NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder

[ChrisL]

Only careless people. I know people who have guns and my own father had guns, and I don't know of one person who was injured by one. If you want to believe some schmuck on the internet who makes up ridiculous stories that just go against all odds, then go right ahead. I think this guy is full of it and is making things up as he goes along.

You are wrong. We own guns, have for generations, and we are safe because we are not careless or indifferent. And yet we have seen accidents in others' houses over the years.

You can read or watch the news regularly, and you see stupid (not lack of intelligence, lack of common sense) people paying the price for not being careful.

You know it, I know it.

Relatively speaking, they are NOT that common. Accidents with common household objects and other things like pools are MUCH more prevalent. I see you are going to join Joe in being dishonest to support your agenda. How sad.

 

[JoeB131]

No one is questioning whether or not it happened. Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.

What we are calling you on is your claim that the suicides would not have happened without a gun.

Callin me a liar is just an admission you don't have an argument. Get rid of an easy method, suicides decline.

People don't commit suicide because it is convenient. They do it because they don't want to live. And why do you think it would be so much harder to get a razor or a knife than it is to get a gun?

You are projecting. You are the one who lies when you have no argument. I am calling you a liar because you lied.

Guy, I already proved you can reduce the suicide rate by removing a method.

Maybe it's easy to get a razor, probably easier than getting a gun. So why don't we have more razor suicides? Because it takes longer and people are squeamish about cutting themselves.

 

[WinterBorn]

No one is questioning whether or not it happened. Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.

What we are calling you on is your claim that the suicides would not have happened without a gun.

Callin me a liar is just an admission you don't have an argument. Get rid of an easy method, suicides decline.

People don't commit suicide because it is convenient. They do it because they don't want to live. And why do you think it would be so much harder to get a razor or a knife than it is to get a gun?

You are projecting. You are the one who lies when you have no argument. I am calling you a liar because you lied.

Guy, I already proved you can reduce the suicide rate by removing a method.

Maybe it's easy to get a razor, probably easier than getting a gun. So why don't we have more razor suicides? Because it takes longer and people are squeamish about cutting themselves.

You have shown one reply to a study that claimed a very small reduction in overall suicides. But then, there are also the huge numbers of suicides in Japan, despite having almost no access to firearms.

If someone wants to die, they will find a way.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

 

[JoeB131]

Whiner-born has no life, apparently.

 

[ChrisL]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

What? You mean regulations that don't work. Lol! Man, you are so silly. Typical liberal. Very shallow and superficial in your thought processes.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

What? You mean regulations that don't work. Lol! Man, you are so silly. Typical liberal. Very shallow and superficial in your thought processes.

Nope, they pretty much do what they are supposed to do. But you'd have to understand history to know why we have drug laws.

It involved quacks mixing up cocaine with sugar water and selling them outside of wagons.

Will sensible gun laws end all gun violence? Nope.

Will it reduce it substantially? Yup. Every country that has done it has proved that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Whiner-born has no life, apparently.

Oh look, JoeyB is trying to insult me. What a shocker! lol

Actually, I have a great life. But I also have leeway at work to be on my laptop when I'm in the field.

 

[ChrisL]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

What? You mean regulations that don't work. Lol! Man, you are so silly. Typical liberal. Very shallow and superficial in your thought processes.

Nope, they pretty much do what they are supposed to do. But you'd have to understand history to know why we have drug laws.

It involved quacks mixing up cocaine with sugar water and selling them outside of wagons.

Will sensible gun laws end all gun violence? Nope.

Will it reduce it substantially? Yup. Every country that has done it has proved that.

Your idiocy is showing again.

Four Decades Later U.S. Is Still Losing The Global War On Drugs

NEW YORK -- Inside the United States, a long and largely ineffective campaign to eradicate drugs is gradually evolving into acceptance of one key substance -- marijuana -- as states increasingly move to legalize its use. But outside national borders, the American-led war on drugs continues, bringing charges from participants that it is sowing violence and strife for little discernible gain.

