Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NastyFart

2 yr old shoots mom in walmart

Recommended Posts

I think we should put a ban on 2 year old kids. The Liberals do a good job on getting rid of them just before they're born.

Interesting, since this would mark the very first time the right has been concerned about them after they're born and they want to get rid of them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If mom had only had a backup gun, she could have fought off the 2 year old.

 

lesson learned...more guns necessary to prevent violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should put a ban on 2 year old kids. The Liberals do a good job on getting rid of them just before they're born.

Just WTF it is with you. Are you just as you seem to be, a sock setup to bash Liberals? Fuckin fess up!

 

A two year old dies and you use it to bash 'liberals' whatever that really means?

 

After spending time around this place I now understand why Americans killed 660,000 Americans in the Civil War. More than the Germans and Japanese killed. Maybe there could be another one, slug it out, thin a few out, Liberals Vs Conservatives, there are enough weapons to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we should put a ban on 2 year old kids. The Liberals do a good job on getting rid of them just before they're born.

Just WTF it is with you. Are you just as you seem to be, a sock setup to bash Liberals? Fuckin fess up!

 

A two year old dies and you use it to bash 'liberals' whatever that really means?

 

After spending time around this place I now understand why Americans killed 660,000 Americans in the Civil War. More than the Germans and Japanese killed. Maybe there could be another one, slug it out, thin a few out, Liberals Vs Conservatives, there are enough weapons to make it work.

 

A two year old didn't die, but nice job on the random rant.

 

How does that change your opinion of the Civil War and WW2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think we should put a ban on 2 year old kids. The Liberals do a good job on getting rid of them just before they're born.

Just WTF it is with you. Are you just as you seem to be, a sock setup to bash Liberals? Fuckin fess up!

 

A two year old dies and you use it to bash 'liberals' whatever that really means?

 

After spending time around this place I now understand why Americans killed 660,000 Americans in the Civil War. More than the Germans and Japanese killed. Maybe there could be another one, slug it out, thin a few out, Liberals Vs Conservatives, there are enough weapons to make it work.

 

A two year old didn't die, but nice job on the random rant.

 

How does that change your opinion of the Civil War and WW2?

Yeah, you're right, new years beers perhaps.

 

Opinion changed because it seems like there is a lot of hate. That's why the Civil War killed more that WWII did. Now If race hate doesn't satisfy, let's hate the opposite political view. The Liberal / Conservative thing is extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of calls on hate radio for the next civil war. They can't wait. A few folks on this board think it would be a good thing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big arms buys by DHS indicate more than just a couple of posters think it's coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks want the border secure. How you gonna do that without arming the now record number of border agents? DHS has a $60B budget, with ICE at $12B of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like whenever "gun" and "Walmart" share a sentence it's always a tragic story, doesn't it? Why that is is a mystery. Doesn't happen for Cabela.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if anyone actually read the article the family is devastated over the accident. They are also upset that advocates for gun control are using it to push their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if anyone actually read the article the family is devastated over the accident. They are also upset that advocates for gun control are using it to push their cause.

 

I caught that and I had to wonder how you arrive at that place where the concern over how guns are perceived takes precedence over the sorrow you must feel for losing a wife and a partner. The blood in her veins isn't even cold yet and that's your first thoughts? I'm not knocking them, its just not the place I would be at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And if anyone actually read the article the family is devastated over the accident. They are also upset that advocates for gun control are using it to push their cause.

 

I caught that and I had to wonder how you arrive at that place where the concern over how guns are perceived takes precedence over the sorrow you must feel for losing a wife and a partner. The blood in her veins isn't even cold yet and that's your first thoughts? I'm not knocking them, its just not the place I would be at.

 

 

Maybe they dropped by here and saw this thread? Or countless other examples of their loved one's death being used for political propaganda purposes when "blood in her veins isn't even cold."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And if anyone actually read the article the family is devastated over the accident. They are also upset that advocates for gun control are using it to push their cause.

 

I caught that and I had to wonder how you arrive at that place where the concern over how guns are perceived takes precedence over the sorrow you must feel for losing a wife and a partner. The blood in her veins isn't even cold yet and that's your first thoughts? I'm not knocking them, its just not the place I would be at.

 

 

Maybe they dropped by here and saw this thread? Or countless other examples of their loved one's death being used for political propaganda purposes when "blood in her veins isn't even cold."

 

No, I think his grief is misdirected that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And if anyone actually read the article the family is devastated over the accident. They are also upset that advocates for gun control are using it to push their cause.

 

I caught that and I had to wonder how you arrive at that place where the concern over how guns are perceived takes precedence over the sorrow you must feel for losing a wife and a partner. The blood in her veins isn't even cold yet and that's your first thoughts? I'm not knocking them, its just not the place I would be at.

 

 

Maybe they dropped by here and saw this thread? Or countless other examples of their loved one's death being used for political propaganda purposes when "blood in her veins isn't even cold."

 

No, I think his grief is misdirected that's all.

 

So NastyFart posting about the death for political purposes before the blood has cooled is normal grief, the family reacting to that kind of thing is misdirected.

 

Yep, you've got the blame sorted on this one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

And if anyone actually read the article the family is devastated over the accident. They are also upset that advocates for gun control are using it to push their cause.

 

I caught that and I had to wonder how you arrive at that place where the concern over how guns are perceived takes precedence over the sorrow you must feel for losing a wife and a partner. The blood in her veins isn't even cold yet and that's your first thoughts? I'm not knocking them, its just not the place I would be at.

 

 

Maybe they dropped by here and saw this thread? Or countless other examples of their loved one's death being used for political propaganda purposes when "blood in her veins isn't even cold."

 

No, I think his grief is misdirected that's all.

 

So NastyFart posting about the death for political purposes before the blood has cooled is normal grief, the family reacting to that kind of thing is misdirected.

 

Yep, you've got the blame sorted on this one.

 

The families first concern was over blame directed at gun ownership. I thought that was odd considering how most people grieve for the person first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe they dropped by here and saw this thread? Or countless other examples of their loved one's death being used for political propaganda purposes when "blood in her veins isn't even cold."

 

No, I think his grief is misdirected that's all.

So NastyFart posting about the death for political purposes before the blood has cooled is normal grief, the family reacting to that kind of thing is misdirected.

 

Yep, you've got the blame sorted on this one.

The families first concern was over blame directed at gun ownership. I thought that was odd considering how most people grieve for the person first.

 

I can see if you felt passionately about something and saw/judged that your tragedy would be twisted for a political purpose contrary to your beliefs that you'd mention it.

 

How long before the parents of the gentle giant made a political statement about his death? No questioning that.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how most people react when a tragedy like this hits home, I imagine there are psychological studies that could tell us. The parents of Michael Brown made their first comments about the fact his body sat in the street for four hours, the politics came later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its reported that family is devastated.....

 

do you think the family has gone out and bought more guns to carry around, or might they have learned something useful about the risks of casually carrying loaded weapons around....

 

think the family might use this opportunity to wake up the rest of the world to the insanity of carrying a loaded gun to walmart with child in tow?

 

how fucking sad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

its reported that family is devastated.....

 

do you think the family has gone out and bought more guns to carry around, or might they have learned something useful about the risks of casually carrying loaded weapons around....

 

think the family might use this opportunity to wake up the rest of the world to the insanity of carrying a loaded gun to walmart with child in tow?

 

how fucking sad...

 

 

It appears she made a judgment mistake in leaving her purse unattended . I have read of cases where chilldren have

been left alone, driving a car with disasterous results, bad judgement by the parents to allow that:

 

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=children+driving+car+accidents

 

I can't remember seeing any stories about the parents getting rid of their cars afterword?

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

its reported that family is devastated.....

 

do you think the family has gone out and bought more guns to carry around, or might they have learned something useful about the risks of casually carrying loaded weapons around....

 

think the family might use this opportunity to wake up the rest of the world to the insanity of carrying a loaded gun to walmart with child in tow?

 

how fucking sad...

 

 

It appears she made a judgment mistake in leaving her purse unattended . ....

 

Paul T

you give much credit, by assuming that there was any judgement in this womans head....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

its reported that family is devastated.....

 

do you think the family has gone out and bought more guns to carry around, or might they have learned something useful about the risks of casually carrying loaded weapons around....

 

think the family might use this opportunity to wake up the rest of the world to the insanity of carrying a loaded gun to walmart with child in tow?

 

how fucking sad...

 

 

It appears she made a judgment mistake in leaving her purse unattended . ....

 

Paul T

you give much credit, by assuming that there was any judgement in this womans head....

 

Could be, "Judgement", like "common sense" can be difficult to define. When our daughters were little

all of my long guns were kept at my Dad's house & our handguns were locked in a box with only my wife & I

were able to reach. Even after they started shooting, we kept the guns locked up.

 

I suppose there are many different approaches?

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really very simple. If she wasn't carrying a gun, this wouldn't have happened. I know, "Captain Obvious", but it's the inescapable truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

It really very simple. If she wasn't carrying a gun, this wouldn't have happened. I know, "Captain Obvious", but it's the inescapable truth.

 

Can't dispute that. I would think that if she thought going into Walmart was that dangerous, she wouldn't go there, especially with small children

with her? On the flip side, it seems bad people are popping up just about everywhere, not just in big cities. That is a major

reason we don't go to large, "public" gatherings, like shopping malls anymore, no need to.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, dangerous out there. Seems like everyone has a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, dangerous out there. Seems like everyone has a gun.

 

If everyone has a gun and a single accident is news, that would seem to indicate that the practice of owning and carrying guns is remarkably safe. We are so used to car accidents that they never make the national news. A woman was speeding here and crashed her minivan killing 5 kids in the van. That did not make anything more than our little local paper, probably because car crashes that kill people are so common. Another woman just got sentenced because she thought giving a toddler oxicodone was a good way to quiet the kid down, she did not realize it would be permanent. I think the lesson is that stupid people are dangerous, and stupid people with dangerous things are even more dangerous. But yeah... GUN!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Yeah, dangerous out there. Seems like everyone has a gun.

 

The ones that haven't stolen one yet do the "Knockout game" "Rob & flash mobs", "smash & rob", pull innocent people out of their cars

& beat/kill them, do home invasions with a knife or other weapon, & the list goes on.

 

But after they are arrested , convicted, & released, they may be able to afford a stolen gun & be able to run with the big dogs?

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really very simple. If she wasn't carrying a gun, this wouldn't have happened. I know, "Captain Obvious", but it's the inescapable truth.

 

 

She put it down. That's not carrying. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything can be learned from this tragedy, I hope it's that women learn that off-body carry is inherently risky. A purse is too often out of direct control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky she had that gun in the shop, if a robber or mass murderer had been there she could have shot him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

 

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Two children died early Saturday morning on Old Hillsboro Road in Forest where a 9-year-old was driving the car.

 

Scott County's Coroner tells Newscenter 11 this was a one-car accident with a car full of children. Sergeant Andy West of the Mississippi Highway Patrol says the driver of the vehicle was only nine years old. A three-year-old and a 13-year-old in the car died from their injuries. Two other children were airlifted to University Medical Center in Jackson. One of those children, another 13-year-old, is in stable condition. The 9-year-old driver is in critical condition.

http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/Two-Children-Dead-in-Scott-County-after--285780611.html?device=tablet&c=y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Two children died early Saturday morning on Old Hillsboro Road in Forest where a 9-year-old was driving the car.

 

Scott County's Coroner tells Newscenter 11 this was a one-car accident with a car full of children. Sergeant Andy West of the Mississippi Highway Patrol says the driver of the vehicle was only nine years old. A three-year-old and a 13-year-old in the car died from their injuries. Two other children were airlifted to University Medical Center in Jackson. One of those children, another 13-year-old, is in stable condition. The 9-year-old driver is in critical condition.

http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/Two-Children-Dead-in-Scott-County-after--285780611.html?device=tablet&c=y

 

Sad story, indeed. Earlier, I posted many other similar examples of the same thing.

 

The families should turn all their cars in, like guns, they are just tools.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My civil rights do not to be regulated, thank you very much.

 

And we have a Bill of Rights precisely for this reason, to protect us from people who would otherwise love to "regulate" them.

 

Molon labe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

 

That is just BS. They may be regulated differently, but it is just plain silly to say that guns are not regulated. Don't believe me? Try carrying one in NYC or DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

That is just BS. They may be regulated differently, but it is just plain silly to say that guns are not regulated. Don't believe me? Try carrying one in NYC or DC.

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car? Does the requirement to have a license to drive bother you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

 

Well, I can't speak for you individually, but I think many, many liberals want to see all guns taken away from everybody,

based on what I have read. Influential Senator Di-Fi thinks so, "If I had the votes"

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rifle-on-the-Wall-A-L-by-Jim-Kavanagh-130131-374.html

 

I am sure many other Democrats feek the sam way, but won't say so pubically.

 

Sometime back on Sailnet member Chrisncate posted a compasrison of conservatives & liberals (hope that isn't a bad word)

related to a number of issues, can't remember all of them , but this one was on target:

 

" If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one,

 

" If a liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one, & wants to take everybody elses gun away.

 

Chris, if you are out there, please PM me, I would like to have your entire post. Being banned from

Sailnet, I can't go back to get it.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother to argue with anti gun folks? And vice versa. There's no changing anyone's mind. Everyone thinks THEY KNOW BEST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

 

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

Well, I can't speak for you individually, but I think many, many liberals want to see all guns taken away from everybody,

based on what I have read. Influential Senator Di-Fi thinks so, "If I had the votes"

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rifle-on-the-Wall-A-L-by-Jim-Kavanagh-130131-374.html

 

I am sure many other Democrats feek the sam way, but won't say so pubically.

 

Sometime back on Sailnet member Chrisncate posted a compasrison of conservatives & liberals (hope that isn't a bad word)

related to a number of issues, can't remember all of them , but this one was on target:

 

" If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one,

 

" If a liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one, & wants to take everybody elses gun away.

 

Chris, if you are out there, please PM me, I would like to have your entire post. Being banned from

Sailnet, I can't go back to get it.

 

Paul T

How could you have gotten banned from Sailmet? I was banned from HuffPo (Liberals dom't like that free speech thing much either), but SailNet??

 

Anyway, your list has been posted on PA any number of times:

 

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

 

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

 

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

 

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

 

If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

 

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

 

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

 

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

 

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

 

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed. If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

 

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

 

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

 

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

Well, I can't speak for you individually, but I think many, many liberals want to see all guns taken away from everybody,

based on what I have read. Influential Senator Di-Fi thinks so, "If I had the votes"

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rifle-on-the-Wall-A-L-by-Jim-Kavanagh-130131-374.html

 

I am sure many other Democrats feek the sam way, but won't say so pubically.

 

Sometime back on Sailnet member Chrisncate posted a compasrison of conservatives & liberals (hope that isn't a bad word)

related to a number of issues, can't remember all of them , but this one was on target:

 

" If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one,

 

" If a liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one, & wants to take everybody elses gun away.

 

Chris, if you are out there, please PM me, I would like to have your entire post. Being banned from

Sailnet, I can't go back to get it.

 

Paul T

How could you have gotten banned from Sailmet? I was banned from HuffPo (Liberals dom't like that free speech thing much either), but SailNet??

 

Anyway, your list has been posted on PA any number of times:

 

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

 

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

 

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

 

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

 

If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

 

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

 

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

 

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

 

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

 

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed. If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

 

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

 

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

 

"Banned", oh yes, because:

 

"You continually provoke, skirting the edges of SailNet rules and basic decency, with posts that disparage the intent of the forum and its rules. "

 

Although I never called anyone, or any group of people, deragotory names or made deragotory comments about their intelligence or

political positions, unlike many of their liberal members, they banned me, I an so proud. :D

 

"The list"? My apologies, being new here I didn't know it had already been posted, back to the kiddies table for me.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

apparently there are many who think gun "accidents" and car "accidents" are somehow similar...

 

 

very interesting...

 

i suspect those same people are substantially more likely to die from gun violence...which probably isn't so bad...

Some people have made bad decisions related to the use of their cars resulting in their or other's deaths.

 

Same for guns.

 

So, if it is a gun related accident, they should get rid of all their guns

 

but if it is a car related accident, it is OK to keep them

 

I don't recall them or their famalies getting rid of their cars afterwards?

 

In my opinion the woman made two mistakes:

 

1. Bringing the gun into Walmart

 

2. Leaving her purse, with the gun in it, unattended

 

She made the mistakes & died, so the rest of her family should give up all their guns?

 

Or better yet, should everybody give up their guns because a few make mistakes with them,

as they do with cars?

 

Paul T

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

Well, I can't speak for you individually, but I think many, many liberals want to see all guns taken away from everybody,

based on what I have read. Influential Senator Di-Fi thinks so, "If I had the votes"

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rifle-on-the-Wall-A-L-by-Jim-Kavanagh-130131-374.html

 

I am sure many other Democrats feek the sam way, but won't say so pubically.

 

Sometime back on Sailnet member Chrisncate posted a compasrison of conservatives & liberals (hope that isn't a bad word)

related to a number of issues, can't remember all of them , but this one was on target:

 

" If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one,

 

" If a liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't have one, & wants to take everybody elses gun away.

 

Chris, if you are out there, please PM me, I would like to have your entire post. Being banned from

Sailnet, I can't go back to get it.

 

Paul T

How could you have gotten banned from Sailmet? I was banned from HuffPo (Liberals dom't like that free speech thing much either), but SailNet??

 

Anyway, your list has been posted on PA any number of times:

 

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

 

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

 

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

 

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

 

If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

 

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

 

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

 

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

 

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

 

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed. If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

 

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

 

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

 

I don't find stupidity offensive, but this is indeed one of the dumbest lists I've read in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apologies, please. It should be a 'sticky'.

 

No no, please keep THAT part of your life private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran afoul of a female SN mod for making fun of the dumbfucks who have to "like" everything.

 

 

BJ : I don't find stupidity offensive, but this is indeed one of the dumbest lists I've read in a while.

 

Proof is in the pudding. I forwarded it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

"Dumbest lists"?

 

Could be, but overall, pretty much true. :D

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh fuck, Debnis is another 'liberal' basher moving from forum to forum. Obvious from the very start so he is a dumb one. This forum is being overrun by conservative lobbyists and that would be a political aim. To silence and frustrate the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dumbest lists"?

 

Could be, but overall, pretty much true. :D

 

Paul T

 

And so the fundamental problem with political discourse today is once again revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh fuck, Debnis is another 'liberal' basher moving from forum to forum. Obvious from the very start so he is a dumb one. This forum is being overrun by conservative lobbyists and that would be a political aim. To silence and frustrate the opposition.

 

Ha. Good one. There's no silencing around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

I ran afoul of a female SN mod for making fun of the dumbfucks who have to "like" everything.

 

 

BJ : I don't find stupidity offensive, but this is indeed one of the dumbest lists I've read in a while.

 

Proof is in the pudding. I forwarded it.

 

Yes, many of the liberals over there really "like" each other a lot. :D

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Oh fuck, Debnis is another 'liberal' basher moving from forum to forum. Obvious from the very start so he is a dumb one. This forum is being overrun by conservative lobbyists and that would be a political aim. To silence and frustrate the opposition.

 

Well, this is only the second forum I have participated in, still learning. "Dumb"? could

be, but I am enjoying myself. It beats going down into my 40 degree shop to work.

 

"Bash"? Oh my, just having meaningful, polite & respectful discussions. Actually,

I learned how to bash watching the media & the left bash Bush non-stop for eight

years, but I guess that wasn't "bashing"?

 

In reality, nobody is going to change their mind about anything anyway, but it is good

entertainment. Reading & replying to my posts is voluntary :D

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

That is just BS. They may be regulated differently, but it is just plain silly to say that guns are not regulated. Don't believe me? Try carrying one in NYC or DC.

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car? Does the requirement to have a license to drive bother you?

 

They are not rare exceptions, they are extreme examples, but regulation is the norm not the exception. You register a car and get a license in order to drive on public roadways. In nearly every state, the same is true if you want to carry a concealed handgun and if you want to hunt on public land. You are buying into some mythology that is simply not true. Vermont and Arizona are the only states I know of which allow concealed carry of handguns without requiring a license. Further, there exists a byzantine maze of regulations which determine which guns you may own or carry in each different state, that makes it quite a bit more of a regulatory burden to own and carry a handgun than to drive a car. You seem to care about this issue, and if that is the case, you really should take the time to learn the truth as opposed to the hype. Neither Moms who can't get any action nor the NRA will tell you the truth, you will actually have to spend some time researching it yourself, but if it matters to you, you really should do that. Of course if you just think guns are icky and want them all to go away, then carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frikin gun grabbers are starting young.

Image the lies they will need to tell the critter.

"Daddy, why don't I have a momma?"

"Well, momma had to go away. The good Lord called her home."

At some point, they will need to come clean and tell the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car?

 

 

No, but the car-grabbers have not yet managed to close a car registry (meaning ban cars, for those who aren't up on terminology).

 

Car owners do not have to prove that they have a "good and substantial reason" to own a car prior to registering it.

 

Also, car-grabbers don't sift through death records and registries looking for cars to confiscate like they do in NY with guns.

 

I'm willing to bet that Billy Backstay has a registered car. It won't be confiscated upon his death like his scary 20 round magazine that he registered.

 

For the "there's nothing to fear, it's just like registering a car" line to work, people have to be ignorant of the history and current practices of gun registries. Gun registries are used to separate guns from owners. Car registries have not been used that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car?

 

 

No, but the car-grabbers have not yet managed to close a car registry (meaning ban cars, for those who aren't up on terminology).

 

Car owners do not have to prove that they have a "good and substantial reason" to own a car prior to registering it.

 

Also, car-grabbers don't sift through death records and registries looking for cars to confiscate like they do in NY with guns.

 

I'm willing to bet that Billy Backstay has a registered car. It won't be confiscated upon his death like his scary 20 round magazine that he registered.

 

For the "there's nothing to fear, it's just like registering a car" line to work, people have to be ignorant of the history and current practices of gun registries. Gun registries are used to separate guns from owners. Car registries have not been used that way.

Cars are intended to move people, guns are intended to ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car?

 

 

No, but the car-grabbers have not yet managed to close a car registry (meaning ban cars, for those who aren't up on terminology).

 

Car owners do not have to prove that they have a "good and substantial reason" to own a car prior to registering it.

 

Also, car-grabbers don't sift through death records and registries looking for cars to confiscate like they do in NY with guns.

 

I'm willing to bet that Billy Backstay has a registered car. It won't be confiscated upon his death like his scary 20 round magazine that he registered.

 

For the "there's nothing to fear, it's just like registering a car" line to work, people have to be ignorant of the history and current practices of gun registries. Gun registries are used to separate guns from owners. Car registries have not been used that way.

Cars are intended to move people, guns are intended to ....

 

The core lawful purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self defense, the Supreme Court says. It's a bit more important than moving about, so we even have an amendment about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the answer is ... kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car?

 

 

No, but the car-grabbers have not yet managed to close a car registry (meaning ban cars, for those who aren't up on terminology).

 

Car owners do not have to prove that they have a "good and substantial reason" to own a car prior to registering it.

 

Also, car-grabbers don't sift through death records and registries looking for cars to confiscate like they do in NY with guns.

 

I'm willing to bet that Billy Backstay has a registered car. It won't be confiscated upon his death like his scary 20 round magazine that he registered.

 

For the "there's nothing to fear, it's just like registering a car" line to work, people have to be ignorant of the history and current practices of gun registries. Gun registries are used to separate guns from owners. Car registries have not been used that way.

Cars are intended to move people, guns are intended to ....

 

The core lawful purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self defense, the Supreme Court says. It's a bit more important than moving about, so we even have an amendment about it.

 

Looks like another amendment is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the answer is ... kill people.

 

Sure. Why mince words?

 

You think guns are icky. So what?

 

There are a lot of pleasant pastimes with gun ownership but the bottom line is killing.

 

It's like the torture argument: Yes, it's torture. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So the answer is ... kill people.

 

Sure. Why mince words?

...

 

 

Why indeed?

 

Do you oppose arming police and soldiers, random? The answer is the same, you know.

 

If you do, you're unrealistic. If you don't, you should rethink your trust in badges. Self-defense is a natural right. We all have it, badge or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

 

Actually the douchebag OP is suggesting exactly that. But nastyfart is just another sock puppet to be ignored anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here we go again, the old car accident strawman. Cars are inherently dangerous, so are guns. Cars, however, are heavily regulated, guns are not. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that your cars or guns should be taken away.

That is just BS. They may be regulated differently, but it is just plain silly to say that guns are not regulated. Don't believe me? Try carrying one in NYC or DC.

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car? Does the requirement to have a license to drive bother you?

 

If a car was a constitutionally protected right..... yes, I would have a big problem with having to register it or get a license to drive it. But since its not, I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

So the answer is ... kill people.

 

If they are threatening your life, yes. As mentioned, it is my opinion she made two mistakes:

 

1. Taking the gun into Walmart.

 

2. Leaving her purse unattended.

 

However, it appears she felt the need to carry? Why? could be many things, prior bad experience, her

perception of her surrounding environments, & the list goes on. It appeasrs that "Bad guys" are pretty well

spread out now, just worse in Democrat controlled big cities, "back east", especially.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows how many lives she saved by vigilantly standing guard with her CCW? It was for Patriots like her that the Second Amendment was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the answer is ... kill people.

 

No, actually although that is one of the things they are capable of.

 

They are designed to throw very small rocks at very high speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows how many lives she saved by vigilantly standing guard with her CCW? It was for Patriots like her that the Second Amendment was written.

 

I know exactly how many lives are saved by the Guns Are Icky brigade: none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Rare exceptions. Do you take issue with having to register your car?

 

 

No, but the car-grabbers have not yet managed to close a car registry (meaning ban cars, for those who aren't up on terminology).

 

Car owners do not have to prove that they have a "good and substantial reason" to own a car prior to registering it.

 

Also, car-grabbers don't sift through death records and registries looking for cars to confiscate like they do in NY with guns.

 

I'm willing to bet that Billy Backstay has a registered car. It won't be confiscated upon his death like his scary 20 round magazine that he registered.

 

For the "there's nothing to fear, it's just like registering a car" line to work, people have to be ignorant of the history and current practices of gun registries. Gun registries are used to separate guns from owners. Car registries have not been used that way.

Cars are intended to move people, guns are intended to ....

 

The core lawful purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self defense, the Supreme Court says. It's a bit more important than moving about, so we even have an amendment about it.

 

Looks like another amendment is required.

Exactly - debating it here, or any other politico board is a waste of time. If you want it changed, pursue an amendment change.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Best thing we can do is provide real data on risks and benefits so folks can make a good decision for their own circumstances, and lock up care for the loonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows how many lives she saved by vigilantly standing guard with her CCW? It was for Patriots like her that the Second Amendment was written.

 

Flash ... Best thing we can do is provide real data on risks and benefits so folks can make a good decision for their own circumstances, and lock up care for the loonies.

 

Loony Alert! Just across the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

"Loonies"?

 

We will be lucky to keep what we have. Buying a gun is voluntary, as many things are. If a prospective buyer wants information

on what to buy, how to use it, & most importantly, when to use it, there is tons of information readibly available. I think in many areas

you still have to justify why you want a concealed carry permit? In our area it was the Chief of Police who decides/decided?, one person.

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

 

It's just amazing that our system works at all in non-gun areas. Who decides if you are too irresponsibile to drive a car? How do you appeal this decision? Up until Adam Lanza offed his mother, admittedly not in a Walmart, he was just another law abiding 2A warrior. Who are we to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Loonies"?

 

We will be lucky to keep what we have. Buying a gun is voluntary, as many things are. If a prospective buyer wants information

on what to buy, how to use it, & most importantly, when to use it, there is tons of information readibly available. I think in many areas

you still have to justify why you want a concealed carry permit? In our area it was the Chief of Police who decides/decided?, one person.

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

,

 

I guess you don't live in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming or Vermont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

 

It's just amazing that our system works at all in non-gun areas. Who decides if you are too irresponsibile to drive a car? How do you appeal this decision? Up until Adam Lanza offed his mother, admittedly not in a Walmart, he was just another law abiding 2A warrior. Who are we to say?

 

 

Agree, tough call, I am not in favor of real "loonies" having guns, just pointing out there ia a possibility of the "mental condition"

factor being mis-used by disgruntled family members or "Associates" .

 

I am also not in favor of criminals , especially repeat violators having guns. However, I think the only things criminals "register" for

are welfare, food stamps, unemployment, dis-ability, & so on, under another name, of course.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

 

It's just amazing that our system works at all in non-gun areas. Who decides if you are too irresponsibile to drive a car? How do you appeal this decision? Up until Adam Lanza offed his mother, admittedly not in a Walmart, he was just another law abiding 2A warrior. Who are we to say?

 

 

Agree, tough call, I am not in favor of real "loonies" having guns, just pointing out there ia a possibility of the "mental condition"

factor being mis-used by disgruntled family members or "Associates" .

 

I am also not in favor of criminals , especially repeat violators having guns. However, I think the only things criminals "register" for

are welfare, food stamps, unemployment, dis-ability, & so on, under another name, of course.

 

Paul T

Interesting world viewpoint there Paul, you forgot the criminals who are registered to sell securities, practice law, practice medicine, register to run for Congress, etc.

 

I'd suggest that the criminal politicians, securities professionals and lawyers caused the Great Recession. That had a hellofalot more impact on the average Joe than the very low risk of burglary, assault, etc that the Average Joe experiences.

 

It's my point of view that we have so many carrying because of the shrill of the media. They make it sound like life is full of peril. It's not. Take the inner city gang violence away and the risk to your own person is much higher from your own gun, than someone else doing you ill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

 

It's just amazing that our system works at all in non-gun areas. Who decides if you are too irresponsibile to drive a car? How do you appeal this decision? Up until Adam Lanza offed his mother, admittedly not in a Walmart, he was just another law abiding 2A warrior. Who are we to say?

 

 

Agree, tough call, I am not in favor of real "loonies" having guns, just pointing out there ia a possibility of the "mental condition"

factor being mis-used by disgruntled family members or "Associates" .

 

I am also not in favor of criminals , especially repeat violators having guns. However, I think the only things criminals "register" for

are welfare, food stamps, unemployment, dis-ability, & so on, under another name, of course.

 

Paul T

 

Jaundice words. Meanwhile the 2 year old shooter was none of the above.

 

You are taking a one sided, implied 'liberal-bashing' view of criminals ... they register for welfare? JFC. The serious criminals wear suits, get with it, the welfare types are just getting by from day to day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

 

It's just amazing that our system works at all in non-gun areas. Who decides if you are too irresponsibile to drive a car? How do you appeal this decision? Up until Adam Lanza offed his mother, admittedly not in a Walmart, he was just another law abiding 2A warrior. Who are we to say?

 

 

Agree, tough call, I am not in favor of real "loonies" having guns, just pointing out there ia a possibility of the "mental condition"

factor being mis-used by disgruntled family members or "Associates" .

 

I am also not in favor of criminals , especially repeat violators having guns. However, I think the only things criminals "register" for

are welfare, food stamps, unemployment, dis-ability, & so on, under another name, of course.

 

Paul T

 

So what's so special about the gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best thing we can do is provide real data on risks and benefits so folks can make a good decision for their own circumstances, and lock up care for the loonies.

 

 

This thread is the opposite of what you want, since it's about a negligent shooting, a type that is on the decline. It's also about a concealed weapons permit holder, and a woman, two of our least violent demographic groups. Basically, it's a thread about a risk so tiny as to be negligible.

 

...

 

I'd suggest that the criminal politicians, securities professionals and lawyers caused the Great Recession. That had a hellofalot more impact on the average Joe than the very low risk of burglary, assault, etc that the Average Joe experiences.

 

It's my point of view that we have so many carrying because of the shrill of the media. They make it sound like life is full of peril. It's not. Take the inner city gang violence away and the risk to your own person is much higher from your own gun, than someone else doing you ill.

 

Got any real data on risks and benefits? You might check that CDC report you wanted to see so much and thought was banned, right up until one actually came out. It talks about defensive gun uses and the fact that school shootings are also a negligible risk. Don't let that stop you from posting about the next one while the bodies are still cooling off. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Best thing we can do is provide real data on risks and benefits so folks can make a good decision for their own circumstances, and lock up care for the loonies.

 

 

This thread is the opposite of what you want, since it's about a negligent shooting, a type that is on the decline. It's also about a concealed weapons permit holder, and a woman, two of our least violent demographic groups. Basically, it's a thread about a risk so tiny as to be negligible.

 

>...

 

I'd suggest that the criminal politicians, securities professionals and lawyers caused the Great Recession. That had a hellofalot more impact on the average Joe than the very low risk of burglary, assault, etc that the Average Joe experiences.

 

It's my point of view that we have so many carrying because of the shrill of the media. They make it sound like life is full of peril. It's not. Take the inner city gang violence away and the risk to your own person is much higher from your own gun, than someone else doing you ill.

 

Got any real data on risks and benefits? You might check that CDC report you wanted to see so much and thought was banned, right up until one actually came out. It talks about defensive gun uses and the fact that school shootings are also a negligible risk. Don't let that stop you from posting about the next one while the bodies are still cooling off. Again.

 

 

but, but, but ...... GUN!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"Loonies"? Good point, good question. Who decides if you are "loonie", after a family member or "associate" says you are? How do you

appeal his decision?

 

Paul T

 

It's just amazing that our system works at all in non-gun areas. Who decides if you are too irresponsibile to drive a car? How do you appeal this decision? Up until Adam Lanza offed his mother, admittedly not in a Walmart, he was just another law abiding 2A warrior. Who are we to say?

 

 

Agree, tough call, I am not in favor of real "loonies" having guns, just pointing out there ia a possibility of the "mental condition"

factor being mis-used by disgruntled family members or "Associates" .

 

I am also not in favor of criminals , especially repeat violators having guns. However, I think the only things criminals "register" for

are welfare, food stamps, unemployment, dis-ability, & so on, under another name, of course.

 

Paul T

 

Jaundice words. Meanwhile the 2 year old shooter was none of the above.

 

You are taking a one sided, implied 'liberal-bashing' view of criminals ... they register for welfare? JFC. The serious criminals wear suits, get with it, the welfare types are just getting by from day to day.

 

Fraid so. The suits are smarter than most everyone else. White collars should do harder time than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraid so. The suits are smarter than most everyone else. White collars should do harder time than anyone else. Well, unless they're Patriots.

 

35b8775c4f3b4c09e8943eb55c70c95df633509d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites