America's Gun Gallery, March 25, 2008

[zanne]

\
IL: A 70-year-old woman, Maggie Browder, was killed Monday morning by a stray bullet that came through a window of her Far South Side house at 6:20am.
IL: Two young brothers, 4 and 11-years-old, from the Back of the Yards neighborhood were wounded when a loaded handgun hidden inside an oven discharged as the oven was heated. The boys' older sister turned on the oven to cook some food when apparently an unaware parolee had hidden a gun inside the oven.
IA: Authorities launched a manhunt for a local banker after a woman and four children were found shot dead in an Iowa City home.
CO: In the days leading up to last week's murder suicide, Colleen Dwyer reportedly told police her estranged husband told her to get ready to "take a bullet." Colleen's two small children, both under the age of 6, where there when the shooting occurred.
GA: Eddie Harrington, 27, purchased a semi-automatic handgun and used it to murder his son, Sedrick Harrington, 3; and twin 23-month-old daughters, Agena and Aliyah Battle; each were shot in the head before Harrington committed suicide.
FL: The mother of a 29-year-old, Jeffrey Hall, who was shot and killed by Orlando police officers, said her son was not given a chance to surrender before being "executed."
PA: The Indiana County Coroner said that 20-year-old Brian Marshall Morgan died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound; apparently Morgan believed the .22-caliber handgun was unloaded when he placed it to his head and discharged the weapon.
KS: Alfonso Barajas, 50, was killed during a shooting, which is believed to have been accidental.
AL: School administrators confirmed that Gerry Elliot, assistant principal of both Lineville High and Elementary schools died Saturday after a hunting accident.
FL: A 50-year-old Pompano Beach man, Randall W. Williamson, was accidentally shot to death while hunting turkey. Another hunter, Michael Shane Hasting, 40, was hunting with his 6-year-old son when he shot at a turkey with his 12-gauge shotgun and hit Williamson.
***

Source: gunguys.com

[Lasher]

1. Hey, have you been following that Supreme Court case?

Is this great or what? Now I'll be able take my machine gun everywhere!

[zanne]

4. The SCOTUS will rule on that in late May...

Some leagal eagles are saying that their ruling won't make anybody happy.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. If it means that the price on legal machine guns comes back down to reasonable prices.

I'll be ecstatic. I'm still trying to save up enough for a lowly Mac-10 (around 4 grand now). It'd be great to see these things back down to reasonable levels.

[CTyankee]

2. Thanks zanne for keeping this front and center for all to see.

It is a good "witnessing" that you are doing...

[benEzra]

3. ...and in benEzra's house, several guns sat peacefully in a safe

and didn't kill anyone, didn't threaten to kill anyone, didn't go off by accident, and didn't make anyone cry (except maybe Paul Helmke).



I have another pistol/carbine match coming up in a couple of weeks; I'll try to post the results.

In other news, several hundred thousand people went shooting this week and didn't harm anybody, and ~80 million gun owners, 35 to 40 percent of U.S. households, and a quarter to a third of U.S. Dems and indies managed to survive another week with guns in the home. OMG.

[DonP]

5. I shot my first pistol/carbine match last fall

It was a lot of fun.

I shot my "new" M-1 Carbine and my .45 1911. My scores were so so at best, but we had over 80 people show up. None of them were involved in any criminal activity that I know of. I'm definitely going back again this year.

The carbines were at 100 yards and the pistol at several distances from 10 yards to 25 yards, with and without barriers to brace against.

It was my first time shooting a scored combat style pistol match. The lady running the pistol match was really sharp and experienced. A couple of the guys had trouble with their extra magazines jamming and she cleared them, took a quick look at how they had loaded their double stack mags and explained what they were doing wrong and no more problems.

I hate to say it, but the only rifles that anyone had problems with all day were some SKS's that kept jamming on them every few rounds. I suspect that they hadn't cleaned the Soviet version of cosmoline out of the bolts.

BTW, Has anyone else noted that the first two shootings were here in Utopian gun free Chicago? With our DC style ban on all handguns.

The latest news on the older lady that was shot and killed through her front door is that she was actually shot through the glass front door at point blank range and not a "stray bullet" and that it was a gang shooting that went to the wrong house. Now let's see if the neighbors turn in the shooter or tell the cops which gang he's a member of?

Have fun at your match.

[WWFZD]

16. SKS slam fire

"...SKS's that kept jamming on them every few rounds. I suspect that they hadn't cleaned the Soviet version of cosmoline out of the bolts."

That's also a real good way to end up getting treated like David Olofson. I've put a thousand rounds through my Norinco, at least, and I think I've cleaned the barrel twice and the gas tube once after initially removing all cosmoline. But I've regularly taken that bolt apart and keep it clean and lightly oiled. Don't want any problems with that.

[dmallind]

6. Meanwhile...

AZ: 74yr old women shoots robber who broke in and threatened to burn down her house
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/112055

PA: 6'5" 250lb robber shot after taking money from small business
http://www.wpxi.com/news/15678692/detail.html

IL: 62yr old man shoots teenage thug breaking into his house and threatening him
http://www.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=769113

NC: Homeowner kills two robbers in night time break in of his house
http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032008-ah-homeownershoots.ac213e2.html

NY: Homeowner chases off intruders who threatened him with a gun by using his own licensed pistol
http://www.antonnews.com/threevillagetimes/2008/03/07/news/burglary.html

VA: (not all dangerous animals have two legs) - Rabid fox shot in residential subdivision before it can infect others
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/middlepeninsula/dp-local_localbrfs_03193mar19,0,7895592.story

[L1A1Rocker]

14. Your not supposed to bring those up. Shhhhhh

[L1A1Rocker]

7. GunGuys are an AntiGun ragloid with now credibility.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. I'm glad you post these

It makes me realize how small a problem this actually is in comparison to medical accidents and improper treatment, motor vehicle related accidental deaths and accidental drownings, etc. Especially when you compare them to the number of uses of firearms for self defense. Thanks you've enlightened me.

David

[zanne]

11. The gunshot deaths vs. automobile deaths argument is a false analogy.

And gunshots have nothing to do with medical accidents and improper treatment. The neocons already tried that argument on comparing the death toll in Iraq to automobile deaths in this country and they fell flat on their faces.
Sorry, but your analogy doesn't fit the situation.

[EricTeri]

13. Pray tell, what is so false about it?

Both involve devices being misused, and that misuse causing death. Granted, the analogy, like ALL analogies, is imperfect, but it is close enough to illustrate the point.

I suspect what you really mean is, you cannot come up with anything intelligent to say to refute it so you prefer to dismiss it out of hand.

