  

Yogimus: Also, you can't legally carry in an establishment that serves alcohol as a primary business.


Unless you're in Arizona...
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/guns-bars-confusion/article_1d23c36 5- 75d4-5c76-b977-5c62c61f45ba.html
 
2013-02-04 12:35:00 PM  
So the coach stopped the muggers with a gun that won't be banned by any of the new proposals?
 
2013-02-04 12:36:32 PM  

Dimensio: Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.

Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?


Are you saying they should?  Because police themselves disagree with that particular assessment, champ.  I don't find self defense with deadly force disturbing, but I DO find the hero worship of these people who end a human life a little disturbing.

Happened with Zimmerman too.  WOOOOOO Get 'em cowboy!  Is the prevailing American response to these stories, when it should be, "The loss of human life is always a tragedy, even when that human was a criminal.  And I sincerely hope there comes a day when nobody has to make a choice like that."

As it stands, I see a farkload of really farked up people who seem to be itching to get into a situation like this on their own so they can really see how they measure up on the "hero scale".

Our default reaction to "dead americans" shouldn't be "whatever, he was a scumbag.  We should kill em all anyway."  If you don't see why, then you're a neanderthal who wasn't hugged enough growing up.
 
2013-02-04 12:37:48 PM  

Mercutio74: I ask the pro-concealed carry farkers in this thread.  Put yourself in this situation.  You've got a concealed carry permit.  Since you're responsible gun owners you've got it in a nice shoulder holster under your jacket and the safety is on.


Why would I want a shoulder holster? It's not any more "responsible" than anything on the hip that is concealable.

You're out for a walk and you hear a voice behind you say that they've got a gun on you and that they want your wallet.  Are you legitimately going to draw, spin around and fire?

No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.
 
2013-02-04 12:38:22 PM  

BeesNuts: Dimensio: Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.

Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?

Are you saying they should?  Because police themselves disagree with that particular assessment, champ.  I don't find self defense with deadly force disturbing, but I DO find the hero worship of these people who end a human life a little disturbing.

Happened with Zimmerman too.  WOOOOOO Get 'em cowboy!  Is the prevailing American response to these stories, when it should be, "The loss of human life is always a tragedy, even when that human was a criminal.  And I sincerely hope there comes a day when nobody has to make a choice like that."

As it stands, I see a farkload of really farked up people who seem to be itching to get into a situation like this on their own so they can really see how they measure up on the "hero scale".

Our default reaction to "dead americans" shouldn't be "whatever, he was a scumbag.  We should kill em all anyway."  If you don't see why, then you're a neanderthal who wasn't hugged enough growing up.


So are you saying, then, that you advocate requiring victims of attacks to submit to the attack while offering no effective defense, and that your strawman misrepresentation of civilians who carry firearms is justification for that advocacy, or have I misunderstood your position?
 
2013-02-04 12:39:33 PM  

BeesNuts: Dimensio: Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.

Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?

Are you saying they should?  Because police themselves disagree with that particular assessment, champ.  I don't find self defense with deadly force disturbing, but I DO find the hero worship of these people who end a human life a little disturbing.

Happened with Zimmerman too.  WOOOOOO Get 'em cowboy!  Is the prevailing American response to these stories, when it should be, "The loss of human life is always a tragedy, even when that human was a criminal.  And I sincerely hope there comes a day when nobody has to make a choice like that."

As it stands, I see a farkload of really farked up people who seem to be itching to get into a situation like this on their own so they can really see how they measure up on the "hero scale".

Our default reaction to "dead americans" shouldn't be "whatever, he was a scumbag.  We should kill em all anyway."  If you don't see why, then you're a neanderthal who wasn't hugged enough growing up.


been hugged plenty, been robbed twice.  Seen what happens to families that have to go to sleep in a house that was broken into.  So yeah.  Being a criminal should be more dangerous than walking down the street.
 
2013-02-04 12:39:46 PM  

Mikey1969: Why would I want a shoulder holster? It's not any more "responsible" than anything on the hip that is concealable.


Badly constructed sentence on my part.  The responsible part would be the safety being on.

Mikey1969: No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.


Ok, so what, some guy pretends like he's going to walk past you but instead pulls a gun?  Are you still going to draw on him?
 
2013-02-04 12:39:54 PM  

JustGetItRight: AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.

You know what is important about your statement?  The underlined part.

You might want to look at murder rates over the last few decades.  I think you'll be quite surprised.

Keep on with the gun grab and I think you'll be surprised at the congressional mid terms too.


Fark that.  You guys set that narrative as soon as Sandy Hook happened.  You all invented the specter of gun grabbing.  And you will continue to peddle the idea that your guns are about to be grabbed (any day now) until the midterms because you know it plays well to low information voters.  Grabbed or not, this is now the Tax Discussion.  Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for gay marriages because they are democrats.  Now?  Democrats obviously want to take your guns because that's what democrats do when there's a shooting.

So even if there are only 3 Yea Votes for Feinstein's bill, all democrats will be in jeopardy, because the NRA is that powerful.

So you keep on keeping on, but don't blame this political shiatshow on the dems.  The ring leader of this particular circus is Wayne La Pierre.  Feinstein's just one of the clowns.
 
2013-02-04 12:41:24 PM  

pedrop357: But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related


OK, give us numbers. Tell us what you mean by "substantial"?
 
2013-02-04 12:41:41 PM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: D: You're right, you know. Successfully defending your life is a LONG term victory.

Unless that victory ends up with you either bankrupting yourself defending yourself in court or going to jail.


A: If you successfully defended yourself, including being legally allowed to do so based on the situation, then you don't spend a dime "defending" yourself. You really need to learn how our justice system works. They might detain you for awhile, maybe even overnight, but if you were 100% justified, then they let you go and start an investigation.

  Bar altercations are rarely fatal.

Holy farking Christ THE BAR SCENARIO WAS FOR GODDAM ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
 
2013-02-04 12:43:24 PM  

BeesNuts: JustGetItRight: AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.

You know what is important about your statement?  The underlined part.

You might want to look at murder rates over the last few decades.  I think you'll be quite surprised.

Keep on with the gun grab and I think you'll be surprised at the congressional mid terms too.

Fark that.  You guys set that narrative as soon as Sandy Hook happened.  You all invented the specter of gun grabbing.  And you will continue to peddle the idea that your guns are about to be grabbed (any day now) until the midterms because you know it plays well to low information voters.  Grabbed or not, this is now the Tax Discussion.  Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for gay marriages because they are democrats.  Now?  Democrats obviously want to take your guns because that's what democrats do when there's a shooting.

So even if there are only 3 Yea Votes for Feinstein's bill, all democrats will be in jeopardy, because the NRA is that powerful.

So you keep on keeping on, but don't blame this political shiatshow on the dems.  The ring leader of this particular circus is Wayne La Pierre.  Feinstein's just one of the clowns.


The NRA isn't what is buying up all the ammunition and all the firearms nation wide.  They are just a convenient straw man for anti-gun politicians.  The pro gun culture is not chained to an organization.
 
2013-02-04 12:43:24 PM  

Mikey1969: Mercutio74: You're out for a walk and you hear a voice behind you say that they've got a gun on you and that they want your wallet.  Are you legitimately going to draw, spin around and fire?

No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.


Exactly. What actually happens is the bad guys take your wallet and your gun.
 
2013-02-04 12:44:27 PM  

Yogimus: been hugged plenty, been robbed twice. Seen what happens to families that have to go to sleep in a house that was broken into. So yeah. Being a criminal should be more dangerous than walking down the street.


There are actually plenty of things you can do to make your house less inviting to robbers.  Obviously nothing is 100% effective, but having bright motion sensing lights, keeping large obscuring objects like overgrown vegetation to a minimum, having an alarm system with some video surveillance (or at least a sign and fake camera housings) and a family dog are quite effective at making robbers choose a different house before they even get inside yours.

I'd actually highly recommend a big loveable dog if your lifestyle will support it.  It's great for kids to grow up with animals and even the most docile will rise to the occasion if someone comes in to harm the family.
 
2013-02-04 12:45:02 PM  

Mikey1969: Mercutio74: I ask the pro-concealed carry farkers in this thread.  Put yourself in this situation.  You've got a concealed carry permit.  Since you're responsible gun owners you've got it in a nice shoulder holster under your jacket and the safety is on.

Why would I want a shoulder holster? It's not any more "responsible" than anything on the hip that is concealable.

You're out for a walk and you hear a voice behind you say that they've got a gun on you and that they want your wallet.  Are you legitimately going to draw, spin around and fire?

No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.


How about a real situation?  You get on a subway.  A guy sits next to you and then you feel the barrel of a handgun press into your ribcage.

"We're just going to ride to center city to make a withdrawal.  Nothing fancy, stay calm and you'll be fine."

What do?

Or here's one.  You're riding your bike down Girard Ave and you stop at a stop sign with some guys hanging out around it at the corner.  One runs out into the street, punches you square in the jaw and gets on your bike and rides off.  The other 4 guys just stay there at the corner and watch.

What do?

/Smart criminals create the situations to be so imbalanced that you can't pull a gun even if you have one, and have any expectation of survival.
 
2013-02-04 12:45:02 PM  

The Larch: Mikey1969: Mercutio74: You're out for a walk and you hear a voice behind you say that they've got a gun on you and that they want your wallet.  Are you legitimately going to draw, spin around and fire?

No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.

Exactly. What actually happens is the bad guys take your wallet and your gun.


But how will he fill out the background check?
 
2013-02-04 12:45:14 PM  

BeesNuts: JustGetItRight: AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.

You know what is important about your statement?  The underlined part.

You might want to look at murder rates over the last few decades.  I think you'll be quite surprised.

Keep on with the gun grab and I think you'll be surprised at the congressional mid terms too.

Fark that.  You guys set that narrative as soon as Sandy Hook happened.  You all invented the specter of gun grabbing.  And you will continue to peddle the idea that your guns are about to be grabbed (any day now) until the midterms because you know it plays well to low information voters.  Grabbed or not, this is now the Tax Discussion.  Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for gay marriages because they are democrats.  Now?  Democrats obviously want to take your guns because that's what democrats do when there's a shooting.

So even if there are only 3 Yea Votes for Feinstein's bill, all democrats will be in jeopardy, because the NRA is that powerful.

So you keep on keeping on, but don't blame this political shiatshow on the dems.  The ring leader of this particular circus is Wayne La Pierre.  Feinstein's just one of the clowns.


To provide fair consideration: several legislators -- including Senator Feinstein -- have explicitly advocated firearm confiscation. While their opinion is a minority opinion, their statements do demonstrably exist and thus they have willfully assisted in creating fears of confiscation.
 
