Four dead, including 2-year-old, in Louisiana domestic shooting.

[sharesunited]

This man had access to a gun and apparently believed it should be used to solve a problem he was having. Namely, relatives.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/57579322.html

[slackmaster]

1. Since that is a low-income, rural area, it's possible that sharesunited's "disarm the poor" idea

Might have prevented this one. Or not.

[sharesunited]

2. I'll put you down for cheap and abundant guns and ammo, so that all can participate.

[oneshooter]

3. At the same time

NONE of my collection, along with 3-4 million other firearms were used to harm anyone.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[sharesunited]

6. Shouldn't we qualify that? By stating: Yet.

[oneshooter]

30. No, My answer need no qualification

If one of my weapons injures somebody it will be because I was in control of it, and I wanted that person injured. My collection has no, and has never had the cosmic power of mind control over humans. They are tools, it takes a human to decide how the tool is used.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[sharesunited]

47. The wild card you are conceding is your own brain chemistry.

All that matters is that you are in control of the weapon and want to inflict injury?

Why am I not reassured by that?

[Treo]

55. Please don't project your lack of self control on me NT

[sharesunited]

58. Your sanity and sound judgment dangle by the same fragile thread as anyone's does.

But when you snap, perhaps you have stockpiled an arsenal which you can reach for.

[Treo]

66. Actually I do

But I'm not going to snap

ETA
I am a proponent of personal responsibility ans I tend to be More circumspect when I'm carrying ( which is just about any time I have pants on ) because I know that one split second on stupidity W/ a gun can affect the rest of my life.

[sharesunited]

67. Your possession of an arsenal belies that promise. It indicates how close you already may be.

[Treo]

69. Or that I like to colect guns

If you think thats bad , I have four rollaways full of tools in my garage

[sharesunited]

70. The danger you pose from a ratcheting rampage is something society can probably accept.

[Treo]

75. I don't pose a danger W/ my guns either

It's not the gun that cause people to kill it's desire to kill

[sharesunited]

78. He was a sane and peaceful man. Until he wasn't. We will never know for sure what set him off.

[Treo]

81. The guy that shot up New Life Church

Was sane until he wasn't

Thankfully he ran into an armed citizen when he snapped

[sharesunited]

82. Guns as a solution to guns. Thank goodness someone was there to shoot the gunman.

The logic is irrefutable.

(Caution: May also cause dizziness.)

[Treo]

85. It's no different that " We must quit making guns" when IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN

You do know that when they banned guns in England people ( at least the ones W/ out guns) just started killing each other W/ knives right?
instead of continuing to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic why don't you put your energy into something that actually has a chance of working?

EDIT spelling

[Euromutt]

95. How do you know the guy was "a sane and peaceful man"?

Oh, that's right, you don't. You made that up because it's convenient to your argument.

The idea that homicidal shootings are carried out to any significant extent by people who were "sane and peaceful" until one day they "just snapped" and killed someone is a myth. Nobody ever "just snaps"; there are always warning signs that could have tipped somebody off, if they'd known what to look for. Similarly, domestic violence killings are typically the culmination of an escalating pattern of violence.

You can't let go of that idea that firearms have supernatural powers, can you? That the only thing that causes someone to murder an entire household is the possession of a firearm. That's why you have to pretend the murderer was "sane and peaceful," because otherwise you might have to admit that the problem was between the guy's ears, not in his hand.

[Euromutt]

89. Nice circular argument there

You shouldn't have guns because you might be mentally unstable. And we can tell you're mentally unstable because you own guns. In short, the fact that you own guns means you shouldn't.

[sharesunited]

91. Each additional gun or bullet you own is evidence of your unfitness to own it. Exactly.

A perfect inverse correlation between quantity and mental health.

Another self-evident truth.

[Euromutt]

97. By "self-evident" you mean "I have no evidence," right?

No, what we have here is a circular argument, in which your conclusion is identical to your premise. You have to call it "self-evident" because you have no evidence for your contention.

Truth? You don't know the meaning of the word.

