Joe the Plumber says sorry about your kids but

[Defiant1]

Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns

Joe, no one wants your guns. What we need to better checks on gun purchases. This kid had 400 rounds left. He could have taken out a couple hundred more people.

Shouldn't this give some pause even to the most ardent gun owners? I own multiple guns and enjoy shooting and hunting, when I have time. But I can see that there needs to be changes to a system that is out of control.

Both the mental health system and the firearms purchase system need to be rethought. The police have to be better trained at identifying people who may be on the edge of another massacre. Sadly, it is only a matter of time until something similar happens again. Just pray that the victims are not members of your family or friends.

Name one law that could have been made that would have prevented this event?

Ahhhh, you beat me to it.

The question no one will answer.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns

Joe, no one wants your guns. What we need to better checks on gun purchases. This kid had 400 rounds left. He could have taken out a couple hundred more people.

Shouldn't this give some pause even to the most ardent gun owners? I own multiple guns and enjoy shooting and hunting, when I have time. But I can see that there needs to be changes to a system that is out of control.

Both the mental health system and the firearms purchase system need to be rethought. The police have to be better trained at identifying people who may be on the edge of another massacre. Sadly, it is only a matter of time until something similar happens again. Just pray that the victims are not members of your family or friends.

Name one law that could have been made that would have prevented this event?

Ahhhh, you beat me to it.

The question no one will answer.

It won't be answered because a law could not have been made that would have prevented it.

These morons forget he didn't just use a gun to kill, he also used a knife and an automobile.

 

[Stephanie]

Hopefully next time it will be his kids shot and killed. Bet he'll change his tune then.

^^Compassionate liberal.

Where is the compassion from the ******* conservatives about this? All they care about is their so called right to bear arms. They don't give a shit about the innocent people who were murdered a few days ago.

kinda like your all's compassion for abortion? If he had said we need to ban abortions you all would be howling a different tune
spare us your faxu outrage..

 

[Darkwind]

Hopefully next time it will be his kids shot and killed. Bet he'll change his tune then.

^^Compassionate liberal.

Where is the compassion from the ******* conservatives about this? All they care about is their so called right to bear arms. They don't give a shit about the innocent people who were murdered a few days ago.

An absolute lie.

What you meant to say was that we don't care the way you do by going off all crazed and punishing people for crimes committed by others.

 

[Stephanie]

Liberals always find's a way to punish the responsible gun owners because of a few who should 've beeen locked up in a mental hospital in the FIRST PLACE... but they took that away because it would hurt their feeling's and against their "civil right's"..so you all have a hand in this too...so you can get off your soap box

but they have no problems stepping on others second amendment rights that's guaranteed in our constitution

 

[Meister]

The right wingers care more about their guns than about saving lives. That is apparent.

You dont have the slightest clue what you're talking about. That is apparent.

I haven't seen any compassion for the lives lost, have you?

This much compassion from you on this subject and yet you're all for abortion.

I do not understand it.

 

[Meister]

Where is the compassion from the ******* conservatives about this? All they care about is their so called right to bear arms. They don't give a shit about the innocent people who were murdered a few days ago.

We don't make laws or change the constitution for emotional reasons.

Actually, the only ones operating off of "emotion" are the gun nuts.

The two reasons you guys give for wanting guns.

1) So you can plug that scary negro in a hoody!

2) So you can plug that Gummit Agent.

Reality- guns are almost never used to foil crimes, and if you ever got into a shooting match with the government, they'd win and everyone would pat them on the back for taking you out because you were scaring the children.

Oh BS, Joe......

According to the authors of Cato’s recently released study on how often guns are used by citizens to prevent crime, “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.” In a study of more than 5,000 news reports over an eight-year period, Clayton Cramer and David Burnett showed that the mere presence of an armed citizen thwarts many crimes, even beyond those that are reported by the police and subsequently printed in the newspaper.

Questions the study was designed to answer were, “When ordinary Americans use guns in self-defense, what is the nature of that use? How frequently do these events occur and what are the consequences?”

Of the 5,000 incidents reported between October 2003 and November 2011, 488 involved home burglaries along with another 1,227 incidents where intruders fled when confronted by armed inhabitants. Another 34 concerned pizza delivery drivers defending themselves, along with 172 animal attacks. Concerns about an attacker taking a gun away from an armed victim were proven invalid, with 227 incidents reported where the intended victim disarmed his attacker, while just 11 attackers disarmed his victim. Twenty-five rapes were avoided by armed victims. Two hundred and one attacks were neutralized by armed senior citizens (over age 65, according to the authors).
Guns Used in Self-defense

In a new Cato Institute paper, Clayton Cramer and David Burnett review the controversy over how often Americans use guns in self-defense each year. Estimates range from about 100,000 to more than 2 million, and the surveys used to generate the numbers are subject to weaknesses that plausibly lead to undercounting or exaggeration. Cramer and Burnett's contribution, an analysis of defensive gun uses reported in the press during an eight-year period, does not resolve this issue. As they emphasize, the vast majority of defensive gun uses seem to be encounters where brandishing a weapon suffices to interrupt or prevent a crime. When no shots are fired and no one is injured or killed, the incident may not even be reported to the police, let alone be deemed newsworthy. Still, Cramer and Burnett's analysis, based on a randomly drawn sample of nearly 5,000 incidents, sheds light on the details of cases that are considered interesting enough to report in a newspaper.

