Talk about a TRUE TRAGEDY

[JoeB131]

Actually, home protection is kind of like home dentistry... most of you aren't competent to do it.

This is one of the most outrageously false statements ever posted on USMB. There have been countless situations where women and even children have picked up a firearm in the home and defended their family from harm.

The fact is, home defense is not like urban combat or guerrilla warfare. You're not engaging targets from 200 yards. The shots are in hallways and doorways with no where to move out of the line of fire and at point blank range. And that is why there have been volumes of cases where even women and children have stopped an intruder with deadly force despite having little or no training.

And there've been 'countless' cases where they've shot their own kids by mistakes or a domestic argument has gone too far.

In fact...

Deeper in the report are findings that challenge other common assumptions. The vast majority of the murders were not in conjunction with another felony being committed. A high percentage of the victims, 72 percent, knew their killer. And 54 percent involved an argument between the victim and the offender.

What the homicide numbers don't tell - chicagotribune.com

So quite the contrary, a gun in the home does not make you safer.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, once again lying to strengthen your position.

Kellerman debunked...........

Kellerman Debunked!

Do you have someting a little more credible than an e-mail that's been circulating on Comcast.

Because my brother sends me stuff all the time that proves that Obama was born in Keyna...

Because he saw it on an e-mail someone sent him.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Those other countries didn't create a subculture... Take the Chicago types out of the equation and compare population numbers for better results.

What Chicago Types are those? People who live in big cities? Minorities? Gang members?

Guess what, all those industrialized nations have the same problems we do.

What they don't have is the ability of any asshole to get a hold of a gun.

They'll resort to using Bats, Knives, whatever.. Killers are Killers.

They are a subculture created for the sake of votes and the push for the agenda.

You do know what Raum Emanual is doing don't you?

 

[JoeB131]

Those other countries didn't create a subculture... Take the Chicago types out of the equation and compare population numbers for better results.

What Chicago Types are those? People who live in big cities? Minorities? Gang members?

Guess what, all those industrialized nations have the same problems we do.

What they don't have is the ability of any asshole to get a hold of a gun.

They'll resort to using Bats, Knives, whatever.. Killers are Killers.

They are a subculture created for the sake of votes and the push for the agenda.?

You really think that there is a "killer" constinuency out there? REally? Seriously?

What creates a large criminal class in this country is that we have a Prison-industrial complex that feeds on cheap labor provided by prisons. So we put people in prison for no good reason. And then we make it really easy for them to get guns after they've been brutalized for a few years.

You do know what Raum Emanual is doing don't you?

Running Chicago in an effective way?

Emanuel poll shows Chicagoans happy with the job he

Half the 600 likely voters surveyed last month thought the city was moving in the right direction, up from 31 percent who felt Chicago was moving in the right direction in Sept. 2010 when Richard M. Daley was still mayor, according to a memo obtained by the Sun-Times.

Emanuel’s approval rating stands at 70 percent, down from 79 percent shortly after he took office. But Emanuel’s political organization told supporters that 70 percent is among the highest ratings in the country for a local political leader in this economy.

 

[daveman]

Get enough anecdotes together and they make up statistics. Which is EXACTLY what Kellerman did.

Now the lame Gun Fetishist counterargument is that Kellerman didn't count all the times that a gun scared away a bad guy. WHich I guess is true. But it didn't count all the times a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun, or a depressed person considered shooting himself but put the gun away.

But when you hear a Gun Fetishist cry about how Kellerman has been debunked, what they are realy saying is "Waaaaahhhhh, I don't want it to be true!"

The reality is, most bad guys who broke into a home do it when no one is home or when they think no one is home.

If that lets you live with your contention that innocent, law-abiding people should not be allowed to protect themselves.

Actually, home protection is kind of like home dentistry... most of you aren't competent to do it.

Here's the thing, I don't think banning guns at this point would be practical. We have too many out there and people are too used to having them.

But putting laws into place so crazy people like Holmes and Loughner can't get them so easily.. yeah, that we ought to do.

The two reasons you Fetishists give for wanting a gun are kind of silly.

A gun in the home is more a danger to you than a bad guy is. Kellerman proved this, as does any examination from even your own life, as I've shown.