[sharesunited]

105. All Men Are Created Equal. Oh yeah? Prove it!

[Treo]

107. They're not but they do have equal rights

Including the right to self defense

[sharesunited]

108. Maybe with a front-loading, single shot flintlock.

[Treo]

109. Actually human rights predate firearms by Millennia

I am a free man I have been freely and naturally provided by my Creator with certain rights that I can freely choose not to exercise, but that no one on the face of this planet can take from me. I have a right to defend my life, I have a right to defend my freedom ( I agree that I do not always have the right to pursue happiness or to pursue happiness irresponsibly). And I will have those rights till the end of my natural life.

[Katya Mullethov]

120. Would the traditional three or four brace be verbotten ?

Carrying a few braces of flinters , one would have to hold a pan primer in their left hand and then prime and fire them one at a time . That's good for about 3 seconds a piece before practice .

I am gonna go out on a limb and predict that the bad guys are all gonna want to drill and install nipples so they can use percussion caps . Actually they will choose modern (post1890's)cartridge firing repeating arms . Citizens like me ,the ones with businesses and property (something to loose) will be the only ones restrained to flintlocks whilst living in the fantasy world you so vividly paint .

[Euromutt]

124. In share's defense, he's not the only one living in that fantasy world

He buys into the myth, peddled so enthusiastically by the anti-gun types in the public health literature, that the overwhelming majority of gun crime--especially homicides--are committed by people who wouldn't have hurt a fly were it not for the mind-controlling powers of firearms, and that consequently, every gun owner is a time bomb waiting to go off and slaughter half his entire household.

That's why shares doesn't share your concern; he thinks the only bad guys are you and me.

[Euromutt]

111. My point exactly: why DON'T you prove it?

You'll have a tough time of it, because a brief observation (also known as "collecting evidence") of humankind shows that all men are most assuredly not created equal; some are smarter, some are stronger, some are more charismatic, etc. There is an increasing body of scientific research that indicates than an awful lot of both our physical and psychological traits are genetically determined.

And that's even allowing that there exists a "Creator"; there's no evidence of that either.

Whatever conventions of human behavior we may achieve by rough consensus--such as that the law should treat all men equally, and not give special deference to some guy because his great-great-great-grandfather was the most ruthless bastard in the valley--aren't right because they're "self-evident" or "natural" or handed down by some elusive deity; they're right because we have collectively agreed they're right. When it comes to private ownership of firearms, we have no consensus.

[Treo]

99. Then you would FLIP if you ever got a look in my gunsafe/ammunition storage NT

[slackmaster]

119. I believe sharesunited is completely unqualified to make that kind of judgement

If anyone disagrees with me, let's see sharesunited's credentials.

[DrCory]

103. As Does Yours...

I'm very concerned you may have access to sharp-edged instruments.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gaA1iG-gfrsXTU8UD0duFYfQ6LAA

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/29/national/main692073.shtml

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/local-news/shanghai/2008/07/02/163545/Man-storms.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-04-korea-stabbings_x.htm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. And you have car keys you can reach for and kitchen knives and gasoline and matches.

[slackmaster]

10. Go right ahead. I'm pro-choice on guns and ammo, like pretty much everything

And not in favor of pricing poor people out of the market.

[sharesunited]

11. If bullets entered your body, would you experience an instant conversion?

Or would you support your assailant's choice?

[slackmaster]

12. I have very little fear of that happening, and real statistics back that up

It's extremely unlikely that I will ever become a victim of a firearm accident or an unlawful shooting.

My biggest worries in life are traffic accidents and major medical problems.

[sharesunited]

15. Since you like probability

Is it appreciably more likely that you would need to punch holes in someone else?

Or is that likelihood, even if negligible, just not acceptable to leave to chance?

[slackmaster]

21. More likely than what?

Is it appreciably more likely that you would need to punch holes in someone else?

Or is that likelihood, even if negligible, just not acceptable to leave to chance?