The most common situation, accounting for 1,227 of 4,669 incidents, was a "home invasion," where intruders try to force their way into a home they know to be occupied. Burglaries were also common, accounting for 488 incidents. In 285 cases, the defender had a concealed carry permit, and most of those incidents occurred in public. There were very few cases where a permit holder became involved in an avoidable dispute that turned deadly because he had a gun—a scenario that figures prominently in arguments against nondiscretionary permit laws. Also contrary to the warnings of gun controllers, victims in this sample were rarely disarmed by their attackers; the reverse happened more than 20 times as often. Criminals took away defenders' guns in 11 out of 4,669 incidents, and the defender ended up dead despite being armed in 36 incidents, less than 1 percent of the time. Cramer and Burnett describe many specific cases (mapped by Cato here) in which a gun prevented robbery, rape, serious injury, or death, illustrating their general point that policy makers need to take these benefits into account instead of focusing exclusively on criminal uses.
Cato Paper Shows How Guns Thwart Crimes and Save Lives - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Unkotare]

All they care about is their so called right to bear arms.

What do you mean by "so-called"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What happened to Progressive telling us how we had nothing to fear because their Gun Control laws were just like Hitlers?

 

[g5000]

This kid had 400 rounds left. He could have taken out a couple hundred more people.

Nope. He was surrounded by the cops.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where is the compassion from the ******* conservatives about this? All they care about is their so called right to bear arms. They don't give a shit about the innocent people who were murdered a few days ago.

We don't make laws or change the constitution for emotional reasons.

Actually, the only ones operating off of "emotion" are the gun nuts.

The two reasons you guys give for wanting guns.

1) So you can plug that scary negro in a hoody!

2) So you can plug that Gummit Agent.

Reality- guns are almost never used to foil crimes, and if you ever got into a shooting match with the government, they'd win and everyone would pat them on the back for taking you out because you were scaring the children.

I have no illusions of fighting the government.

And guns do prevent crimes sometimes by being fired and sometimes by merely being drawn where the threat of being shot is enough to deter a criminal.

No one carries guns to protect anyone but themselves.

You'll be happy to hear that if I ever see a person getting beat up that I won't pull my weapon. The way I see it if that guy decided to walk around defenseless that it was his choice to be defenseless and to depend on the cops to protect him. I would call the cops for him but that's about it.

 

[Katzndogz]

This kid had 400 rounds left. He could have taken out a couple hundred more people.

Nope. He was surrounded by the cops.

How many gallons of gas did he have in the car? He could have run over a bunch more people.

If one person had a gun early on, he would have been taken out right away and no one would have been hurt.

 

[Unkotare]

The way I see it if that guy decided to walk around defenseless that it was his choice to be defenseless and to depend on the cops to protect him. I would call the cops for him but that's about it.

Why am I not surprised at this coming from the likes of you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The way I see it if that guy decided to walk around defenseless that it was his choice to be defenseless and to depend on the cops to protect him. I would call the cops for him but that's about it.

Why am I not surprised at this coming from the likes of you?

My concealed carry permit is for self defense not public defense.

If you choose to be defenseless should you not live with the consequences?

The way I see it I am respecting your decisions to depend on the cops to protect you so I'll call them for you and hope they show up in time to save you.

 

[JoeB131]

We don't make laws or change the constitution for emotional reasons.

Actually, the only ones operating off of "emotion" are the gun nuts.

The two reasons you guys give for wanting guns.

1) So you can plug that scary negro in a hoody!

2) So you can plug that Gummit Agent.

Reality- guns are almost never used to foil crimes, and if you ever got into a shooting match with the government, they'd win and everyone would pat them on the back for taking you out because you were scaring the children.

Oh BS, Joe......

According to the authors of Cato’s recently ....]

okay, guy, whenever you use shills like the Cato Institute, you have no credibility.

The reality.

According to the FBI, there were only 201 cases where a civilian used a firearm to kill in self defense.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

OUt of some 32,000 firearm deaths, only 201 cases.

And most of those were some kind of domestic violence, not some crazed maniac trying to burst into a home (which really doesn't happen that much, anyway.)

The fact is, a gun inthe home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. THis was proven by the Kellerman Study, and the NRA's immediate response was to get Congress to NEVER STUDY THIS ISSUE AGAIN!

 

[Meister]

Actually, the only ones operating off of "emotion" are the gun nuts.

The two reasons you guys give for wanting guns.

1) So you can plug that scary negro in a hoody!