You know as well as the rest of us do that guns don't cause crime, suicides would happen anyway, and no law will EVER stop a criminal from doing his crime or obtaining a firearm. You also know that the accident rate with firearms is so small as to be irrelevant.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. No it's not.

misuse is misuse. It's a valid analogy that makes YOUR argument very irrelevant. Oh wait a sec. . . NOW I see why you don't want it used. OK.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. What argument?

I made no argument just comparing the numbers of deaths. After all that's the easiest way to determine societal costs. When you just deal with accidental deaths and intentional killings, the numbers pale in comparison to other accidental and negligent deaths. Even when you include suicides the numbers are still a fraction. I just wanted to thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Thanks again.

David

[zanne]

23. So adding the number of gun deaths to the number of automobile deaths...

Is just fine with you, right? Your argument makes no sense because that's all it does. You're saying that, because there are more automobile deaths than gun deaths (or accidents), that proves that gun deaths aren't a big deal. That's just unrealistic and you know it. You're being disingenuous to win an argument. Sorry, but you're wrong. Adding gun accidents to automobile accidents doesn't change the fact that accidents and deaths from guns in this country are astronomical and totally avoidable with more stringent gun regulations and stiffer penalties for breaking the laws on the books.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. That's where we disagree.

I think we need to enforce the existing laws and increase penalties in crimes where weapons are used and keep violent criminals in prison. I don't think we need more stringent gun regulations, law abiding citizens follow the existing laws just fine. I never said that any of the deaths were acceptable. There are ways to decrease the number of deaths from all causes. I think we should look at ways to decrease these deaths the greatest amount while limiting freedom the least amount. I think that's a pretty reasonable democratic thing to do. Lastly, I wasn't being disingenuous and I wasn't trying to argue. I was merely stating the fact that gun deaths whether accidental or intentional account for a fraction of traumatic deaths nationally especially when you remove suicide from the figures. That doesn't make them meaningless or insignificant. It just puts it in perspective from a public health aspect.

David

[zanne]

46. Ah...The old "law abiding citizens" routine...

The fact is, alot of "law abiding citizens" are morons, as we've all seen. We need to close loopholes at gun shows, in newspaper ads AND on gun websites. (Yes, I've seen them and all the gun selling and trading that goes on in those sites).
If I go by your logic, then I can say that, "Well, disease kills more people every year than automobile accidents".
It's just a lame excuse you guys got from some right wing gasbag. (By the way I don't think anybody is fooled by your assertions of being "liberal" gun owners.) Your words smack of Rush Limbaugh et al. If you want to believed, try adopting a more liberal attitude.

[EricTeri]

52. Zanne

I believe the only one here exhibiting a very un-liberal attitude is you. You're taking the position of "I dont like it, so fuck your rights" and wondering why others may have a problem with it. In addition, you've presented no facts, only opinion, and incredibly uninformed opinion at that.

There is no "loophole". That is a fallacy created by anti-gun groups to appeal to the ignorant. Obeying the law is NOT a loophole.

As repeatedly pointed out, private sales, BY LAW, do not require a NICS check, and in fact, have no access to the NICS system. Sales by dealers at a gun show DO require an NICS check. Period. Sales online require transfer at an FFL dealer, which will require an NICS check. Sales via the paper which occur across state lines require transfer through an FFL dealer and an NICS check.

You're acting like a kid who adds 2+2 and comes up with 5 and whines because he feels bad that he got the wrong answer.

[iverglas]

55. "Obeying the law is NOT a loophole"

Yeesh. Look up "loophole" somewhere, will you? Dog only knows what you think it means ...

Here, try this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/loophole?cat=biz-fin

Investment Dictionary: Loophole
A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.

Investopedia Says:
Someone who wants to evade certain taxes might find a loophole that allows them to avoid penalties legally.

Financial & Investment Dictionary: Loophole
Technicality making it possible to circumvent a law's intent without violating its letter.

Law Encyclopedia: Loophole
An omission or ambiguity in a legal document that allows the intent of the document to be evaded.
Loopholes come into being through the passage of statutes, the enactment of regulations, the drafting of contracts or the decisions of courts. A loophole allows an individual or group to use some gap in the restrictions or requirements of the law or contract for personal advantage without technically breaking the law or contract. ...

I hope that helps.

[beevul]

69. Swing and a miss.

"We need to close loopholes at gun shows, in newspaper ads AND on gun websites."

Thats what zanne said.


What you quoted that could applicable is this:

"A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law." or possibly "Technicality making it possible to circumvent a law's intent without violating its letter."



The problem, is that the SCOPE/INTENT of firearms laws, the ones that zanne claims there are loopholes in, were never intended to apply to person to person - private party sales. They are only intended to apply to firearms dealers.

There is therefore not only is there no loophole, but saying there IS one is quite misleading, and possibly dishonest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. So what other Constitutional Rights should we take away from the stupid?

Voting the republicans would love that. Just so you know being close minded isn't very liberal. Not that it matters you post nothing of substance. Emotion without fact, thats your game.

David

[L1A1Rocker]

71. I think we should have voting tests. AND re-institute the pole tax.

Of course I'm being sarcastic but to follow the logic path of gun banners these type of actions would be legal on all OTHER rights if apply ed to the 2A.

Why do people refuse to look at the big picture and how there actions can have very bad unintended consequences?

[EricTeri]

98. I dont think it would be fair to institute a tax upon...

...strippers or the Polish. Would that mean that DeeDee Warshawski down at the Kitty Kat Klub would be taxed twice?

(Just giving you a hard time...you're thinking of the poll tax, not pole :) )

[L1A1Rocker]

99. Sorry:) I trust in the spell checker too much:)

[Spoonman]

100. Are you a law abiding citizen?

alot of "law abiding citizens" are morons

It's just a lame excuse you guys got from some right wing gasbag. (By the way I don't think anybody is fooled by your assertions of being "liberal" gun owners.) Your words smack of Rush Limbaugh et al. If you want to believed, try adopting a more liberal attitude.

I AM A DEMOCRAT! YOU ARE A LIBERAL!!!!!!!

I do not wish to, and will not adopt a more socialist, oops, I mean liberal attitude.

Maybe YOU should start acting more like a DEMOCRAT, and less like a LIBERAL, and WE would all be happier by winning elections!!!!!

[dmallind]

43. Yes and no

Ideally of course one murder or accidental death is one too many. Doesn't matter what the means are. All we have to do is decide whether the price to reduce those deaths by X% is worth the cost - again regardless of the means.

We could make traffic deaths essentially nonexistent by mechanically limiting cars to 15 mph and making the exterior far softer and more prone to collapse and energy absorption - but it isn't worth the costs.

