Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[Kulindahr]

I'd have to call bullshit on this statement. As a former police officer, someone who works with police departments on a daily basis, and who is heavily involved in policing today: guns are not "defending" against the criminal element. Why do you think criminals are, today, better armed than most police and civilians? Because when one group gets weapons, the next wants better. I see it all the time with police -- they now want 50 mm firearms mounted on ARV's to "defend" against the citizenry (take a look at the response in Ferguson to see what happens next). Trying to one up results in an escalation of response. My son and his unit that was on patrol in Afghanistan found that when they went into villages they did not go armed. Packing heat with one's finger on a trigger only caused the citizens to think they were being "invaded" and respond accordingly.

Most crime is solved because criminals prey on each other. In DC and many other large communities (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia) the homicide rate is high because criminals respond to "dissing" or attacks by other criminals (or gangs). I can tell you the police response to homicides is often "wait a couple days and we'll find out who the perpetrator is" because they are killed -- plain and simple. Sadly, often caught in the crossfire are innocents who wouldn't stand a chance if they were armed with a surface to air missile.

And statistics do matter unless you suppose that humans are different in the United States than the rest of the world in which case you should likely go into research because from what I've seen, people respond in the same way, conduct crime the same, and even set houses on fire in the same ways no matter where you are in the world. The difference in the US is that guns are within inches away and often are used to respond whereas the rest of the world relies on fists.

You're calling bullshit on the most pessimistic figures for the use of guns against criminals? the ones that try to make the figure as low as they can?


If the difference in the U.S. was the presence of guns, we wouldn't just have a slightly higher violence rate, we'd have the bloodbath liberals always screech about but which never happens.


The Founding Fathers were entirely aware that people misuse guns. They insisted on the Second Amendment anyway, because they understood that a man denied the use of arms is not a citizen, and not even a subject in today's sense of the word, but what we would call a slave. Anti-gunners argue over and over that it's better to let people be raped and assaulted than to let people they don't trust have guns -- it's just never faced, or never admitted, that such is inherent to the position. The Founders understood a "gun culture" far better than today's anti-gun people, and they saw that the solution was discipline, what we would call education and training and self-control.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...y-open-carry-gun-advocates-dearborn/73599110/

And this is why we should ban guns from crazies. I get a briefing each month on these types of groups. ISIS has nothing on them; they desire a pure, white race and are angry that they can't have it so they'll resort to guns and violence. Out of their ranks came the likes of Timothy McVeigh and other extremists which those proclaiming the evils of Islam fail to acknowledge.

Where are they "resorting to guns and violence"? They have peacefully complied with all the city's requirements for such a rally.

I will note that according to the article's content, the headline is a lie: the group specifically said they are against radical Islam, they did not say against all Islam.


I think they're loony, but this rally is no different than a gay rights rally unless there's an irrational regard for guns as more than inanimate objects.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222

And Wayne LaPierre has bought both Dems and Republicans although he has turned on Democrats which is why the White House will be rolling out a series of executive decisions on firearms, ammo, registration, etc. Another shooting today should convince people we have a problem and putting our heads up our asses and denying that guns are not a problem is going to guarantee one thing: someone will be standing but it may be none of us.

The link above points out the fact that it is a fallacy the good guys have guns. I'm glad they are finally releasing the info that in many of the mass shootings there have been people with guns and carrying in the vicinity. Putting more guns, as the one individual says, would have resulted in him shooting the wrong person which is normally the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/index.html

The shooting today should convince people that "gun-free zones" don't work: someone who wasn't supposed to have a handgun in the first place, had one in a place that no one was supposed to have one, and shot people with it.

The article doesn't show that good guys don't have guns, it shows that the good guys who have guns have behaved responsibly: they haven't intervened when things weren't clear.

And "shooting the wrong person" is done by the police somewhere between five and eleven times as often by the police. If "shooting the wrong person" is a reason to take away guns, then disarm the cops!

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The fact that you need to skew people's opinions into it being "better to be raped or assaulted" says more about you than it does the people you are directing that insult at. The fact that you need to do that and keep targeting someone's political position says to me that you don't have enough confidence in your own position to not have to do that. I find your statement about being raped or assaulted absolutely disgusting. You need to grow up.