Your question does not make sense grammatically, but I will offer you this as an answer to what I believe you may be asking:

I think the probability that I will ever be forced to shoot a person is very, very small; and if it does happen, it will be a regrettable and painful experience for me. But I would rather live with that than the potential consequences of not protecting myself.

[sharesunited]

25. I think you may have fashioned and are nurturing a double standard.

The odds of getting shot due to guns and ammo proliferation are low, so the public should not be worried about it.

Yet the odds of needing to shoot are somehow greater (or greater enough) so that being armed with guns and ammo is prudent or necessary.

Why do you want to have your probabilities both ways?

Isn't it just because you exalt guns and ammo?

[slackmaster]

27. "Proliferation" of guns and ammunition have very little to do with the likelihood of getting shot

For a given individual, it matters little whether there are 50 million guns in this country or 500 million. Firearms do not distribute themselves like gas molecules, and they don't discharge at random times in random directions. Besides the issue of WHO has guns and who is prevented from having them, the things that DO affect the likelihood of being shot IMO fall into two distinct categories:

A) Things that you have no control over, which include the timing and circumstances of your birth, the behavior of your parents when you are young, your gender, the color of your skin, etc. and

B) Things that you do have control over, i.e. choices that you make. As people get older, they generally gain control over more aspects of their lives, up to a point. I choose jobs, living situations, etc. that pose little risk to me of becoming a victim of violent crime.

Yet the odds of needing to shoot are somehow greater (or greater enough) so that being armed with guns and ammo is prudent or necessary.

That's a nice Straw Man you have fashioned. I have never said on DU or anywhere else that it is either prudent or necessary for any particular person to be armed with any particular type of weapon.

I have always said that it is and should be an individual choice.

[sharesunited]

34. What a convenient dichotomy. Bad luck or bad choice of putting ourselves within firing range.

I will try applying that prism to the next killing spree, to help me sort through the reason each corpse now lies dead.

[slackmaster]

36. Please do, and if you do so honestly I believe you may come to a revelation

Taking guns away from everyone wouldn't address the root causes of violent crime.

[sharesunited]

42. Root cause is one thing.

Convenient and efficient means of inflicting swift death and great bodily harm is quite another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. So you would take away everything that can accomplish those things?

[oneshooter]

37. My philosophy is this

" I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." This is true of insurance, fire extinguishers, and spare tires.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[sharesunited]

44. Those things don't kill and cripple.

[Pavulon]

48. No thing kills or cripples. It takes a man to put it in motion

bombs dont blow up airplanes, alcohol does not cause dwi. Each incident involves a person making a choice to kill or take steps that can kill others. It is ALL about that choice.

[sharesunited]

50. Agreed. Choice and availability of the means of putting it into effect.

Some means should not be generally available.

[Pavulon]

52. You have the means to replicate the london bombings

under your sink and in your laundry room. The fact that you choose not to make TATP and detonate it is your call. Again motive is the focus.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. You, shares, have the means to commit massive fraud and/or distribute child porn...

...in your posession: to wit, a computer with an Internet connection.

What is stopping you from doing those things?

[sharesunited]

76. I don't need to distribute it to be in violation of law. I can merely possess it.

A thing deemed unacceptable in and of itself for the harm it causes to society.

Its mere presence is enough to shut it down.

Good! Thank you!

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. I would presume you don't download and print racist flyers from Stormfront, etc.

Yet you have the means to. Most everybody with Internet access and a printer could -but don't.

This would be a crime in some polities (i.e. Canada) because of the harm stuff like that is deemed
to cause society.

Or you (or someone else) could get ahold of stolen credit card and Social Security numbers, if you've a mind to.

Should we deny the ability to commit these acts because they *might* be done?

[sharesunited]

88. Life or death is a public interest choice which merits greater restriction upon choosing poorly.

At least that would be the case in a normal hierarchy of values.

More freedom is tolerable in those areas where people aren't at great risk of dying.