In all honesty even in a magical world where you can wish away guns and the means and skills to make them (best gun I owned was made in one machine shop with almost all parts machined out of solid stainless - probably not by one guy but that's how he started) here's what impact you would have:

Suicides - tiny reduction. Guns are a very effective and handy way to kill yourself with little room for error (it happens) and I would imagine not much time to feel pain done right. However so is jumping from a 40 story building - or even a 5 story one onto concrete head first. Suicides are either people with a serious desire to kill themselves - no reduction there - or a momentary mental misfire. Only reduction in the latter would be those who have guns handy but not tall buildings or any number of other quick effective, relatively pain-free ways to end it all.

Homicides - in all honesty some impact both reduction and increase. Much like suicides, homicides are either seriously planned or flashpoints. Seriously planned any number of other means are there. Guns are used a lot for same reason they are in suicides. Flashpoint type murders rely on what's at hand and if a gun is not there it is certainly harder to beat or even stab someone to death especially if they are bigger/tougher/faster. However it's also a lot harder to defend yourself against someone who IS bigger/stronger/faster who wants to kill you without a gun. In candor, I agree without guns at all (again a magical impossibility) there would indeed be somehwat fewer murders, but I'd guess not a whole lot. It's not as simple as pointing to the fact that guns are used in 70% or so of murders. What we need is the number of murders that wouldn't have been done without the guns at all - where no substitute would have been used. That's not zero, but then neither is the number of times a gun has stopped an attempted or probable homicide either.


Accidents - this already IS a pretty small number, but yes obviously would be almost eliminated if guns did not exist. Again though we have to say the same for cars or swimming pools or electricity in the home, etc etc.

[iverglas]

56. just curious

Suicides - tiny reduction. Guns are a very effective and handy way to kill yourself with little room for error (it happens) and I would imagine not much time to feel pain done right. However so is jumping from a 40 story building - or even a 5 story one onto concrete head first. Suicides are either people with a serious desire to kill themselves - no reduction there - or a momentary mental misfire. Only reduction in the latter would be those who have guns handy but not tall buildings or any number of other quick effective, relatively pain-free ways to end it all.

Homicides - in all honesty some impact both reduction and increase. Much like suicides, homicides are either seriously planned or flashpoints. Seriously planned any number of other means are there. Guns are used a lot for same reason they are in suicides. Flashpoint type murders rely on what's at hand and if a gun is not there it is certainly harder to beat or even stab someone to death especially if they are bigger/tougher/faster. However it's also a lot harder to defend yourself against someone who IS bigger/stronger/faster who wants to kill you without a gun. In candor, I agree without guns at all (again a magical impossibility) there would indeed be somehwat fewer murders, but I'd guess not a whole lot. It's not as simple as pointing to the fact that guns are used in 70% or so of murders. What we need is the number of murders that wouldn't have been done without the guns at all - where no substitute would have been used. That's not zero, but then neither is the number of times a gun has stopped an attempted or probable homicide either.

These, we all recognize, are opinions.

Are yours shared by anyone who has made a serious study of the issues and is credible when speaking to them?

Have you yourself made any study of the issues and do you have any findings on which you might base these opinions?

If not, is there any reason that anyone would pay any attention to them?

[dmallind]

70. Have you?

I clearly stated opinions. On matters like these which CANNOT EVER be tested (How would you do that? Since you have to correct for all other variables you'd have to hermetically seal some part of the country off and spend decades seeking out every last gun under martial law search and seizure then spend more decades getting enough data points on homicides and suicides - so having problems here both with constitutionality and reality) all we can do is use inductive reasoning - opinion. You can't use other countries because you can't duplicate US societal factors in other countries. You can't use states or cities with different gun laws because as DC shows, there's no damn way to stop guns crossing boundaries, any more than drugs or booze in Prohibition. There are way too many variables for any kind of statistical correction and anybody who tries is missing a whole bunch. You can't use anecdotal input about great Aunt Marge popping herself in the head with a shotgun and Cousin Hilda deciding not to jump off the Seras Tower after all because anecdotes are not not data, and worth probably less than opinion, since the latter at least should have some internally consistent reasoning behind it.


It's a hypothetcial situation that has never and can never in the real world be studied. What other tool beside opinion is there? What problem do you have with any of the clearly identified opinion offered with my supporting reasons? Do you think absence of guns would magically stop all murders and suicides done with them now? If so why - what would stop other means being used simply because one tool has been removed?

[iverglas]

77. actually, yes

I keep fairly current on issues like this, partly in connection with my work, partly out of personal interest. I am therefore able to recognize your opinions for the bunkum they are. Your comments now really only show how ignorant of the field you are, and how apparently intent on remaining ignorant you are.

Do you think absence of guns would magically stop all murders and suicides done with them now?

I give up ... do you think I am a complete moron? If not, why would you ask a question that could only be answered "yes" by a complete moron?

[L1A1Rocker]

79. Another trick question. . . .

"I give up ... do you think I am a complete moron? "

Um. . . well. . . .

[dmallind]

83. I don't actually

I don't think he's a moron. I think he's a pontificator who thinks a lot of harsh invective and "internet big man" attempted bullying stands in for proof or reason. I gave opinions and reasons. He returns with ever-so-hurtful-to-poor-wittle-me bluster and absolutely no data OR inductive argument to support his contention. That's not a moron - it's just a windbag with nothing to back up his braggadocio.

[iverglas]

85. what contention would that be?

absolutely no data OR inductive argument to support his contention

My "contention" was that your post consisted of a bunch of hot air, unsupported by any facts or reasoning from those facts.

Seems to stand pretty well, so far.


Quite an entertaining post, that. Maybe you'll get the joke sometime.

[dmallind]

88. Nice attempt to retreat when called out

you called my opinions bunkum. My opinion is that there will be little change in homicides or suicides with strict gun control. You further claimed to have done studies and have information that would support this assessment of bunkumity.

I'm just waiting, and asking, for the proof or the data to support your contention that it's all bunkum.

I will sincerely apologize if I'm wrong, and pay you for your time even.

I now expect some semantic quibbling and some more ever-so-effective-in-debate belittling rather than any actual proof.

Let's try a very basic question and see if a straight answer is in your capability for once:

Where am I mistaken and what is your evidence, or reasoning (I DO think opinion is valid here as long as it is consistent and well reasoned - because I'm also still waiting for any description of an even possible study that would be defibitive and remove this discussion from the realm of pure speculation on either side) as to why I am?

Prove it.

[iverglas]

92. nice falsehood

You further claimed to have done studies

I claimed no such fucking thing. Your decision to engage in this kind of misrepresentation removes you from the realm of civil discourse, if your repreated demands for rebuttals of your unsupported opinions hadn't already done so.

I asked you whether you had "made any study of the issues", not whether you had "done studies". You simply do not get to misrepresent my statement that I have (made a study of the issues) as a statement that I have "done studies".


I have nothing to prove.

And at bottom, I have no desire to engage in a discussion of any issue of which my interlocutor is so obviously as profoundly ignorant as you are in this instance. Factoids gleaned from websites whose owners have axes to grind do not constitute a knowledge base that equips you for such a discussion, and I have no intention of engaging in any exchange of factoids and thus validating your opinion that your opinions are worthwhile.

The opinions you claim to hold are evidently based on nothing but such factoids and voiced for no reason but your desire to further your own interests by persuading someone either equally ignorant or equally venal to adopt them. Or just to get back pats from people who already claim to share them. A game that holds no interest for me.

The issues here are complex and deserving of serious attention, because they involve the lives of people who are often in need of, and deserving of, assistance. I'm simply not interested in the uninformed opinions of anyone who very obviously gives a crap about nothing but his/her own interests.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmallind]

81. Prove it maybe?

I'm interested in this too - so please tell me which study I've missed that is valid and shows anything different to what I stated.

Or lemme guess - you don't have time to cite proof that I'm wrong or it's beneath you, right?

Come on - a study that corrected for all other variables and showed a significant decline in homicide or suicide rates with stricter gun control. That's all I ask for. You've said it exists. Prove it,

[iverglas]

86. nice try

I dont' seem to have made any claims about anything -- other than to state the fact that you blatted out a load of opinion unsupported by anything.

I'll be waiting for your "proof" that your opinions are worth considering.

So I wouldn't advise that you hold your breath waiting for mine. I have nothing to prove.

[dmallind]

89. Squawking retreat again I see

yep it's the "it's beneath me to correct you" gambit just as predicted.

Where is my opinion wrong and why? I supported speculative opinion with logical and consistent reasons for those opinions. It's all you CAN do when studies are neither available nor possible. You on the other hand are just squawking "you're wrong but I'm too far above you to explain why" again and again.

[L1A1Rocker]

73. Of course we all

know your openion of "gun rights".

""Gun rights" is the biggest, smelliest, filthiest piece of racist, misogynist, imperialist right-wing shit to have landed on earth since, oh, well, it's hard to think of anything parallel. Fortunately. Maybe "manifest destiny"?"


I believe this other quout of yours applys to this very nicely.

"These, we all recognize, are opinions.

Are yours shared by anyone who has made a serious study of the issues and is credible when speaking to them?

Have you yourself made any study of the issues and do you have any findings on which you might base these opinions?

If not, is there any reason that anyone would pay any attention to them?"


Well? We are all waiting.

[selador]

74. suicides and guns

"These, we all recognize, are opinions.

Are yours shared by anyone who has made a serious study of the issues and is credible when speaking to them?
"

fact: plenty of countries with much lower gun ownership/availability have MUCH higher suicide rates.

japan comes to mind.

fwiw, japanese americans have relatively high suicide rates as well. and they frequently use guns. in japan, they use means other than guns. guns are a TOOL. the suicide aspect is cultural.

sure, if guns were completely unavailable it MIGHT lower the suicide rate. it's POSSIBLE. but when you look at suicide worldwide, etc. you see that it's hard to find ANY correlation between gun availability and suicide rates.

[dmallind]

75. It is worth mentioning

Although again is not a valid correlation to US scenarios, that after Australia's recent drastic gun restrictions, suicide rates went up (no causal link implied) while obviously firearms suicides went down.

Tasmania gets used as an example by control fans because THEIR overall suicide rate went down and they were the state with most firearms suicides, but that again just shows the impossibility of definitively studying this. All of Australia changed their gun laws, not just Tasmania. The fact that the state and the nation went in separate directions is at least an implication that gun restrictions had no causality in either case. Again, of limited use to US because cultural factors are not repeatable, as can be seen with Japanese example too, but at least for Australia a pretty good indication their experience mirrored my opinion.

[L1A1Rocker]

76. Interesting post

Thank you.

[iverglas]

78. fascinating

Not. I'm sure you realize that a purported opinion based on one carefully selected datum from the infinite number available is worth about as much as an opinion based on nothing at all.

[L1A1Rocker]

80. ???More double speak????

[dmallind]

82. Still waiting for proof

Where is the data - obviously not opinion because you deem it worthless - that show there IS a significant change in overall suicide or homicide rates based on gun control?

Remember here I am in the null position awaiting proof. I don't think there is a difference to be found. You have the burden of proof here.

[iverglas]

87. yeah, right

You say: I don't think there is a difference to be found.

So that puts you in the null position awaiting proof?

No, sweetie.

You said (and I underline the pertinent portion):

In all honesty even in a magical world where you can wish away guns and the means and skills to make them (best gun I owned was made in one machine shop with almost all parts machined out of solid stainless - probably not by one guy but that's how he started) here's what impact you would have:

Suicides - tiny reduction. Guns are a very effective and handy way to kill yourself with little room for error (it happens) and I would imagine not much time to feel pain done right. However so is jumping from a 40 story building - or even a 5 story one onto concrete head first. Suicides are either people with a serious desire to kill themselves - no reduction there - or a momentary mental misfire. Only reduction in the latter would be those who have guns handy but not tall buildings or any number of other quick effective, relatively pain-free ways to end it all.

Homicides - in all honesty some impact both reduction and increase. Much like suicides, homicides are either seriously planned or flashpoints. Seriously planned any number of other means are there. Guns are used a lot for same reason they are in suicides. Flashpoint type murders rely on what's at hand and if a gun is not there it is certainly harder to beat or even stab someone to death especially if they are bigger/tougher/faster. However it's also a lot harder to defend yourself against someone who IS bigger/stronger/faster who wants to kill you without a gun. In candor, I agree without guns at all (again a magical impossibility) there would indeed be somehwat fewer murders, but I'd guess not a whole lot. It's not as simple as pointing to the fact that guns are used in 70% or so of murders. What we need is the number of murders that wouldn't have been done without the guns at all - where no substitute would have been used. That's not zero, but then neither is the number of times a gun has stopped an attempted or probable homicide either.

The underlined bit is you making a claim, the claim being the material that follows that bit.

So here I sit, in that old null position, waiting for proof ...

Getting it yet? A damned lot of chattering going on to avoid acknowledging it, is all I see.

[dmallind]

91. sorry cupcake pussycat

Yep it's the semantic quibbling gambit as predicted! two for two!

You managed to identify it (correctly) as opinion before but now you're suggesting I was giving a guarantee rather than a speculation?

Make your mind up.

Again - real easy - tell me where I'm wrong and why, or do you in fact agree with this opinion and just can't get off your self-awarded and ill-deserved high horse long enough to admit it?

[Spoonman]

101. The answer to that questions professor is

"B"

just can't get off your self-awarded and ill-deserved high horse long enough to admit it

[L1A1Rocker]

94. Somehow I think you'll be waiting a long time.

[L1A1Rocker]

72. Very good post.

Thank you

[Hangingon]

9. These postings indicate to me the problems we are about to

face as gun owners. The $50 check to the Democratic Party has been torn up. I am writing a new $50 check to the NRA-ILA. Thanks for the heads up Zanne.

[iverglas]

18. just curious

The $50 check to the Democratic Party has been torn up. I am writing a new $50 check to the NRA-ILA.

When the NRA-ILA uses your money to campaign against Democratic Party candidates in your constituency, will you also be virtually tearing up your virtual membership card in this site?

Why not just do it now and avoid the rush?

[L1A1Rocker]

20. And that is exactly why the Democrat Party needs to get on the right side of this issue.

[iverglas]

21. hahahahaha ... get on the RIGHT side of the issue

Truer words, etc. You do it so well!

[L1A1Rocker]

30. Please post something that contributes to the discussion or at the

very least, makes sense.

[L1A1Rocker]

31. Ok, now I get it. Your trying to throw a political bomb and disrupt the discussion of issues.

Shame on you.

[iverglas]

35. give you time, you'll get it

Nice to see.

Yes, I'm the one throwing "political bombs". I'm the one smearing elected Democrats, donating money to organizations that use the money to defeat Democratic candidates, spending my hours hanging around websites devoted to smearing and defeating elected Democrats and Democratic candidates ...

Of course, hereabouts, those aren't political bombs I guess, are they?

[L1A1Rocker]

37. Glad you admit your shame.

"Yes, I'm the one throwing "political bombs". I'm the one smearing elected Democrats, donating money to organizations that use the money to defeat Democratic candidates, spending my hours hanging around websites devoted to smearing and defeating elected Democrats and Democratic candidates ...

Of course, hereabouts, those aren't political bombs I guess, are they?"


As far a any smearing going on I have EVERY right to voice my displeasure with my elected officials. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY and as much as you may wish to quell the voice of decent it is NOT unpatriotic to voice decent.

As far as giving money to "organizations that use the money to defeat Democratic candidates" goes, I give money to organizations that support candidates that support the 2A and understand that it has nothing to do with hunting. I hope they are democrat, I wish more democrats understood what the 2A says (unlike your views on gun rights). Your political bomb throeing at me is based on the fact that I believe in gun rights and want candidates elected that believe in them also. Unfortunately your blind hatred of gun rights does not allow you to engage in a civilized debate on the issue. You fall back on making unfounded accusations (with evidence such as me using the word "right" rather than the work "correct" - real mature there)and throwing political bombs at those you disagree with.

My time "hanging around websites" is MY time to do with as I wish. I believe strongly in gun rights and support those candidates that do also. To bad the only smearing going on here is from you against my beliefs.


""Gun rights" is the biggest, smelliest, filthiest piece of racist, misogynist, imperialist right-wing shit to have landed on earth since, oh, well, it's hard to think of anything parallel. Fortunately. Maybe "manifest destiny"

Your words, your beliefs. Unfortunately your visceral hatred of gun rights also makes you react similarly to those that disagree with you. Why can you not be rational on this topic and debate honestly?

[iverglas]

41. gee

As far a any smearing going on I have EVERY right to voice my displeasure with my elected officials. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY and as much as you may wish to quell the voice of decent it is NOT unpatriotic to voice decent.

Do you imagine that EVERYTHING is about you???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=163349&mesg_id=164242
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=163349&mesg_id=164307

If YOU want to call an unsupported allegation that a respected elected Democrat with a long record of responsible public positions has a "tenuous hold on reality", and the insertion of that unsupported allegation into a discussion of whether the US citizens whom that Democrat represents should have vote as well as voice at the federal government table, "dissent", ... well, you go ahead. That WILL be about you.


My time "hanging around websites" is MY time to do with as I wish. I believe strongly in gun rights and support those candidates that do also. To bad the only smearing going on here is from you against my beliefs.

Maybe you should look into why you think everything anyone says is about you. Or is it just everything I say?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=163293&mesg_id=163293
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=163293&mesg_id=163317

... even though it actually seldom seems to be ...


Unfortunately your visceral hatred of gun rights also makes you react similarly to those that disagree with you. Why can you not be rational on this topic and debate honestly?

Unfortunately, you just don't understand what you read.

"Gun rights" -- like that, in quotation marks -- means something. It refers to a body of thought that is summarized by that noun phrase. People who use that noun phrase with approval are conveying a message. It's an ascribed meaning -- since the noun phrase gun rights itself is kinda meaningless. Table legs are the legs of tables; are gun rights the rights of guns? "Gun rights" is a code phrase. It doesn't mean anything unless you know what it means.

We all know what "gun rights" means, and exactly whom all those guns are needed to "defend" against. The old-style racists were content to try to keep firearms out of the hands of the targets of their hatred; the new-style "gun rights" activists prefer to just shoot them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. New-school Hoover/McCarthyism rears its ugly head on DU

Old school Hoover/McCarthyism:

Support of First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments= Subversive, Communist Dupe,
Fellow Traveler.

New School Hoover/McCarthyism:

Support for Second Amendment= Gun Nuts, Racists, Indifferent to the victims of gun violence.


"Gun rights" -- like that, in quotation marks -- means something. It refers to a body of thought that is summarized by that noun phrase. People who use that noun phrase with approval are conveying a message. It's an ascribed meaning -- since the noun phrase gun rights itself is kinda meaningless. Table legs are the legs of tables; are gun rights the rights of guns? "Gun rights" is a code phrase. It doesn't mean anything unless you know what it means.

We all know what "gun rights" means, and exactly whom all those guns are needed to "defend" against. The old-style racists were content to try to keep firearms out of the hands of the targets of their hatred; the new-style "gun rights" activists prefer to just shoot them.

Note the subtle revisionism here. iverglas cannot deny any longer the racist motives behind gun control up to and including California's Mulford Act of the 1960s (signed into law by that well-known friend of African-Americans, Ronald Reagan). Now she flat
out calls us racists

This crude ad hominem is in the second paragraph quoted. Oh, the second half of the
last sentence is also an ipse dixit.

The great and wise iverglas has stated this as fact, therefore it must be so. She's just so much more *evolved* and caring than we are.


