Elisabeth hannitybeck's TWIT moment...Guns would have saved the students

[greenbriar]

she didn't actually say that but implied it and said that women are kept from being raped if they have guns


then wondered why students are not allowed to have guns for protection




GET THE FUCK OFF TV DITZ

LIFE IS REAL AND YOU DON'T LIVE IN IT

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Does she also advocate show hosts carrying concealed guns? What about the audience?

After someone finally blows their stack at her stupidity and pulls out their gun, I bet she sings a different tune.

It'll be the Gunfight at the OK Corral on the set of The View.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Picture the mayhem of a room full of trigger happy knuckleheads

and a small firecracker. The bad guy wouldn't even need to own a gun.

[saracat]

3. And some are calling for Rosie to be removed? Where is the movement to ditch Elisabeth?

She is without a doubt the stupidest individual to grace(not) the airwaves! She isn't even manipulative or shrewd.She is honestly stupid. Does anyone really think she could get a gun out of her purse in time while being attacked, much less not shoot herself with it first? Gawd, what an imbecile!

[depakid]

25. Trouble is that thanks to media dergulation- she's a dime a dozen

There are so many that it's difficult to target all of them.

The target has to be the consolidated corporate media.

[jannyk]

4. A student DID have a gun - that's why 32 died!! n/t

[calimary]

60. Good point.

Another one was made by some guy calling in to Thom Hartman's show this morning. He was from Texas and had evidently lived for years near the University of Texas, and he said every truck had a gun rack on it and everybody had guns - and it sure didn't stop or deter the madman who shot and killed 16 people from the school bell tower.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_lyo_070417_talking_a_tragedy_to.htm

[piedmont]

108. That's because he picked a damn-near impregnable place to snipe from. Different situation entirely.

[jgraz]

114. Riiight, cuz when everyone's armed the shooters will just stand out in the open

[piedmont]

119. And now they just go to "gun-free zones" and line them up and shoot them point-blank.

That's much better, isn't it?

[jgraz]

120. The shooter didn't "go to" a gun free zone

He was already there. The problem was that his gun free zone was surrounded by the fucking wild west. Seriously, you don't think it would be a good thing if Cho Seung-Hui had just a little harder time buying military-class firepower? You don't think a few more regulations would stop a few more crazies from pulling the trigger?

The vigilante fantasy of mutually-assured destruction is simply not supportable. More guns equals more gun violence. Why is that so hard to understand?

[piedmont]

125. He had a prior history of behavior that SHOULD have made him ineligible to buy

If he was on psychiatric meds, he shouldn't have been allowed to buy. I don't have any knowledge of how the background check system works with barring the mentally ill from buying guns. I will say that I think the mental health care system is a miserable failure on many levels, and I would not be surprised if there isn't much info going from there to the background check system.

"The vigilante fantasy of mutually-assured destruction is simply not supportable. More guns equals more gun violence. Why is that so hard to understand?"

Because it's not supported by good data. And because it ignores the immense danger of violence against unarmed citizenry posed by governments.

[jgraz]

122. And I'll ask you the same question I ask all the gun-lovers

How, in your imagination, should yesterday's events have transpired? How many people get shot before the first "good guy" pulls a gun? What do the cops do when they show up to multiple people with guns drawn? How many of those "good guy" guns turn into domestic tragedies on their own?

You seem to want the whole world to conform to your hollywood daydream about cops-n-robbers. It simply doesn't work that way. We've had quite a few fully armed states for a while, and the suicides and accidents and killings of wives and children far outweigh whatever mythical mass killings were averted. Are you really willing to deny reason that much just so you can hang on to your Dirty Harry fantasies?

[piedmont]

127. You assume a few things about me that make it easier for you to believe what you want.

I harbor no such fantasies. I do not ignore the thousands of homicides committed with firearms every year. I also do not fantasize that a "War on Guns" will go any better than the "War on Drugs" or the prohibition of alcohol. You seem to ignore the danger posed by an armed government to its unarmed citizenry. You would give up a freedom and a tool for protecting that freedom in order to decrease your annual chance of dying by a minuscule percentage. I will not.

[jgraz]

133. Talk about asumptions...you got em

First off, please try to equate the war on drugs with the war on guns. That leads to some interesting parallels. Like do gun nuts need to be sent to rehab... And if they don't, how can you say that eliminating guns (a non-addictive item) will have the same results we see from attempting to eliminate addictive drugs?

Secondly, I would not give up any freedom for anything. You aren't talking about defense against a corrupt government (which is not at all the motivation for the 2nd amendment, but I support the intention anyway), you're talkiing about private, personal armament. Those are two completely different things.

Thirdly, no one is advocating the complete elimination of firearms. I'm just talking about having a bit more oversight and a bit less access to high-powered weaponry. You can protect your family against a lone criminal just fine with a 6-shot .38 (a pump-action shotgun works even better). A 33-round, sub-second reload semiautomatic pistol is only good for the kind of massacre that happened yesterday.

[piedmont]

137. How addictive is marijuana? Alcohol?

First off, please try to equate the war on drugs with the war on guns. That leads to some interesting parallels. Like do gun nuts need to be sent to rehab... And if they don't, how can you say that eliminating guns (a non-addictive item) will have the same results we see from attempting to eliminate addictive drugs?
Restrict a thing that people find useful and fun, and you will immediately produce a demand on the black market. Prohibition led to higher crime and the rise of power of the mafia. Alcohol can be addictive, but most people who enjoy it aren't addicted to it. The criminalization of marijuana has led to higher crime and incarceration rates. Most people who smoke pot aren't addicted to it. If they're caught with it, they're criminals. The same would happen with a gun ban.

Secondly, I would not give up any freedom for anything. You aren't talking about defense against a corrupt government (which is not at all the motivation for the 2nd amendment, but I support the intention anyway), you're talkiing about private, personal armament. Those are two completely different things.
Please explain how a force capable of resisting either an invasion or an authoritarian government would be possible if that force's arms were stored in centralized collection points controlled by the government.

Thirdly, no one is advocating the complete elimination of firearms. I'm just talking about having a bit more oversight and a bit less access to high-powered weaponry. You can protect your family against a lone criminal just fine with a 6-shot .38 (a pump-action shotgun works even better). A 33-round, sub-second reload semiautomatic pistol is only good for the kind of massacre that happened yesterday.
Have you not looked around DU today? They most certainly are advocating exactly that! As for specific measures, I'm still making up my mind on some of them. Some them are asinine enough to reject out of hand (like the blanket ban stuff). I think that the background-check system DOES need to be improved and bringing in private-party sales to the system seems sensible.

[jgraz]

143. He's asking how addictive is alcohol. Anybody want to help him out?

I would but I'm too drunk at the moment.

Please explain how a force capable of resisting either an invasion or an authoritarian government would be possible if that force's arms were stored in centralized collection points controlled by the government.

Do you even understand how a militia works? The key is local control. If Berkeley had one or more local places to store guns I'd be out buying one today. Another benefit of a true militia is you usually get to play with some cooler toys than you would if you were keeping them at home.

Have you not looked around DU today? They most certainly are advocating exactly that! As for specific measures, I'm still making up my mind on some of them. Some them are asinine enough to reject out of hand (like the blanket ban stuff). I think that the background-check system DOES need to be improved and bringing in private-party sales to the system seems sensible.

I haven't seen any calls for blanket bans on all guns, but hey, this is DU. Anything can happen.

