Wake up call on the "I own a gun to defend myself" crowd

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
ah2

And this goes for the "there would be less gun violence if more people owned guns" crowd too.

Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Comments

ah2
sad that this is frojm 2010

sad that this is frojm 2010 and we still haven't learned.  This should be replayed on every network several times a day.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
OK.  24000 to 3000 Dislikes

OK.  24000 to 3000 Dislikes to likes.  There is a reason for that.

The show/experiment is crucially flawed.

The shooter who entered the room knew which student was armed and sitting prominently in the front/center row.  They didn't show everybody... I wonder why?  If they all got clipped, I'm sure they would've shown a "flash" of all of the participants being hit.  It would've taken about 2-3 seconds.  The voice over didn't reveal the overall statistic either... I wonder why?

There was a theatre shooting in TX, I think on 12/16/12 where the gunman was brought down by an off duty cop.  Not much coverage.  I'm guessing because it doesn't fit the narrative that our state run media is running with.

The mall shooting in Oregon was ended because of an armed civilian resistance.  Again... not much coverage.  This particular story is of TOTAL SIGNIFICANCE so pay attention to the next paragraph.  I'm not kidding, this information is LIFE SAVING.

These types of individuals who are suffering from acute mental illness are FIRST AND FOREMOST suicidal.  Their chosen act of SUICIDE is to take out as many people as they can before they themselves commit suicide.  I'm guessing that most are suffering from some sort of "persecution complex" and view society as a whole as the "enemy".  In the case of the Oregon mall shooting... all it took was the SIGHT of resistance and the shooter committed suicide.  The armed citizen didn't fire his weapon at all.

These folks (mostly males) are going to places where they KNOW there will be NO RESISTANCE!

This makes sense since they themselves have "given up" trying to live.  They are like a fluid flowing down the path of least resistance.

There is a politician from TX... I can't recall her name, that was at the "Lubey's" massacre.  That's where a guy drove his truck through a glass window and then opened fire.  Early 90's I believe.  Maybe late 80's.  Anyways, she firmly believes that if she had taken her gun with her into the diner (she left it in her truck) that she would've been able to save her dad's life.  (I'm hazy on the details, you can look it up if you want to.)

"FEAR" is a dual edged sword.  It will protect you in the short term and often harm you in the long term.  FEAR causes us to overreact and make very unsound decisions.  I'm guessing everyone was afraid of bearded terrorists 10 years ago.  Not so much now because of rational thinking.  Looking back rationally... well, you already know what you know because you are historically conscious and are here participating in a discussion.

Don't let fear and passion get the best of you.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
I often feel like "Dee

I often feel like "Dee Snider" to this sites "Tipper Gore".

Please stop being a bunch of irrational, yelping bunch of nags!

The rich in society protect their children with guns.  Even when the rest of society is unarmed... they will continue to protect their children with guns.  This fact will not change.

Banks protect their money with armed guards.

Stadiums protect their property with guns.

Governments protect their countries with the military.  Is anyone going to invade N. Korea?  I don't think so.  They have a nuclear deterrent.

There is a good reason why these entities do this.  It's because it WORKS!

History says that unarmed societies are in danger of democide more than armed ones.  (Democide is death by government.)

I know that you all know this.  Dear God, please stop pretending.

 

 

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Fletch, they have bought the

Fletch, they have bought the propaganda. The lady in Killeen, Tx also lost her mother to the shooter. It was 10-16-91.

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/183600161.html

Steve.I.Am
Steve.I.Am's picture
Gun nuts are never going to

Gun nuts are never going to give up on the fantasy that the gun makes them safer until some crazy, intent on committing a spectacular mass-murder/suicide, goes in and starts to shoot up one of the big, mega, gun shows, setting off a cross-fire "stampede" that leaves dozens dead. 

I am not wishing it to happen, but it seems like the next illogical step in the escalation of mass-shooting violence.

 

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
I'm not a gun nut and I don't

I'm not a gun nut and I don't have fantasies.

Steve.I.Am
Steve.I.Am's picture
Sorry, Fletch, but statistics

Sorry, Fletch, but statistics show that you are much more likely to use your gun (either intentionally, or accidentally) on yourself, or on a family member, than you are on a criminal.  You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Thart type of person would

Thart type of person would never go into an area like that because they are COWARDS. It is gun free zones they seek out.

The next illogical step will be to try to ban guns to make mass shootings easier for the cowards. And only politicians and oligarchs will be surrounded by armed guards. 

Even banning certain "types" of imginary guns will be like trying to stop drunk driving by banning whiskey. THAT is illogical!