The other reason you give, so some day you can overthrow the gummit, is equally silly. The "gummit" willl always have more guns, better guns and when they do come for you, it's because your neighbors wanted them to take you out. You were frightening their children.

Still bitterly clinging to Kellerman's crap, I see. Of course, that's only because it fits your emotion-based argument.

 

[daveman]

If that lets you live with your contention that innocent, law-abiding people should not be allowed to protect themselves.

Actually, home protection is kind of like home dentistry... most of you aren't competent to do it.

Here's the thing, I don't think banning guns at this point would be practical. We have too many out there and people are too used to having them.

But putting laws into place so crazy people like Holmes and Loughner can't get them so easily.. yeah, that we ought to do.

The two reasons you Fetishists give for wanting a gun are kind of silly.

A gun in the home is more a danger to you than a bad guy is. Kellerman proved this, as does any examination from even your own life, as I've shown.

The other reason you give, so some day you can overthrow the gummit, is equally silly. The "gummit" willl always have more guns, better guns and when they do come for you, it's because your neighbors wanted them to take you out. You were frightening their children.

Joe, once again lying to strengthen your position.

Kellerman debunked...........

Kellerman Debunked!

The left sure does hang their hat on lousy science, don't they?

 

[JoeB131]

Still bitterly clinging to Kellerman's crap, I see. Of course, that's only because it fits your emotion-based argument.

No, it's a statistical based argument. For every time a gun was used to kill a bad guy, 43 times it was used in an accident, sucide or domestic dispute to kill someone.

Now, the emotional based argument is "Well, yeah, but you don't count all the times a bad guy was scared off by a gun." Which is true, but you don't count all the times a domestic abuse threatened his family with a gun, either.

Now you are the the one with the "emotional" based argument. Edited, when in fact that gun puts them in far more danger than either of those do.

 

[JoeB131]

Edited

What does any of this have to do with Communism? It actually shows your lack of credibility. The best, we are having an argument of Keynesian vs. Supply Siders... and when it is appropriate more than which is better. Sometimes a hammer is the best solution, sometimes a screwdriver is.

Now, to the point, do I believe that the government is as pure as the driven snow? Nope. Do I think those occassions when they've had to come in to take guns from people by force, they usually have a good reason? Um, yeah, more often than not. Ruby Ridge were a bunch of crazed white supremists, and Waco were a bunch of pedophile cultists. How they handled it was a bit screwed up, but their reasons for going in were pretty valid.

Now all that said, I've never advocated ending private gun ownership. Quite the contrary, I've said it would be impractical to do so. But tightening up the rules for who can buy them and when, so you don't have crazy people getting them... why that kind of makes sense to me.

Beause when I hear about a Holmes or a Loughner or Seung-Hui Cho who everyone around them knew was insane, but somehow, they were able to buy guns and lots of ammo, and you guys all act like this is how it should be, I just have to scratch my head.

 

[daveman]

Still bitterly clinging to Kellerman's crap, I see. Of course, that's only because it fits your emotion-based argument.

No, it's a statistical based argument. For every time a gun was used to kill a bad guy, 43 times it was used in an accident, sucide or domestic dispute to kill someone.

Now, the emotional based argument is "Well, yeah, but you don't count all the times a bad guy was scared off by a gun." Which is true, but you don't count all the times a domestic abuse threatened his family with a gun, either.

Now you are the the one with the "emotional" based argument. Edited, when in fact that gun puts them in far more danger than either of those do.

It's stats with an agenda -- which means it's useless.

Even Kellerman backed off his ludicrous 43-to-1 finding.

 

[JoeB131]

Still bitterly clinging to Kellerman's crap, I see. Of course, that's only because it fits your emotion-based argument.

No, it's a statistical based argument. For every time a gun was used to kill a bad guy, 43 times it was used in an accident, sucide or domestic dispute to kill someone.

Now, the emotional based argument is "Well, yeah, but you don't count all the times a bad guy was scared off by a gun." Which is true, but you don't count all the times a domestic abuse threatened his family with a gun, either.

Now you are the the one with the "emotional" based argument. Edited, when in fact that gun puts them in far more danger than either of those do.

It's stats with an agenda -- which means it's useless.