2013-02-04 12:47:17 PM  

Mikey1969: A: If you successfully defended yourself, including being legally allowed to do so based on the situation, then you don't spend a dime "defending" yourself. You really need to learn how our justice system works. They might detain you for awhile, maybe even overnight, but if you were 100% justified, then they let you go and start an investigation.


That's if the DA decides not to press charges.  Personally, I don't have the same trust in lawyers or the justice system that you do.  I'd rather not risk the rest of my life on killing some guy pre-emptively when what would likely happen is that I'd get my ass handed to me and just sue him in civil court.
 
2013-02-04 12:48:53 PM  

Mikey1969: Holy farking Christ THE BAR SCENARIO WAS FOR GODDAM ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.


Be a better illustrator then.  I'm not going to be responsible for the crappiness of your hypotheticals, I've got my own crappy hypotheticals to worry about.
 
2013-02-04 12:51:48 PM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: Why would I want a shoulder holster? It's not any more "responsible" than anything on the hip that is concealable.

Badly constructed sentence on my part.  The responsible part would be the safety being on.

Mikey1969: No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.

Ok, so what, some guy pretends like he's going to walk past you but instead pulls a gun?  Are you still going to draw on him?


OK, maybe you don't really understand the people who would carry concealed. No, you don't just whip it out, so to speak. You actually try to avoid anyone getting shot. This might include not even letting the person know you have a gun and handing them your wallet. That guy shoots your wife though, and you draw while he's doing it and drop him if you can. Despite what people pretend, CCW holders don't just pull out their guns and blast away, they look for an opening and use it to their advantage, they also will find cover before getting in a John Woo calibre gunfight. I don't understand why this is a tough concept. Either people truly don't know, or they are just being assholes about it. What I can't figure out is the ratio.
 
2013-02-04 12:52:24 PM  

Mercutio74: Yogimus: been hugged plenty, been robbed twice. Seen what happens to families that have to go to sleep in a house that was broken into. So yeah. Being a criminal should be more dangerous than walking down the street.

There are actually plenty of things you can do to make your house less inviting to robbers.  Obviously nothing is 100% effective, but having bright motion sensing lights, keeping large obscuring objects like overgrown vegetation to a minimum, having an alarm system with some video surveillance (or at least a sign and fake camera housings) and a family dog are quite effective at making robbers choose a different house before they even get inside yours.

I'd actually highly recommend a big loveable dog if your lifestyle will support it.  It's great for kids to grow up with animals and even the most docile will rise to the occasion if someone comes in to harm the family.


I agree completely.   I actually prefer insurance as my source of peace of mind.  I have my pistol to hedge my bets.
 
2013-02-04 12:55:37 PM  

BeesNuts: Or here's one.  You're riding your bike down Girard Ave and you stop at a stop sign with some guys hanging out around it at the corner.  One runs out into the street, punches you square in the jaw and gets on your bike and rides off.  The other 4 guys just stay there at the corner and watch.


I knew a guy that was riding his bike in Phoenix and passed a bus stop advertisement. A hand came out and clocked him, dude stole his bike. Just like you mentioned, except that he didn't even know someone was there.

Shiatty bike, too...
 
2013-02-04 12:55:40 PM  

Mikey1969: OK, maybe you don't really understand the people who would carry concealed. No, you don't just whip it out, so to speak. You actually try to avoid anyone getting shot. This might include not even letting the person know you have a gun and handing them your wallet. That guy shoots your wife though, and you draw while he's doing it and drop him if you can. Despite what people pretend, CCW holders don't just pull out their guns and blast away, they look for an opening and use it to their advantage, they also will find cover before getting in a John Woo calibre gunfight. I don't understand why this is a tough concept. Either people truly don't know, or they are just being assholes about it. What I can't figure out is the ratio.


See, that sounds reasonable to me.  You even stopped just short of admitting that any criminal or group of criminals worth a damn would try to arrange it so that even if you did have a gun, it wouldn't make sense to use it.  It's not that hard, I can admit there are certain times where a gun would be useful.  But I don't think those times occur often enough that I would actually want the responsibility and bother of carrying one, and there are probably just as many rare situations where carrying a gun would be a detriment.

But as long as you're sane and responsible, if you want to heft one about... be my guest.
 
2013-02-04 12:56:38 PM  

Mikey1969: Mercutio74: Mikey1969: Why would I want a shoulder holster? It's not any more "responsible" than anything on the hip that is concealable.

Badly constructed sentence on my part.  The responsible part would be the safety being on.

Mikey1969: No, you asshole, that's not what happens, and you know it. Troll elsewhere.

If you're not trolling, you're being willfully obtuse.

Ok, so what, some guy pretends like he's going to walk past you but instead pulls a gun?  Are you still going to draw on him?

OK, maybe you don't really understand the people who would carry concealed. No, you don't just whip it out, so to speak. You actually try to avoid anyone getting shot. This might include not even letting the person know you have a gun and handing them your wallet. That guy shoots your wife though, and you draw while he's doing it and drop him if you can. Despite what people pretend, CCW holders don't just pull out their guns and blast away, they look for an opening and use it to their advantage, they also will find cover before getting in a John Woo calibre gunfight. I don't understand why this is a tough concept. Either people truly don't know, or they are just being assholes about it. What I can't figure out is the ratio.


They don't consider it, project their ignorance onto the situation, and represent that hypothetical as a credible scenario.  These folks can be identified by their use of future tense, as in "We WILL have blood in the streets", while completely ignoring the fact that this happens every day.  Just point out that this is the way things already are.
 
