Another "Good Guy" with a gun murders family and friends in Phoenix Home

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

What the **** do you think the function of a gun is? To play music? To make an ice cream sandwich?

I use my firearms for recreational purposes and for having the ability to provide for defense if I need it. Also, as it says in in the Constitution they are "necessary for the security of a free state".

“Security” in the context of preserving the states' national guards, not authorizing 'overthrowing' a Federal government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to be 'tyrannical.'

 

[2aguy]

poor usage of the word "destroy"..., therefore i believe you are a ******* idiot !

What the **** do you think the function of a gun is? To play music? To make an ice cream sandwich?

The function of a gun is to save the life of the user.....and in the United States that typically means that in 54% of times a gun is used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack and save lives, the gun isn't even fired....

Again, that's absolute bullshit. A gun fires a projectile at high speed. It's function is to penetrate. Penetration has nothing to do with "defense" -- it's offense. Defense involves reaction to something already present. You're entitled to your opinion but not to your own dictionary.

And again, undocumented ipse dixit stats for the sake of composition fallacies make absolutely no point.

The purpose of a gun is to save the life of the user...how it functions is irrelevant to the fact that it's purpose is to save a life.......and in many cases it doesn't even need to be fired to fulfill that purpose....

Jesus Christ, enough with the propaganda bullshit, will ya? You're a ******* idiot. Every time you talk, you are saying less than nothing. Your words are like negative numbers....they create a positive in the opposite direction. Those of us who are fiercely supportive of gun rights do not need your stupidity to argue our case. Because you're such a ******* retard, you're really just making their case easier.

A firearm is a tool, much like a match. The purpose of a match is to start fires. Sure, the reason the owner might want to start a fire might be to get a campfire roaring and cook the evening's dinner. The purpose of a gun is to destroy things. The owner's interest in destruction might be self defense. But the purpose of the gun is destruction.

Saying that the purpose of a gun is to save the owner's life is like saying that a match is a nutritional aide.

Yes.....well ******* moron...thanks for the contribution....and **** off...with all due respect...moron...

 

[Pogo]

[

What the **** do you think the function of a gun is? To play music? To make an ice cream sandwich?

I use my firearms for recreational purposes and for having the ability to provide for defense if I need it. Also, as it says in in the Constitution they are "necessary for the security of a free state".

What YOU use your firearms for is irrelevant. You took my quote out of context by stripping that context out so you could pretend it's about something else, which is dishonest.

Here it is restored:

Anyone who says otherwise is a ******* idiot.

You NEVER pull out a gun unless you are ready to destroy something. You NEVER point a gun at something you aren't ready to destroy.

poor usage of the word "destroy"..., therefore i believe you are a ******* idiot !

I made the relevant origination point real big so it stands out. Change my context again and I'll do it again, even bigger.

 

[Pogo]

Again, that's absolute bullshit. A gun fires a projectile at high speed. It's function is to penetrate. Penetration has nothing to do with "defense" -- it's offense. Defense involves reaction to something already present. You're entitled to your opinion but not to your own dictionary.

And again, undocumented ipse dixit stats for the sake of composition fallacies make absolutely no point.

A gun is a tool, Dipstick. Mine are for defense not offense. Playing semantics doesn't change it. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.

The issue there isn't about buying a gun. The issue there is what the word defense means. I'm not the assclown playing semantics; I'm the one pointing it out.

Now feel free to demonstrate how words mean the opposite of what they mean, dumbass.

You are the one confusing things. My purpose is defense. If I shoot someone legally it is defense. Go argue with the courts.

Uh no, I'm not the one confusing the issue -- the poster's claim was that the purpose of a gun is defensive ---- not the purpose of Iceweasel or any other person.

It's right there in the thread history. Want me to quote it?

Fitting that a guy named "weasel" wants to play musical chairs with the history of what was posted and is still on the record.

You are talking aout of both sides of your ass. You said:

"A gun fires a projectile at high speed. It's function is to penetrate. Penetration has nothing to do with "defense" -- it's offense. Defense involves reaction to something already present."

So a gun can be used defensively. A defensive tool. Play your games at the playground.

Horseshit. Firing a gun at something is offense, period. Whether your target is also firing at you is irrelevant; what you have there is offense against offense. If your assailant fired a gun and it was deflected by a bulletproof vest, THAT would be "defense".

DUMBASS.

 

[2aguy]

poor usage of the word "destroy"..., therefore i believe you are a ******* idiot !

What the **** do you think the function of a gun is? To play music? To make an ice cream sandwich?

The function of a gun is to save the life of the user.....and in the United States that typically means that in 54% of times a gun is used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack and save lives, the gun isn't even fired....

