1221 replies to this topic

[Saorsa]

A lot more of these could be avoided if there were more concerned cab drivers and fewer after the fact "he was always a weirdo" types: http://enidnews.com/...n-federal-court

Also, please note the name of the US Magistrate. Something tells me he doesn't go by "Bert."

Mabe the E. stands for Ernie.

[Chuck D.]

...frankly, the "he won't talk to me in my threads" excuse is piss-weak...

This would be Chuck's thread, not mine.

America's history of gun control is one of emotional reactions to tragedies. The only thing political that I see about the Aurora shooting is gun control. Chuck denies that was his motivation in posting this thread, but it sure seems likely to me that dropping that incident into this place is going to lead to talk of gun control, which it did.

I did not deny wanting to have a discussion. Wanting to discuss does not imply that I was advocating anything. Actually, I was anticipating that those opposed to gun control legislation would come out of the woodwork to argue that yet another mass-murder involving a firearm wasn't a good reason to try to do anything about it, or that alternately, there isn't anything that can be done about horrors like the shooting in Aurora. But yeah, sure, I'm the closed-minded one.

[Tom Ray]

...since you're so adamant that I identify the obvious, here you go: The NRA.

Cite: Do a google search on 'NRA fights gun control'. 2.4 million hits.

OMG! I searched (Bing since Google began screwing up results) and found 6.8 million hits when searching for Brady supports gun control.

The only logical conclusion from this is that the Brady Center folks want to end all private gun ownership and have guns completely controlled by the government.

Good discussion, Chuck!

[Tom Ray]

You can tell how a thread is going by how often Tom tries to change the subject to something he thinks will work better for him. Only 7.6 million hits for 'bitter loser'. How disappointing.

Hey, when someone is crying out to be mocked, I answer the call, and your assertion that the number of hits means the NRA wants no gun control is a doozie. I'm not going to get tired of it for a very long time.

BTW, a search for idiotic cite reveals almost a million returns, so you are far from alone! See how fun it is?

[Chuck D.]

You can tell how a thread is going by how often Tom tries to change the subject to something he thinks will work better for him. Only 7.6 million hits for 'bitter loser'. How disappointing.

Hey, when someone is crying out to be mocked, I answer the call, and your assertion that the number of hits means the NRA wants no gun control is a doozie. I'm not going to get tired of it for a very long time.

BTW, a search for idiotic cite reveals almost a million returns, so you are far from alone! See how fun it is?

Yeah, it's a real 'doozie'. Mock away. I'll be sure to give that due consideration the next time I receive another mailer from the NRA that is filled with hyperbolic nonsense about how Obama is coming for our guns.

[Tom Ray]

Uh oh. 186 million returns on Obama is coming for our guns. Gotta go bury mine now.

[Tom Ray]

Hey I wonder if this "research" technique works on other subject areas...

Let's try: global warming alarmists lie.

Uh oh. Over half a million results. Pretty damning "cite," huh?

[JBSF]

I did not deny wanting to have a discussion. Wanting to discuss does not imply that I was advocating anything. Actually, I was anticipating that those opposed to gun control legislation would come out of the woodwork to argue that yet another mass-murder involving a firearm wasn't a good reason to try to do anything about it, or that alternately, there isn't anything that can be done about horrors like the shooting in Aurora. But yeah, sure, I'm the closed-minded one.

Chuck, you seem to be channeling jocal505 from GA. He repeatedly kept saying that us "gun nutters" were opposed to all gun control legislation. That's just not true and we had to repeat that over an over again. I don't know a single person here that has EVER once called for a repeal of all gun control and going back to the Wild West. Nor has a single one of us argued that there "wasn't a good reason to try to do anything about" mass-murders and mass-murders. In fact I and several others have suggested far reaching solutions to dealing with the behavior surrounding mass murders. The only thing we are opposed to are knee-jerk reactions that don't actually address the problem and instead hurt the law-abiding citizens who are already following the rules and not causing any problems.

YES, YOU are the closed minded one, pure and simple. Start actually reading what we write and WHY. Not a one of us is saying gun control is necessarily bad..... just that unecessary gun control that has not real effect on crime is bad. Ponder that for a bit, please, before you respond.

[Chuck D.]

I did not deny wanting to have a discussion. Wanting to discuss does not imply that I was advocating anything. Actually, I was anticipating that those opposed to gun control legislation would come out of the woodwork to argue that yet another mass-murder involving a firearm wasn't a good reason to try to do anything about it, or that alternately, there isn't anything that can be done about horrors like the shooting in Aurora. But yeah, sure, I'm the closed-minded one.

Chuck, you seem to be channeling jocal505 from GA. He repeatedly kept saying that us "gun nutters" were opposed to all gun control legislation. That's just not true and we had to repeat that over an over again. I don't know a single person here that has EVER once called for a repeal of all gun control and going back to the Wild West. Nor has a single one of us argued that there "wasn't a good reason to try to do anything about" mass-murders and mass-murders. In fact I and several others have suggested far reaching solutions to dealing with the behavior surrounding mass murders. The only thing we are opposed to are knee-jerk reactions that don't actually address the problem and instead hurt the law-abiding citizens who are already following the rules and not causing any problems.

YES, YOU are the closed minded one, pure and simple. Start actually reading what we write and WHY. Not a one of us is saying gun control is necessarily bad..... just that unecessary gun control that has not real effect on crime is bad. Ponder that for a bit, please, before you respond.

No argument from on your points about reasonable people, and even folks here. I've tried to keep up, but did not follow the GA thread. And yes, I am reminded once again that overly broad statements are, well, too broad. 'Unnecessary gun control legislation', is, by definition, not good. What is necessary and what is unnecessary is in the eye of the beholder, and I would draw the line at efficacy, while including into that calculus due consideration (but short of absolute reverence for) the 2nd amendment. I.e., if it restricts legitimate access without a measurable effect on gun crimes, then don't bother. What I'd still like to see is something effective, something that prevents me from feeling like I maybe ought to be packing heat whenever I go out in public. Probably a pipe dream, I know.

[atoyot]

+1. Except that I don't share the pipe dream (no disrespect) hindrance. A very great and courageous man once spoke of having a dream, and in time, with perhaps a few hiccups remaining, it's gotten a good bit better than it was when I was a kid. That level of people coming together on a thing can be a positive thing. Just may be, possibly, it can happen again with a focus on the matter of violence and conflict that so often, too often, leads to the misuse of firearms.

[Tom Ray]

No argument from on your points about reasonable people, and even folks here. ...

How about folks in America in general?

Reality, anyone?

Most U.S. gun owners - even current and former members of the National Rifle Association - support some firearms ownership restrictions including criminal background checks for prospective gun buyers, according to a poll commissioned by an anti-gun lobbying group.

The survey, conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was carried out in May but was released on Tuesday in the aftermath of the Colorado movie theater shooting that killed 12 people last week.

I note you're still not backing off your "cite" for the "fact" that the NRA represents all those people by opposing all gun ownership restrictions. Should I start posting actual gun control laws they have supported? I'm always curious about how far NRA Derangement Syndrome can go in preventing people from recognizing reality.

[Tom Ray]

...since you're so adamant that I identify the obvious, here you go: The NRA.

Cite: Do a google search on 'NRA fights gun control'. 2.4 million hits.

OMG! I searched (Bing since Google began screwing up results) and found 6.8 million hits when searching for Brady supports gun control.

The only logical conclusion from this is that the Brady Center folks want to end all private gun ownership and have guns completely controlled by the government.

Good discussion, Chuck!

Just did a search on NRA supports gun control and found almost 9.2 million hits. This clearly indicates that they support it more than they oppose it.

[Tom Ray]

What I'd still like to see is something effective, something that prevents me from feeling like I maybe ought to be packing heat whenever I go out in public. Probably a pipe dream, I know.

Well, since you missed the GA thread and seem serious about this, I'll turn off mockery mode for the moment and share this excerpt:

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
...

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?




They could have picked 1987, the year Florida started issuing concealed weapons permits.

But that would have shown a slight decrease in firearms murders and a larger decrease in handgun murders, which is not exactly useful propaganda.

I seldom carry a gun off the property because I know the likelihood of needing it is low and the chance of an accident/theft/friend's kid getting hold of it/whatever exists. I carry when I'm going to big cities, generally Miami or Tampa. I grew up in Miami when it was a more violent place.

As the stats above show, firearms murders per 100k population have fallen by about half since 1990, more since the 1970s. The table applies to Florida, but the trend is national and exists where there is strict gun control and where there is lax gun control.

The basic answer to your concern is: don't worry, be happy! We are a less violent society than we were and things are improving all over, even in places like Florida. Unarmed people wander around all the time without getting shot, and armed people wander around without having to shoot anyone. It's not a pipe dream. It's reality. Despite the shocking 45% increase since 1999. (I had quit giving jocal shit about that one since he changed his tune, but couldn't resist one parting shot at the cherry-picked propaganda.)

[Tom Ray]

...anytime some ass kills a bunch(or 1) people and it makes the news, you're the first one to jump into defending gun rights. Even the candidates for Potus know enough to let it be for a day.


BTW - we agree on gun rights, as much as that may pain you. But your lack of sensitivty is sometimes astonishing.

No, Chuck was. Was there some other political topic to debate about the incident?

Did you see my comment over in General Anarchy?

Are you going to give an example of my lack of sensitivity, or is this just another of your troll attacks that you will not stand up and defend?

I deliberately avoided any political commentary because some things transcend politics. You are the one who injected politics. When I’m political, it’s unambiguous.

Right. Except for the posting in PA, there was nothing 'political' about your commentary. Sure.

Glad we agree on this point, Chuck.

[Tom Ray]

I did not deny wanting to have a discussion.

Comedy.

One thing is fer sure: so long as left and right insist on talking past one another, the status quo rules.

Ready to discuss when you are, not holding my breath.

[atoyot]

The emperor has no clothes. Gotta love the success of "unarmed victim zones" to ward off the mentally unstable. I mean, after contemplating murder and getting prepared for it, why do theatres & schools think a sign or a law will make such a person decide all of a sudden that what he's about to do, is wrong?

[Tom Ray]

I did not deny wanting to have a discussion.

Try a little harder.

Nice links there, Jeff. To me, they provide examples of why private ownership of firearms should be banned.

There, I've fulfilled my weekly obligation to tweek the easily tweeked Jeff.

Sorry, its not tweeking when you're being a dishonest cunt.

[Tom Ray]

...anytime some ass kills a bunch(or 1) people and it makes the news, you're the first one to jump into defending gun rights. Even the candidates for Potus know enough to let it be for a day.


BTW - we agree on gun rights, as much as that may pain you. But your lack of sensitivty is sometimes astonishing.

No, Chuck was. Was there some other political topic to debate about the incident?

Did you see my comment over in General Anarchy?

Are you going to give an example of my lack of sensitivity, or is this just another of your troll attacks that you will not stand up and defend?

Except for the posting in PA, there was nothing 'political' about your commentary. Sure.

Glad we agree on this point, Chuck.

Heaven forbid Tom Ray see this thread ... he'll be going off on the OP for 'politicizing' the massacre of the day by some asshole WITH A GUN.

Yes, Chuck, like you I do see posting this in Political Anarchy as politicizing the issue. This time, the first to do it was Mitch, who called me out for it the last time you did it.

Both of you guys should really wait for the bodies to cool down before using events like this one to promote more gun control, IMO.

[Tom Ray]

I did not deny wanting to have a discussion.

Try a little harder.

Nice links there, Jeff. To me, they provide examples of why private ownership of firearms should be banned.

There, I've fulfilled my weekly obligation to tweek the easily tweeked Jeff.

Sorry, its not tweeking when you're being a dishonest cunt.

Try even harder.

Compulsory gun ownership and carry at all times? An alternative to a universal ban?

[Tom Ray]

Do you have a point to make?

Yes, anytime some ass kills a bunch(or 1) people and it makes the news, you're the first one to jump into defending gun rights. Even the candidates for Potus know enough to let it be for a day.


BTW - we agree on gun rights, as much as that may pain you. But your lack of sensitivty is sometimes astonishing.

No, Chuck was. Was there some other political topic to debate about the incident?

Did you see my comment over in General Anarchy?

Are you going to give an example of my lack of sensitivity, or is this just another of your troll attacks that you will not stand up and defend?

Speaking of mind reading. I hadn't given "gun control" any serious consideration until this morning - and only then as adults on both sides of the aisle were talking of cooperating to help solve a terrible problem we have. Go back to your rigid, 1 size fits none paper arguments. Being a fundamentalist is always easier than dealing with shades of grey.

Yes, that kind of "agreement" is indeed painful to me, in a fingernails on chalkboard kind of way. Glad you finally started paying attention anyway.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Whoops

[squirel]

Solly's 43K frenzy continues.