Explain this. This guy shoots a Firefighter during the attempt to murder someone else....released in less than 3 years, gets illegal gun, again.

[AZrailwhale]

That is hilarious. Really. It is.

Many of Georgia prisons aren’t air conditioned. The guards let violence happen claiming their job is to keep the crooks in. Not protect them.

Want to know the real reason those things are in prisons? The air con and tvs and decent food? It saves guards lives.

You see the prisoners are less likely to riot if there is decent food. They are less likely to riot if there is a tv on. This means the guards are less likely to be beaten or murdered. You realize that the guards are vastly outnumbered right?

So by taking away those things. You would need to increase the numbers of guards. This would be necessary to insure safety of the aforementioned guards. If you don’t the guards would be swamped and the prisoners would escape.

Guards who are hurt are unavailable for the next shift. So a few small incidents quickly lead to a large incident. A riot.

So instead of spending the money on air conditioning and food you spend it on guards and medical care for them. Same money. Worse result. In fact you probably end up spending more on guards and medical.

Do you know how a helicopter flies? It is an incredibly difficult aircraft to manage. Each motion requires another. If you adjust the cyclic you have to adjust the tail rotor. Doing so requires an adjustment to the collective. That requires another adjustment of the cyclic. That is why a pilot is always moving the controls in the videos. Each movement requires an adjustment of the others to keep things in balance.

Social questions are similar. There is no simple solution. If you make prisons worse you require more security. More security means greater numbers of injuries. That means more money to pay people to take the risks of guarding the prisoners. That means more money for payroll. That means more money for medical. And it goes on and on.

The prisons we have are run that way for efficiency and expense. It is cheaper to buy a TV and some air conditioning than it is to hire a bunch of guards to keep the prisoners in line. It is cheaper to buy some decent food than it is to deal with riots.

Getting tough hasn’t worked yet. But the get tough on crime folks always pretend that this time it will. Why? The tent jail that the Sheriff went with in Phoenix didn’t work. Crooks didn’t stop committing crimes. The crime rate was unchanged. It should have worked right? It was miserable and awful and it did nothing.

All that happened was more deputies meant more money for that. Saved on buildings. But not a bit of difference for the total costs.

So why not examine things to see what does work?

Getting tough worked for thousands of years. The less tough we get, the less effective our prisons get for their actual purpose of PUNISHING prisoners.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That is hilarious. Really. It is.

Many of Georgia prisons aren’t air conditioned. The guards let violence happen claiming their job is to keep the crooks in. Not protect them.

Want to know the real reason those things are in prisons? The air con and tvs and decent food? It saves guards lives.

You see the prisoners are less likely to riot if there is decent food. They are less likely to riot if there is a tv on. This means the guards are less likely to be beaten or murdered. You realize that the guards are vastly outnumbered right?

So by taking away those things. You would need to increase the numbers of guards. This would be necessary to insure safety of the aforementioned guards. If you don’t the guards would be swamped and the prisoners would escape.

Guards who are hurt are unavailable for the next shift. So a few small incidents quickly lead to a large incident. A riot.

So instead of spending the money on air conditioning and food you spend it on guards and medical care for them. Same money. Worse result. In fact you probably end up spending more on guards and medical.

Do you know how a helicopter flies? It is an incredibly difficult aircraft to manage. Each motion requires another. If you adjust the cyclic you have to adjust the tail rotor. Doing so requires an adjustment to the collective. That requires another adjustment of the cyclic. That is why a pilot is always moving the controls in the videos. Each movement requires an adjustment of the others to keep things in balance.

Social questions are similar. There is no simple solution. If you make prisons worse you require more security. More security means greater numbers of injuries. That means more money to pay people to take the risks of guarding the prisoners. That means more money for payroll. That means more money for medical. And it goes on and on.

The prisons we have are run that way for efficiency and expense. It is cheaper to buy a TV and some air conditioning than it is to hire a bunch of guards to keep the prisoners in line. It is cheaper to buy some decent food than it is to deal with riots.

Getting tough hasn’t worked yet. But the get tough on crime folks always pretend that this time it will. Why? The tent jail that the Sheriff went with in Phoenix didn’t work. Crooks didn’t stop committing crimes. The crime rate was unchanged. It should have worked right? It was miserable and awful and it did nothing.

All that happened was more deputies meant more money for that. Saved on buildings. But not a bit of difference for the total costs.

So why not examine things to see what does work?