Again, that's absolute bullshit. A gun fires a projectile at high speed. It's function is to penetrate. Penetration has nothing to do with "defense" -- it's offense. Defense involves reaction to something already present. You're entitled to your opinion but not to your own dictionary.

And again, undocumented ipse dixit stats for the sake of composition fallacies make absolutely no point.

The purpose of a gun is to save the life of the user...how it functions is irrelevant to the fact that it's purpose is to save a life.......and in many cases it doesn't even need to be fired to fulfill that purpose....

Jesus Christ, enough with the propaganda bullshit, will ya? You're a ******* idiot. Every time you talk, you are saying less than nothing. Your words are like negative numbers....they create a positive in the opposite direction. Those of us who are fiercely supportive of gun rights do not need your stupidity to argue our case. Because you're such a ******* retard, you're really just making their case easier.

A firearm is a tool, much like a match. The purpose of a match is to start fires. Sure, the reason the owner might want to start a fire might be to get a campfire roaring and cook the evening's dinner. The purpose of a gun is to destroy things. The owner's interest in destruction might be self defense. But the purpose of the gun is destruction.

Saying that the purpose of a gun is to save the owner's life is like saying that a match is a nutritional aide.

Well, ******* moron.....since you just come on here to attack me and not actually debate the anti gunners **** you again....stupid ****....how about doing some leg work in these debates instead of being like most clueless assholes and not adding to the debate...but simply criticizing me.....moron, twit and **** head....

Have a nice day...

 

[2aguy]

A guns purpose is to preserve the life of the user....how it achieves that is secondary to it's actual purpose....and in the context of actual self defense, it can achieve that purpose often without firing a shot........

In fact.....guns on the hips of police preserve order even though 99% of them will never leave their holsters.......dittos the U.S. military.........of all the service members, a gun does not need to be fired to achieve the preservation of the life of it's user........

 

[2aguy]

I know about 1.6 million people each year who stop or prevent violent criminal attack, like this one, and save lives who are very glad we have 2nd amendment rights......they were not raped, robbed, stabbed, beaten or murdered because of their 2nd Amendment rights.......vs. this one guy........

Yeah I'm sure you know 1.6 million people. Your address book must have its own external drive.

When you "save lives" by taking out a threat -- whether that's in a war, a crime, or a personal encounter -- you're committing a counteroffensive. That's a counterattack, not a "defense". It's still destructive force as opposed to constructive. You're basically fighting a small-scale war that you hope you win.

War represents, and will always represent, the ultimate human abject failure. Strutting around with a firearm for "defense" is the personal equivalent of an MIC arming its nation to the teeth. There's no way out of that morass. It's a dead end.

More than half of gun defenses in the United States do not involve firing a shot.....the criminals when confronted by an armed victim breaks off the attack......the purest form of defense.....

Uhhhh -- don't think so. But did you know 81.5846262% of all unlinked statistics posted on message boards are just made up out of thin air?

And here is FBI table 8 showing gun murders are on the decline....

FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Once again, same old tired Composition Fallacy. You're cherrypicking two numbers and declaring one is the cause of the other -- as if they have no context around them. Correlation is not equal to causation.

Time to drag this one out again.... reposted from past threads, A Tale of Two Cities:


I give you two cities, split by a body of water, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul or San Francisco and Oakland, but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 population.

Across the bridge in the same time period, a mile away, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.


What's going on here?


One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor?
It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 (Windsor) have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."​

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)​

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Sorry...doesn't work...typical democrat bullshit......there are many places where one place is a crime ridden cess pool and just a short distance away you have nirvana......look at a college campus....we have several in Chicago that are surrounded by nightmare neighborhoods...but the campuses are very safe.....

Of course the truth is not something the anti gunners can afford.......

 

[Pogo]

Yeah I'm sure you know 1.6 million people. Your address book must have its own external drive.

When you "save lives" by taking out a threat -- whether that's in a war, a crime, or a personal encounter -- you're committing a counteroffensive. That's a counterattack, not a "defense". It's still destructive force as opposed to constructive. You're basically fighting a small-scale war that you hope you win.

War represents, and will always represent, the ultimate human abject failure. Strutting around with a firearm for "defense" is the personal equivalent of an MIC arming its nation to the teeth. There's no way out of that morass. It's a dead end.

More than half of gun defenses in the United States do not involve firing a shot.....the criminals when confronted by an armed victim breaks off the attack......the purest form of defense.....

Uhhhh -- don't think so. But did you know 81.5846262% of all unlinked statistics posted on message boards are just made up out of thin air?

And here is FBI table 8 showing gun murders are on the decline....

FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Once again, same old tired Composition Fallacy. You're cherrypicking two numbers and declaring one is the cause of the other -- as if they have no context around them. Correlation is not equal to causation.

Time to drag this one out again.... reposted from past threads, A Tale of Two Cities:


I give you two cities, split by a body of water, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul or San Francisco and Oakland, but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 population.

Across the bridge in the same time period, a mile away, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.


What's going on here?


One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor?
It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 (Windsor) have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."​

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)​

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Sorry...doesn't work...typical democrat bullshit......there are many places where one place is a crime ridden cess pool and just a short distance away you have nirvana......look at a college campus....we have several in Chicago that are surrounded by nightmare neighborhoods...but the campuses are very safe.....

Of course the truth is not something the anti gunners can afford.......

There's nothing "Democrat" about that post -- it's a simple contrast of cultures. There's nothing there even about politics. Did you even read the post you quoted?

704 to one. That's not a coincidence.

 

[Pogo]

A guns purpose is to preserve the life of the user....how it achieves that is secondary to it's actual purpose....and in the context of actual self defense, it can achieve that purpose often without firing a shot........

In fact.....guns on the hips of police preserve order even though 99% of them will never leave their holsters.......dittos the U.S. military.........of all the service members, a gun does not need to be fired to achieve the preservation of the life of it's user........

When I went to visit Ireland I noticed the police do not carry guns. During that trip I read an article in a Limerick paper noting with alarm that a murder had been committed, and it was already the 34th murder that year.

For the entire country. And this was in August. Some of our cities, let alone the entire country, can hit that mark in a month.

Again, cultural contrast. Ireland is no stranger to violence but it isn't swimming in gun fetishism.

 

[2aguy]

More than half of gun defenses in the United States do not involve firing a shot.....the criminals when confronted by an armed victim breaks off the attack......the purest form of defense.....

Uhhhh -- don't think so. But did you know 81.5846262% of all unlinked statistics posted on message boards are just made up out of thin air?

And here is FBI table 8 showing gun murders are on the decline....

FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Once again, same old tired Composition Fallacy. You're cherrypicking two numbers and declaring one is the cause of the other -- as if they have no context around them. Correlation is not equal to causation.

Time to drag this one out again.... reposted from past threads, A Tale of Two Cities:


I give you two cities, split by a body of water, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul or San Francisco and Oakland, but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 population.

Across the bridge in the same time period, a mile away, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.


What's going on here?


One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor?
It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 (Windsor) have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."​

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)​

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Sorry...doesn't work...typical democrat bullshit......there are many places where one place is a crime ridden cess pool and just a short distance away you have nirvana......look at a college campus....we have several in Chicago that are surrounded by nightmare neighborhoods...but the campuses are very safe.....

Of course the truth is not something the anti gunners can afford.......

There's nothing "Democrat" about that post -- it's a simple contrast of cultures. There's nothing there even about politics. Did you even read the post you quoted?

704 to one. That's not a coincidence.

No, it is culture......considering if the criminals 1 mile away wanted guns to murder people it would be very easy for them to get them....right? Just a mile away and a river to cross, a bridge and a tunnel.......right? So access to guns isn't a deciding factor in the murder rate.........other factors are...

But hey...why point out the truth when you can write an anti gun article.....

 

[2aguy]

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

The real difference...the crime culture......

 

[Clementine]

Anyone who says otherwise is a ******* idiot.

You NEVER pull out a gun unless you are ready to destroy something. You NEVER point a gun at something you aren't ready to destroy.

poor usage of the word "destroy"..., therefore i believe you are a ******* idiot !

Sometimes the presence of a gun is all it takes to stop a criminal. True you should be prepared to shoot if necessary, but many times just letting them know you could is enough. I would say most hope that guns are a deterrence more than anything. Criminals don't want to die any more than we do so they'll back off if they know you are ready to defend yourself. That is why I support gun rights. Makes would-be home invaders, rapists or murderers think twice because they don't know if the person or someone else who might come along is carrying. In gun free zones, they must feel pretty safe. It is most definitely an advantage to the criminal to know they are the only one armed.

 

[2aguy]

There's nothing "Democrat" about that post

There is the "democrat" thing that Detroit has been run by democrats for decades......

 

[2aguy]

A guns purpose is to preserve the life of the user....how it achieves that is secondary to it's actual purpose....and in the context of actual self defense, it can achieve that purpose often without firing a shot........

In fact.....guns on the hips of police preserve order even though 99% of them will never leave their holsters.......dittos the U.S. military.........of all the service members, a gun does not need to be fired to achieve the preservation of the life of it's user........