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL, obviously, benvolio did teach you to write this Latin phrase

You really aren't very alert. Benvolio hasn't been around here long enough to teach me anything. And I learned Latin before JUB existed.

If you want to pin teaching people the names of fallacies on someone, the guy to target is one of JUB's liberal gun supporters (hint: he's better at Hebrew than I am).

 

[Kulindahr]

The fact that you need to skew people's opinions into it being "better to be raped or assaulted" says more about you than it does the people you are directing that insult at. The fact that you need to do that and keep targeting someone's political position says to me that you don't have enough confidence in your own position to not have to do that. I find your statement about being raped or assaulted absolutely disgusting. You need to grow up.

That's not skewing anything, it's pointing out the actual substance of the position. Under the standard proposals of liberals here, I am people I know would have been required to be defenseless against rape and assault. Ergo, to support those proposals to is prefer that people be raped or assaulted than be able to defend themselves.

Those who want no one armed for self-defense are pro-rape as a matter of reality. The disgust you find should be at those who support such a position that requires citizens to submit to criminals.

 

[otters]

You really aren't very alert. Benvolio hasn't been around here long enough to teach me anything. And I learned Latin before JUB existed.

If you want to pin teaching people the names of fallacies on someone, the guy to target is one of JUB's liberal gun supporters (hint: he's better at Hebrew than I am).

Bammer is a dog? You're call yourself a dog's "Papa"? Well, perhaps if it were a horse, then I would be inclined to believe you that you're polyglot. But not when it's a dog (…that's not even shaggy).

 

[thewiz]

The shooting today should convince people that "gun-free zones" don't work: someone who wasn't supposed to have a handgun in the first place, had one in a place that no one was supposed to have one, and shot people with it.

The article doesn't show that good guys don't have guns, it shows that the good guys who have guns have behaved responsibly: they haven't intervened when things weren't clear.

And "shooting the wrong person" is done by the police somewhere between five and eleven times as often by the police. If "shooting the wrong person" is a reason to take away guns, then disarm the cops!

And I'd have no problem disarming the police. I found London to be refreshing that police didn't have to look like RoboCop and the public respected it.

Our police today are embarrassing. When I started, we were expected to have clean, pressed uniforms with shined shoes and a polished gunbelt. Our brass was to be polished and our hat worn straight. If we wore a vest, it was to be concealed under our uniform shirt. Contrast that today with what police now look: bandoleers filled with extra magazines and shotgun slugs sewn into a bullet proof vest with armor plating front and back. Uniform pants have been replaced with fatigue pants, replete with additional pockets filled with cartridges and magazines. The gunbelt is loaded with a 9 mm or larger weapon, taser, extra mags, extendable baton, and a radio. Instead of showing hands, sap gloves now cover the hand which have the effect of telling anyone to "stay the hell away from me." And we wonder why community policing doesn't work.

Of course, they are up against ever increasing numbers of armed civilians who need larger and larger weapons -- hell let's strap on an AK-47 to every man woman or child. That way when the next argument breaks out over a kitten or dog, we can wipe out a classroom.

And your comment that the police shoot the wrong person -- the police who are a "well trained militia" -- how does that hold out against your utter freedom on second amendment.

You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater and you can certainly regulate the militia and weapons through limitations which has been ruled appropriate by the Supreme Court in the Brady Bill. The opponents have been the crazed NRA and right wingers who paint the boogey man to their every increasing minions to frighten them into compliance.

And you don't find "open carry" offensive? My God, let's go back to the wild west and throw on pieces everywhere we go. I thought we had turned to civility and civilization. Maybe we should also bring back clubs and animal skins so we can demonstrate we have some manhood that we are otherwise apparently lacking. The purpose of such moves is to intimidate -- plain and simple. And I've been to Dearborn and worked with their former mayor and council many times. I'd much rather find myself there than with some of the crazies I'm briefed about that live in Idaho and other parts of Michigan. There is a large Muslim population in Dearborn but they demonstrate far more compassion and stabilized mentality than the other groups.