"To the extent that our foreign relations should be for the purpose of improving relations with other countries, spending money on drug enforcement really doesn't do that. It certainly doesn't do that effectively," said Sean Dunagan, a drug war critic who previously served in Guatemala and Mexico for a combined five years as an intelligence analyst for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The U.S. spent nearly $2 billion abroad in the 2013 fiscal year, much of it sent directly to foreign law enforcement budgets through the State Department. DEA agents like Dunagan are the face of that massive push overseas to fight the war on drugs.

The DEA's presence in some countries rivals that of a mid-sized town's police force: 112 agents are stationed in Colombia, 101 in Mexico, 79 in Afghanistan, 49 in Peru and 45 in Thailand. Many more countries have much a smaller group of agents, in places as varied as Switzerland (3) and Tajikistan (4).

The agency has 793 agents overseas in 68 countries, according to a Freedom of Information Act request by The WorldPost. In comparison, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the primary organization for delivering U.S. civilian foreign aid, said that it has 1,622 service officers and agency watchdogs posted abroad.

But the DEA agents working around the world are achieving mixed -- at best -- results. In Afghanistan, opium production reached a new record in 2013. In Latin America, cocaine production is down and places like Colombia that were once racked by drug-related violence have become more stable -- but the presence of cartels has ballooned into new frontiers like Peru, Bolivia and Mexico. The average price of cocaine, heroin and marijuana all dropped in the United States between 1990 and 2007, meaning that supply has not been constricted enough to drive up the cost.

Dunagan said he could have worked for the DEA abroad for another 40 years without achieving a victory in the war on drugs. He believes it is time to rein in the agency's vast, globe-spanning presence.

"If I had to propose an alternative, it would really be to change drug policy," said Dunagan, now a member of the nonprofit Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "Having a couple dozen agents in Mexico City would make sense if we're going to fight this battle this way -- but it doesn't make sense to fight this battle this way."

 

[WinterBorn]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

What? You mean regulations that don't work. Lol! Man, you are so silly. Typical liberal. Very shallow and superficial in your thought processes.

Nope, they pretty much do what they are supposed to do. But you'd have to understand history to know why we have drug laws.

It involved quacks mixing up cocaine with sugar water and selling them outside of wagons.

Will sensible gun laws end all gun violence? Nope.

Will it reduce it substantially? Yup. Every country that has done it has proved that.

You have repeatedly advocated banning firearms. Now you want "sensible gun laws"?

And what, pray tell, would those "reasonable gun laws" be?

Banning convicted felons and domestic abusers from owning guns? We did that.
Running background checks when buying guns? We did that.
Not letting people who have been reported as dangerously insane buy guns? We did that.

Tell us what your "sensible gun laws" would be. And don't forget to tell us about the controls you want on samurai swords, since you included that in the list of "dangerous weapons at Lanza's house.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

You're comparing injuries to deaths. Not a good comparison there numbnuts. And it still proves ChrisL right.

 

[ChrisL]

[

So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?

You know what's strange? Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year? Many MANY more than die from guns.

Meh,not really.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries 31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.

What? You mean regulations that don't work. Lol! Man, you are so silly. Typical liberal. Very shallow and superficial in your thought processes.

Nope, they pretty much do what they are supposed to do. But you'd have to understand history to know why we have drug laws.

It involved quacks mixing up cocaine with sugar water and selling them outside of wagons.

Will sensible gun laws end all gun violence? Nope.

Will it reduce it substantially? Yup. Every country that has done it has proved that.

You have repeatedly advocated banning firearms. Now you want "sensible gun laws"?

And what, pray tell, would those "reasonable gun laws" be?

Banning convicted felons and domestic abusers from owning guns? We did that.
Running background checks when buying guns? We did that.
Not letting people who have been reported as dangerously insane buy guns? We did that.

Tell us what your "sensible gun laws" would be. And don't forget to tell us about the controls you want on samurai swords, since you included that in the list of "dangerous weapons at Lanza's house.

Like I said, his ideas are moronic, pie-in-the-sky bullcrap, like most liberal ideas. They do not take into account unintended consequences, they don't think their ideas through. Perhaps they are so blinded by their ideology that it causes brain damage.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You have repeatedly advocated banning firearms. Now you want "sensible gun laws"?

I'm willing to compromise. You guys are the ones who have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

[
And what, pray tell, would those "reasonable gun laws" be?

Banning convicted felons and domestic abusers from owning guns? We did that.

Except for the gun show loophole and all the gun stores who know damned well they are selling to straw buyers.

[
Running background checks when buying guns? We did that.

An inadequate background check is not a background check. If the media can find out that Holmes and Lanza were nuts before the bodies were cold, then we should be able to find out if these guys are nuts before we give them guns.

[
Not letting people who have been reported as dangerously insane buy guns? We did that.

Then how do you explain Cho, Loughner, Holmes, etc. Shit, we've had two people shoot things up because they thought they were the Joker

[
Tell us what your "sensible gun laws" would be. And don't forget to tell us about the controls you want on samurai swords, since you included that in the list of "dangerous weapons at Lanza's house.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Oh, never mind, I stopped trying to reason with gun nuts a long time ago.

1) Before you can buy a gun- a REAL background check. Including talking to your neighbors, co-workers, employers and teachers (If you are a college student). Of the three individuals I mentioned above, that would have caught them. (Their colleges knew they were nuts.)

2. Insurance to cover the costs of damages. This insurance will be expensive.

3. Strict liability for gun sellers. If you sold a gun used in a crime, you are liable for that crime.

4. No more concealed carry.

But the biggest thing is a change in attitude. Gun ownership is not a right, it's a privilege.

That's how Germany treats it. They have 8 million privately owned guns, but only 250 gun homicides a year.

But be real. The NRA doesn't want that. They work for the gun manufacturers, and the gun manufacturers want the crazies and the crooks to have guns so the rest of you are afraid and want them, too.

It's like arming both sides in a war.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Like I said, his ideas are moronic, pie-in-the-sky bullcrap, like most liberal ideas. They do not take into account unintended consequences, they don't think their ideas through. Perhaps they are so blinded by their ideology that it causes brain damage.

Uh, gee, again - Germany, Japan, England, Canada and Australia have all done these "Liberal" ideas (Fun Fact, even conservatives in these countries don't want to change the gun laws), and they've gotten exactly the desired consequences.

 

[ChrisL]

[

Like I said, his ideas are moronic, pie-in-the-sky bullcrap, like most liberal ideas. They do not take into account unintended consequences, they don't think their ideas through. Perhaps they are so blinded by their ideology that it causes brain damage.

Uh, gee, again - Germany, Japan, England, Canada and Australia have all done these "Liberal" ideas (Fun Fact, even conservatives in these countries don't want to change the gun laws), and they've gotten exactly the desired consequences.

Canada has a high rate of private ownership of guns. Also, those are completely different cultures who do not have the gang violence problem that we have here in America.

Look buddy, judging by ALL of your posts and your moving the goal posts continuously, your strawmen, your anecdotes, it is quite obvious to even the most dense poster that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. I don't even know why you are still here blathering away and making yourself look foolish. Maybe Mr. T would have pity for you, but I certainly do not. Lol!

CSSA Ten Myths About Gun Control. target shooting shotgun rifle pistol biathlon free pistol cowboy shooting SASS IPSC PPC IPDA full-bore rifle gun ban gun control handgun ban C68 gun registry confiscation gun rights self defense RKBA Canada gun club shooting club shooting range rifle range

 

[JoeB131]

[

Canada has a high rate of private ownership of guns. Also, those are completely different cultures who do not have the gang violence problem that we have here in America.

Look buddy, judging by ALL of your posts and your moving the goal posts continuously, your strawmen, your anecdotes, it is quite obvious to even the most dense poster that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. I don't even know why you are still here blathering away and making yourself look foolish. Maybe Mr. T would have pity for you, but I certainly do not. Lol!

Actually, I'm accomplishing my goal.

The best argument for gun control is to let the Gun Whacks talk. Pretty soon, they expose their inner psychos.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

You have repeatedly advocated banning firearms. Now you want "sensible gun laws"?

I'm willing to compromise. You guys are the ones who have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

[
And what, pray tell, would those "reasonable gun laws" be?

Banning convicted felons and domestic abusers from owning guns? We did that.

Except for the gun show loophole and all the gun stores who know damned well they are selling to straw buyers.

[
Running background checks when buying guns? We did that.

An inadequate background check is not a background check. If the media can find out that Holmes and Lanza were nuts before the bodies were cold, then we should be able to find out if these guys are nuts before we give them guns.

[
Not letting people who have been reported as dangerously insane buy guns? We did that.

Then how do you explain Cho, Loughner, Holmes, etc. Shit, we've had two people shoot things up because they thought they were the Joker

[
Tell us what your "sensible gun laws" would be. And don't forget to tell us about the controls you want on samurai swords, since you included that in the list of "dangerous weapons at Lanza's house.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Oh, never mind, I stopped trying to reason with gun nuts a long time ago.

1) Before you can buy a gun- a REAL background check. Including talking to your neighbors, co-workers, employers and teachers (If you are a college student). Of the three individuals I mentioned above, that would have caught them. (Their colleges knew they were nuts.)

2. Insurance to cover the costs of damages. This insurance will be expensive.

3. Strict liability for gun sellers. If you sold a gun used in a crime, you are liable for that crime.

4. No more concealed carry.

But the biggest thing is a change in attitude. Gun ownership is not a right, it's a privilege.

That's how Germany treats it. They have 8 million privately owned guns, but only 250 gun homicides a year.

But be real. The NRA doesn't want that. They work for the gun manufacturers, and the gun manufacturers want the crazies and the crooks to have guns so the rest of you are afraid and want them, too.

It's like arming both sides in a war.

1) The background check will never involve what you are suggesting. Agents will not be sent out to talk to neighbors, co-workers, employers & teachers. In addition to being prohibitively expensive, it is wildly time consuming to suggest doing that. The NICS background check that is done now is good, if the proper information would be submitted. You know, like when people are crazy? Like you didn't want because of the stigma attached to being crazy?
from: Background Checks by State NICS Data
"In all, nearly 19.6 million background checks were requested in 2012, up from 16.5 million in 2011."

2) Requiring insurance for concealed carry is acceptable. Otherwise, it is up to the owner. And your comment of "This insurance will be expensive." shows that your goal is to gouge the gun owner, not to accomplish anything else.

3) If the gun seller breaks the law, burn him. If not, he is not responsible for the gun's use. That would be like holding Ford Motor Company liable for drunk drivers.

4) Unacceptable. Concealed carry is not part of the problem you are seeking to change.

Lastly, that we have a right to bear arms will not be changed to a priviledge, simply because you hate the NRA and are scared. I don't care what Germany does. I am not living in Germany.

Oh, just an FYI, with the numbers you posted concerning Germany, 0.0031% of their guns are used in a murder. Why do you think that is acceptable?

The US has 300 million privately owned guns and around 11,000 gun related murders. So in our case, 0.0037% of our guns are used in a murder.

0.0031% is great?
0.0037% is horrible? lmao

 

[JoeB131]

11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.

Yeah. The Germans are doing it right.

NICS background checks are inadequate if Cho, Loughner and Holmes can get guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

But you

11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.

Yeah. The Germans are doing it right.

NICS background checks are inadequate if Cho, Loughner and Holmes can get guns.

Then feel free to move to Germany or to try and get a constitutional amendment to remove the 2nd Amendment. (probably more luck moving)

Then make sure the mental health community reports the dangerously insane. Previously in the thread you were talking about not wanting to stigmatize these nutballs, so they would get help. Now they are the weak spots in the system? lol

 

[WinterBorn]

11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.

Yeah. The Germans are doing it right.

NICS background checks are inadequate if Cho, Loughner and Holmes can get guns.

There are, as I have said before, major cultural differences between the US and Germany. Yet you still want to treat them as if they are exactly the same.

Funny that you want to ignore cultural difference, until you want to use them to bolster your argument.

The cultural differences between the US and Japan were not relevant when discussing guns, but they make all the difference when discussing suicides. Hilarious.