[Treo]

68. Let me bust you upside the head W/ a fire extinguisher and see if that doesn't change your mind NT

[oneshooter]

98. You are right

if they are used in the proper and law abiding manner. If they are abused and used wrongly then they can do harm. It depends on the user, who is human.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Statistical]

61. It is only confusing if you think the only outcome of violent crime is getting shot.

The number of people who are victims of violent crime is a magnitude (about 100:1) higher than the number of people killed in violent crime much less killed with a firearm.

The odds in being the victim of a homicide is about 1 in 30,000.

The odds of being the victim of a homicide during a violent crime where the attacker is a stranger is about one in 500,000.

The odds in being a victim of violent crime is about one in 3,000

[Treo]

16. I've been shot I still support RKBA NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. As have I

[sharesunited]

28. Now that is True Gun Love. So very touching.

Oh Guns And Ammo, You Can Shoot Me And I Will Still Love You.

[slackmaster]

29. I don't think that's what he meant

I suspect that if you did shoot him, he'd be rather pissed off at you. I know I would.

[sharesunited]

35. Angry at me, sure. But never questioning my access to the implement of harm.

[slackmaster]

38. In prison you would have no access to guns

And that would suit me just fine.

[sharesunited]

43. After the harm is done.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Its one of the many reasons I so strongly champion private ownership of firearms.

Had I not had my own, I would be dead.

The law discriminate in many ways against the poor and minorities, and preventing gun ownership is one of those ways.

[sharesunited]

45. You are citing your own gun ownership as a solution to being assaulted with a gun.

That is circular, and fails to challenge the presence of any gun whatsoever in the equation.

I Need Guns To Defend Myself Against Guns.

Not buying what you and the NRA are selling.

[Pavulon]

46. Assaulted by a person..you mean.

gun, knife, club whatever they choose to assault with is their call. How I react is my call.

[sharesunited]

49. If they get the drop on you with the first shot

that doesn't dissuade you about the availability to them of that choice?

You insist it is still in your interest that they have that choice?

[Pavulon]

51. Yep, shit happens. But I see a golf course from my house

so the odds are pretty low. However yep, if they get a drop and kill me , im done, if they dont, they have a problem. I appreciate the choice to shoot back if I see fit.

Situational awareness is more valuable than a weapon in most cases.

[Treo]

57. Yes

The BGs are going to get guns regsrdless of the law I want the means to defnd myself

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. So your rationale for banning guns is that criminals might get the jump on you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. I am selling nothing...self defense is natural right and a progressive value

Its the means for the smaller, weaker, or outnumbered members of our society to protect themselves against those who would do them ill.

I am all for and have worked to address the causes of violence and inequity in the US and in the world. However, there are those whose predisposition to it will always be there. For those, personal weapons are needed for self defense.

You view of no guns = no crime is specious. Your prior statements about how guns cause crime are ludicrous.

[sharesunited]

65. What is ludicrous is your denial that access to guns and ammo DOES prompt the decision

to proceed with the commission of crime.

We hold this truth to be self-evident: Lack of such access is an IMPEDIMENT to the commission of crime.

[Treo]

71. That's why no crimes were committed prior to the invention of guns NT

[sharesunited]

73. No that would be saying guns enable or embolden all crimes.

I know that's not true, and I don't assert it.

[Treo]

77. Ok they enable SOME crimes

And they will continue to do so far beyond my lifetime. Therefore, I want mine

[sharesunited]

79. You want yours and you are ok with as many more as can be made and sold.

More is better, according to Treo?

[Treo]

80. Yes

Guns = freedom

It is a historical fact that dictatorships start by disarming the populace

[Euromutt]

112. Get your story straight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=252647&mesg_id=252723

What is ludicrous is your denial that access to guns and ammo DOES prompt the decision to proceed with the commission of crime.

This is an untenable contention, given that 1/3 of homicides and over 90% of non-fatal violent crimes are committed without a firearm. What this translates to is that, since 1999, even in the United States, at most 1/4 of serious violent crime has been committed in spite of the perpetrator not having access to a firearm, or not being willing to use it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=252647&mesg_id=252734

No that would be saying guns enable or embolden all crimes. I know that's not true, and I don't assert it.