2013-02-04 12:59:13 PM  

Dimensio: BeesNuts: Dimensio: Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.

Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?

Are you saying they should?  Because police themselves disagree with that particular assessment, champ.  I don't find self defense with deadly force disturbing, but I DO find the hero worship of these people who end a human life a little disturbing.

Happened with Zimmerman too.  WOOOOOO Get 'em cowboy!  Is the prevailing American response to these stories, when it should be, "The loss of human life is always a tragedy, even when that human was a criminal.  And I sincerely hope there comes a day when nobody has to make a choice like that."

As it stands, I see a farkload of really farked up people who seem to be itching to get into a situation like this on their own so they can really see how they measure up on the "hero scale".

Our default reaction to "dead americans" shouldn't be "whatever, he was a scumbag.  We should kill em all anyway."  If you don't see why, then you're a neanderthal who wasn't hugged enough growing up.

So are you saying, then, that you advocate requiring victims of attacks to submit to the attack while offering no effective defense, and that your strawman misrepresentation of civilians who carry firearms is justification for that advocacy, or have I misunderstood your position?


Not at all.  I'm saying that we shouldn't put this guy on a pedestal for killing someone, even someone who was trying to rob him or whatever.  It's a shame it came to that.  He did what he felt he had to do.  That doesn't mean it's "awesome" or even "good".  It's *still* tragic.

I built no strawman.  You said a police officer should use deadly force in the face of violence.  That's wrong.  They have the force continuum which doesn't exactly start with "shoot the bastard!"  The reason for that is to prevent needless loss of life.  The *only* time I believe you are justified in killing somebody is if you are in danger of being killed.  This guy clearly felt he was, and had legitimate reason to feel that way.  So he's justified.  Again, that STILL doesn't make it "good" that he had to kill a man.

I also see, frequently in these threads, people generally just advocating for the murder of "bad guys" which is kind of the entire farking purpose of our legal system.  So no, self defense isn't murder, but the end result of "dead person" doesn't really need to take into account some kind of good guy bad guy balance.  Hell, this teacher could be a god damned rapist for all we know.  So I avoid making value judgments on dead people whenever possible.  Because, frankly, it's still a shame that it came to that.

Additionally, some folks take it a step further, and did exactly that for the Zimmerman story.  "If you're committing a crime you forfeit your life!  Scumbag!"  Folks going out into the world with a gun and that attitude scare the shiat out of me, and SHOULD scare anyone with a brain.  I asked questions about real situations I've been in while living in Philly because I don't think a gun would have helped save my life.  In fact, I'm fairly sure it would have further endangered it.  But those were my only two close calls.  All other altercations I was able to talk my way out of or stall long enough for police to see it on patrol and break it up.  If I went into situations armed and assuming that all criminals were a threat to my physical well-being, I'm pretty sure I'd be dead today.

/Sometimes the lady running at you with a knife is just crazy and thinks you are her friend Jacob who owes her money.
//Hey hey whoa whoa slow down, my name is Andrew and I've never seen you before, get a closer look.
///Oh.  I'm sorry.
 
2013-02-04 12:59:57 PM  

Mikey1969: BeesNuts: Or here's one.  You're riding your bike down Girard Ave and you stop at a stop sign with some guys hanging out around it at the corner.  One runs out into the street, punches you square in the jaw and gets on your bike and rides off.  The other 4 guys just stay there at the corner and watch.

I knew a guy that was riding his bike in Phoenix and passed a bus stop advertisement. A hand came out and clocked him, dude stole his bike. Just like you mentioned, except that he didn't even know someone was there.

Shiatty bike, too...


Lol... I used to work at a Little Caesars and we had a little fenced in area where we kept our dumpster.  I'd park my bike there when I rode in.  Late one night I got a call and it was some clever kid telling me that I had a nice bike (I didn't, btw) and that he hoped it would like its new home.  I told him that the gear changer is farked up and I hoped that they would be happy together.  I checked, of course, and that douche stole my bike.

Now THAT'S the heist of the century.
 
2013-02-04 01:02:04 PM  

BeesNuts: /Sometimes the lady running at you with a knife is just crazy and thinks you are her friend Jacob who owes her money.
//Hey hey whoa whoa slow down, my name is Andrew and I've never seen you before, get a closer look.
///Oh. I'm sorry.


Awkward.

Again, sorry I... you know... threatened to cut you.  Have a good night, sir.
 
2013-02-04 01:05:18 PM  

BeesNuts: Dimensio: BeesNuts: Dimensio: Mercutio74: Dimensio: Opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should give the benefit of the doubt to the violent criminal.

Or, I guess you could say that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms believe that the law should expect as much responsibility from that citizen as you would from a police officer concerning the care and discharge of their weapons.  You can't just turn a city into a rootin' tootin' old west re-enactment.

Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?

Are you saying they should?  Because police themselves disagree with that particular assessment, champ.  I don't find self defense with deadly force disturbing, but I DO find the hero worship of these people who end a human life a little disturbing.

Happened with Zimmerman too.  WOOOOOO Get 'em cowboy!  Is the prevailing American response to these stories, when it should be, "The loss of human life is always a tragedy, even when that human was a criminal.  And I sincerely hope there comes a day when nobody has to make a choice like that."

As it stands, I see a farkload of really farked up people who seem to be itching to get into a situation like this on their own so they can really see how they measure up on the "hero scale".