I have seen calls for the elimination or serious restriction of handguns or military-grade hardware. I think that's a much more valid point that I'd be willing to consider.

[piedmont]

152. Speak-easies weren't just for addicts.

Do you even understand how a militia works? The key is local control. If Berkeley had one or more local places to store guns I'd be out buying one today. Another benefit of a true militia is you usually get to play with some cooler toys than you would if you were keeping them at home.
Again, centralized repositories offer a perfect opportunity for confiscating or destroying a militia's weapons. Keep the big stuff there out of necessity, but there's no need to keep rifles there.

edit to add: see here for the rational solution offered by one DUer today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=673898&mesg_id=673898

[likesmountains 52]

5. Sadly, there are people posting here who believe the same..

[LuckyLib]

6. Molly Ivins in her eulogy to Ann Richards had the best response to the

gun carry nuts:

<The 1994 election was a God, gays and guns deal. Annie had told state legislators that if they passed a right-to-carry law, she would veto it. They did, and she did. At the last minute, the NRA launched a big campaign to convince the governor that we Texas women would feel ever so much safer if we could just carry guns in our purses.

Said Annie, “Well, you know that I am not a sexist, but there is not a woman in this state who could find a gun in her handbag.” >



;-)

[gratuitous]

7. And what's up with no guns in courtrooms?

Every courthouse I go in, you're checked for weapons, and where are you most likely to be deprived of life, liberty or property by the government but in a courthouse? People should be able to throw down and blaze away if some activist judge's ruling goes against them, shouldn't they?

[jody]

8. Why do you ignore the simple fact that victims do defend themselves with firearms including against

rape?

DOJ reports that the overwhelming majority of victims who defended themselves said it did not make the situation worse.

Now you and others would deny law-abiding citizens the right to use the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense, a handgun.

Why do you support the right of criminals to rape and pillage by disarming law-abiding citizens?

[greenbriar]

9. so lets just all strap up pardner and string em up the nearest tree

let me see if wally world has a holster belt...




:sarcasm:

[jody]

10. If you don't want to use firearms, then don't but please don't try to prevent law-abiding citizens

from exercising their natural, inherent, inalienable right to defend self by using a firearm.

[gratuitous]

11. Natural and inherent right?

I have yet to see the baby born with a gun in its hand, but if you say so . . .

[greenbriar]

12. I don't think having guns will protect..I think it would create more mayham

but thats just me

[jody]

13. It's not what I say, it's what the founders of our nation said as follows:

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

And

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

[greenbriar]

15. our founders were thinking muskets and cannons not glock 9's

and drugs and depression and how bad the world is

[jody]

20. They also did not think about the internet, TV and other modern tools that let each of us exercise

our rights under the First Amendment. :shrug:

[mudesi]

16. Over 200 years ago. When 'arms' meant 'muskets' (nm)

[jody]

21. See my post #20. n/t

[gratuitous]

18. Then they're as wacky as anyone

And nothing anyone has said ever in the history of our planet has been ratified everywhere and for all time. The only inalienable right I would recognize is that of each society, each community, and each generation to order its affairs tailored to the conditions and wisdom of their age. And if the only counterargument is the appeal to antiquity, then I would name that philosophy bankrupt -- intellectually, philosophically, and morally.

[jody]

24. Your position could easily lead to the majority, i.e. 50% votes +1, oppressing a minority. n/t

[AndyA]

14. And what about the whacked out, drugged up, "law abiding" citizens who

get pissed off and start shooting people? Do the people they kill have less of a right to live than the citizen does to carrying a gun?

I don't think so.

As someone who lost a Mother because an idiot had a gun, I can state I would rather have my Mother alive and the idiot UNARMED.

[jody]

26. And others have used firearms to save them self or loved ones. Would you deny them the right to keep

and bear arms for self-defense when SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody?

[AndyA]

34. If only people only used them to PROTECT THEMSELVES.

Some have it yanked from them and used against them.

Some who have guns kill 32 other innocent people, who probably would have enjoyed being able to live their lives.

Some who have guns should not EVER have a gun.

[jody]

35. What addition would you add to Title 18, Chapter 44, the federal law covering firearms? n/t

[hlthe2b]

30. Access to guns certainly has shown to be successful

in our little Iraqi "democracy" experiment, hasn't it?

:sarcasm:

[jody]

32. Seems like Iraqi citizens are using their arms effectively to defend their families and homeland

against an illegal occupation as Saudi King Abdullah said.

[jgraz]

113. Oh yeah...650,000 dead is your definition of success

Seriously, you're just fucking with us now, aren't you? No thinking human can actually believe this shit.

[piedmont]

130. Keeping the most powerful military force in history from accomplishing its goal...

of subduing your country sure isn't failure. Was the American Revolution a failure because Americans died in it?

[jgraz]

134. Um, do you even understand what's going on in Iraq?

Do you understand where the insurgent weapons come from, and that they're military-grade hardware that most sane people agree is too dangerous for the general public to own? Do you also understand that much of the military carnage comes from IEDs, mortars, RPGs and suicide bombers?

The kinds of handguns that Cho used are being put to use in Iraq for primarily one purpose: shooting old men and teenagers in the back of the head. Nobody goes after a squad of US Marines with a handgun. Jeezus.

[piedmont]

142. Do you?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. "Guns are too dangerous for citizens to possess! / Guns aren't dangerous enough to fight against an army!" There are MILLIONS of sniper-grade rifles in the hands of Americans who know how to use them. These rifle makes, both bolt-action and semi-automatic, have been and are being used in modern asymetrical wars all over the world by people who want to repel a stronger force. They are useful tools to have, and most Americans are responsible enough to possess them.

The kinds of gun used by Cho are every bit as useful in defense of one's self and others.

[jgraz]

145. Bolt-action rifles are a helluva lot more defensible than 33-round handguns

As far as what's going on in Iraq, look at the major causes of serious injury and death. All those triple amputations and traumatic brain injuries ain't being cause by handguns.

[piedmont]

149. Not in close quarters against intruders in your house, they're not.

Over there they didn't have a great arsenal of sniper-quality rifles but they had explosives by the metric shit-ton. Over here if such a god-almighty mess ever happened I don't know what explosives might be available, but accurate rifles are in plenty. The injuries here probably would be fom sniper-fire.

[jgraz]

166. You need 33-round, sub-second reload magazines to defend your home?

Just exactly how many intruders are you expecting?

[AndyA]

17. Why do you hate America?

:rofl:

[jody]

29. Why do you hate individuals so much that you want them disarmed and defenseless against criminals?

[AndyA]

33. Not everyone should have a gun. PERIOD.

And as a child of 17, I had a DEAD MOTHER to prove it.

[jody]

36. I share your sadness but why should others go defenseless against criminals? n/t

[jgraz]

48. Please share your fantasy about what should have happened yesterday

Seriously, I really want to hear it. I'll start it off for you: A student walks into a classroom with two loaded guns, intending to kill a bunch of people....

THEN WHAT?

And please include an answer the following questions:

+ How many students have their brains on the floor before Bruce Willis gets his gun out?
+ What do the cops do when they walk in on a bunch of people with guns in their hands?
+ How many of these Die-Hard castmembers go on to eat their own gun or use it on their girlfriend?

You are either playing too much Halo or watching too many Dirty Harry movies. Do you have any idea how many people use their own gun to kill themselves or a family member as opposed to thwarting some mythical mass killing?

We've already tried your social experiment. States with the most lenient gun laws have the most gun deaths. Why don't we try it the other (sane) way for a while?