Arpaio’s tent city wasn’t designed to punish inmates, it was designed to lower incarceration costs, just like dying the jockey shorts reduced costs by reducing theft of under ware by prisoners exiting the jails. Both worked.

 

[AZrailwhale]

So what you are saying is that we should investigate ways in which we can reduce crime. Getting tough on crime which has been the standard response for 40+ years hasn’t worked. When are we going to come up with a different answer?

Never. So since we won’t even consider different answers. And we won’t even investigate options. We won’t spend the money for more prisons and jails. All we will do is bitch, moan, and complain.

Nah. I’m going to keep on with the myopic view. It is either that or get behind the proven lie that if we only got tough on criminals we could dramatically reduce crime.

What do you mean getting tough on crime doesn’t work? Three Strikes laws cut crime rates dramatically. They were never overturned by the courts, politicians decided to repeal them because they appeared to be harsh. It’s a simple truth, a criminal in prison can not commit crimes against innocent civilians. He will continue to commit crimes against other inmates and even prison staff, but no solution is perfect. You can’t rehabilitate criminals because every one of them doesn’t believe that he will be caught for his crimes. It’s the same thing with drunks and drug abusers, they can’t be rehabilitated until they realize that they have a problem and want to help themselves. Criminals commit crimes because it’s easier than working and it’s a demonstrable fact that they rarely get caught. I’m an inveterate speeder because I know I can speed hundreds or thousands of times before getting caught, and when I do get caught, the punishment is a slap on the wrist. A small fine from the court. Criminals think the same way about robbing, assaulting and murdering.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You have to admit that abortions are the least efficient means of birth control, and certainly raises legitimate ethical issues. Maybe that shouldn't be the go-to for birth control?

That's all I am saying. Just from an efficiency standpoint, a pill costs next to nothing. An abortion is at least $5,000.

I believe abortions are bad, but sometime they are the least bad option from a list of bad options. In my opinion, they shouldn’t be illegal, but should be hard to get.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you mean getting tough on crime doesn’t work? Three Strikes laws cut crime rates dramatically. They were never overturned by the courts, politicians decided to repeal them because they appeared to be harsh.

Not to mention how successful Stop and Frisk was in NYC. Yes, the court stopped it but while it was policy, it greatly reduced violent crime and murders, especially those committed against black citizens.

 

[Dadoalex]

No, he didn't get it from somebody like me. If somebody steals my car, the person that uses my car in a bank robbery is not my fault. They committed a crime against me to obtain my car; I didn't give it to them.

Yes, he did.

Unless you can point out the Illegal Gun Corp the he got his gun from you and yours.

It is a fact.
Denying it does no good.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, he did.

Unless you can point out the Illegal Gun Corp the he got his gun from you and yours.

It is a fact.
Denying it does no good.

Or as is increasingly common, he got it from another criminal who smuggled it over the border. Smugglers will carry anything that is profitable. Cigarettes, liquor, drugs, guns, slaves, immigrants you name the illegal item and a criminal will smuggle it to you.
Why do you think fifty to seventy foot go fast boats are called cigarette boats? It’s because they were developed to smuggle cigarettes in Europe in the immediate post WWII era.

 

[Dadoalex]

Or as is increasingly common, he got it from another criminal who smuggled it over the border. Smugglers will carry anything that is profitable. Cigarettes, liquor, drugs, guns, slaves, immigrants you name the illegal item and a criminal will smuggle it to you.
Why do you think fifty to seventy foot go fast boats are called cigarette boats? It’s because they were developed to smuggle cigarettes in Europe in the immediate post WWII era.

So where did the gun come from before being smuggled?

That's right sweetie. A law abiding gun owner.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, he did.

Unless you can point out the Illegal Gun Corp the he got his gun from you and yours.

It is a fact.
Denying it does no good.

Most of the illegal guns are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. Straw buyers is what the FBI cites as the main source of illegal guns. As for stolen guns, they drive their vehicles through the windows of gun shops and take all they can before the police come.

 

[2aguy]

I'm not answering a hypothetical. I can come up with hypotheticals that prove my point. So what? The fact is Europeans have better gun laws. And nothing you say will change that fact.

Yes....you refuse to answer questions that go to the heart of the matter....

Here....two examples......followed by the questions..

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face.

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered.

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save

Would you take the guns away from these women? Do you prefer they suffer the attack, or is it better that they had guns to save their lives.....?

 

[2aguy]

Nazi's were not socialists. If you knew the history of the Nazi party, you'd know Nazi's were not socialists. Next thing you'll be trying to convince us China is a republic. LOL! But hey, thanks for showing your ignorance.