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Am I supposed to be more

Am I supposed to be more unhappy that you choose to commit sucide with your gun than a rope?

miksilvr
Every year, 17,000 people are

Every year, 17,000 people are killed in America, 70 per cent of them with guns, and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves to death in the home – where a gun is readily to hand in the cupboard. Almost half of all US households have a gun stored as easily as the knives and forks, the bed linen and the toothpaste. People are shot at work, at school, at the supermarket, at bus stops, or even at the front door if they ring the bell at an inconvenient time. In the whole world, only Colombia has a worse record

The statistics are even more heart-breaking when applied to the young. The slaughter of children by gunfire in the United States is 25 times the rate of the 20 next largest industrial countries in the world combined. If you add them all up, since the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968, well over a million Americans, children and adults, have been shot to death, and even now 80 people die in this manner every day. The terrible slaughter on Friday {in Newtown} is not as unusual as it should be.

America's deadly obsession with guns

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
We are the most armed country

We are the most armed country on Earth, and none of these attacks are stopped by armed citizens. The Portland attack was stopped while the shooter was dealing with a jammed gun. Little Jared in Tucson was stopped by a geriatric granny while he was reloading. The armed citizen who came charging out almost opened fire on an innocent bystander.
If more guns make us safer, then why so many attacks and deaths? Because more guns do not make us safer.
But don't worry, no laws will ever get passed to stop gun violence, we will continue to be awash in guns, and we will be regularly dealing with gun enthusiasts who cannot handle their responsibility and society gets to pay.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
Phaedrus76 - I agree that the

Phaedrus76 - I agree that the statistics are what they are.

It is also true that I am more likely to die/injured driving my own car.

Yes. The story goes that the PORTLAND shooter's gun did jam.  He fixed it pretty quickly.  We know this because he is dead.  He couldn't be dead if he didn't unjam his gun.  He fixed it and popped off at least ONE more round.

Those are the facts that we have been given.  No one else is making claims that the shooter was gunned down by anyone else other than himself.  Unless you have a better information source than I do... then we are operating on the same page.

So that gun did unjam.  It was operational.  It was fired.

Phaedrus76... I would like for YOU to finish the rest of the facts for me.

What happened after he unjammed his weapon?

What did the shooter see?

What was that person doing?

What was the consequences of seeing what the shooter saw?

Basically... what happened next?  Please tell the class what happened next to the shooter?  What did that shooter see that forced him to immediately STOP killing others?  Why did he stop shooting innocent people?

What changed the shooters mind from going on a multi kill spree to that of taking his own life?

You and I KNOW what happened next.

Why don't you take it from there.

I know it's nearly impossible to "follow" the great Fletcher Christian... but do your best.  C'mon kid, break a leg!  Go for it.

Tell everyone what really happened.

-----------------------

To everyone else who is reading this... look at this as a social experiment.  What will a "Cass Sun-Drone" do when urged DIRECTLY to tell the truth?

Will he A) Go run away and cry to his momma and ask her to stop that mean bully, Fletcher Christian   who continually is whooping him around in his OWN backyard!?!  "Mommy!  Make that bad man stop... make that bad man go away... p-p-p... p-plea-plea eas-ease...  GWAH, Gwaa, gwaa!"

Will he B) Poop his pants.  Because that's what babies do.  They poop their pants.  Sir Paedrus Poopy Pants.

Will he C) Try to do a "Rahm Emmanuel" and give a response that tries to make a political talking point but will be nothing more than the usual DEMOCRATIC party line "spin".  In fact, I am predicting "C" because his "SPIN" we remind you more of an alligators "death roll" than anything Bill O'Reilly could do!  (Notice I said the DEMOCRATIC party line.)

Will he D) Be a MAN with a set of Balls and with straight talk tell you what happened next after the shooter fixed his gun jam!

Will he E) Not a DAMN THING!  He'll disappear from this topic.  Pray to God to give him the charm, intellect and bravery to that of a real man... like the Rock!  Err... I mean Fletcher Christian!

What the self proclaimed progressive will do is let himself down... again.  Let his party down... again.  Let his live in companion down... again.

Watch the video interview of the man who gave his account of events.  Read the few news articles on the subject.  Then tell us what really happened.

----------------------

One has got to give it these FAKE progressives on this message board.  They continue to flap their gums about how much they care about mental health in society and yet when an OBVIOUS case of someone being mentally ill occurs... they're quiet as church mice.  Not a word from the PHONY progressives that maybe all of those "SYMPTOMS" that are on the side of the psychotropic are the cause of sudden breaks from reality with tragic consequences.

Why do they do that?  The answer my friends is because they DO NOT CARE about the less well off in our society... they use the poor and sick as step stools so they can get their feeble bodies into their rich automobiles.

Read what I have written and compare that to what you this a "progressive" has written.

Who's is more compassionate?  Who cares more about YOU?  Who brought up mental health?

I'm the real deal... there are subversive saboteurs doing mad work on you.