Even Kellerman backed off his ludicrous 43-to-1 finding.

Do you have a link where he "backed off". Because I've seen studies from him where he repeated his studies in other cities and got pretty much the same results...

I'm also not clear on what "agenda" Kellerman supposedly had. It seems like whenever someone says, "Err, maybe everyone having guns isn't such a good idea", you guys go direct to the ramparts.

It seems you take the Second Amendment the way the ACLU takes the first amendment. You'll defend any extreme rather than give an inch.

I believe there are common sense limitations to everything.

Common sense. People like Holmes should never be able to buy a gun. If that means everyone else has to go through a bit more red tape, I think we should all learn to live with that.

 

[newpolitics]

The left is "outraged" about Aurora, Colorado and looking to ban weapons, yet support Obama's policies on this issue...

The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.

Report cites killings blamed on non-deported illegals - Washington Times

Are we supposed to imprison people for crimes they haven't committed yet?

Did you know that illegal immigration is illegal? Edited.

C'mon, you're equivocating on the meaning of illegal in this thread. This OP is addressing crimes that don't simply involve existing in the wrong part of the world without the right papers, but violent crimes or actions against others. Existing in a place as an illegal is not an overt action against someone else. It is a different kind of crime altogether.

 

[daveman]

Are we supposed to imprison people for crimes they haven't committed yet?

Did you know that illegal immigration is illegal? Edited.

C'mon, you're equivocating on the meaning of illegal in this thread. This OP is addressing crimes that don't simply involve existing in the wrong part of the world without the right papers, but violent crimes or actions against others. Existing in a place as an illegal is not an overt action against someone else. It is a different kind of crime altogether.

And yet -- it's still a crime.

Some people excuse it. I don't.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, taking bets on this latest attrocity in Wisconsin. Don't know the name of the shooter or what his reasons were yet, but as it unfolds, I'll bet this...

We are going to find out two things about the guy who did it.

1) We are going to find out almost everyone around him knew he was insane.

2) We are going to find out it was waaaaay too easy for him to get a gun.

 

[daveman]

Hey, taking bets on this latest attrocity in Wisconsin. Don't know the name of the shooter or what his reasons were yet, but as it unfolds, I'll bet this...

We are going to find out two things about the guy who did it.

1) We are going to find out almost everyone around him knew he was insane.

2) We are going to find out it was waaaaay too easy for him to get a gun.

Before we find out about the shooter, it will be claimed he's a conservative who listens to Rush.

And gun-haters will gleefully stand on the bodies of the victims to advance their agenda of disarming law-abiding people.

 

[JoeB131]

What if he actually is a Rush fan?

YOu see, funny thing about the Sihk Community. Because their men wear turbans, people with low levels of education often confuse them with Muslims...

But I'm not speculating on that part, yet. He might be a member of the congregation who just flipped out.

 

[daveman]

What if he actually is a Rush fan?

YOu see, funny thing about the Sihk Community. Because their men wear turbans, people with low levels of education often confuse them with Muslims...

But I'm not speculating on that part, yet. He might be a member of the congregation who just flipped out.

Uh huh. Just speculating. Sure.

 

[bodecea]

Hey, taking bets on this latest attrocity in Wisconsin. Don't know the name of the shooter or what his reasons were yet, but as it unfolds, I'll bet this...

We are going to find out two things about the guy who did it.

1) We are going to find out almost everyone around him knew he was insane.

2) We are going to find out it was waaaaay too easy for him to get a gun.

Before we find out about the shooter, it will be claimed he's a conservative who listens to Rush.

And gun-haters will gleefully stand on the bodies of the victims to advance their agenda of disarming law-abiding people.

Well, there's already a thread where the OP states it was a government plot.

 

[Foxfyre]

The sad fact is that in at least several states, a disproportionate number of prisoners held in overcrowded jails and prisons are illegals who committed crimes in this country.

At least in several states, a disproportionate number of bar fights, burglaries, drug trafficking, assault, rape, and gang activity involves illegals.

At least in several states, illegals are not only taking jobs that Americans WOULD do, but they are doing so illegally (under the table, etc.) and thereby depressing wages for many others trying to win contracts to do the work.

At least in several states, illegals are a disproportionate number of patients clogging emergency rooms--most of whom will receive that medical care free of course--and form a disproportionate number of children in special education classes, and receiving other government services for the poor and indigent.

At least in several states, illegals are using a number of aliases, floating addresses, and numerous social security numbers to avoid detection. So they're using your social security number and thereby padding your social security account and that's a good things you say? Well wait until that social security number is attached to a number of traffic accidents or illegal activities or compromising medical records. Is that okay?

Make them all illegal and problem solved you say? All that accomplished in the 1980's when three million illegals were given amnesty was to put a huge neon flashing sign over America: "Ya'll come and if you lay low for just a little while, they'll let you stay!" So now we have 12 to 20 million more illegals. Make them legal and the next round will be 60 to 80 million.

How many of the world's poor and uneducated do you think we can take with no controls and no regulation before we look like the pitiful countries all those folks escaped from?

 

[JoeB131]

The sad fact is that in at least several states, a disproportionate number of prisoners held in overcrowded jails and prisons are illegals who committed crimes in this country.

At least in several states, a disproportionate number of bar fights, burglaries, drug trafficking, assault, rape, and gang activity involves illegals.

At least in several states, illegals are not only taking jobs that Americans WOULD do, but they are doing so illegally (under the table, etc.) and thereby depressing wages for many others trying to win contracts to do the work.

At least in several states, illegals are a disproportionate number of patients clogging emergency rooms--most of whom will receive that medical care free of course--and form a disproportionate number of children in special education classes, and receiving other government services for the poor and indigent.

At least in several states, illegals are using a number of aliases, floating addresses, and numerous social security numbers to avoid detection. So they're using your social security number and thereby padding your social security account and that's a good things you say? Well wait until that social security number is attached to a number of traffic accidents or illegal activities or compromising medical records. Is that okay?

Make them all illegal and problem solved you say? All that accomplished in the 1980's when three million illegals were given amnesty was to put a huge neon flashing sign over America: "Ya'll come and if you lay low for just a little while, they'll let you stay!" So now we have 12 to 20 million more illegals. Make them legal and the next round will be 60 to 80 million.

How many of the world's poor and uneducated do you think we can take with no controls and no regulation before we look like the pitiful countries all those folks escaped from?

Besides your facts about illegals are horrifically wrong. (They actually avoid trouble because they know they can be deported.)

We don't look like those countries because of illegals, we are looking like that because the rich people worshipped by the right have the same mentality - they never have enough, and you often have too much. So they've been on a 30 year quest to dismantle the middle class, and we see the result.

Want to end the illegal problem? Start confiscating the property of the rich people who hire them.

 

[P@triot]

Edited

What does any of this have to do with Communism? It actually shows your lack of credibility. The best, we are having an argument of Keynesian vs. Supply Siders... and when it is appropriate more than which is better. Sometimes a hammer is the best solution, sometimes a screwdriver is.

Now, to the point, do I believe that the government is as pure as the driven snow? Nope. Do I think those occassions when they've had to come in to take guns from people by force, they usually have a good reason? Um, yeah, more often than not. Ruby Ridge were a bunch of crazed white supremists, and Waco were a bunch of pedophile cultists. How they handled it was a bit screwed up, but their reasons for going in were pretty valid.

Now all that said, I've never advocated ending private gun ownership. Quite the contrary, I've said it would be impractical to do so. But tightening up the rules for who can buy them and when, so you don't have crazy people getting them... why that kind of makes sense to me.

Beause when I hear about a Holmes or a Loughner or Seung-Hui Cho who everyone around them knew was insane, but somehow, they were able to buy guns and lots of ammo, and you guys all act like this is how it should be, I just have to scratch my head.

Except that not one of them had a history of mental illness on record. Not one of them. So once again we see the irrational, misinformation of the idiot liberal come to the surface. Everybody[/I] supports keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness. Everybody. So bringing that up is just plain retarded and the desperate attempt by the oppresive left to justify an ideology which cannot be justified.

Like I said, be a man for once in your life and replace one of your hammers with a sickle so we can have an honest conversation for once. You stand firmly rooted in the corner of communism. Start from their and then we can have a conversation about the policies.