Pretty sure there arent any Europeans worried about being a part of a mass murder because their country has strict gun laws. They'd laugh at you for saying that.

Again, ask any sane European if they'd rather do it our way. They'd laugh in your face.

Moron...the nazis were socialists.....

Those governments in Europe were part of mass murder back in the 1930s and 40s, you idiot...it already happened.....and they took the guns away from their people in the 1920s.

The Europeans are facing a future of gun violence....that had a respite because of World War 2 and it's effect on their socieities...but their immigrant drug gangs need guns to protect their illegal drug trade....

 

[2aguy]

Sure, that's why the Nazi's imprisoned socialists. Were the Nazis Socialists?

"In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. "

Moron.....that lame argument....

So when the drug cartels murder other members of rival cartels...does that mean they aren't actually drug cartels because they are murdering other cartel members?

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

And more...

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”

Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex, since everyone knows the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Adolf Hitler’s gang were men of the left, while debatable, is compelling.
The dispute on Nazi origins resurfaced through the confluence of brawling alt-right and antifa fringe movements and recent alternative histories by Dinesh D’Souza and others. The vitriol and lack of candor it produces from supposedly fact-driven academics and media is disturbing, if unsurprising. They stifle dissent on touchy subjects to maintain their narrative and enforce cultural hegemony.

However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest minds of their time. Opinions from the period perhaps carry more weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the uniquely heinous Nazi crimes.
------

Also, Adolf Hitler Loved Karl Marx
It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

Nazi and Communist Hatred of Each Other Was Brotherly
Despite this, there’s a persistent claim that Nazis and communists hated each other, and mention that the Nazis persecuted socialists and oppressed trade unions. These things are true, but prove little. The camps’ hatred stemmed from familiarity. It was internecine, the nastiest kind.

The Nazis and communists were not only in a struggle for street-war supremacy, but also recruits. These recruits were easily turned, because both sides were fighting for the same men. Hayek recalls

Are you really this stupid....

The national socialists in Germany were fighting the international socialists for power in Germany.....you idiot....

 

[2aguy]

LOL thinking I'd ever apologize to a slob like you. Per usual, your ilk always takes a complex issue and boils it down to dark skinned people being the problem. I should have expected that would come up eventually. Nothing to do with poverty, nothing to do with the fact anybody, including felons, can EASILY get guns in Indiana. Nothing to do with the largest demand for illegal drugs of any country in the world. Nope, it's gotta be their skin color that causes all of it. That and the fact you fail to realize more crime happens in more populated areas.

Moron...they easily get guns no matter what gun control laws you idiots push...because they break the law...they use people with clean records to get around background checks, you moron, or they steal the guns........you are the moron.....

 

[2aguy]

The ignorance lies with those who think that "illegal guns" just magically appear in criminals hands.
Those guns started out in the hands of a "law abiding gun owner.
Place responsibility where it lay.
With people like you who demand we make criminals getting guns as easy as possible.

The responsibility lays with the guy who broke the fucking law and stole someone elses property..

What is it with you morons....you want to release violent gun criminals who actually do the crime and murder, and then you want to punish to the fullest extent of the law, the people who didn't break any laws...

You people are fucking insane....

 

[DukeU]

The ignorance lies with those who think that "illegal guns" just magically appear in criminals hands.

When you don't have a good argument, just make up something..........


Please show me where I or anyone else has ever said guns "magically" appear in criminal's hands.

I'll wait.

 

[john doe 101]

Yes....you refuse to answer questions that go to the heart of the matter....

Here....two examples......followed by the questions..

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face.

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered.

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save

Would you take the guns away from these women? Do you prefer they suffer the attack, or is it better that they had guns to save their lives.....?

I'm sure those were lovely anecdotes. What if her attackers had guns instead of bats and she pulled a gun on them? Probably wouldnt be around to tell that story, now would she? See I can do the hypothetical/anecdotal thing as well.

What you dont realize is I've been held up at gunpoint by two robbers myself. Fortunately, I didnt have a gun or I probably wouldnt be sitting here typing this now. And to this day I still dont own a gun or feel the need to own a gun. So they took my credit cards and bank cards and used them. So what? I got all my money reimbursed. You, on the other hand, would probably pull out your weapon in that situation with the odds against you, thinking you can take out 2 armed people at the same time, just like they do it in the movies, right? LOL!

The fundamental difference between you and me is you would rather live in a society where everyone is armed at all times and there continues to be violent crime where as I'd rather live in a society where we figure out solutions to limit violent crime and reduce the amount of guns in our society. I'm never going to convince you of my position, and you sure as hell arent going to convince me of yours.