Phaedrus76 - It's time for you to put on your "big boy" pants on and start to be a man.

Talk clear.  Talk in a language that everyone here can easily understand and tell us the facts of the Portland shooting after the shooter fixed his gun.

You think you're a radiant, illuminated, enlightened thinker... I'll even bat my eyes and say, "Phaedrus76... you're SO smart."    flop!  I just fainted at the mere thought of gleaning some wisdom from the TRUTH you are about to spew... err, say.

D'OH!  I almost forgot the "F" option!

Will he F) Call me a racist to try and deflect the attention off of him because if he actually tells the truth FOR ONCE... it might cause such an internal pain that he may mentally "splinter" into two separate beings capable of BOTH speaking.  One out of his mouth... and the other out the side of his neck!

Oh wait... he already does that.

"QUADROPHENIA"?

I'd rather die than become Pete Townsend.

 

 

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Every year, 17,000

Quote:
Every year, 17,000 people are killed in America, 70 per cent of them with guns...

On the other hand,

Quote:
In 2011...Natural disasters killed a total of 30,773 people and caused 244.7 million victims worldwide.

We should regulate weather and prohibit storms. Abolishing earthquakes couldn't hurt, either.

 

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Fletcher Christian wrote:Will

Fletcher Christian wrote:
Will he F) Call me a racist to try and deflect the attention off of him because if he actually tells the truth FOR ONCE... it might cause such an internal pain that he may mentally "splinter" into two separate beings capable of BOTH speaking.  One out of his mouth... and the other out the side of his neck!

 

It's called cognitive dissonance.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
stuff wrote: Quote:Every

stuff wrote:

Quote:
Every year, 17,000 people are killed in America, 70 per cent of them with guns...

On the other hand,

Quote:
In 2011...Natural disasters killed a total of 30,773 people and caused 244.7 million victims worldwide.

We should regulate weather and prohibit storms. Abolishing earthquakes couldn't hurt, either.

 

That's ridiculous.  You can't regulate mother nature but you can regulate all things man made if needed.  If gun laws don't do any good then why have any laws?  DUI laws help to keep thousands of more people alive every day but they don't stop all drinking and driving deaths.  Lots of people run through red lights but that doesn't mean that they don't help tremendously with traffic accidents and deaths.  A little common sense please.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
miksilvr wrote: Every year,

miksilvr wrote:

Every year, 17,000 people are killed in America, 70 per cent of them with guns, and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves to death in the home – where a gun is readily to hand in the cupboard. Almost half of all US households have a gun stored as easily as the knives and forks, the bed linen and the toothpaste. People are shot at work, at school, at the supermarket, at bus stops, or even at the front door if they ring the bell at an inconvenient time. In the whole world, only Colombia has a worse record

The statistics are even more heart-breaking when applied to the young. The slaughter of children by gunfire in the United States is 25 times the rate of the 20 next largest industrial countries in the world combined. If you add them all up, since the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968, well over a million Americans, children and adults, have been shot to death, and even now 80 people die in this manner every day. The terrible slaughter on Friday {in Newtown} is not as unusual as it should be.

America's deadly obsession with guns

 

The first comment to the illogical article you cite refutes any validity to argument the anti-gun nuts use.

I hope the ENGLISH is understandable and with no typos and to your satisfaction. I am not responsible for any errors in the below comment.

 

 

"mrbjmann

01/01/2013 11:07 AM

 

Two simple questions:

If guns kill and bans save, how come in tiny Rwanda (pop ~ 5m), near the bottom of the per capita gun ownership league table, they managed to butcher 800,000 in just 100 days with nothing more than an assortment of kitchen utensils, garden implements and sharpened sticks; and in 9/11 they managed to kill nearly 3,000 including 8 ickle passengers (fortunately the Trade Centre nursery wasn't in the Twin Towers) using nothing but small knives?

And if Obama gets his gun controls nationwide (Connecticut ALREADY has an "assault weapon" ban in place to replace the lapsed Federal one, which hadn't made any difference anyway, and Sandy Hook was ALREADY a "gun-free" zone), will he disarm his, and his daughters' bodyguards?!"

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:You can't regulate

Quote:
You can't regulate mother nature but you can regulate all things man made if needed.

Really? So says you.

Global warming related to human activities may be responsible for some of the most violent storms in recent years (you've heard of Sandy, right?). You think one is easier to control than the other; I am not convinced.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
stuff wrote: Quote:You can't

stuff wrote:

Quote:
You can't regulate mother nature but you can regulate all things man made if needed.

Really? So says you.

Global warming related to human activities may be responsible for some of the most violent storms in recent years (you've heard of Sandy, right?). You think one is easier to control than the other; I am not convinced.

There's a difference between manipulating and regulating.  We can regulate man made climate changes but we can't regulate mother nature made climate changes.   