I suppose she'll soon be telling us she has a list in her hand of 240 racists who post here at DU.

[L1A1Rocker]

65. With a response like that you are really loosing credibility fast.

You right: "Do you imagine that EVERYTHING is about you???"

No, only this to which I'm referring.

L1A1Rocker (832 posts)
Wed Mar-26-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #18

20. And that is exactly why the Democrat Party needs to get on the right side of this issue.


To which you REPLIED:

21. hahahahaha ... get on the RIGHT side of the issue



Truer words, etc. You do it so well!


My statements are correct and your counter accusation baseless. Reminds me of "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations." Seems to be your S.O.P. here.

Your write: "If YOU want to call an unsupported allegation that a respected elected Democrat with a long record of responsible public positions has a "tenuous hold on reality", and the insertion of that unsupported allegation into a discussion of whether the US citizens whom that Democrat represents should have vote as well as voice at the federal government table, "dissent", ... well, you go ahead. That WILL be about you."

Your incoherent rambling aside you have something in quotations ostensibly attributed to me. ("tenuous hold on reality"). I have not made such a statement and for you to say so is a damned lie.


Your write: "Maybe you should look into why you think everything anyone says is about you. Or is it just everything I say?"

Well, I've already addressed that.


Your write: ""Gun rights" -- like that, in quotation marks -- means something. It refers to a body of thought that is summarized by that noun phrase. People who use that noun phrase with approval are conveying a message. It's an ascribed meaning -- since the noun phrase gun rights itself is kinda meaningless. Table legs are the legs of tables; are gun rights the rights of guns? "Gun rights" is a code phrase. It doesn't mean anything unless you know what it means."

Ok, lots more rambling going on here but you seem to be saying that; what you said is not really what you said. Um, Ok, well. . . .

""Gun rights" is the biggest, smelliest, filthiest piece of racist, misogynist, imperialist right-wing shit to have landed on earth since, oh, well, it's hard to think of anything parallel. Fortunately. Maybe "manifest destiny"?"

That is a direct quote from you. It is not taken out of context and it is what it is. I believe that now you have expressed your true feelings on "gun rights" and let the cat out of the bag you are trying to take back those words. You cannot take them back, your visceral hatred of "gun rights" is now known to everyone on the board. Now you need to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and stand by your words and feelings on the subject rather that try to cower and hide them by saying that that is not what you said. Very disingenuous of you, and it shows a serious lack of credibility.

Shame, Shame

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. So that would make the Black Panthers a false flag operation

and Ronald Reagan at least momentarily a progressive for banning open carriage of firearms in California.

Your assertion would require that the Black Panthers (both factions), the White Panthers, The Deacons for Defense and Justice, Robert F. Williams, and the Lumbee
tribe of Native Americans *all* be part of some kind of subtle, well camouflaged RW
plot.

I guess the African-American residents of Roxbury, Massachusetts have been led to some
kind of false consciousness regarding the Boston Police Department's proposed door-to
door searches for guns.

You can yell "Racist, Misogynist, and Right Winger!" all you want, but these are
assertions.

People here are not going to buy it merely because The Great And Terrible Iverglas
Says So, no matter your shouting and armwaving.

[iverglas]

106. was there a question in there, counsel?

So that would make the Black Panthers a false flag operation

I don't know what a "false flag operation" is, but if you say so.

What I would say is that the Black Panthers was organized to assert and defend the rights of an oppressed minority group. And that whatever it is Ronald Reagan did was a counteraction by the majority against the means employed to assert and defend those rights. Who was "right" and who was "wrong" is the sort of thing that history tends to decide on the basis of who's writing it.


Your assertion would require that the Black Panthers (both factions), the White Panthers, The Deacons for Defense and Justice, Robert F. Williams, and the Lumbee tribe of Native Americans *all* be part of some kind of subtle, well camouflaged RW plot.

If that were my assertion, I think the only conclusion I could draw was that I'd lost the plot, since it appears to be completley incomprehensible babbling. So I'm going to have to put some effort into figuring out what the fuck you could possibly be talking about ... and it seems to be this:

"Gun rights" is an ideology and political movement that originated in the 1960s, and was originated by racist scum pursuing right-wing political goals, and is pursued by the same elements today.

So you seem to be saying that the Black Panthers and all those other things were part of some "gun rights" movement. And I can't really imagine why I'd want to dignify that with a response.

The "gun rights" movement was a counteraction to the real movement the Black Panthers and all those other things were part of: the movement to demand recognition of and to have effect given to the real rights of the oppressed minority.

The oppressed minority really, really wasn't on a crusade to get the right to carry firearms in public, perhaps you noticed. It was engaged in a struggle for equal treatment in the law and public policy. And in the course of that struggle, it encountered violent opposition (as members of the minority encountered violence in everyday life, as one expression of the unequal treatment they were subject to as individuals and oppression they were subject to as a group), and sought means to resist that violence.

Fortunately, you aren't likely to be the one writing this history. Schoolchildren of the future would be at risk of fried brains, if you were.


I guess the African-American residents of Roxbury, Massachusetts have been led to some kind of false consciousness regarding the Boston Police Department's proposed door-to door searches for guns.

Y'see? "Door-to-door searches for guns." If we let you write the history books, the dumbing of your homeland would be just about accomplished.

Actually, yeah, I think there may be some false consciousness going on. I don't always agree with everything that every lefty law professor comes out with. And I find this:

"The community doesn't want this," Lisa Thurau-Gray, managing director of the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University Law School, said at the meeting. She likened the police persistence to a sexual aggressor who refuses to stop assaulting a victim despite her pleas. "What part of no don't they understand?" she said.

to be one of those instances. Really, really dumb and obnoxious.

But then I don't live there, I don't know anyone who does, and I have no opinion to speak of. And I think reasonable people who do have the facts and who have no axe to grind other than concern for the welfare of the community and its members might be able to disagree on this one. Nobody here falls into that category as far as I've noticed.

But hey, it makes for some more fun bedfellows. If any members of those communities stray beyond its borders and onto some white guy's lawn, then boom boom, it'll be a righteous shoot and their right to life be damned (but we'll yammer a bit about root causes la di da blah blah). But as long as they stick to home and just put holes in one another, then their right to have as many firearms as they want will be the most important thing there is.

One of the root causes of violence IS violence; violence inhibits social and economic development and creates the conditions in which violence flourishes. But I guess I'll just take a leaf out of your book, and say I'm sure you think that violence just keeps a community on its toes.


You can yell "Racist, Misogynist, and Right Winger!" all you want, but these are assertions.

I guess they are. They seem to be yours. Are you having fun with them?


Can you do anything about the bizarre line breaks your posts are full of? Kinda hard on the eyes. Not sure how you manage to get them there, but they're real easy to get out.