Personally, what you advocate is tyranny bordering on treason to that same constitution that you have lost site of except for one amendment. You might want to read the overriding part that says everyone has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. " Life is always to be foremost and shooting someone is the surest way I know to deny that basic human right that should be sacrosanct.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course, they are up against ever increasing numbers of armed civilians who need larger and larger weapons -- hell let's strap on an AK-47 to every man woman or child. That way when the next argument breaks out over a kitten or dog, we can wipe out a classroom.

"Up against . . . armed civilians."

That statement contains two big elements that are a major part of the reason there is so much anger towards cops: they think they're "against" the rest of us, and act like it, and they no longer regard themselves as civilians, which makes them look like an occupying army.

And your comment that the police shoot the wrong person -- the police who are a "well trained militia" -- how does that hold out against your utter freedom on second amendment.

The police are far from being a well-trained militia; for starters, they're not a militia, they're a hired security force mainly serving the politicians. Given that they act to protect themselves before anyone else, they're most certainly not a militia!

And you don't find "open carry" offensive? My God, let's go back to the wild west and throw on pieces everywhere we go. I thought we had turned to civility and civilization. Maybe we should also bring back clubs and animal skins so we can demonstrate we have some manhood that we are otherwise apparently lacking. The purpose of such moves is to intimidate -- plain and simple. And I've been to Dearborn and worked with their former mayor and council many times. I'd much rather find myself there than with some of the crazies I'm briefed about that live in Idaho and other parts of Michigan. There is a large Muslim population in Dearborn but they demonstrate far more compassion and stabilized mentality than the other groups.

Open carry is civilizing. I've watched fights both verbal and physical stop because someone walked by with a fiream on the hip that was seen and recognized. It also reminds criminals, in states with shall-issue laws for concealed carry, that there are citizens on the watch they have to worry about.

Personally, what you advocate is tyranny bordering on treason to that same constitution that you have lost site of except for one amendment. You might want to read the overriding part that says everyone has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. " Life is always to be foremost and shooting someone is the surest way I know to deny that basic human right that should be sacrosanct.

Allowing people to carry as they please is GUARANTEEING "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It's the fact that we had guns that made it possible for myself, a gal I know, a bunch of kids, and others continue to enjoy liberty and happiness, and likely life itself.

To tell a human being that he can't be armed is to tell him he is prey, and that you want him to be prey. It's telling him that he has no rights, just privileges -- that hsi speech isn't actually free, nor his exercise of religion, because the politicians and bureaucrats have a monopoly on the use of force and thus can take away anything they want any time they want.
And that is the reality in the U.S. today for most people. Two-thirds of the population lives in a constitution-free zone, thanks to the so-called "PATRIOT" Act and Homeland Security. Anyone can be picked at random and convicted of several federal felonies (read Three Felonies a Day). Federal agencies violate the law and the Constitution with impunity. Property is seized without convictions and never returned. Children are taken from their parents under a "guilty until proven innocent" system.

If I ever shoot someone it will be because he or she was trying to end my life, liberty, and/or pursuit of happiness, or that of someone I chose to protect. In so acting, he or she will have violated the social contract that civilization and the Republic stand on, thus granting me the freedom to act as I judge necessary to defend myself, the Republic, and civilization.

A disarmed society is an invitation to predators to take away life, liberty, and happiness.

 

[otters]

A disarmed society is an invitation to predators to take away life, liberty, and happiness.

Wow, a biology lesson now? Seriously?

 

[otters]

The police are far from being a well-trained militia; for starters, they're not a militia, they're a hired security force mainly serving the politicians. Given that they act to protect themselves before anyone else, they're most certainly not a militia!

And this immature drivel validates what I've written previously.

 

[thewiz]

"Up against . . . armed civilians."

....and they no longer regard themselves as civilians, which makes them look like an occupying army.



The police are far from being a well-trained militia; for starters, they're not a militia, they're a hired security force mainly serving the politicians. Given that they act to protect themselves before anyone else, they're most certainly not a militia!



Open carry is civilizing. I've watched fights both verbal and physical stop because someone walked by with a fiream on the hip that was seen and recognized. It also reminds criminals, in states with shall-issue laws for concealed carry, that there are citizens on the watch they have to worry about.