 

[john doe 101]

Moron...the nazis were socialists.....

Those governments in Europe were part of mass murder back in the 1930s and 40s, you idiot...it already happened.....and they took the guns away from their people in the 1920s.

The Europeans are facing a future of gun violence....that had a respite because of World War 2 and it's effect on their socieities...but their immigrant drug gangs need guns to protect their illegal drug trade....

Nazi's were socialists because you call me a moron. If you say so.

Pretty sure Europeans are just fine with their current restrictive gun laws.

Yes, the Euro's have had a 75 year respite. They've been doing it wrong all along, and now at some future unknown time, they are gonna get what they deserve because of their restrictive gun laws. Europeans have never seen brown skinned drug gangs ever, so they have no idea what they are in for and because they've never had to deal with violent drug gangs, they havent the slightest clue how to deal with them without everyone having a gun to protect themselves.

Is that pretty much the story you are trying to sell?

 

[john doe 101]

Moron.....that lame argument....

So when the drug cartels murder other members of rival cartels...does that mean they aren't actually drug cartels because they are murdering other cartel members?

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

And more...

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”

Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex, since everyone knows the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Adolf Hitler’s gang were men of the left, while debatable, is compelling.
The dispute on Nazi origins resurfaced through the confluence of brawling alt-right and antifa fringe movements and recent alternative histories by Dinesh D’Souza and others. The vitriol and lack of candor it produces from supposedly fact-driven academics and media is disturbing, if unsurprising. They stifle dissent on touchy subjects to maintain their narrative and enforce cultural hegemony.

However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest minds of their time. Opinions from the period perhaps carry more weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the uniquely heinous Nazi crimes.
------

Also, Adolf Hitler Loved Karl Marx
It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

Nazi and Communist Hatred of Each Other Was Brotherly
Despite this, there’s a persistent claim that Nazis and communists hated each other, and mention that the Nazis persecuted socialists and oppressed trade unions. These things are true, but prove little. The camps’ hatred stemmed from familiarity. It was internecine, the nastiest kind.

The Nazis and communists were not only in a struggle for street-war supremacy, but also recruits. These recruits were easily turned, because both sides were fighting for the same men. Hayek recalls

Are you really this stupid....

The national socialists in Germany were fighting the international socialists for power in Germany.....you idiot....

The Mises Institute is a Neo-Confederate institute that if you recall, had the member Jeff Deist gave a speech in which he used Nazi terminology "blood and soil". The Mises Institute has also been called a "sales funnel for the White Nationalist branch of the alt-right".

You didnt think I'd look up any of your sources? Imagine that. Nazi's defending Nazi's. Good to know you're evidently one of them because seemingly you're eating their shit up.

 

[john doe 101]

Moron...they easily get guns no matter what gun control laws you idiots push...because they break the law...they use people with clean records to get around background checks, you moron, or they steal the guns........you are the moron.....

Yet in Europe they have gone laws that are even more restrictive and they seemingly work.

So because people are going to break the law anyway, laws are just useless I guess. Is that your premise?

 

[2aguy]

I'm sure those were lovely anecdotes. What if her attackers had guns instead of bats and she pulled a gun on them? Probably wouldnt be around to tell that story, now would she? See I can do the hypothetical/anecdotal thing as well.

What you dont realize is I've been held up at gunpoint by two robbers myself. Fortunately, I didnt have a gun or I probably wouldnt be sitting here typing this now. And to this day I still dont own a gun or feel the need to own a gun. So they took my credit cards and bank cards and used them. So what? I got all my money reimbursed. You, on the other hand, would probably pull out your weapon in that situation with the odds against you, thinking you can take out 2 armed people at the same time, just like they do it in the movies, right? LOL!

The fundamental difference between you and me is you would rather live in a society where everyone is armed at all times and there continues to be violent crime where as I'd rather live in a society where we figure out solutions to limit violent crime and reduce the amount of guns in our society. I'm never going to convince you of my position, and you sure as hell arent going to convince me of yours.

Hey genius, it wouldnt matter. She would still have had her gun to shoot back. When faces with armed victims criminals tend to run, not fight, especially when bullets can hit them too.

you didnt answer the question. Do you take their guns and let them get raped and murdered?
Answer that question.

I have stories of criminals with guns too….and the victims still managed to draw their weapons and shoot back….so you have no argument other than to say you prefer women are raped and murdered instead of them using guns to stop it