(typo fixed)

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. A couple of fallacies (and a few personal attacks) to address here

Where to begin?

I don't know what a "false flag operation" is, but if you say so.

References to false flag operations abound in political literature. See:
RCMP + "barn burning", "the Canuck letter", the "Iraqi National Congress"
the Nazi's excuse for invading Poland (an "attack" on a German radio station)

As Leo Durocher is reported to have said: "You could look it up"

What I would say is that the Black Panthers was organized to assert and defend the rights of an oppressed minority group. And that whatever it is Ronald Reagan did was a counteraction by the majority against the means employed to assert and defend those rights. Who was "right" and who was "wrong" is the sort of thing that history tends to decide on the basis of who's writing it.

And since the Panthers were not and are not right wingers, and Ronald Reagan was, is it just unpossible for you to admit that they (the Panthers) were asserting "gun rights"?

I would also say that what was acceptable for the people in 1775 Concord was acceptable in circa 1965 Oakland. Mind you, I am not endorsing the Panthers, but rights are rights. They are not reserved to "nice" people.


me: "Your assertion would require that the Black Panthers (both factions), the White Panthers, The Deacons for Defense and Justice, Robert F. Williams, and the Lumbee tribe of Native Americans *all* be part of some kind of subtle, well camouflaged RW plot."

you: "If that were my assertion, I think the only conclusion I could draw was that I'd lost the plot, since it appears to be completley incomprehensible babbling. So I'm going to have to put some effort into figuring out what the fuck you could possibly be talking about ... and it seems to be this:"

Ok, I'll put it another way. Since you maintain that "gun rights" (which see Second
and Fourteenth Amendments) is a RW plot, the folks mentioned above don't fit your
meme (see also Malcolm X and "rifle clubs"). Since they did, in fact, use firearms
as a "means employed to assert and defend their rights", and did *not* use them in
a Nat Turner-style racial pogrom., your logic would have us believe that they were
encouraged to bear arms in order to acclimate the minority communities to the use
of guns. Since most, if not of the above gave the Right conniption fits (J. Edgar Hoover most of all) I think we can rule this out.


So you seem to be saying that the Black Panthers and all those other things were part of some "gun rights" movement. And I can't really imagine why I'd want to dignify that with a response.

You dodged the question.

Fortunately, you aren't likely to be the one writing this history. Schoolchildren of the future would be at risk of fried brains, if you were

Aside from the cheap shot, if we all agreed on history there would be nothing to
discuss.


Me: "I guess the African-American residents of Roxbury, Massachusetts have been led to some kind of false consciousness regarding the Boston Police Department's proposed door-to door searches for guns."


You: "Y'see? "Door-to-door searches for guns." If we let you write the history books, the dumbing of your homeland would be just about accomplished."

You've insulted me, you just haven't refuted my argument

"Actually, yeah, I think there may be some false consciousness going on. I don't always agree with everything that every lefty law professor comes out with. And I find this:


"The community doesn't want this," Lisa Thurau-Gray, managing director of the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University Law School, said at the meeting. She likened the police persistence to a sexual aggressor who refuses to stop assaulting a victim despite her pleas. "What part of no don't they understand?" she said.
to be one of those instances. Really, really dumb and obnoxious."

OK, let's stipulate that Lisa Thurau-Gray is a dipshit for saying that. That does
not invalidate the other opinions in the article, or those expressed at the Y meeting.

I did find the New Panther/ Nation of Islam split rather interesting.

"But then I don't live there, I don't know anyone who does, and I have no opinion to speak of. And I think reasonable people who do have the facts and who have no axe to grind other than concern for the welfare of the community and its members might be able to disagree on this one. Nobody here falls into that category as far as I've noticed." Does the ACLU count? They're against the idea.

I dolive here. And I do know people who live in the neighborhoods
mentioned. They do *not* trust the Boston Police Department. Why? Well, among other reasons:

1. A well documented history of racism and brutality. Search the name "Charles
Stuart". Or search "boston beating undercover officer".

2. The department is overwhelmingly white in a "majority-minority" city. Employment
as a BPD officer is seen as a birthright of the children of officers. There is no
residency requirement, so the white officers who don't live in West Roxbury or
South Boston tend to live in the (mostly white) suburbs. The "gun searches"
aren't being proposed for in West Roxbury or Southie. Or any other predominately white
neighborhood. The BPD is seen as an occupying force by many.


Now this rest is just pure straw man:


But hey, it makes for some more fun bedfellows. If any members of those communities stray beyond its borders and onto some white guy's lawn, then boom boom, it'll be a righteous shoot and their right to life be damned (but we'll yammer a bit about root causes la di da blah blah). But as long as they stick to home and just put holes in one another, then their right to have as many firearms as they want will be the most important thing there is.

One of the root causes of violence IS violence; violence inhibits social and economic development and creates the conditions in which violence flourishes. But I guess I'll just take a leaf out of your book, and say I'm sure you think that violence just keeps a community on its toes.

WTF?

[Scout]

63. "quell the voice of decent"

:rofl:

[L1A1Rocker]

67. Yeah, I thought it was a good line too. Thanks

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. You are Canadian

Don't you'll have a place to bitch about Canadian laws.

David

[zanne]

24. Iverglas; Every once in a while they slip up...

And show us who they really are. Ask them to post in GD or GDP for a change.

[L1A1Rocker]

32. Funny how some would rather discuss using the word "right" vs "correct"

is more important than the issues.

[iverglas]

36. funny how some people can't follow the breadcrumbs

The posts you are referring to here relate to this statement:

The $50 check to the Democratic Party has been torn up. I am writing a new $50 check to the NRA-ILA.

Nothing at all to do with using the word "right" vs "correct".

Wakey wakey.

And, of course, not a political bomb at all. Of no interest whatsoever that a member of Democratic Underground has just announced the intention of terminating donations to the Democratic Party in favour of donating to an organization with a track record of funding opponents of Democratic candidates and orchestrating campaigns of deception for the purpose of defeating Democratic candidates like ... oh ... Al Gore ...

[L1A1Rocker]

38. Funny how some want to cast dispersions rather than have a real debate.

[Scout]

64. "cast dispersions"

:rofl:

[L1A1Rocker]

66. I know, I though it was funny too. Too bad some will not debate honestly.

[iverglas]

90. what's 'is name would be proud, wouldn't he??

Dang, what's his name. Mr. ... Damn! It will not come to mind. Dickens character, wasn't it?

I keep getting a kick out of the pole tax, myself. Is it based on the number of poles on one's property? I have a proper old-fashioned clothesline, so I suppose I'll get taxed for doing my environmental duty and hanging clothes to dry ...

[L1A1Rocker]

96. Does not contribute to discussion.

[Scout]

97. neither do posts that make no sense n/t

[L1A1Rocker]

42. Funny how some spin while others just deny the facts.

iverglas (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-26-08 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. hahahahaha ... get on the RIGHT side of the issue


Truer words, etc. You do it so well!

[L1A1Rocker]

19. I've been real POed at the NRA over the whole Parker/Heller issue.

My money now goes to the GOA.

[Hangingon]

26. I left the NRA back in the 80s because of their policies.

The gun grabber mentality has just recently brought me back to an "uneasy" NRA membership. I'll look into GOA. The next time I get a "I'm so much smarter than you response" from a an anti-gunner in this forum, I may send GOA a $50 check.

[krispos42]

10. Florida Woman Burned, Kitchen Explodes After Grandchild Puts Aerosol Cans in Oven

POMPANO BEACH, Fla. — A South Florida grandmother is recovering from injuries after one of the five children she was baby-sitting put two aerosol spray cans into the oven and blew up part of the kitchen.

The explosion blew off the oven door and sent flames across the woman's legs, arms and chest. The fire then spread to other parts of the kitchen.

<snip>

Investigators have not yet determined which child put the cans into the oven or who turned the oven on. The children will be sent to the Broward County's Juvenile Firesetter Prevention and Intervention program to teach them about the dangers of fires and explosives.

The woman was taken to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341290,00.html

Obviously, we need to enact stricter laws on aerosol cans. Registration, licensing, safe-storage laws that include harsh penalties for easy access to children, limits on can capacity, and a background check.

Aerosol cans are the choice tools of vandals, causing billions of dollars in damages nationwide. Gangs especially prefer them for tagging their territory and enabling gang warfare. And they are abused by the million annually as people deliberately concentrate and inhale their contents, especially the super-powerful gold-colored paint.



There is no legitimate need for these "assault" aerosol cans. You want to paint, use a brush. Deadly assault aerosol cans cause huge amounts of damage for only a marginal gain in convienence, and are not worth it, especially in a civilized society.

You cannot deny that if deadly assault aerosol cans were outlawed, the man pictured above would not be huffing it's contents and destroying his family, and perhaps others drawn into his chemical-induced state of altered conciousness.

[gorfle]

12. All tragedies...

All tragedies, but no excuse for gutting the Constitution.

[Wcross]

25. The Iowa city murder suicide was not committed with a gun.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/17003276.html

Police say Steven Sueppel killed his wife Sheryl first and left her body in the master bedroom. Then, he tried to kill himself and his four children using exhaust fumes in the garage. Apparently, it didn't work.

So, police say Sueppel killed each of the four children using some sort of blunt force.

Still a terrible crime, dude should have just killed himself.

[zanne]

27. Who said it was? nt

[Wcross]

28. Uh, you did sparky.

Perhaps you should read your post again.
"IA: Authorities launched a manhunt for a local banker after a woman and four children were found shot dead in an Iowa City home."

[zanne]

44. You're wrong, snookums.

Look again.

[zanne]

47. OK--I see what you mean. " America's Shooting Gallery"...

I just read over the Shooting Gallery, and it does state that a gun was used in the Iowa case. Obviously, that was wrong. Sorry, snookums.

[Wcross]

49. No problem sweetheart.

Just pointing out that people can be murdered with or without a gun. It happens.

[zanne]

50. Gee--I have lots of "cutesy" names lined up. Do you? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. GunGuys have also stated that handguns did not exist until c.1785

http://www.gunguys.com/#post-1966

"Handguns are a type of firearm that did not exist before or after the Constitution, until they became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?"

They quickly changed their webpage, but several people saved it.

See the discussion about 1/2 way down the page at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=135039#135055

If you are gonna use GunGuys as a source, you might want to *verify* their statements
for yourself. As we've shown you, they have problems with the truthiness of some
of their website postings.

[L1A1Rocker]

68. Why should they let a little thing like truth get in the way of an agenda.

truth be damned, guns must be banned.


Hey, I made a funny.

[benEzra]

29. Ah, you did. Or "gunguys" did, whichever.

(Zanne)

America's Gun Gallery, March 25, 2008

IA: Authorities launched a manhunt for a local banker after a woman and four children were found shot dead in an Iowa City home.

[L1A1Rocker]

33. You're the one that posted it as an example of needing more gun control.

Do you now withdraw that example?

[L1A1Rocker]

34. Does "America's Gun Gallery, March 25, 2008" sound familiar?

[Wcross]

40. Didn't MrBenchly have a habit of posting very similar things?

Before he was tomb-stoned? I wasted so much time debating with him about "gun control". I won't be sucked in by another zealot on the issue.

[zanne]

45. Are you inferring that I'll be "tombstoned"?

Not before you are, buddy.

[Wcross]

48. It is an odd similarity, almost like a reincarnation or something. n/t

[zanne]

51. And you remind me of someone I used to know....

:rofl:

[SteveM]

53. Do you still favor drug prohibition, too?

[Spoonman]

102. Holy shit,

I have received three emails questioning that very thing!!!!!

Definitely recognizable to those of us who have been here for several years!

[iverglas]

104. that anyone

would claim to think, let alone actually think, that there is a resemblance between zanne and the Benchley in question is really just too hilarious.

Pretty conclusive evidence of utter (a) disingenuousness or (b) dunderheadedness. Depending on whether the anyone in question actually thinks or is merely claiming to think s/he sees such a resemblance.

Friends, I know the Benchley in question, and I can tell you: zanne is no MrBenchley. No shame in that, of course; just stating the obvious.

I'm almost willing to believe that someone or ones here actually believe this is a possibility, or perhaps even a probability. Gobsmacking dunderheadedness, if so.

Merely claiming to believe it without believing it ... well, that's just gobsmacking dumbness.

[zanne]

54. I realize you're responding with outrageous posts because I piss you off...

Well, I have a pretty thick skin, so flame away. I mean, hey, being outrageous got five gun nuts tombstoned in the last month alone!

[EricTeri]

57. You're the one being outrageous.

You make wild fantastical claims, ignore facts, refuse to provide supporting information for your statements, insult people, and dismiss reality out of hand.

[Spoonman]

103. Thick skinned?

Are you referring to an overall body rating, or just the cranial region?

[Dukkha]

62. ok fine, more gun control will stop these killings

it's working out fine for Japan. Guess they're going to start registering knives.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/japan.stabbings.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- One person was stabbed to death and at least seven others were hurt by a man who went on a knifing spree outside a shopping mall in eastern Japan on Sunday, police said.