That statement is logically incompatible with your earlier assertion that "access to guns and ammo DOES prompt the decision to proceed with the commission of crime." If crimes can and do occur without the perpetrator having access to a firearm (as over 3/4 of serious violent crimes do), then how does it follow that it must necessarily be the availability of a firearm that prompts the decision (your words, not mine) to go through with a violent offense? It just doesn't add up.

The only plausible mechanism whereby a prospective violent offender would be reluctant to go through with a crime if he were unable to acquire a firearm and ammunition, would be if he feared that his prospective target might himself be armed with a firearm, and thus have a possible advantage against an assailant armed with a blade, bludgeon, or "personal force."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Not at all. People have been committing crimes of violence since the dawn of time

Guns level out the situation. A small woman can hold off multiple intruders by herself. What other option would you suggest given that when you need the cops in seconds, they are at best minutes away

[Euromutt]

100. That may be the greatest disservice Jefferson did to this country

The line that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is masterful rhetoric, but it's unfortunately also a prime example of intellectual laziness, and generations of Americans have grown up thinking that merely asserting that something is a "self-evident truth" is an adequate substitute for providing a rational argument supported by empirical evidence.

The fact is that 1/3 of homicides and over 90% of non-fatal violent crime in this country is committed without firearms (see: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.htm), so while violent offenders clearly choose to use a firearm when they can lay their hands on one, inability to acquire a firearm does not, in fact, seem to form much of an impediment at all.

Moreover, since some 90% of homicides are committed by people with prior histories of criminal behavior (reflected in extensive records of arrests and/or convictions), many of whom are therefore legally barred from acquiring firearms (quite a lot are legally too young as well), but manage to acquire them illegally anyway, there is absolutely no evidence that impeding legal access to firearms does a damn thing to stop violent crime, by firearm or otherwise.

Note that I'm not doing this in effort to convince you, shares; you've clearly got your mind tightly closed to evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. I'm making this point for the fence-sitters who think there might be something to your blather.

[Treo]

53. It wasn't "Gun & ammo" that shot me

It was an idiot W/ a gun. the gun didn't just jump off the table and blast me

[sharesunited]

60. A goof with access. The same access you claim for yourself. See any connection?

[Treo]

72. Again, you aren't going to get rid of guns

Until that happens I want mine

[Euromutt]

118. Only the connection you're fabricating

You know exactly nothing about the incident, except that Treo was shot. You know nothing about the shooter, you know nothing about the shooter's legal status to possess a firearm, and by extension, what legal access the offender (I don't why you persist in using the supremely annoying "goof," as if violent offenders are just making a silly mistake that anyone could make, and if it weren't for the gun, it'd just be a wacky misunderstanding) had. You're clinging to the myth that the overwhelming majority of people who shoot others are generally well-behaved right up to the moment they pull the trigger.

[oneshooter]

33. I have, in the course of my job at the time

been shot. It hurts a lot, but was considered a possibility in my line of work. I also carry fragments of steel in both lungs, and have had my left leg twisted 180deg from the knee down. The only thing I have changed my mind on is that I will NEVER get on a helicopter again. They have tried to kill me three times already!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Anti gun laws are historically racist and classist. Have to wonder what that makes their supporters

[sharesunited]

13. Compassion for all of humanity? Refusal to enable capricious, convenient infliction of death?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. How about unwilling to allow those who most need it to have affordable self protection

[spin]

86. It would be nice if it worked that way...

however, in real life control has been used to keep the lower class under control and afraid of the ruling class.

Some excerpts from The Racist Roots of Gun Control http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. <4>

****snip****

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. <28> It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. <29>

****snip****

Today is not 1893, and when proponents of restrictive gun control insist that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting questions that should be asked today. The most obvious question is, "Why should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a concealed handgun permit?" Here in California, even the state legislature's research arm--hardly a nest of pro-gunners--has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males. <36> Even if overt racism is not an issue, an official may simply have more empathy with an applicant of a similar cultural background, and consequently be more able to relate to the applicant's concerns. As my wife pointedly reminded a police official when we applied for concealed weapon permits, "If more police chiefs were women, a lot more women would get permits, and be able to defend themselves from rapists."

Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that "they" were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

****snip****

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.

You many favor completely banning firearms, but the draconian gun laws that would pass would have certain exceptions that the rich and powerful would be able to take advantage of. Ask yourself why Don Imus, Howard Trump, and Robert De Niro have concealed carry permits in New York City.

In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is allowed by law, but typically takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.<50> Examples of current and past New York City permit holders are Charles Schumer, Robert DeNiro, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Ronald Lauder, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Donald Trump, Harvey Keitel, Joan Rivers, Arthur Sulzberger, and Bill Cosby.<51>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[divideandconquer]

14. Racists like the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Oprah Winfrey

Gun huggers will say anything. :crazy:

[Treo]

17. More like the KKK Nt

[divideandconquer]

18. Any proof that the KKK endorses strong gun regulation or you just made that up??

:silly:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Historically in the south the KKK fostered anti gun laws so they could terrorize without fear of

being shot

[Treo]

26. No it's a historical fact

that most of the original gun laws written in this country were Jim Crow laws designed to disarm blacks specifically the Black Panthers

[divideandconquer]

32. I didn't know the Black Panthers were around during colonial days

:silly: I thought the first gun laws were to discourage duelling.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. In the 60s more gun laws were added to prevent the Panthers from open carry etc

Scared too many of the older, richer and white folks in places like San Francisco

[Treo]

59. You thought wrong NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Classist in most of those cases

They are safe, they are protected, but they can not abide self defense for the little people.

[spin]

87. Do yourself a favor and broaden your horizons...

Read The Racist Roots of Gun Control http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

[Euromutt]

4. Running away as usual, shares?

Please don't feel you need to address of the counterpoints that have been raised to your assertions in other threads. No, just ignore those and start a new one so you can regurgitate your usual sound bites, and keep telling yourself you have the courage of your convictions.

Maybe some day, somebody other than yourself will take you seriously.

[sharesunited]

7. I only start a new thread when new deaths from guns and ammo are reported.

On those rare days when no such tragedies occur, I take naps.

[Euromutt]

110. But you continue to ignore counter-arguments in existing threads

I don't think I'm out of line if here if I point that your tendency to ignore threads you've started when your usual sound bites have been addressed, and then find an excuse to start some new thread where you reel off those same sound bites as if they haven't been refuted a dozen times or more already, really doesn't aid your credibility.

In short: you're wrong; your beliefs are not supported by evidence. Whenever somebody presents evidence that contradicts your beliefs (and that's all they are: beliefs), you don't present evidence supporting your point of view, but ignore the inconvenient posts and scuttle away. You've got to know you're wrong, or you have be self-delusional to the point of psychosis.

[Piwi2009]

122. " I only go after gun deaths"

I guess deaths from knives, clubs, cars and dogs just don't have the same oomph.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Shoud have been drunk and used a car

A former Abilene woman was sentenced to a seven-year probated prison term Tuesday after pleading guilty to a charge of intoxication manslaughter

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/aug/11/woman-sentenced-intoxication-manslaughter/

[sharesunited]

8. Reckless disregard is not malice aforethought. Intention, efficiency, convenience.

[Treo]

31. Shares

Are you familiar W/ the Khyber Pass gunsmiths? They create working AK 47s (among other types of weaponry) in primitive blacksmith shops that are indistinguishable from factory made models. Pandora’s box has been opened you can’t close it again. You solution to this problem is unworkable. No can we please move on?

[Euromutt]

113. They're not indistinguishable, actually

The Pakistani gunsmiths use more malleable, and therefore less durable steel. Even older Soviet-made AKMs are in much higher demand, and thus fetch a higher price, than the locally made models (which cost about $150) because the Sov guns are considered to be significantly more reliable and less prone to breakage. Similarly, Sov surplus 7.62x39mm ammo is pricier than locally made rounds, which are notorious for jamming (and given how comparatively jam-proof AKs are...).

Still, one Pakistani AK with a few mags of ditto rounds should be enough to commit a mass shooting, especially if the targets can't shoot back. Just look at Bombay.

[DrCory]

104. Was This Reckless Disregard?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/06/china

Or this?:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364321,00.html

How about this?:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/30/netherlands.queen.car/index.html

No, it was not in any of these cases.

Do you own a car?

[PavePusher]

106. She drank deliberatly. Then she got in a car. Choices, choices... n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

123. We are the sum of our experiences

Saturday I listened intently as a retired Texas Trooper told a tale of his interviewing Henry Lee Lucas .

All of the cases he was given by his Captain were unsolved hit and runs up and down South Texas . As instructed , he bought Henry a large strawberry shake , told him where , and then Henry would rattle on with infinite detail about how he ran all 5 of them down with his car . For the fun of it .

He may have played some investigators, and then visa versa , but not all of em . No ...he was an evil sonuvabitch that would love to run you over with his car . Or stab you . Or brain you . Or shoot you . Or strangle you . OPPORTUNITY is what emboldened Henry .

[Pavulon]

24. And? In other news...

someone is breathing air now. People have been killing people since the beginning of time. Clubs, knives, swords, guns, and then with whatever the next leap is.

You cant ban guns, will never happen here. Work on fixing the reasons people actually kill others.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. +1

[JonQ]

41. I wish he'd just gotten drunk

and plowed his car in to some other family, or beaten them to death with a baseball bat, or stabbed them.

Then this wouldn't be a tragedy at all, but merely a humorous anecdote. And they'd barely be dead at all.

As is this is so sad.

[proteus_lives]

62. SU wanting to relieve others of their rights.

Nothing new here.

Guns didn't kill those people. A psycho did.

[sharesunited]

63. A psycho with access. Access he enjoys by virtue of the Constitution?

Or by acquiescence in a love for guns and ammo being promulgated as a public good?

[Treo]

74. But you aren't going to get rid of guns Next topic NT

[proteus_lives]

83. People deserve access.

It's a right. If a person has done nothing wrong why should they have access to guns?

Why do you want to punish people when they have done nothing wrong?

BTW, self-defense and the 2nd Amendment are indeed for the public good.

[sharesunited]

92. Then the innocent dead should have been armed or faster on the draw. Those losers.

[proteus_lives]

93. Wow, you really hate admitting that others have rights.

I'm CCW holder and gun-owner. I just checked my hands. Nope, no innocent blood there.

What other freedoms will you start hating next?

[sharesunited]

94. You're clean. So far. But the access you claim for yourself is the same access the offender has.

Goes with the territory.

You're ok with that because you love guns and ammo.

[Treo]

101. Actually, no it isn't

It is against the law for a felon to posses a firearm. It's also against the law to use a fire arm in the commission of a crime. Of course criminals (by definition) DON'T OBEY GUN LAWS but they don't have the same legal access to them as I do.

You're ok with that because you believe in personal responsibility and freedom.

There fixed it for ya.

[Euromutt]

102. So when are you having that penisectomy?

Clearly, by your logic (and I use the term very loosely), simply having a penis makes you a potential rapist. It's just a matter of time before you lose control and rape someone, right? So have you had your penis amputated, or if not, have you scheduled the surgery? After all, if you fail to do so, you're claiming for yourself the same access actual rapists do.

[Euromutt]

117. The shooter was BOTH "a sane and peaceful man" AND a "psycho"?

You really are practiced at the ad hoc argument, aren't you? By "ad hoc argument" I mean "making up shit as you go along," you understand.

[rd_kent]

96. And your point? If there is one?

[Piwi2009]

121. "Sob, that poor shooter-he's a victim of the gun culture and

is as blameless as a puppy.

This is all the gun's fault! Let the shooter loose and put the gun in jail. Maybe that'll make other guns think twice before they ever pull this stuff again."

[gorfle]

125. Sad, but inevitable.

In a free society with free access to firearms, there will be those that abuse them. Sad, but inevitable.