When I went to visit Ireland I noticed the police do not carry guns. During that trip I read an article in a Limerick paper noting with alarm that a murder had been committed, and it was already the 34th murder that year.

For the entire country. And this was in August. Some of our cities, let alone the entire country, can hit that mark in a month.

Again, cultural contrast. Ireland is no stranger to violence but it isn't swimming in gun fetishism.

Again....criminal culture....very different in Ireland vs. detroit, chicago, New York.......

 

[Clementine]

No, it is culture......considering if the criminals 1 mile away wanted guns to murder people it would be very easy for them to get them....right? Just a mile away and a river to cross, a bridge and a tunnel.......right? So access to guns isn't a deciding factor in the murder rate.........other factors are...

But hey...why point out the truth when you can write an anti gun article.....

Liberals must think the whole world is as easy to manipulate as their own. They think a gun will turn the average person into a killer. They won't acknowledge that killers are already dangerous. Guns might make it easier, but there are so many other weapons. Statistics prove that knives are used more than guns. Facts irritate the shit out of those who have an agenda and are determined to keep the discussion within narrow limits to support their narrative.

The argument from the left fails on so many levels. One thing remains true and that is the way tyrants cannot function with an armed public. It has never ended well when governments took away guns from the people.

 

[Pogo]

There's nothing "Democrat" about that post

There is the "democrat" thing that Detroit has been run by democrats for decades......

More abject horseshit. ALL cities are run by Democrats, and guess what -- they don't get to expound on political philosophies in City Hall. They get to decide which day the trash is picked up and when the snowplows run. Your desperate deflection attempt is absurd.

 

[Pogo]

A guns purpose is to preserve the life of the user....how it achieves that is secondary to it's actual purpose....and in the context of actual self defense, it can achieve that purpose often without firing a shot........

In fact.....guns on the hips of police preserve order even though 99% of them will never leave their holsters.......dittos the U.S. military.........of all the service members, a gun does not need to be fired to achieve the preservation of the life of it's user........

When I went to visit Ireland I noticed the police do not carry guns. During that trip I read an article in a Limerick paper noting with alarm that a murder had been committed, and it was already the 34th murder that year.

For the entire country. And this was in August. Some of our cities, let alone the entire country, can hit that mark in a month.

Again, cultural contrast. Ireland is no stranger to violence but it isn't swimming in gun fetishism.

Again....criminal culture....very different in Ireland vs. detroit, chicago, New York.......

Again, gun culture. We have it; most of the world does not. And with the immature rants of little boys who never grew out of playing GI Joe running around that won't change any time soon.


Everybody has criminals.

 

[Flash]

[


“Security” in the context of preserving the states' national guards, not authorizing 'overthrowing' a Federal government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to be 'tyrannical.'

Not according to the Supreme Court. The 2nd is an individual right. The Heller case pretty well put that silliness about the National Guard to rest.

"Security of a free state" can apply to all kinds of things including making tyrants accountable for their actions.

Check out the Battle of Athens if you would like an example of that.

 

[Flash]

[

Again, gun culture. We have it; most of the world does not. And with the immature rants of little boys who never grew out of playing GI Joe running around that won't change any time soon.

Everybody has criminals.

I don't know what you mean by "gun culture".

I have over 50 firearms and I use them all in a legal manner. Some Obama voting shithead in ghetto Chicago probably only has one stolen cheap handgun and he uses it for a crime.

It a culture of crime, not a gun culture.

 

[Pogo]

[

Again, gun culture. We have it; most of the world does not. And with the immature rants of little boys who never grew out of playing GI Joe running around that won't change any time soon.

Everybody has criminals.

I don't know what you mean by "gun culture".

I have over 50 firearms and I use them all in a legal manner. Some Obama voting shithead in ghetto Chicago probably only has one stolen cheap handgun and he uses it for a crime.

It a culture of crime, not a gun culture.

"Gun culture" means a value system where never-grew-up GI Joe boys run around posting threads about the "right to bear arms" as if it's a baby's pacifier. "Gun culture" means the hairtrigger society where any argument can be settled by brute force. "Gun culture" means an environment where you can't flip through a TV channel lineup without seeing 18 people shot in two minutes. "Gun culture" means the idea of firearms being marketed to children as soon as they can walk, and some of them never grow up. "Gun culture" means an endless diarrhea of video games (successor to comic books) based on hunting down a human subspecies and blowing them away in fantasy. "Gun culture" means school students, moviegoers, church congregations, anyone anywhere, put at risk of a sniper acting out that fantasy, after which we note it's nothing unusual.

"Gun culture" is a value system. One where blowing things away is more important than Life. And it's by definition fucked up.

When your value system is blowing things away, then that value will be shared among criminals and cops. There's no way it can't be.