Our default reaction to "dead americans" shouldn't be "whatever, he was a scumbag.  We should kill em all anyway."  If you don't see why, then you're a neanderthal who wasn't hugged enough growing up.

So are you saying, then, that you advocate requiring victims of attacks to submit to the attack while offering no effective defense, and that your strawman misrepresentation of civilians who carry firearms is justification for that advocacy, or have I misunderstood your position?

Not at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't put this guy on a pedestal for killing someone, even someone who was trying to rob him or whatever. It's a shame it came to that. He did what he felt he had to do. That doesn't mean it's "awesome" or even "good". It's *still* tragic.


Then I have misunderstood your position and I apologize. I concur that the use of deadly force for legitimate self defense is not itself a praiseworthy act.
 
2013-02-04 01:05:22 PM  
Beesnuts, our disagreement is in the value we place in human life.  To me, not all deaths are tragedies, not all life is precious.  However, I respect your point of view. (as wrong as it may be :p )
 
2013-02-04 01:07:23 PM  

Mercutio74: Mikey1969: Holy farking Christ THE BAR SCENARIO WAS FOR GODDAM ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.

Be a better illustrator then.  I'm not going to be responsible for the crappiness of your hypotheticals, I've got my own crappy hypotheticals to worry about.


I put it into a situation where something might happen that would fit the criteria for being cornered, being in fear for your life, and having inadvertently pissed someone off. What more do you farking want?

You obviously aren't ging to accept ANY scenario, and your "please help enlighten me" rap is total bullshiat.
 
2013-02-04 01:08:45 PM  
I am beginning to think Farkers like "AverageAmericanguy" are either city slickers that are afraid of guns or felons that are not allowed to own guns. That is why they are so down on them. They can't have them and don't want anyone else too, either.

Sorry you feel that way, dude or dudette. That's the breaks. Don't come down on me, cause you farked up..
 
2013-02-04 01:11:22 PM  

Mercutio74: Lol... I used to work at a Little Caesars and we had a little fenced in area where we kept our dumpster.  I'd park my bike there when I rode in.  Late one night I got a call and it was some clever kid telling me that I had a nice bike (I didn't, btw) and that he hoped it would like its new home.  I told him that the gear changer is farked up and I hoped that they would be happy together.  I checked, of course, and that douche stole my bike.

Now THAT'S the heist of the century.


Back in the day, I worked at an Applebee's in central Phoenix. We had a small bike rack in the back, where our dumpster also was, but it had a locked steel door and a 10 ft high wall. We still had bikes regularly stolen. 2 1/2 bikes myself. It is nice when they steal the broken shiat though... Someone stole and old school pull-out stereo from my Jeep that wouldn't rewind tapes and ate them half the time, it was the motivator to actually get myself a decent one.
 
2013-02-04 01:12:18 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld:
Getting my CT permit was not pleasant.  Apparently the police chief in my town tries to get you angry during the application process, so they can reject you on grounds that you have a hostile temper.  They lost my applications, 6 times if I recall correctly. My last submission, I hand delivered it (even though the instructions specifically say it must be mailed) and wrote down the names of several people who accepted it.

I read of the same problems for residents.  As a non-resident, I applied to the state police or some division of it and they're apparently shall issue.

I have a non-res MA permit and though I got stuck with the "sporting" restriction for my 1st time, the state police are supposed to be far more objective and closer to shall issue than many of the local police depts.
I've read that it's apparently very hard to get even a restricted Class A LTC from Boston PD, which is a requirement to merely possess a bunch of models of semi-autos.
 
2013-02-04 01:12:24 PM  

Dimensio: BeesNuts: JustGetItRight: AverageAmericanGuy: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

The Constitution can be amended. The rules written by a handful of rich, white, racist slaveowners 200 years ago can be changed, and should be changed if they fail to keep up with fundamental changes to our American culture.

It can't be denied that people are outraged and horrified at the sheer volume of gun violence news these days.

You know what is important about your statement?  The underlined part.

You might want to look at murder rates over the last few decades.  I think you'll be quite surprised.

Keep on with the gun grab and I think you'll be surprised at the congressional mid terms too.

Fark that.  You guys set that narrative as soon as Sandy Hook happened.  You all invented the specter of gun grabbing.  And you will continue to peddle the idea that your guns are about to be grabbed (any day now) until the midterms because you know it plays well to low information voters.  Grabbed or not, this is now the Tax Discussion.  Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for gay marriages because they are democrats.  Now?  Democrats obviously want to take your guns because that's what democrats do when there's a shooting.

So even if there are only 3 Yea Votes for Feinstein's bill, all democrats will be in jeopardy, because the NRA is that powerful.

So you keep on keeping on, but don't blame this political shiatshow on the dems.  The ring leader of this particular circus is Wayne La Pierre.  Feinstein's just one of the clowns.

To provide fair consideration: several legislators -- including Senator Feinstein -- have explicitly advocated firearm confiscation. While their opinion is a minority opinion, their statements do demonstrably exist and thus they have willfully assisted in creating fears of confiscation.


The fears existed before her advocacy had begun.  I'm not interested in having a timeline-off though so whatever.  Do you honestly believe that A)it has a chance of passing and/or B)it represents the opinion of all the people whose seats will be jeopardized by bringing this issue back into the news?

Cause I guarantee you some dems who are all kinds of pro gun are going to wind up primaried over this.  Because people are farking stupid, incurious, lazy, emotional shiatheads and because the NRA is throwing a metric assload of money at painting this as the democratic party position in order to drive up membership and gun sales.

And it's working.
 
2013-02-04 01:13:19 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Actually it is unless your state has a process to legalize it for individuals and you meet the requirements of that process. For instance, some states make it legal for all CPL holders, which I assume must be the case in Michigan.
 
2013-02-04 01:18:37 PM  

BeesNuts: The fears existed before her advocacy had begun.  I'm not interested in having a timeline-off though so whatever.  Do you honestly believe that A)it has a chance of passing and/or B)it represents the opinion of all the people whose seats will be jeopardized by bringing this issue back into the news?


I do not believe that a firearm confiscation measure will pass federally (though a firearm confiscation measure being proposed in California may pass this year). However, statements from firearm confiscation advocates are public knowledge; while fears of confiscation may not be rational, they are also not based entirely upon fiction.
 
2013-02-04 01:20:18 PM  

Dimensio: BeesNuts: The fears existed before her advocacy had begun.  I'm not interested in having a timeline-off though so whatever.  Do you honestly believe that A)it has a chance of passing and/or B)it represents the opinion of all the people whose seats will be jeopardized by bringing this issue back into the news?

I do not believe that a firearm confiscation measure will pass federally (though a firearm confiscation measure being proposed in California may pass this year). However, statements from firearm confiscation advocates are public knowledge; while fears of confiscation may not be rational, they are also not based entirely upon fiction.


The validity of fears is irrelevant when it comes to dictating human behavior.
 
2013-02-04 01:24:32 PM  

Yogimus: The validity of fears is irrelevant when it comes to dictating human behavior.


Which is why I'm considering changing jobs so that I can become an ammunition manufacturer. :D
 
2013-02-04 01:29:08 PM  
Justified homicides by gun - 200, murders by gun - 10,000
 
2013-02-04 01:31:30 PM  

justtray: Justified homicides by gun - 200, murders by gun - 10,000


So you suggest we lower the number by 200 then?

/we covered this shiat 200 posts ago. Slap your bumper sticker on the next gun thread. People might confuse you for being clever if you get in early enough.
 
2013-02-04 02:07:56 PM  

doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.

Maybe we need less guns and more of these:
[www.sasumata.jp image 400x300]

Those catchpoles kill me. Some are quite clever. The favorite kind I've seen are the ones with a slinky spring around the haft so the victim can't get a grip on the pole and use it against you.

Also, the people who post about how peaceful Japan is when EVERY Japanese school has a weapon or ten stashed in the teacher's room and live training to use them once a year crack me up, too.

But personally I'd rather have guns in American schools maybe. You want them guessing and afraid, because the unknown is the scariest thing to the coward.

Also, glorify suicide like Japanese culture does. In America, people go on sprees. In Japan, those same people jump under trains or off buildings. Their suicide rate and homicide rate are the opposite of ours. Why? Suicide's a sexy way out. Many great stories and examples. Spread it around in the US. Teach people suicide is painless, and they can take or leave it if they choose. Get some of these crazies to put themselves in the ground before their little gardens of evil bear any bitter fruit.


So basically just make everyone watch M*A*S*H reruns endlessly until they kill themselves?
 
2013-02-04 02:18:30 PM  
Has anyone mentioned how the muggers are the real victims here, and that societal oppression turned them to a life of crime?
 
2013-02-04 02:31:56 PM  

Frank N Stein: Has anyone mentioned how the muggers are the real victims here, and that societal oppression turned them to a life of crime?


justtray suggested the possibility.
 
2013-02-04 02:36:19 PM  

Yogimus: justtray: Justified homicides by gun - 200, murders by gun - 10,000

So you suggest we lower the number by 200 then?

/we covered this shiat 200 posts ago. Slap your bumper sticker on the next gun thread. People might confuse you for being clever if you get in early enough.



Just posting some facts. Take them as you will.
 
2013-02-04 02:40:03 PM  
To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.
 
2013-02-04 02:43:26 PM  

justtray: Justified homicides by gun - 200, murders by gun - 10,000



It's even worse when you consider the overall murders of about 15,000.  The odds of a dead body belonging to an assaulter is essentially less than the chance of being murdered with a rifle.
 
2013-02-04 02:46:32 PM  
Well, I bid you folks adieu.  Seems that fresh blood has taken the thread back across the same old rocks, and I am just too tired for another un. Hugs and kisses, sleep tight.
 
2013-02-04 02:49:17 PM  
Ah, fark it one more cheap shot before I go:

vygramul:

It's even worse when you consider the overall murders of about 15,000.  The odds of a dead body belonging to an assaulter is essentially less than the chance of being murdered with a rifle.

So why do famous people have armed guards?  You know... if guns are dangerous to have near you?
 
2013-02-04 02:53:12 PM  

justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.


Well if you get mugged you can always hang your hat on the fact that you didn't resist with a gun.
 
2013-02-04 02:57:15 PM  

justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.


You got a cite for this unlikely claim?
 
2013-02-04 02:59:36 PM  
Quick Quiz:

Name the three branches of the government of the USA.
 
2013-02-04 03:05:28 PM  

justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.


And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?
 
2013-02-04 03:09:22 PM  

arentol: Quick Quiz:

Name the three branches of the government of the USA.


Another quiz;
That pic of Pres Obama "shooting skeet".
Quick, three mistakes in his stance,,,

Normally, I would not give a noob live ammo until they can at least stand correctly AND hold the weapon correctly.
 
2013-02-04 03:11:41 PM  

snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?


Um, an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds. A knife or club, not so much.
 
2013-02-04 03:11:51 PM  

Yogimus: So why do famous people have armed guards?  You know... if guns are dangerous to have near you?


Most people famous people don't have armed guards.
 
2013-02-04 03:14:30 PM  

Frank N Stein: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

Well if you get mugged you can always hang your hat on the fact that you didn't resist with a gun.


LOL.   And if you ever get mugged, you can hang your hat on the fact that your mugger got your wallet and your gun.
 
2013-02-04 03:16:32 PM  

The Larch: Frank N Stein: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

Well if you get mugged you can always hang your hat on the fact that you didn't resist with a gun.

LOL.   And if you ever get mugged, you can hang your hat on the fact that your mugger got your wallet and your gun.


Who puts "lol" in all caps?
 
2013-02-04 03:16:38 PM  

nmemkha: snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?

Um, an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds. A knife or club, not so much.


Absolute BULLCHIT!
"Dozens in seconds"
You idiot!

Is this Piers?
 
2013-02-04 03:17:44 PM  

nmemkha: an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds.


I see the propaganda campaign is working just fine.
 
2013-02-04 03:21:55 PM  

Frank N Stein: Who puts "lol" in all caps?


Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
 
2013-02-04 03:22:33 PM  

PsiChick: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.

A) To the idea that i) shooters are only stopped by guns, ii) shooters choose schools because they're 'soft targets' instead of just picking what fits a preconceived, batshiat narrative, and iii) they  kill themselves because  bullets hurt: Citation needed.

B) Countries that have widespread gun-control laws have fewer mass shootings. Dramatically. So unless you can prove, with pre-existing case studies (in this case, a country with widespread gun-control laws would count as a case study) that CCW among teachers is equally or more effective, why the hell should we listen to you?


The US had more guns per capita and less mass shooting from its inception until the early 90's than we do today. The problem is not guns, it is our society.

The choice of schools as a prime target is likely influenced more by the people who tend to do these mass shootings (young white males) and their familiarity with those locations (Schools, Malls, Theaters, all places young men hang out/spend time) than with how soft a target schools are. But there is no study or citation needed to recognize that the softness of such locations is at least a small factor in the decision making process.

They best way to stop these shootings? Give them as little press as possible, don't talk anymore about past ones (especially Columbine), don't release the shooters name or any information about him/her publicly for 30 years, and don't have political knee-jerk reaction bans as a result of them. If we did that we would almost entirely stop having them within 10 years. I guarantee at least one of the last 4 wouldn't have happened if the press and public hadn't made such a big deal about the first or second one.
 
2013-02-04 03:24:10 PM  
Since I am a Papered, Certified, medaled Expert w/ M-16, I am getting a kick out of how so many farking idiots have fallen for the outright lies about guns, specificially the AR-15.
Inconcievable!

BTW, when you repeat these lies, you appear somewhat foolish.
 
2013-02-04 03:25:33 PM  
arentol: The best way to stop these shootings? Give them as little press as possible, don't talk anymore about past ones (especially Columbine), don't release the shooters name or any information about him/her publicly for 30 years, and don't have political knee-jerk reaction bans as a result of them. If we did that we would almost entirely stop having them wit ...

Save the Second Amendment by destroying the First Amendment?  Brilliant!
 
2013-02-04 03:25:40 PM  

Yogimus: Ah, fark it one more cheap shot before I go:

vygramul:

It's even worse when you consider the overall murders of about 15,000.  The odds of a dead body belonging to an assaulter is essentially less than the chance of being murdered with a rifle.

So why do famous people have armed guards?  You know... if guns are dangerous to have near you?


That is one of the stupidest things brought up in this argument so far. Good job!
 
2013-02-04 03:26:55 PM  

arentol: PsiChick: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

Shooters are only stopped by guns, and they're pussies.

They pick schools because schools are soft targets and pussies like soft targets.
They kill themselves because bullets hurt and they're too cowardly to face cops.

A better way would be simply to encourage CCW among teachers. Harden the soft targets and the pussies will look for something softer.

A) To the idea that i) shooters are only stopped by guns, ii) shooters choose schools because they're 'soft targets' instead of just picking what fits a preconceived, batshiat narrative, and iii) they  kill themselves because  bullets hurt: Citation needed.

B) Countries that have widespread gun-control laws have fewer mass shootings. Dramatically. So unless you can prove, with pre-existing case studies (in this case, a country with widespread gun-control laws would count as a case study) that CCW among teachers is equally or more effective, why the hell should we listen to you?

The US had more guns per capita and less mass shooting from its inception until the early 90's than we do today. The problem is not guns, it is our society.

The choice of schools as a prime target is likely influenced more by the people who tend to do these mass shootings (young white males) and their familiarity with those locations (Schools, Malls, Theaters, all places young men hang out/spend time) than with how soft a target schools are. But there is no study or citation needed to recognize that the softness of such locations is at least a small factor in the decision making process.

They best way to stop these shootings? Give them as little press as possible, don't talk anymore about past ones (especially Columbine), don't release the shooters name or any information about him/her publicly for 30 years, and don't have political knee-jerk reaction bans as a result of them. If we did that we would almost entirely stop having them wit ...


BUT,
That is clearly not the true objective.
The Real and True Objective of disarming the population, one inch at a time.

/like incremental technology
 
2013-02-04 03:27:46 PM  

snocone: nmemkha: snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?

Um, an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds. A knife or club, not so much.

Absolute BULLCHIT!
"Dozens in seconds"
You idiot!

Is this Piers?

Frank N Stein: nmemkha: an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds.

I see the propaganda campaign is working just fine.


If you can't kill 24 unarmed people at point blank range in under 60 seconds with a semi-automatic AR-15, your pretty bad.
 
2013-02-04 03:30:40 PM  

nmemkha: snocone: nmemkha: snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?

Um, an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds. A knife or club, not so much.

Absolute BULLCHIT!
"Dozens in seconds"
You idiot!

Is this Piers?Frank N Stein: nmemkha: an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds.

I see the propaganda campaign is working just fine.

If you can't kill 24 unarmed people at point blank range in under 60 seconds with a semi-automatic AR-15, your pretty bad.


Please stop, you are wrong and spreading dangerous misinformation.
Youmake yourself a tool of fools.
 
2013-02-04 03:30:54 PM  

arentol: The US had more guns per capita and less mass shooting from its inception until the early 90's than we do today. The problem is not guns, it is our society.

The choice of schools as a prime target is likely influenced more by the people who tend to do these mass shootings (young white males) and their familiarity with those locations (Schools, Malls, Theaters, all places young men hang out/spend time) than with how soft a target schools are. But there is no study or citation needed to recognize that the softness of such locations is at least a small factor in the decision making process.

They best way to stop these shootings? Give them as little press as possible, don't talk anymore about past ones (especially Columbine), don't release the shooters name or any information about him/her publicly for 30 years, and don't have political knee-jerk reaction bans as a result of them. If we did that we would almost entirely stop having them within 10 years. I guarantee at least one of the last 4 wouldn't have happened if the press and public hadn't made such a big deal about the first or second one.


ciatationneeded.jpeg

/No study or citation needed to support a fact? Really? What universe is that in, again?
 
2013-02-04 03:31:23 PM  

nmemkha: snocone: nmemkha: snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?

Um, an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds. A knife or club, not so much.

Absolute BULLCHIT!
"Dozens in seconds"
You idiot!

Is this Piers?Frank N Stein: nmemkha: an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds.

I see the propaganda campaign is working just fine.

If you can't kill 24 unarmed people at point blank range in under 60 seconds with a semi-automatic AR-15, your pretty bad.


I am unable to kill any number of unarmed individuals at any range with an AR-15 because I am not psychotic.
 
2013-02-04 03:31:45 PM  

djh0101010: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

You got a cite for this unlikely claim?


Would it change your beliefs?

If so I will give you a cite
 
2013-02-04 03:32:56 PM  

snocone: nmemkha: snocone: nmemkha: snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

And all disarming the citizens will do is remove the "justified" deaths, not reduce the murders!
Your mission is to reduce the murdurs, is it not?
Your response, disarming lawful citizens, is counterproductive and misdirected.
How did that happen?

Um, an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds. A knife or club, not so much.

Absolute BULLCHIT!
"Dozens in seconds"
You idiot!

Is this Piers?Frank N Stein: nmemkha: an AR-15 can kill dozens in seconds.

I see the propaganda campaign is working just fine.

If you can't kill 24 unarmed people at point blank range in under 60 seconds with a semi-automatic AR-15, your pretty bad.

Please stop, you are wrong and spreading dangerous misinformation.
Youmake yourself a tool of fools.


I couldn't care less what you think.
 
2013-02-04 03:35:32 PM  

djh0101010: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

You got a cite for this unlikely claim?


Whatever here's your source anyway.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15">http://www.fbi.go v/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15
 
2013-02-04 03:37:38 PM  

Mercutio74: Dimensio: Are you saying that a police officer should not use deadly force to end an unprovoked violent attack?

Not at all.  I'm saying that carrying a weapon in public with the goal of protecting yourself and society is a huge undertaking and I think that many people who are willing and able to do so lack not only the training, but also likely the mentality to do so safely.  I'm no great friend of police forces, but at least there is training on tactics and procedure for dealing with a violent offender.

For example... I have no idea on the details of this specific situation because the story is only a couple of sentences, but I have questions about the shooting of the guy who didn't have a gun.  The police would have to explain why they popped the other guy too.  You can't just shoot everyone in the general vicinity if you see a single gun.


You mean like how in California it takes 800 hours of training to be a 'trained police officer' and 1200 hours of training to be a certified BARBER?
Solution: Arm barbers.
 
2013-02-04 03:38:23 PM  

justtray: djh0101010: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable. That seems ridiculous to me IE opposing more gun control.

You got a cite for this unlikely claim?

Would it change your beliefs?

If so I will give you a cite


Yeah, didn't think so.  It's just that you made an unsubstantiated and unlikely claim as if it were fact, and then presumed to speak for me and say I (a) agree that it's true, and (b) accept it.  Since we're still on (a), you haven't built a foundation for (b).  So we can't even get to what my beliefs are, since you're reluctant to establish (a).
 
2013-02-04 03:39:53 PM  

nmemkha: snocone: justtray: To elaborate though, i think its interesting that for every justified gun death there are 50 murders by gun. I guess thats the tradeoff the people who want to keep the status quo find acceptable.