2) So you can plug that Gummit Agent.

Reality- guns are almost never used to foil crimes, and if you ever got into a shooting match with the government, they'd win and everyone would pat them on the back for taking you out because you were scaring the children.

Oh BS, Joe......

According to the authors of Cato’s recently ....]

okay, guy, whenever you use shills like the Cato Institute, you have no credibility.

The reality.

According to the FBI, there were only 201 cases where a civilian used a firearm to kill in self defense.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

OUt of some 32,000 firearm deaths, only 201 cases.

And most of those were some kind of domestic violence, not some crazed maniac trying to burst into a home (which really doesn't happen that much, anyway.)

The fact is, a gun inthe home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. THis was proven by the Kellerman Study, and the NRA's immediate response was to get Congress to NEVER STUDY THIS ISSUE AGAIN!

Joe, you never cease to be entertaining with your two step spin.

You stated that "guns are almost never used to foil a crime".
I clearly gave credible evidence to refute your statement.
You come back with some FBI homicide figure.
So I can only assume that you think that the only crime there is, is homicide.
A very poor attempt of deflection on your behalf.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe, you never cease to be entertaining with your two step spin.

You stated that "guns are almost never used to foil a crime".
I clearly gave credible evidence to refute your statement.
You come back with some FBI homicide figure.
So I can only assume that you think that the only crime there is, is homicide.
A very poor attempt of deflection on your behalf.

Uh, no, guy, the homicide stat is the only one that really matters here.

Not "Some guy asked me for my wallet and I chased him off with a gun'. that's not a good enough reason to let you have a gun.

How many times were guns used to prevent great bodily harm by killing the offender.

Not many, accordding to the FBI.

This is the load of shit the NRA sells you fools. The Gun makes your home less safe, not more safe.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The way I see it if that guy decided to walk around defenseless that it was his choice to be defenseless and to depend on the cops to protect him. I would call the cops for him but that's about it.

Why am I not surprised at this coming from the likes of you?

My concealed carry permit is for self defense not public defense.

If you choose to be defenseless should you not live with the consequences?

The way I see it I am respecting your decisions to depend on the cops to protect you so I'll call them for you and hope they show up in time to save you.

I think Unko misread your intention. He's usually spot on with things like this.

I agree, I'm not going to shoot just because I'm armed. I will locate the shooter an then begin determining the side factors such as who is around him if I miss, who is around me if he shoots back, can I get three shots off cleanly and on mark?

But back to the OP. You sent your kids to a place thinking a "No Gun Zone" sign was going to protect them from a psycho, it didn't work. But taking my rights away when I wasn't there to defend your kids isn't going to make your kids safer either. If you live by the "No Gun Zone" you die by the "No Gun Zone". Helpless and defenseless made the victims easy pickings. Yet the left thinks more defenseless people is the answer.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

[

Joe, you never cease to be entertaining with your two step spin.

You stated that "guns are almost never used to foil a crime".
I clearly gave credible evidence to refute your statement.
You come back with some FBI homicide figure.
So I can only assume that you think that the only crime there is, is homicide.
A very poor attempt of deflection on your behalf.

Uh, no, guy, the homicide stat is the only one that really matters here.

Not "Some guy asked me for my wallet and I chased him off with a gun'. that's not a good enough reason to let you have a gun.

How many times were guns used to prevent great bodily harm by killing the offender.

Not many, accordding to the FBI.

This is the load of shit the NRA sells you fools. The Gun makes your home less safe, not more safe.

So preventing someone from stealing your wallet somehow doesn't count as preventing a crime? Does a rape victim chasing off an assailant not count either?

And why are we going to eliminate all crimes prevented with guns and only count homicides with guns for our rational in determining the value of having a gun? That's kind stupid.

Also, by your own guidelines, guns used to prevent any harm to yourself are not only discounted but the fact you didn't kill the assailant also counts against you as a reason to own one.

 

[Meister]

[

Joe, you never cease to be entertaining with your two step spin.

You stated that "guns are almost never used to foil a crime".
I clearly gave credible evidence to refute your statement.
You come back with some FBI homicide figure.
So I can only assume that you think that the only crime there is, is homicide.
A very poor attempt of deflection on your behalf.

Uh, no, guy, the homicide stat is the only one that really matters here.

Not "Some guy asked me for my wallet and I chased him off with a gun'. that's not a good enough reason to let you have a gun.

How many times were guns used to prevent great bodily harm by killing the offender.

Not many, accordding to the FBI.

This is the load of shit the NRA sells you fools. The Gun makes your home less safe, not more safe.

Hey, you don't get to move the goalposts because you had your ass handed to you.

Some guy may have killed you for your wallet, joe.
And yes, a gun can make your house safer.....too bad you didn't read the article I sourced regarding home invasions....oh what's the use, I'm not here to fix stupid, that's up to your family.

Having read your three posts in this discussion, you really don't have a clue with what your talking about.