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:There's a difference

Quote:
There's a difference between manipulating and regulating.  We can regulate man made climate changes but we can't regulate mother nature made climate changes.   

Humans are a part of nature, not apart from nature.

There are a lot of things we can do to "regulate mother nature made climate changes" (whatever the hell that means). Prohibit development of disaster-prone areas, like beaches and flood plains; require earthquake-resistant buildings and homes; permit fires in overgrown, old-growth forests and grasslands. None of these mitigations would be easy, but perhaps not as difficult as keeping firearms out of the hands of the wrong people.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
If more guns make us safer,

If more guns make us safer, then why so many attacks and deaths? Because more guns do not make us safer.

stuff
stuff's picture
Who said that more guns make

Who said that more guns make us "safer"? I didn't.

I simply pointed out that getting guns out of the hands of bad guys isn't so easy and that, compared with natural disasters, the relative loss of human lives might suggest adding other, more immediate problems to our "to do" list.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Sorry Stuff, wasn't replying

Sorry Stuff, wasn't replying to you. 

But if you are concerned about natural disasters, will that mean you want more funding for FEMA, the weather service, volcano and earth quake monitors etc? Or is that just a smoke screen to allow for more guns to make us safer?

Because if guns make us more saferer then after Obama was elected in 2008, and gun sales went through the roof, the period following should have been the safest for Americans, with the most polite society in our history. 

But mass shootings have soared. They are typically stopped by the shooter's suicide or a granny who wrestles the gunman down. 

More guns have failed to make us safer. 

But if you are determined to go after weather and earth quakes great. Lobby congress for more spending. 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
darlinedarline1@aol.com

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

blah blah blah....

And if Obama gets his gun controls nationwide (Connecticut ALREADY has an "assault weapon" ban in place to replace the lapsed Federal one, which hadn't made any difference anyway, and Sandy Hook was ALREADY a "gun-free" zone), will he disarm his, and his daughters' bodyguards?!"

OK, so can we agree that to carry you must have the same level of training as Obama's "bodyguards" aka the Secret Service, and must pass the same type of background check and psych eval? 

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:But if you are

Quote:
But if you are concerned about natural disasters, will that mean you want more funding for FEMA, the weather service, volcano and earth quake monitors etc? Or is that just a smoke screen to allow for more guns to make us safer?

Of course I want more funding for FEMA. I survived the Northridge Earthquake and FEMA was magnificent. It was fast, competent, and generous. Then W. took charge and nearly wrecked it. The agency seems to be getting back to its old form.

And, "No," I am not frightened about FEMA :"detention camps" supposedly placed surreptitiously around the country.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Phaedrus76

Phaedrus76 wrote:

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

blah blah blah....

And if Obama gets his gun controls nationwide (Connecticut ALREADY has an "assault weapon" ban in place to replace the lapsed Federal one, which hadn't made any difference anyway, and Sandy Hook was ALREADY a "gun-free" zone), will he disarm his, and his daughters' bodyguards?!"

OK, so can we agree that to carry you must have the same level of training as Obama's "bodyguards" aka the Secret Service, and must pass the same type of background check and psych eval? 

Not the point. If the anti-gun nuts and gun control freaks get their way, will it still be necessary for Barrack Hussein Obama and his daughters to have armed bodyguards? If, as in your logic, more guns do not make us safer and less guns will? 

Redwing
Redwing's picture
It works both ways fellas. 

It works both ways fellas.  Somehow this missed the news.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-mo...

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Pass all the anti-gun laws

Pass all the anti-gun laws you want....A 19 year old cannot legally puchase a handgun in the state of Texas. Did that prevent him from getting one? 

You won't see these kind of incidences, where a gun was used to stopped a massacre, in the MSM because it does not fit their anti-gun agenda. 

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Redwing wrote: It works both

Redwing wrote:

It works both ways fellas.  Somehow this missed the news.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-mo...

From the same link: "Update: WOAI now reports it was an off-duty sergeant who fired a total of four shots, wounding the shooter. An Initial report by 1200 WOAI news said that an off-duty sheriff’s deputy shot the suspect one time.

The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office says the off-duty sergeant, who was working security, heard the gunshots and came running. She saw the gunman coming out of the men’s restroom. The Sheriff’s Office says the gunman did not shoot at her, but his gun was drawn so she opened fire.

That off-duty sergeant, identified as Lisa Castellano, fired four times, wounding the gunman. Only one other person was wounded, a 49-year-old man inside the theater, who was hit by one of the gunman’s shots. Both are expected to recover.

Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant." We won't hear much about it because it doesn't play well with mainstream media bias.  

drc2
Despite all the shouting, I

Despite all the shouting, I don't believe we have said that nothing can prevent individuals with guns from getting past security systems and firing away at people.  We have said that we would like to have the weapons you see as being inevitablely used harder to fire rapidly and with calibers suited to civilian uses.