Allowing people to carry as they please is GUARANTEEING "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It's the fact that we had guns that made it possible for myself, a gal I know, a bunch of kids, and others continue to enjoy liberty and happiness, and likely life itself.

To tell a human being that he can't be armed is to tell him he is prey, and that you want him to be prey.

Wow. I don't know where to start. If carrying a gun is the only thing that makes you safe and gives you manhood, then perhaps the police are an occupying army. I've carried a gun and have a permit to do so now; I have never carried off duty and do not carry in DC. I guess I'm more of a man who can deal with issues than having to resort to a piece of metal strapped to my hip that shows I'm macho and should scare someone. I've been all over the world and never felt the need to have to rely on a piece of metal with a magazine or bullets to keep me safe. I never had to fire in all my years on the road and faced down many a person that could have injured me (and in several cases that had killed someone else who tried to "take matters into their own hands).

You should try being a police officer in many inner city areas; you might find yourself a very suspicious and different individual because you are viewed as an occupier -- until they need you at which time you didn't do enough.

Open carry is not civilized -- it is stating that people can't interact with each other or that they must intimidate the other person to gain a superior position. It is why the military look mean -- to intimidate so they often don't have to use their weapons. But if they do -- watch out.

As to being trained, I'll put any officer on the road today up as professionally trained. They are analyzed, poked, prodded, yelled at, and most undergo at least 500 hours of academy training along with PT and firearms/shooting. I hardly doubt you or any other "militia" has anything comparable.

 

[Kabluey]

You really ought to read my posts.

I have been, and I think you're unsafe with any weapons given your postings.

...You couldn't come up with a better plan to keep the right fringe crazy if you tried!

Or at least just the crazy....

Background checks won't accomplish anything. Making a gun harder to purchase won't accomplish anything. The only thing that is going to be effective is taking the militia pieces in the Constitution seriously and getting Congress to do something about "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia. Heck, get local militias organized and get the "crazies" into them...

]

Why would a sane person advocate that?

BTW, the citizens of Weimar Germany were certain that a totalitarian takeover was a fantasy, too. That's why they went along with gun confiscation, and allowed a lot more evil, until they had no options but to go along in order to get along. That's why the Framers of the Constitution tried to shackle government by allowing only enumerated powers: no one ever believes a government will turn totalitarian until it already has and they can't figure out how they missed it.

The rest of Europe demanded that Germany disarm as part of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 after the country's atrocities during WWI.
Hitler liberalised gun laws in 1938.
He did after all want his citizens to go to war under his command.

The Jewish population were not allowed to arm themselves. But by that stage they were 0.3% of the population, a tiny minority, armed or otherwise.

 

[Kabluey]

Ad hominem, when faced with facts.

You're discarding the facts that disagree with your beliefs.
We get in, you really, really, like guns and will say anything to keep yours.

Like it or not, others find that attitude concerning, and reason to tighten laws. Your words are enforcing negative perceptions of gun hobbyists.

 

[Mitchymo]

Ignorance, manipulation, false accusation, stupidity and selfishness is why the gun debate is futile....until you decide to start ignoring those to the far right and left of the spectrum. With that, i'm done debating. I'll just continue to watch for the next spree.

 

[Benvolio]

Ignorance, manipulation, false accusation, stupidity and selfishness is why the gun debate is futile....until you decide to start ignoring those to the far right and left of the spectrum. With that, i'm done debating. I'll just continue to watch for the next spree.

It is not the far right, but near the center.

 

[Kabluey]

It is not the far right, but near the center.

It is the centre. Practically half of Americans own guns.

The reason most people have guns is because they fear the other people who have guns.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow. I don't know where to start. If carrying a gun is the only thing that makes you safe and gives you manhood, then perhaps the police are an occupying army. I've carried a gun and have a permit to do so now; I have never carried off duty and do not carry in DC. I guess I'm more of a man who can deal with issues than having to resort to a piece of metal strapped to my hip that shows I'm macho and should scare someone. I've been all over the world and never felt the need to have to rely on a piece of metal with a magazine or bullets to keep me safe. I never had to fire in all my years on the road and faced down many a person that could have injured me (and in several cases that had killed someone else who tried to "take matters into their own hands).

You should try being a police officer in many inner city areas; you might find yourself a very suspicious and different individual because you are viewed as an occupier -- until they need you at which time you didn't do enough.

Open carry is not civilized -- it is stating that people can't interact with each other or that they must intimidate the other person to gain a superior position. It is why the military look mean -- to intimidate so they often don't have to use their weapons. But if they do -- watch out.

As to being trained, I'll put any officer on the road today up as professionally trained. They are analyzed, poked, prodded, yelled at, and most undergo at least 500 hours of academy training along with PT and firearms/shooting. I hardly doubt you or any other "militia" has anything comparable.

When the police stop behaving like an occupying army, people will stop regarding them as one. I've seen houses entirely destroyed by cops who "just wanted a look", and after they waltzed out they claimed they found it that way. I've stood and watched cops lie through their teeth to intimidate people, when "laws" they are "citing" don't exist -- like the "law" that if you don't answer their questions, you'll go to prison for "impeding an investigation". I've seen cops arrest first and then decide what the charge is, and what evidence they need.

Your emotional first paragraph exemplifies why this issue is hard to discuss rationally with liberals: emotion trumps reason and analysis.

Open carry tells the evil folks among us that we are not their prey -- and that is civilized. It proclaims that we are all equals (which is why politicians don't like it; they believe they are superior).

As for "professionally trained", all you have to do is watch the show COPS to see that they aren't: they behave like adolescent thugs with no respect for the people with whom they interact. I don't know what all their training goes into, but the police shootings where over a hundred rounds are fired and only a dozen hit the target tells me their training in shooting isn't worth crap -- the mere fact that they unload an entire magazine at a "suspect" tells me their training is crap; so is the fact that they exchange gunfire with an armed person and don't move!

If there are professionally trained cops out there who actually follow their training, they're doing their level best to hide and to protect the idiots who shoot people for complying with an order to show identification or for nothing at all. When cops stand by and don't arrest a fellow cop for doing the things that happen regularly in this country, there ARE no professional cops -- just thugs in uniform.


BTW, you've been all over the world, but from your posts on JUB I doubt you've ever experienced the real world. It shows pretty well that yours is the world of privilege, the well-to-do world that sits atop the third-world country that makes up a huge chunk of the United States and doesn't see that elsewhere. In the real world, no cop is a friend, and when the government shows up it is never to help you, it's to benefit some politician or corporation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have been, and I think you're unsafe with any weapons given your postings.

You plainly haven't, because your responses are generally unrelated to my posts.

Why would a sane person advocate that?

Because that's how we as a society respond to problems . . . until it comes to guns. Then, the hoplophobes of the country want to isolate and penalize dependable citizens.

In everything else where danger is involved, training is advocated -- but not for guns. The liberal mantra of education goes in the trash when it comes to guns. The liberal value of inclusiveness goes in the trash when it comes to guns.

In this country's conceptualization, we are all the militia. Hoplophobes recoil from that, but it is the best way to deal with the matter of weapons, which humans need until there are no more bad guys at all. If someone likes guns, you don't shun him and drive him to deciding to use them to hurt people, you include him so he learns to respect them and not abuse them. If someone has shown inclinations to violence, you don't push him away so his anger increases, you draw him in to where he has a group of people he respects and will heed.

The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". The meaning of those words is that no laws that are even peripheral to citizens being armed are legitimate -- but the hoplophobe reaction is to fear the object, demonize its users, and do exactly what the Founders intended would NOT be done. Meanwhile, the Constitution provides the authority to deal with the misuse of firearms in effective fashion, through the authority to organize and arm and discipline the militia, but hoplophobes pretend that isn't there. The route to safety is right there in the Constitution, but it's despised.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're discarding the facts that disagree with your beliefs.
We get in, you really, really, like guns and will say anything to keep yours.

Like it or not, others find that attitude concerning, and reason to tighten laws. Your words are enforcing negative perceptions of gun hobbyists.

You open with two lies.

Why should I read farther?