[jody]

59. First, please share your fantasy about how you would have prevented the tragedy without leaving

law-abiding citizens unable to exercise their natural, inherent, inalienable right to defend self when firearms are the most effective, efficient tool for that job?

[jgraz]

106. As I thought, you're living in lala land

You cannot provide a realistic scenario for your revenge fantasies. You're just spouting NRA talking points.

Your assertion of a "natural, inherent, inalienable" RKBA is right-wing hogwash. Check out the first amendment if you really want to see an example of an inalienable right. Where the fuck is "Congress shall make no law" in your precious 2nd amendment?

[jody]

107. It's a shame you know so little about U.S. history. Pennsylvania said the following.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

[jgraz]

109. Thanks for the history lesson -- now answer the damn question

What's your Die-Hard fantasy scenario for yesterday's shooting? Cuz I think you have no freaking clue how the real world works -- you just like your big shiny metal penises and you don't want anyone to take them away.

[jody]

110. I answered your question and I've finished lecturing you about the natural, inherent, inalienable

right to defend self and property.

It's way pass your bedtime so have a peaceful evening and dream about what you've learned through our exchange.

[jgraz]

111. "Please share your fantasy about what should have happened yesterday"

Your definition of "answer" is about as good as your definition of "right".

Yet another reason to thank god that alabama is way the fuck on the other side of the country.

[Missy Vixen]

28. You are still 48 times more likely to be shot with your own gun

than to use it against an intruder or against an assailant.

>Why do you support the right of criminals to rape and pillage by disarming law-abiding citizens?<

I support the right of all of us to know that those who insist on owning something manufactured solely to kill are of sound mind, instructed on use, and responsible enough to own said weapon.

Julie

[jody]

31. That's one of the most misquoted wrong statistics about self-defense with firearms. Please visit DU

Guns Forum and educate yourself about the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[Missy Vixen]

38. No, thank you

I don't need to spend any time at all in the Gungeon.

We know enough police officers to know that having a gun on one's person or in one's home does not guarantee self-defense. I might also mention that one of the officers at the police department my husband is a long-term volunteer at's son shot his young friend a few years back with Dad's unsecured service weapon, so your arguments do not wash with me.

Julie

[jody]

40. I's so sorry that you have been misled by anecdotes. The facts as reported by the FBI are that

defending one's self against criminals does not make the situation worse.

If you choose to remain defenseless against criminals, that's your right but, please don't try to force your beliefs on others.

[jgraz]

42. Say it with me: this was not a CRIMINAL

It was a nutcase who bought his guns legally. Until he started shooting he was legally entitled to have those firearms, according to the gun laws of VA.

Are you really saying that making it more difficult for crazies to buy guns is a bad thing?

[jody]

50. Please define a crazie. It's a federal crime for anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental

defective or has been committed to any mental institution;" to possess a firearm.

How would you write a federal law to makes certain "crazies" that have not been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" do not possess firearms?

Please remember that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and if you deny a "crazie" the right to keep and bear arms you also deny her/him all other civil rights such as voting.

[jgraz]

52. Please cite the court precedent for your version of RKBA

Last I checked, the courts still allow states to ban handgun possession outright. Could it perhaps only be a civil right in your head?

[jody]

55. I'm delighted to further your education with the following SCOTUS cite.

Why should the poor working masses need guns? SCOTUS said in CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, “Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband” but Justice Stevens said in dissent “Respondent certainly could have entered into a contract with a private security firm, obligating the firm to provide protection to respondent’s family”.

Have a wonderful day. :hi:

[jgraz]

61. You are delighted to not answer the question?

I'll make it simple for you: could the State of Virginia have legally prohibited the shooter from buying a hangun? Yes or no?

[jody]

64. You asked “Please cite the court precedent for your version of RKBA” and “Could it perhaps only be a

civil right in your head?”

I gave you a SCOTUS cite to further your education on the right to keep and bear arms.

Absent proof to the contrary, I must assume the SCOTUS decision is to difficult for you to understand.

I'm sorry but I don't have the divine ability to make you understand SCOTUS decisions. That's your personal problem.

[jgraz]

67. I understand it just fine. It says nothing about RKBA

It's been co-opted by the gun fanatics as rational for gun ownership, but the court never speaks directly to it.

I'm sorry I don't have the ability to make you understand simple, direct questions, but I'll try one more time, with big letters and small words:

IS IT LEGAL FOR A STATE TO KEEP ME FROM BUYING A HANDGUN??

There's your RKBA. Cite your precedent for that.

[jody]

76. No you don't understand. As to your second question, in 39 concealed-carry states, issuing

officials may not arbitrarily deny a concealed-carry application, a practice known as "shall issue. Virginia is one of the 39 states.

Nine states have "may issue" laws requiring the applicant to demonstrate specific "need." In practice, this is often a mechanism to deny licensing as in New York and Massachusetts.

Note the criminal in the VPT tragedy used two handguns.

Also see "Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms." 18 USC 921.

You really must learn to do your own research. :shrug:

[jgraz]

85. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

And teaching remedial logic and English isn't really how I like to spend my time. So I'll try once more and then I'll just let you go off to the shooting range and work off your aggression.

CAN A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBIT HANDGUN PURCHASES? YES OR NO.

Is it really that hard to understand a 7-word question? And, again, if the answer is YES, your RKBA assertion is crap.

[jody]

88. Some state constitutions cannot prohibit handgun purchases. Does your mommy know you're on line? n/r

[jgraz]

91. Sigh -- I'd be just be happy if we had intelligence tests for gun owners

You do know we have this thing called a FEDERAL constituion, don't you. That's where your precious 2nd amendment is. It's not in a STATE constitution. It's in the FEDERAL constitution. Which supercedes the STATE constitutions.

So...if the FEDERAL constitution has a true RKBA, no STATE could prohibit handgun ownership. Yet...states CAN prohibit handgun ownership. So, what does that say to you?

[jody]

102. Now you go back to the Constitution. Please read the following SCOTUS cases that deal with the 2nd.

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
Miller v. Texas (1894)
U.S. v. Miller (1939)
Lewis v. U.S. (1980)
Burton v. Sills (1985)
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

More recently,

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Emerson held that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Silveira v. Lockyer held that the Second Amendment is a collective right.

A district court in Parker v. District of Columbia held that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Also consider federal law:
QUOTE
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
UNQUOTE

The bill was signed 26 Oct 05 and became Public Law No: 109-092.

[Missy Vixen]

45. Like you're doing right now?

>If you choose to remain defenseless against criminals<

I choose not to own an item that is solely manufactured to kill others. There is no other use for it, no matter how vociferously those who think they're really making a point bring up "target shooting".

I might also mention that we know non-law enforcement that own guns who are some of the most frightening and unbalanced people we've had the dubious pleasure to meet. I wrote about this on DU a couple of weeks ago. Considering the fact I've left two different workplaces due to threats by those who think a gun will solve all their problems, you may try your arguments on someone who hasn't had my set of experiences.

>please don't try to force your beliefs on others.<

So, in other words, it's fine for you to insist that your statistics are more correct than mine, but the overwhelming anecdotal evidence from those we know (and from organizations like Operation Ceasefire,) is inaccurate?

The difference between you and I is the simple fact that I believe there are those in our society that should not have access to firearms. I believe that nobody should be allowed to purchase a firearm without a background check, a waiting period, and rudimentary instruction at the least. I'm sorry that you are so blinded by your insistence that firearms are appropriate for self-defense in all instances that you can't admit that we have a national problem.

Julie

[jody]

57. I repeat, if you choose to be defenseless do so but don't try to impose your beliefs on others. n/t

[Missy Vixen]

70. I repeat: So it's fine if you do what you're accusing me of doing? n/t

[jody]

82. I don't know how to make a simple statement easier to understand. States have said before they

ratified the Constitution, that the right to defend self is a natural, inherent, inalienable right.

As such that right can never be given away.

That's in sharp contrast to the divine right of kings that we Americans rejected in 1776, and the divine right of government that some countries like the UK have today.

In the U.S., government is derived from We the People and our constitutional democracy was carefully constructed to protect a minority's rights against the tyranny of a majority, i.e. 50% of the vote plus 1.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to make certain that government protects those rights enumerated in the first and others as stated in the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Missy Vixen]

116. This is my last post to you. Frankly, I'm tired of arguing.

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This has nothing to do with "state's rights" and the other high-minded rhetoric you just spouted. It's all about the guns. It's all about guns with gigantic magazines that can spit out 99 rounds in ten seconds without reloading that our forefathers had no freaking idea would be available 230 years after our country came into being. It's all about people who believe that a gun is the great equalizer, that a gun will solve all of their problems. It's all about those who believe that they will right the wrongs done to them by gunning down innocent people in cold blood.

The second amendment fetishists and gun fanatics will never, ever admit that it's not important to them who loses their life because someone else should not have had access to a firearm. If it was, they would not continue supporting the NRA, they would not continue to agitate against common-sense measures such as background checks, trigger locks, and ceasing the sales at gun shows every weekend around our country.

I actually feel sorry for anyone who believes it's more important that they retain their right to pack heat than the right of all of us to have some modicum of protection from people who should never, ever have access to lethal force. I feel sorry for those who can't admit that a goodly number of those who can't wait to thump the table about their "second amendment rights" and display a huge amount of firepower are also those who appear to others as dangerous and unbalanced. Perhaps you'd like to meet the gun-toting white supremacist who had space in the same office building I used to, for instance. He's famous all over our hometown. Imagine how my customers loved watching him draw each afternoon as he exited the building to his car. After all, he was living in a city that boasts the lowest crime rate in Western Washington.

In the end, 32 lives are snuffed out. Their loved ones will never recover from the loss.

Enjoy your guns.
Julie

[jody]

117. Have a peaceful evening and remember self-defense is your personal problem! n/t

[TnDem]

43. You are correct in one aspect...

You say, "..We know enough police officers to know that having a gun on one's person or in one's home does not guarantee self-defense.."

No shit...Of course having a weapon doesn't "guarantee" anything....However,I can assure you that NOT having a weapon in a time of crisis where one is needed will GUARANTEE no defense. You can have it and not use it and that's fine, but to need it and not have it...Not good...

[jgraz]

51. You know what works even better? If the NUTCASE doesn't have a weapon.

How many people would be alive at VaTech if some Korean English student was NOT able to just walk into a gun shop and by military-level firepower? Are you seriously saying that regulating firearms would NOT result in fewer mass killings by unstable individuals?

[TnDem]

46. You are correct in one aspect...

You say, "..We know enough police officers to know that having a gun on one's person or in one's home does not guarantee self-defense.."

No shit...Of course having a weapon doesn't "guarantee" anything....However,I can assure you that NOT having a weapon in a time of crisis where one is needed will GUARANTEE no defense. You can have it and not use it and that's fine, but to need it and not have it...Not good...

[alarimer]

39. You'll never make any headway with gun nuts

A substantial portion of America has a perverse love affair with guns and the gun culture. It is almost like a fetish or something.

More guns are not the answer to crime. Most people who have been involved in violent crime, like the poster above and others on this site, have very different feelings about guns that the gun nuts do. Most police organizations will tell you that if you are being robbed, for example, it is better to let the robber have whatever they want. Do not resist; do not try to be a hero. And I intend for that to be my plan. Or to try and run away. I will let them have anything in order to emerge alive and fight another day. Hopefully, with a good enough description or some DNA, they will be caught. Now maybe this is too passive for everyone. I don't plan to resist or fight back, which almost certainly will get me killed. I believe that having a gun handy would most likely mean it would be taken away from me, since most people, men anyway, are bigger and stronger than me.

[TnDem]

49. Like laying face down in the hallway....

while the killer shoots everyone in a line...nice and compliant...

or "walking quickly toward the showers for a nice fresh delousing".

Predators like nice, compliant and pacifistic victims. It makes their pre-planned activities much easier.

[jgraz]

54. Yeah those pussy Jews had it coming

If only they'd been tougher the holocaust would never have happened. :sarcasm: (of course)

Seriously, dude, you are a one-man argument for regulating who should have a gun.

[TnDem]

62. Well, try this....

Google "warsaw ghetto uprising"...The German army felt as though since all Jews had been officially disarmed by law since 1937/1938, that they, (the Germans), would be the only ones with guns..

Well, some of the jews in the ghetto had enough and cobbled together a handful of junk rifles, one machine gun and a pistol and the German army nearly had to call in a division of troops to finally kill them. What the Nazis thought would be a 2 day affair turned into a January to Apil affair.

Just think if all Jews had not complied with demands to "run in the ditch" and "go to the showers"..The Nazi's would have had a WAAAAY tougher time dealing with them.

Don't be afraid, learn something...

[jgraz]

63. Yep, you are actually saying the Jews had it coming

Holy fucking shit. And THIS is who we allow to own guns in this country.

Tell me, tough guy: How many mass killings have YOU prevented with your metal penis?

[TnDem]

73. Have you lost your damn mind?

I never said that..You either have a serious communication/understanding problem or you just like to be a keyboard commando.

What I am saying is that the few Jews that decided to arm themselves and fight the Nazis were NOT what the Nazis expected.

The NSDAP had disarmed all people of Jewish ancestry by way of national law in 1937. That made the Jews a "gun free zone" and soft targets...In other words, easy pickings.

Can you imagine anyone trying to round up 6-20 million compliant people in the USA and walking them to their deaths in ditches..

It couldn't happen with the USA in it's current state...However, if only the government had guns, anything could be done. That's one of the whole purposes and reasons for the Second Ammendment.

Remember...Google is your friend..."Warsaw Ghetto Uprising"

[jgraz]

80. So now the 2nd amendment is to protect us against Nazis?

Hang on -- I thought we were supposed to be shooting Korean English students.

You're taking the argument to the extreme, as is usual for gun fanatics. Can you not see the huge gulf between making it harder for a crazy person to buy an assault weapon and outlawing all guns? Do you equate those two things?

And yes, you ARE saying that the Jews had it coming, as did the VaTech students, as did any unarmed rape victim. Sadly, your vigilante fantasies don't happen nearly as often as ones like the teenage son who uses dad's gun to blow his brains out. Or the wife who's shot by her drunk, pissed-off husband. Or the "responsible" gun owner who eats a bullet after getting laid off.

Or the psycho non-citizen English student who decides he's going to blow a bunch of people away and uses his two legally-purchased assault weapons to kill 32 and then blow his face off.

[TnDem]

83. Well...

"Some men just can't be reached"--Captain's theory/Cool Hand Luke

Either learn some manners or welcome to my ignore list...You can be the first!

[Erebus67]

92. How many classrooms would he have been able to go through with people shooting back?

It's really hard to kill lots of people that shoot back.

[jgraz]

94. It's also really hard to kill lots of people IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN

Why the hell doesn't that point ever sink in?

[Erebus67]

96. Because like drugs those that want guns and are willing to break laws will always get them.

Pass all you want, they'll break more.

[jgraz]

97. Are you seriously telling me that a non-citizen Korean English student

is going to be able to buy guns on the black market? We're not talking Tony Soprano here...this is a fucked up young man who should not have had access to that kind of firepower.

[Erebus67]

101. Yea that's exactly what I am saying.

Harris and Klebold did.

[jgraz]

103. Bullshit -- they got their guns from adults who had legally purchased them

Not exactly the kind of black market that most people think of

[Erebus67]

124. It still worked didn't it?

They still aquired guns illegally and killed people with them.

[jgraz]

135. Crap, crap and more crap

If the adults who bought the guns couldn't have walked into Walmart with a credit card, Harris and Kleibold wouldn't have been able to get the weapons.

The lesson from Columbine is that you DON'T to wait until the obviously troubled teen snaps before you take action. There were plenty of warnings. There were plenty of opportunities to intervene and they were missed.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the best way to deal with these kinds of fucked up teenagers is to just make sure we can shoot back?

[Erebus67]

138. Not the best way but once the bullets start flying hugs don't work.

[jgraz]

140. Are you even reading my posts are are you just channeling Wayne LaPierre?

The real solution is to prevent the bullets from flying in the first place. What you're proposing is the equivalent of saying we don't need safer cars, we just need better emergency rooms. If you're really interested in preventing these kinds of mass shootings, why aren't you advocating for better mental health care and more funding for school psychologists?

Of course, that doesn't fit so nicely with your Rambo ideations, does it?

[Erebus67]

144. I do advocate better mental health care, but I also realize that it doesn't always work.

You will never be able to stop people from going on rampages. From time to time it will happen. And you will never be able to stop all access to firearms, it just isn't possible. There are way too many of them out there. They get straw purchased, sold off the books, stolen, brought in across the border. When one method of aquiring them is stopped antoher takes it's place. And if someone wants one bad enough they will get them legally or illegally. Pretending that any rule or law can stop it is pure fantasy.

[jgraz]

148. Do you disagree that less access to firearms will lead to fewer mass shootings?

No one's saying that we're going to stop rampages. Hell, in Japan they've had killing sprees with swords (much lower body count, btw). I'm also not advocating for the complete elimination of guns.

But if you're saying that we shouldn't try to limit access to concealable, military-grade hardware, then you've completely lost me. Ditto if you think that arming schoolteachers is a better use of resources than treating mentally ill teenagers.

[Erebus67]

158. I disagree, I don't think access by those willing to break laws can be limited.

Too many guns already in circulation. They will buy them illegally, steal them, whatever. To many of them are planned out and not spur of the moment, they give themselves time to plan the rampage and acquire the tolls they need to pull it off. This guy appears to be no different, the chain, and now they think he could be the origin of the bomb threats, could be testing how officials react and how to get around them. And the nuts that shoot up the place they work after getting fired don't often display any typical warning signs prior to.

Define military hardware. A lot of military small arms started out as civilian hardware and was adapted for military use, mostly durability upgrades.

[Erebus67]

160. Too many fucked up teenagers haven't been identified before the bullets start flying.

And the law of averages says that no matter how good the system gets some will slip through the cracks.

[jgraz]

167. I assume you don't drive either

Since you're so shit-scared of the "law of averages" that you want to arm the world, you probably wet yourself at the thought of driving a freeway.

[Erebus67]

171. I commute 100 miles a day.

Don't change the subject. We are not discussing cars and if we were cars kill people 1000 to 1 over guns. Clearly all cars should be banned by your logic that guns are too dangerous because of all the people that are killed with them. Pools and bathtubs kill people 100 to 1 over guns by drowning so you should be trying to have pools and bathtubs banned. No one needs to swim and showers are safer than tubs. Besides swimming and bathing are not a Constitutionally Protected Right!!

[jgraz]

177. Once again, you're apparently arguing with someone else

Since you're attributing things to me that I never said. It's so much easier to win an argument when you make up both sides, isn't it?

I'm more than happy to equate cars and guns, since we'd probably save thousands of lives each year if only we required the same level of competency to operate firearms. Require education, licensing and testing along with strong restrictions the type of firearm you can own. Just like cars.

The rest of your arguments are typical right-wing BS. Tubs, pools and cars are not designed specifically to kill people. And the type of gun that Cho was using is specifically designed to kill LOTS of people very quickly.

[alarimer]

131. I don't give a shit what you think. I want to live

Be a fucking DEAD hero if you fucking want. And in any case I was talking about more of a robbery situation. Not this horror. But you gun nuts go on and deceive yourselves that you would have actually made a difference.

[LSK]

19. and when the cops arrived and found students with guns

How would they know who was the killer?

[greenbriar]

22. good question

hadn't even thought of that

[jgraz]

74. too fucking good

Somehow that never happens in all those Die Hard sequels. You are seriously fucking up all my hollywood shoot-em-up fantasies.

I may not get an erection for weeks...

[Erebus67]

90. The shooting would be done and the ones that shot him would point out his dead ass.

.

[jgraz]

93. and the dead asses of the other five people they shot in a panic

When does this happen? We've had mass killings in fucking Texas and nobody stepped forward with this type of comic-book vigilantism. It just doesn't fucking happen.

What does happen is domestic shootings, accidents and suicides. Far more than would ever be saved by this kind of bullshit Rambo scenario.

[Erebus67]

98. Oh that makes sense

Instead of taking a chance that someone mistakenly gets hit we should just let him kill everyone. Brilliant.

[jgraz]

105. Answer the question: how many times have armed citizens stopped a mass shooting?

Now tell me how many times armed citizens have killed family members, committed suicide or shot their friends by mistake.

How's that math working out for you?

[Erebus67]

126. Loaded question

How can you count things that didn't happen? If it was prevented it wasn't a mass shooting was it? One that was stopped while it was occuring that I can think of off the top of my head is Appalachian School of Law.

According to a survey done in 1993 by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck people successfully defend themselves 2.5 million times a year. The following year a DoJ survey resulted in 1.5 million a year. Prior to 1993 thirteen other studies found the number between 800,000 and 2.5 million. Most resulting in no shots fired. Most criminals apparently run when a gun gets pulled on them. How's that math working out for you?

Do you seriously think lack of a gun will prevent domestic violence and suicide?

[jgraz]

139. You should rely less on Wikipedia

Eyewitnesses said that Odighizuwa was empty and gave up before Gross and Bridges ever showed up. The NRA has twisted this story into a lobbying tool. If you're going to use bullshit examples you're not going to get very far with your arguments.

As far as Kleck's work is concerned, has he gotten it pubished in a peer-reviewed journal yet? At last check there were no takers. His methodology has been criticized for what he counted as "successful defense". I don't doubt that millions of Americans are pulling guns on each other each year. The real questions are what motivated them to draw their weapon and what would have happened had they been unarmed. None of that is really answered in the studies you cite.

While you're doing your homework, why don't you take a look at the kill rates for domestic shootings vs stabbings or beatings. You might also want to check out the "success" rates for gun suicides vs all other methods. Then tell me if you still think more guns is a good idea.

[Erebus67]

154. Are you ignoring the DoJ? 1.5 million times a year vs how many murders and suicides?

[beevul]

115. I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.

It just doesn't fucking happen eh?


Google is your friend. Google: "Mikael Gross" "Tracy Bridges" or "Joel Myrick" can be googled with "school shooting", and you'll see your wrong.


Now show me where these people shot in panic by concealed carriers are commonplace. Heck, show me even TWO examples in the context of a massacre made worse by someone carrying concealed.



I wont hold my breath.

[jgraz]

118. Bridges and Gross's stories are bullshit

once you bring in those examples, you clearly have no intention of having an honest conversation. Buh bye.

[beevul]

121. Can you elaborate?

Theres no controversy reguarding those individuals that I am aware of. And that the example of the principal remains uncontested even if there is.


If there is some controversy, please share.

[jgraz]

123. Read up on the eyewitness accounts of what really happened

and how the gun lobby twisted that into some comic-book story of vigilante justice. If you want to cling to the NRA version of events, you and I won't really be able to have a conversation.

[beevul]

157. Hey...

I just did a search for school shootings stopped. I can dig through my history and find it if you really want me to.

Thats called backing up my assertion, and I would be happy to if you would like me to. Thats commonly, as you well know, whats done here at DU.

Now, you assert that its all hogwosh, and I would be more than happy to buy that, if youd kindly back it up.

I'm really not being snippet with you, just asking for some common courtesy here.


And you still aren't commenting on that third name, the principal.

[jgraz]

168. The third name also proves my point

Which is: the problem with your gun fantasy is that the good guys don't get their weapons out until at least one or two people are already dead. What you're doing is trading a few big mass killings for lots and lots of smaller mass killings. And lots of suicides. And domestic shootings.

Your position is simply insane and not motivated by any desire to save lives. If you really wanted to save lives you'd be screaming for more mental health services. But, of course, that's not as cool as turning every college campus into your personal Halo game.

[beevul]

172. Again...

"What you're doing is trading a few big mass killings for lots and lots of smaller mass killings. And lots of suicides. And domestic shootings." - Jgraz

You are asserting it as fact. Back it up, if it is indeed fact.


On edit: also provide proof for all the other things you have been asked to prove in this thread, and not provided.

[jgraz]

179. Done

Since you're apparently too busy playing with your guns to use The Google:

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs1.php

[beevul]

180. A link to republican sarah bradys site?

You just lost all credibility.

[jgraz]

181. Refute one fact from the site

One...just one. Otherwise, you're just using bullshit ad hominems instead of defending your position. Of course, your position is ridiculous and indefensible, but give it a try anyway.

[beevul]

182. Thats a completely biased source and you well know it.

You have completely ignored people more than just myself, asking you to substantiate claims.


"Bridges and Gross's stories are bullshit" - Jgraz CITE PLEASE

"What you're doing is trading a few big mass killings for lots and lots of smaller mass killings. And lots of suicides. And domestic shootings." - Jgraz EVIDENCE AND EXAMPLES PLEASE




Show some proof examples please before you go asking anyone to dispute anything you say.

And try an impartial source. Somehow, I don't think youd accept the brady equivalent in pro-gun form.

And stop accusing others of ad hominems while engaging in them yourself.

In spite of your best efforts to obfuscate the issue, you are losing this battle with me, and losing this battle on this issue.

By all means though, keep it up with the style of debate you seem to like so much. Your helping my side, not yours.

[jgraz]

183. Ad hominem: look it up

Cuz you clearly don't know what the fuck it means.

"Bridges and Gross's stories are bullshit" - Jgraz CITE PLEASE

beevul GOOGLE please. You'll find that the myth of Bridges and Gross was exaggerated and promoted by acknowleged pro-gun fraudster John Lott. This has been repeated and repeated until the gun nuts accept it as truth. In your googling, look for the phrase “undoubtedly saved many lives”. This is one of the signature phrases that indicates that the text was lifted directly from Lott's fraudulent account.

Since you have such a hard-on for citations, here's one article that explains quite a bit: http://timlambert.org/2003/06/0618/ Of course, I'm sure you'll discount this as "biased", but it's harder to discount the Kansas City Star report quoted therein:

The Star recently interviewed two students involved—Bridges and Besen. They gave differing accounts.
Bridges repeated that he pointed his weapon at Odighizuwa and ordered the suspect to put his own down, which he did.

According to Besen, the first student to tackle the suspect, nothing of the sort happened. He said Odighizuwa set down the gun and raised his arms—”like he was mocking everyone: ha, ha, what are you going to do now?”—before the students confronted him.

The two armed students had not yet arrived at the scene, Besen said: “Peter had no knowledge anyone had a gun.”

Virginia State Police confirmed Odighizuwa’s weapon was empty by then.

Police spokesman Stater said the armed students did assist after Besen and another student, Todd Ross, tackled the gunman. Bridges sat on the suspect while Gross, also armed, provided handcuffs he had gotten from his car.

But to Stater’s view, the biggest heroes were Besen and Ross—the unarmed men who lunged at Odighizuwa.

It's also telling that the day after the shooting, no reports included accounts of the two armed saviors. In fact, very few even mentioned that there were armed civilians on the scene. It was only after the NRA came to interview Gross and Bridges that the stories of armed intervention began to surface.


I've given you citations on the rest, you just don't want to accept them. Sorry, but the facts have an unfortunate liberal bias here.

And now I'm done catering to your bullshit requests. You can't argue against reality, so you demand more and more proof in a pitiful attempt to pretend the facts are more to your liking. It doesn't work that way. I've given you more than enough material to work with. NOW PROVE ME WRONG.

[beevul]

184. Ok, I looked it up

I looked it up.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."

I did NOT personally attack you, I attacked your source. Big difference. Of course, you'll still say I did.

"I've given you citations on the rest, you just don't want to accept them."

You linked ONCE to the brady site, which proves all of nothing. And you still don't want to talk about the principal ...the example you cant discount. The brady site makes no mention of his name, nor does the the other link you mentioned.

"And now I'm done catering to your bullshit requests. You can't argue against reality, so you demand more and more proof in a pitiful attempt to pretend the facts are more to your liking. It doesn't work that way. I've given you more than enough material to work with. NOW PROVE ME WRONG."

WOW. Just...wow. So now asking someone to back up what they claim with unbiased information is "catering to bullshit requests?" If thats your reality, I guess theres just no arguing with it. I DID prove you wrong with the principal, and NO amount of claiming personal attacks where none exist, and no amount of denial can strip that from reality. Your, mine, or anyone elses. I already proved you wrong.

You: "It just doesn't fucking happen."

Me: It DID happen, and Joel Myrick is proof.


Hope you didnt strain yourself posting those links err I mean giving me material.

Good day sir.

[Erebus67]

128. Give me one example where 5 people were shot in a defensive panic.

Or 5 examples of one person shot in a defensive panic.

[jgraz]

150. you might want to familiarize yourself with hyperbole...we use it a lot here

The fact is that you can't cite one non-BS example of an armed gunman being stopped by armed citizens. And you certainly can't cite enough examples to even come close to the number of shootings and suicides committed by those same armed citizens.

[Erebus67]

156. And you can't cite an example of your paranoia being true either.

You said 5 innocents will get shot by the person acting in defense. Tell me when it has happened. The DoJ says people defend themselves 1.5 million times a year most of the time without firing a shot.

One
Two
Three

Found them in less than 5 minutes.

[jgraz]

159. Two of your examples are unstopped mass killings

Thus proving my point that more guns don't do shit. And the third is not a mass killing, it's a bar fight. Really, with all the guns and all the shootings that go on in this country, this is the best you can do?

Again, look up the word "hyperbole". Get back to me when you understand.

[Erebus67]

161. Two were stopped while shooting was occurring.

The third was stopped on his way to his next target. Your point is clearly incorrect. If intervention with firearms had not occurred more would have died. Lives were saved by someone with a gun. And not one innocent person was shot by the person intervening in any of those cases.

Where is the hyperbole? Other than your '5 people will get shot.....' Actually what you said wasn't hyperbole, it was complete fabrication.

[jgraz]

163. You're making less and less sense

For example, one of the shootings stopped after 11 people were killed. Is that the price you want us to pay for your Rambo fantasies? My point is that even if every mass killing were eventually stopped, all of those heroic Die-Hard types would be shooting back, i.e. reacting to what was already a likely multiple homicide. Yay! The shooter is down! Go explain that to the parents of the kids whose brains have already been sprayed across their desks.

But it's late, and you seem to be impenetrable to basic logic, so I'm heading off to bed.

[Erebus67]

164. No you are making less sence

If they hadn't been stopped there would be more parents mourning deaths. Your fantasies of a law or more/better shrinks stopping every psysco makes no sence. Do you think the parents of the VA victims would rather see 11 or 32?

[jgraz]

165. Dude, I spelled it for you and everything

Of course, since you can't handle basic logic, why would I expect five-letter words to be any different?

Did I say shrinks will stop every psysco (sic)? No
Can you show that there would be fewer deaths if the students were armed? No
Does every piece of data point to more gun deaths if more guns are available? YES, YES, YES

It's the giant shoot-em-up that has the gun nuts slavering away. They just want to see some carnage. Preventing suicides? What fun is that? Therapy? That's for pussies.

No, let's just wait until the crazies start shooting so I can pull out my big gun and show everyone what a man I am. Then maybe I'll get a girlfriend. Or maybe Dad will love me. Or whatever fucked up deficiency you're trying to overcompensate for with your BIG METAL COCK.

You don't give a fuck about saving lives. You just want your shiny guns. And THAT is why there are 33 corpses sitting in the Blacksburg morgue today.

[Erebus67]

169. You are seeing what you want despite the data I provided

You have provided absolutely no data. I cannot continue a conversation with someone that lets their opinion override fact. Where is the data that more people with guns results in more deaths? I have provided 3 cases where people with guns stopped deaths from occuring by stopping the killer in the act.

Unless you are prepared to provide real data I will ignore you because you are doing is restating your opinion and only your opinion in the face of contradictory data that I have provided.

[jgraz]

178. Here y'go

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs1.php

Let me predict your response: "Oooohhh, it's the Brady's!!!111 They're so biased!!! None of their facts can be true". Please try not to float that shit here. If you can show where these facts are wrong, do it.

[beevul]

174. Look...

You keep making assertions, and not backing any of them up with any evidence at all.

"It's the giant shoot-em-up that has the gun nuts slavering away."

This is the same thing people sharing your stance said about concealed carry laws.

As you likely already know, conceal carry has grown in leaps and bounds over the last 2 decades. In case you didn't:



Thats not an NRA talking point, its a FACT. If yo dont like the source, the data is easily verifyable elsewhere, and correct nonetheless.


Where exactly is this big "shoot em up" you keep claiming? Where are these shootings where someone carrying a concealed firearm makes a situation worse? Given that concealed carry has been on the increase for over 2 decades, IF you are correct, you should have no trouble stepping up proving it. I'll take insults and bluster and rhetoric as a statement that you cant prove what your saying, should you decide to respond in that manor, and you will have lost the debate.

[Missy Vixen]

23. You know what?

I appreciate your posting her latest every day, because I can't watch that program.

I just went to ABC's website and read Elisabeth Hasselbeck's bio. ABC is playing this up. She's a "strong young woman" who doesn't let others sway her from her "conservative views". Really? How about using ABC's reputation and resources to parrot her inaccurate opinions and right-wing talking points? I'll bet the family members of those who died and were injured yesterday would LOVE to know that Ms. Hasselbeck obviously thinks they didn't try hard enough to stay alive.

Money speaks louder than Elisabeth Hasselbeck does, and how many here are willing to throw in on the campaign until she's shown the door? It's going to take many, many snail mail letters and an organized (and LOUD) boycott of "The View" and its sponsors.

Who's in?
Julie

[greenbriar]

27. I'm there

I hate that ditz

[jgraz]

75. Fuck that, let's just shoot her

After all, isn't that the American way?

:sarcasm: (of course)

[alarimer]

37. yes, the gun nut talking point of the day

She is so unoriginal.

Students are not allowed to have guns because they are likely to get drunk and start shooting each other for fun. Can you imagine what fraternity hazings would be like if they had GUNS?

[TnDem]

41. That's because it's true....

Women are saved from being raped by carrying a firearm. Does it always help? No...But what it does is give an added layer of protection.

My wife who works late hours, has a CCW and carries a loaded .357 snub everywhere she goes. She has passed all proficiency tests and range qualification.

I feel sorry for a potential rapist if he tries to rape her. They may get a surprise.

[jgraz]

56. And if the rapist also has a gun?

How does your psycho-sexual revenge fantasy work out then?

[TnDem]

66. Then you are raped anyway.....

And possibly shot too depending on how the rapist feels at that moment.

With a hidden weapon of your own and acting compliant until the right time comes means you MAY have a chance to not get raped and killed.

With no weapon you WILL get raped and you MAY get killed.

I like the chance with my scenario much better.

[jgraz]

69. How about if the rapist can't get a gun?

Oh, jeez, you don't like that. Doesn't really fill out the whole fantasy scenario, does it? I'm guessing your wife carrying a 1-ounce bottle of pepper spray isn't enough to get you hard either.

[TnDem]

79. Tell you what...

You live your ultra-urban zenlike existence in Berkeley and I'll live in reality where real people live.

Mmmkay?

[jgraz]

87. Ah, the redneck counter-elitism finally comes out

Gee, sorry, officer, I was just making an intellectual argument. Maybe they skipped that course at Frightened Rabbit Police Academy.

Now go off and shoot something. You're bothering the smart people.

[Paladin]

100. Feel Free To "Live In Reality".....

....but kindly stay the fuck out of my neighborhood. Mmmkay?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

136. Oh the "where real people live argument"

Haven't seen this gem from Tn"Dem" since the last Fred Thompson thread. Nice of you to participate in a discussion where your not tossing old Fred's salad. So tell me I've been dying to know where do these these "real people" you speak of live? Are they just limited to your little corner of Banjopick, Jesusland or are they everywhere? All this time I thought I was "real people" after all I bleed red like everyone else, so what sets people like me and others on this thread apart?

You see, people who live "ultra-urban zenlike existences" tend to see things in a more realistic manner when it comes to firearms and large crowds. We don't want to live in your little Charles Bronson world where everybody must pack in order to get through the day. "Non real people" do just fine thank you very much. Now that you got me on the subject, Berkeley isn't really that big of a city. It's pretty much a college town in a large metro area. Sorry to nit-pick but you know about as much as my great state as you do "reality", jack friggin shit.

[Erebus67]

95. It's tough to keep an erection with a gun shot wound.

[jgraz]

99. And again with the psycho-sexual violence fantasies

Seriously dude, turn off the playstation and go outside.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

44. Frequently - the guns are taken from the victim and used against them.

Any cop will tell you that. That's why they don't advise the average citizen to be carrying a gun around or to have one in their home.

[TnDem]

53. Are these "any cops" gonna follow me around...

and guarantee me the same level of protection that Rosie has 24/7?...Helllll no.

And I can tell you that "any" cop won't tell you that. I used to be a cop for four years in the 1990's. I would only advise someone to not carry a weapon unless 1) they wanted to and could accept the responsibilities 2)were comfortable with the weapon and could use it with ease.

Provided that they could then secure a CCW with training, qualifications and range, then I would like everyone that meets this criteria to apply and carry. These kind of people make society safer.

[jgraz]

58. Are you seriously that frightened of life?

Where the fuck do you live? Downtown Baghdad? You're describing a level of fear that is simply not justified by the facts.

[TnDem]

68. Tennessee USA

And no I never even give my firearm with me a second thought...

Just like the 32 killed yesterday never gave it a thought.

News Flash...You don't have to live in downtown Baghdad to get killed.

Have you not learned anything about self defense and self preservation with this latest news?

[jgraz]

71. I lived in downtown Chicago for 5 years

I drove past Cabrini Green every day on my way to work. I went out for 3am burritos the night after I heard gunshots at my EL stop.

I just can't get my brain around being so totally shit-scared of life that you have to walk around armed. Where does your fear come from, aside from the fact that all your redneck neighbors are also armed?

[TnDem]

77. I'll tell you this...

You are sure a smart assed and irritating individual...I would veture to say that you never volunteered for any Dale Carnegie billboards.

All of the drives past Cabrini Green, you were simply lucky. Consider yourself blessed.

I am not "shit scared of life"..What I am shit scared of is people like you that want to push your anti-gun, pacifist views into policy reality thereby making my daughter in college vulnerable to this shit that happened yesterday.

By the way, I grew up in the DC/Baltimore area...I was a cop here for four years...You don't even begin to impress meI've BTDT

[Kerrytravelers]

78. Why aren't you still a cop? And was than in TN or DC or Baltimore?

Just curious.

[TnDem]

81. Went into business for myself...

And it was here in Tennessee...

I lived in the Baltimore area for one year and near DC for about 11 years..This was back in the 1970's..

[Kerrytravelers]

86. I just fine it interesting that a former cop would want everyone armed.

I must admit, I've never heard that from a cop, either currently on the force or former.

The area in TN that you patrolled, was it high crime, like I might find here in Los Angeles? I find that my family in KY who owns guns doesn't seem to see the difference in gun ownership in more rural areas versus more populated areas. Quite frankly, big cities like mine tend to breed the crazies. People fly off the handle far more frequently. I think it comes from all of us living on top of one another and being in constant traffic, both human and vehicular. Anyway, that seems to always be the major dividing line. Those who live with more people crowded together don't want everyone armed to the hilt while those who have more elbow space, more breathing room to cool off, so to speak, see being armed in a much different fashion.

[jgraz]

89. You should probably be clear that playing Grand Theft Auto doesn't count as police work...

I know plenty of current, working police officers and none of them have this kind of batshit crazy view on gun ownership.

[jgraz]

153. translation: I was asked to leave the force

Gee, I wonder if it was for unlawful discharge of your weapon?

[Erebus67]

147. If this was true why didn't someone just take the gun away yesterday?

Show me frequent cases where a gun was taken away and used against the victim. Just because they are cops doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. They are just as susceptible to propaganda as anyone else.

[Ninja Jordan]

47. Women can effectively protect themselves with mace.

[greenbriar]

65. I carry pepper spray

and have a good knowledge of self defense

[Erebus67]

141. Pepper spray is an effective defense tools but a .357 magnum will just get taken away.

I love the logic.

[Ninja Jordan]

146. I'll assume both could be taken away, but

a .357 magnum could then be used to kill the victim. Could pepper spray?

[Erebus67]

151. Yes pepper spray could,

Once you are sprayed you are at his mercy, killing you becomes easy.

Show me how often a gun gets taken away and used against the victim. DoJ said in 1994 that people successfully defend themselves 1.5 million times a year with a gun. In 1993 Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck said it was 2.5 million times a year. 13 other surveys put the number between 800,000 and 2.5 million. I'll bet the math won't work in your favor.

[Ninja Jordan]

155. At least you could run, which is hard to do with a bullet in your head.

[Erebus67]

162. It's awefully hard with pepper spray in your face. You can't see or breath.

And if it's so easy for the gun to be taken away show me examples of it happening. Why didn't it occur at VT Tech? 32 people killed and none of them could take the gun away if it's so easy? When 1.5 million are successful what is the ratio of those that have their guns taken away?

[AnnieBW]

72. How many more suicides and accidental shootings

would be caused by students having guns? I have NOT ONCE heard any student who was in those buildings come out and say, "if only I'd been allowed to carry my gun..." Those are the only people that matter.

[Kerrytravelers]

84. So, when the whole citizenry is locked and loaded, how is traveling going to work?

Will we have armed passengers on the planes?

I'm not against sensible gun ownership, but the thought of everyone walking around, armed, doesn't make me feel safe and secure at all. There are some who want to arm me when I enter an elementary classroom to teach. The kids I had were very unstable. I wouldn't dare bring a weapon in the room. I even kept my scissors locked up. I was, however, bullied by a parent in the classroom. If I'd been armed, I guess I could have just shot him. He wasn't armed, but according to some things I've read the past 24 hours, I'd be fully within my rights to do so.

[jgraz]

104. Of course...if guns on airplanes are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns on planes

I have HAD IT with these motherfuckin GUNS on this motherfuckin PLANE!!

[Hobarticus]

176. Now THAT's a tasty burger...

Thanks for the laugh in the midst of an insane thread!

[alarimer]

132. Me neither

It fucking frightens me MORE than the thought of any possible crime. I have been alive for 38 years and never been the victim of ANY sort of crime, and I have lived in some "high crime" neighborhoods. Never have I feared for my life. That's not to say that maybe I should be more scared than I am but I think that news media, especially local news, tends to exaggerate the crime rate. Most places are safe enough. People who walk around armed "just in case" are excessively paranoid. I would not date someone who was armed all the time (unless they were a cop and I guess I don't date cops anyway) because I would be more afraid of THEM and their actions than I would be of any potential risk. Now if I lived in Alaska and their were grizzly bears around, that's something else.

Yesterday's events were an aberration. You probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning on any given day.

[BlooInBloo]

112. You know how pathetic Americans are when she's the focus of a thread.

[piedmont]

129. I'm afraid Hasselbeck and Rosie will be the face of the upcoming debate.

All of America will be tuning into "The View" to find out what they should think re: "preventing another VA teck massacre." God damn it why don't we teach people to think for themselves anymore.

[Blackhatjack]

170. Well let's see... both have guns and both use them...hmmm... bystanders??

I am always amazed to read that people believe everyone would be safer if everybody had a gun and used them. It would have been a wild scene if a dozen people were shooting at the same time.

IF that comes to pass, ownership of a flak jacket may be safer.

[Blackhatjack]

173. It would mean children need to understand the meaning of duck and run...n/t

[noonwitch]

175. A bystander with a gun who is a good shot may have helped

I'm not advocating allowing all students to carry guns, but if there had been a well-trained ROTC around with sharp-shooting skills and a weapon, he or she might have gotten the guy before he killed so many people. Campus police are not trained to handle this kind of thing-military police.