On the issue of personal protection or interventions in shootings, the claim made by liberals in favor of gun safety and civil security has been that STATISTICALLY guns in civilian hands are more of a danger to those who own them than a means of actual security.  This presumes that there will be anecdotal evidence showing gun ownership to be both a danger and a means of protection in different cases.  Making the argument about how wrong liberals are on this subject by citing anecdotes and stories instead of real numbers does not cut it.  You put words in our mouths and then indict us for saying what you say we said instead of what we really said.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
drc2 wrote: We have said that

drc2 wrote:

We have said that we would like to have the weapons you see as being inevitablely used harder to fire rapidly and with calibers suited to civilian uses.

A little more detail please.  Exactly which caliber would you find suitable to dispatch an agressor, drop a game animal, or shoot a paper target with?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
An off duty cop, working

An off duty cop, working security brought down a gunman. So can we require the same level of background checks, training and psych evals for gun owners that cops go through?
& once again more guns did not make that town safer.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:On the issue of

Quote:
On the issue of personal protection or interventions in shootings, the claim made by liberals in favor of gun safety and civil security has been that STATISTICALLY guns in civilian hands are more of a danger to those who own them than a means of actual security. 

Statistics? Okay, I'll bite:

How much more likely? Data and sources, please.

Without the facts, your claim is nothing more than an anecdote.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
  Abstract  The world abounds

 

Abstract 

The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the 

widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the 

incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic 

and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is 

irrelevant? 

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but 

interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing 

factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general 

access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our 

conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined 

by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the 

world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant

Here is the entire study if one is interested in reading it;

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
More people died from

More people died from HOMOCIDE without a GUN than those who were killed by a GUN.

FACT!

Look it up... and then poop your pants.  Because that's what babies do.  They poop their pants.

Se be prepared!

Take off your drawers, get some TP... then look it up.

Safety first!  Safety first.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Progressives cannot stomach a

Progressives cannot stomach a truth that would expose an ugly cognitive dissonance that causes any anxiety in their version of how the world really is or should be.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
The USA has more guns than

The USA has more guns than any other nation. The gun enthusiasts preach guns make us safer. The USA is by far the most violent, murderous industrial nation. How many more guns will it take to make us safe? & why the reluctance to accept requiring background checks, training and psych evals for gun enthusiasts?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
The US murder rate is 4.8 per

The US murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 people. And to compare with the civilized nations, next on the list is Liechtenstein 2.8, and a couple of other small European states from 2.5 to 2.

The rates for nations similar to the US: Canada 1.6, the UK 1.2, Ireland 1.2, France 1.1, Germany 0.8.

Every study done shows more guns equals more deaths. The US has more guns than ever. We are not safer than ever. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-ab...

from the link

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

 

 

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Feel safe.  Move to Chicago,

Feel safe.  Move to Chicago, or Washington, D.C. where there are no guns allowed, and there is no  crime.

 

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

DowntheMiddle
Steve.I.Am wrote: Gun nuts

Steve.I.Am wrote:

Gun nuts are never going to give up on the fantasy that the gun makes them safer until some crazy, intent on committing a spectacular mass-murder/suicide, goes in and starts to shoot up one of the big, mega, gun shows, setting off a cross-fire "stampede" that leaves dozens dead. 

I am not wishing it to happen, but it seems like the next illogical step in the escalation of mass-shooting violence.

 

"Gun nuts"..

This is your way of trying knock down and discredit anyone who would dare respond to you before they even start.  A weak tactic of the weak minded people....the very same who call anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies, a racist. Why argue when you can preemptively attach a stigma to them leaving them to first defend themselves before even attempting to have an honest and intellectual discussion?

Let me ask you this..

You're in that classroom when an armed intruder intent on as much violence as possible enters and you've nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

At that moment when you're huddled under a desk just waiting for your turn, wouldn't you, just possible think, "Hey, I wish I just had A CHANCE to defend myself here and save my, and maybe others', lives?

 

Or you honestly going to sit here and tell us that you're so dead set on noone having the right to defend themselves, that you're just willing to hide under a desk until he systematically gets to you and takes your life as well?

 

The reality of it, is that in situations like Aurora, where there's darkness, and smoke and flashing lights from the movie, and people screaming and running in every direction, no, there probably wasn't much anyone could have done effectively, but we'll never know, will we? Cinemark had a "no guns" policy and so no one was armed.

What's the common denominator in all these mass shootings? They all target the most defenseless huddled mass of people where they know no one will be armed. When finally faced with law enforcement, or in the case of the Oregan mall guy, an armed citizen, they pull the trigger on themselves.

So you go right on ahead and don't even give yourself a chance. You go ahead thinking you can just ban evil and violence out of existence. I'll live by the "just in case" mindset and at least give myself a chance. Might work, might not, but at least I have a chance. You don't.

DowntheMiddle
Phaedrus76 wrote: The US

Phaedrus76 wrote:

The US murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 people. And to compare with the civilized nations, next on the list is Liechtenstein 2.8, and a couple of other small European states from 2.5 to 2.

The rates for nations similar to the US: Canada 1.6, the UK 1.2, Ireland 1.2, France 1.1, Germany 0.8.

Every study done shows more guns equals more deaths. The US has more guns than ever. We are not safer than ever. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-ab...

from the link

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

 

 

Yeah, look at number 5 and continue to blame guns. We've had guns in this country since it's birth. The amount of guns has grown along with our population, yet this trend in violence has spiked only recently.

Now tell us again how Hollywood, video games, both industries that glorify violence (and with Hollywood, then speak out against it...lol), aren't playing a factor.

Tell us how drugs don't play a part (I'm sure you're for the legalization).

Tell us how this "healthcare" industries, which would rather pump your child full of untested and untried medications, than actually treat the problems, isn't a factor.

 

No...blame the guns, which have been around since the country was born.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: The US

Phaedrus76 wrote:

The US murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 people. And to compare with the civilized nations, next on the list is Liechtenstein 2.8, and a couple of other small European states from 2.5 to 2.

The rates for nations similar to the US: Canada 1.6, the UK 1.2, Ireland 1.2, France 1.1, Germany 0.8.

Every study done shows more guns equals more deaths. The US has more guns than ever. We are not safer than ever. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-ab...

from the link

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

Bullshit! Not every study.

"The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

The full data is below - what can you do with it?"

If the rate of gun ownership is a determinant of the gun murder rate, how does one explain the gun ownership rates in Mexico (15 guns /100 and 9.97 murders/100k) and Jamaica (8.1 guns/100 and 39.4 murders /100K) and the very high gun murder rates? Guatemala has a gun ownership rate of 13.1/100 and a murder rate of 34/100k.

The US has 88.8 guns/100 and 2.97 murders/ 100k.

Univariate solutions for multivariate problems are unsatisfying.

 

 

organican
organican's picture
DowntheMiddle wrote: What's

DowntheMiddle wrote:

What's the common denominator in all these mass shootings?

Answer: They all used easily attainable assault weapons.

That was an extremely easy question. Good thing you don’t write for the game show “Jeopardy.” Otherwise, it would be nothing more than a three way race to see who could chime in first.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
darlinedarline1@aol.com

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

The US murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 people. And to compare with the civilized nations, next on the list is Liechtenstein 2.8, and a couple of other small European states from 2.5 to 2.

The rates for nations similar to the US: Canada 1.6, the UK 1.2, Ireland 1.2, France 1.1, Germany 0.8.

Every study done shows more guns equals more deaths. The US has more guns than ever. We are not safer than ever. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-ab...

from the link

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

Bullshit! Not every study.

"The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

The full data is below - what can you do with it?"

If the rate of gun ownership is a determinant of the gun murder rate, how does one explain the gun ownership rates in Mexico (15 guns /100 and 9.97 murders/100k) and Jamaica (8.1 guns/100 and 39.4 murders /100K) and the very high gun murder rates? Guatemala has a gun ownership rate of 13.1/100 and a murder rate of 34/100k.

The US has 88.8 guns/100 and 2.97 murders/ 100k.

Univariate solutions for multivariate problems are unsatisfying.

 

 

OK, sorry. If you want to compare the USA to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica then I think we have a different vision of where we want our country to go. I was comparing the US to major, industrial, modern nation states. I am certain the rate of violent assaults in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia are higher than the USA as well. But, looking at Canada, Japan, Western Europe and Australia and New Zealand the US kind of sticks out from the crowd as exceptionally violent. We also distinguish ourselves as lacking universal healthcare and adequate mental health services for the poor.

So yes, poor third world tribalistic societies in Latin/South America, Africa and Central Asia are more violent than the US. ANd the US is twice as violent as any other modern society. 

TChamp3121
TChamp3121's picture
All you anti-gun idots are

All you anti-gun idots are going to lose.  You are naive, pathetic little people.  If someone could garantee that there would be no evil in this world tomorrorow, I would surrender my guns today.  There would be no need for them anymore.  But, that's not the case, is it? 

So, if you guys want to surrender to evil and die at the hands of your oppressors, go right ahead.  But don't tell me I have to do the same.  That is your choice, not mine!

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
But surrendering to the evil

But surrendering to the evil of guns is our lot in life?
Thirty years ago cocaine was a common sight in night clubs. The laws changed, enforcement changed, and in 4 years cocaine was less common. If a change in gun laws could bring back the 20 dead children in Newtown would you support that?

ah2
Fletcher Christian wrote: OK.

Fletcher Christian wrote:

OK.  24000 to 3000 Dislikes to likes.  There is a reason for that.

The show/experiment is crucially flawed.

The shooter who entered the room knew which student was armed and sitting prominently in the front/center row.  They didn't show everybody... I wonder why?  If they all got clipped, I'm sure they would've shown a "flash" of all of the participants being hit.  It would've taken about 2-3 seconds.  The voice over didn't reveal the overall statistic either... I wonder why?

There was a theatre shooting in TX, I think on 12/16/12 where the gunman was brought down by an off duty cop.  Not much coverage.  I'm guessing because it doesn't fit the narrative that our state run media is running with.

The mall shooting in Oregon was ended because of an armed civilian resistance.  Again... not much coverage.  This particular story is of TOTAL SIGNIFICANCE so pay attention to the next paragraph.  I'm not kidding, this information is LIFE SAVING.

These types of individuals who are suffering from acute mental illness are FIRST AND FOREMOST suicidal.  Their chosen act of SUICIDE is to take out as many people as they can before they themselves commit suicide.  I'm guessing that most are suffering from some sort of "persecution complex" and view society as a whole as the "enemy".  In the case of the Oregon mall shooting... all it took was the SIGHT of resistance and the shooter committed suicide.  The armed citizen didn't fire his weapon at all.

These folks (mostly males) are going to places where they KNOW there will be NO RESISTANCE!

This makes sense since they themselves have "given up" trying to live.  They are like a fluid flowing down the path of least resistance.

There is a politician from TX... I can't recall her name, that was at the "Lubey's" massacre.  That's where a guy drove his truck through a glass window and then opened fire.  Early 90's I believe.  Maybe late 80's.  Anyways, she firmly believes that if she had taken her gun with her into the diner (she left it in her truck) that she would've been able to save her dad's life.  (I'm hazy on the details, you can look it up if you want to.)

"FEAR" is a dual edged sword.  It will protect you in the short term and often harm you in the long term.  FEAR causes us to overreact and make very unsound decisions.  I'm guessing everyone was afraid of bearded terrorists 10 years ago.  Not so much now because of rational thinking.  Looking back rationally... well, you already know what you know because you are historically conscious and are here participating in a discussion.

Don't let fear and passion get the best of you.

First and foremost, your information about the Oregon Mall shooting is incorrect.  That ended because the shooter killed himself not because of pedestrian resistance.

Your mentioning of the Texas shooting does not disqualify "the narrative", or as the rest of us like to call it, FACTS, because the person who intervened was an off duty HIGHLY TRAINED AND REGULARLY PRACTICED POLICE OFFICER, not a pedestrian.

The fact is, there is NO WAY that these shooters can have any predelection as to whether there will be individuals with weapons at the venues they choose with the exception of the Sandy Hook shooting.  ALL of the other shootings you mentioned and that have recently taken place - Colorado and Arizona among them - occured in SHALL ISSUE CONCEAL AND CARRY STATES.  And those rights to conceal and carry saved NO ONE.

The issue in the video has literally nothing to do with the shooter knowing whether or not there was an armed person in the room and even had nothing to do with the fact that the shooter might have know WHO had a gun.  The fact of the matter was, the individuals themselves FROZE or couldn't even get the damn gun out of the holster because they freaked out - that fact is completely indepenedent of anything the shooter was doing or knew ahead of time going into the situation.

Finally, your projection of all of these morons as inherently suicidal is just incorrect.

The DC sniper never killed himself.  Jared Laughner never tried to kill himself.  Hasan at Fort Hood did not try to kill himself.  The Sihk Temple shooter in Wisconsin was killed by police.

What these people are are gun worshippers.  They buy into the media and political portray of gun culture as making them masculine and powerful and then act on it.  In a world where you promote violence as a way to have power and to "be a man" and simultaneously collapse the economy to steal the lives and self-efficacy of an entire generation, you tend to start seeing things blow up like throwing matches on gasoline.

Wake up. 

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
I applaud this woman! This is

I applaud this woman! This is what needs to happen to ALL intruders and they might get the message. Way to go girl!

http://news.yahoo.com/mom-shot-intruder-inspires-gun-control-foes-003753...

Is that a big enough wake up call?

DowntheMiddle
organican

organican wrote:

DowntheMiddle wrote:

What's the common denominator in all these mass shootings?

Answer: They all used easily attainable assault weapons.

That was an extremely easy question. Good thing you don’t write for the game show “Jeopardy.” Otherwise, it would be nothing more than a three way race to see who could chime in first.

Aww....that was a nice try at trying to rail me, but the reality is that if I asked that on Jeopardy, you would have lost and ended up standing there lookin' real dumb as the arrogance on your face faded into embarrassment. 

The most common weapon in mass shooting is and has been....the handgun. The common denominator is exactly what I said it was.

Thanks for playing though.

DowntheMiddle
ah2 wrote: Fletcher Christian

ah2 wrote:

Fletcher Christian wrote:

OK.  24000 to 3000 Dislikes to likes.  There is a reason for that.

The show/experiment is crucially flawed.

The shooter who entered the room knew which student was armed and sitting prominently in the front/center row.  They didn't show everybody... I wonder why?  If they all got clipped, I'm sure they would've shown a "flash" of all of the participants being hit.  It would've taken about 2-3 seconds.  The voice over didn't reveal the overall statistic either... I wonder why?

There was a theatre shooting in TX, I think on 12/16/12 where the gunman was brought down by an off duty cop.  Not much coverage.  I'm guessing because it doesn't fit the narrative that our state run media is running with.

The mall shooting in Oregon was ended because of an armed civilian resistance.  Again... not much coverage.  This particular story is of TOTAL SIGNIFICANCE so pay attention to the next paragraph.  I'm not kidding, this information is LIFE SAVING.

These types of individuals who are suffering from acute mental illness are FIRST AND FOREMOST suicidal.  Their chosen act of SUICIDE is to take out as many people as they can before they themselves commit suicide.  I'm guessing that most are suffering from some sort of "persecution complex" and view society as a whole as the "enemy".  In the case of the Oregon mall shooting... all it took was the SIGHT of resistance and the shooter committed suicide.  The armed citizen didn't fire his weapon at all.

These folks (mostly males) are going to places where they KNOW there will be NO RESISTANCE!

This makes sense since they themselves have "given up" trying to live.  They are like a fluid flowing down the path of least resistance.

There is a politician from TX... I can't recall her name, that was at the "Lubey's" massacre.  That's where a guy drove his truck through a glass window and then opened fire.  Early 90's I believe.  Maybe late 80's.  Anyways, she firmly believes that if she had taken her gun with her into the diner (she left it in her truck) that she would've been able to save her dad's life.  (I'm hazy on the details, you can look it up if you want to.)

"FEAR" is a dual edged sword.  It will protect you in the short term and often harm you in the long term.  FEAR causes us to overreact and make very unsound decisions.  I'm guessing everyone was afraid of bearded terrorists 10 years ago.  Not so much now because of rational thinking.  Looking back rationally... well, you already know what you know because you are historically conscious and are here participating in a discussion.

Don't let fear and passion get the best of you.

First and foremost, your information about the Oregon Mall shooting is incorrect.  That ended because the shooter killed himself not because of pedestrian resistance.

Your mentioning of the Texas shooting does not disqualify "the narrative", or as the rest of us like to call it, FACTS, because the person who intervened was an off duty HIGHLY TRAINED AND REGULARLY PRACTICED POLICE OFFICER, not a pedestrian.

The fact is, there is NO WAY that these shooters can have any predelection as to whether there will be individuals with weapons at the venues they choose with the exception of the Sandy Hook shooting.  ALL of the other shootings you mentioned and that have recently taken place - Colorado and Arizona among them - occured in SHALL ISSUE CONCEAL AND CARRY STATES.  And those rights to conceal and carry saved NO ONE.

The issue in the video has literally nothing to do with the shooter knowing whether or not there was an armed person in the room and even had nothing to do with the fact that the shooter might have know WHO had a gun.  The fact of the matter was, the individuals themselves FROZE or couldn't even get the damn gun out of the holster because they freaked out - that fact is completely indepenedent of anything the shooter was doing or knew ahead of time going into the situation.

Finally, your projection of all of these morons as inherently suicidal is just incorrect.

The DC sniper never killed himself.  Jared Laughner never tried to kill himself.  Hasan at Fort Hood did not try to kill himself.  The Sihk Temple shooter in Wisconsin was killed by police.

What these people are are gun worshippers.  They buy into the media and political portray of gun culture as making them masculine and powerful and then act on it.  In a world where you promote violence as a way to have power and to "be a man" and simultaneously collapse the economy to steal the lives and self-efficacy of an entire generation, you tend to start seeing things blow up like throwing matches on gasoline.

Wake up. 

The DC sniper followed the pattern of a serial killer. He got off on the attention.

Jared Loughner was tackled and subdued.

Hasan at Fort Hood was shot, hence the fact he's paralyzed.

The Sikh Temple shooter SHOT HIMSELF.

For you to say that none of these people was suicidal, is absurd, with the exception of one. Do really think they thought they would walk away from those incidents unscathed? They know, despite their mental deficiencies, that they were on a one way ticket.

DowntheMiddle
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBjzdvSloG8