The downside of carrying a firearm...

[Vox]

Right, a culture of "gun fetishism" doesn't cause violence. Given that society's fascination with violence, it causes gun violence specifically.

I think it just makes finding the means to channel the buildup of the aggression easier, but is not a CAUSE of the aggression per se. Secondary stimulation, most likely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So we should disarm everyong because of one nut case ?

Should we ban cars when a mental case drives into a crowd?

One nut case???? This happens frequently. And the automobile argument is stupid, but what should we expect.

Feel free to provide examples of all the legal gun owners shooting people over disagreements in theaters, just be sure to leave out the examples that include the people you think should be exempt from the laws, like cops.

 

[KGB]

Shit yea
We could have had a shootout in the theater....that would have fixed things

A shithead with anger issues was packing and an innocent man lost his life

Most probably we won't have even an altercation as the guy opposing the texting would be polite in asking to stop and the guy texting would either politely explain it 's a 3 yo he is texting and he will be done in a sec, or just go outside.

Your idiocy about the "shootout" is just an idiocy ecasue everywhere else except the stupid gun free zones people are packing but there are no shootouts.

except in the stupid gun free zones.

Get them out.

So now, "guns don't kill people" and "people don't kill people" --- no, in fact it's gun-free zone signs that kill people.

no, it's the evil intent that kills people. Guns are merely the way they do it. Taking away my rights isn't going to make you safe from evil. When will you libs ever understand this?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some of your wittier wags here want to blame it on "gun free zone" signs.

You tell me which makes sense.

...

They stab each other to death in the gun-free societies.

As a mass stabbing as well. or find the other way to cause massive damage.

if the steam pressure is generated - the valve might have a different shape and construction, but it still would be found and yanked off one way or the other.

True. If we had a sword-fetish society, we'd have sword murders and occasional mass swordings.

The unfortunate difference is, you can't sit in a tower, or in an upper floor of a mall, or in the trunk of a car, and sword people.

For that matter, you couldn't mass-assault a roomful of Amish girls with the firearm technology of the 18th century either.

Do you plan on getting help for your delusions anytime soon?

Just asking because, if you do, I will need to find another target for ridicule. Personally, I prefer that you don't, it is fun mocking the mentally ill.

To everyone, feel free to take insult because I am mocking an idiot by referring to him as mentally ill.

By the way, are you aware that, on the technology scale, long range weapons predate swords?

Also, anyone that thinks a blunderbuss is less lethal than a 9 mm pistol has never seen the business end of a blunderbuss.

 

[Pogo]

Saying it could have been anyone as a reason for policy is ridiculous.

And before you deny any alternative motive for posting this other than some gun control argument to ban concealed carry weapons let's cut to the chase.

Implying that everyone with a carry permit is a potential murderer and then using that false statement for a argument for gun control is the same as saying every driver is a potential drunk driver who will kill someone so we should suspend everyone's license.

Adding a firearm to the equation turned what would have been a shoving and shouting match into a fatality

You support disarming police? If not, I suggest you think about how you want to rephrase your stupidity.

By the way, did anyone check to see if the theater has a no guns allowed sign? A cop, being above the law, would just flash a badge and get a pass, but most civilians would prefer to see the movie rather than argue the law.

"Police" does not automatically mean "armed".
Unless you live in a gun fetish culture of course.

 

[KGB]

Instead, an unarmed person relieved the nutter of his weapon.

Too bad it was AFTER a bad guy with a gun stopped a good guy with a phone.



I'll do more than "imply". I will state outright that anyone with a gun is a potential killer/murderer. Being ready and able to kill is the only reason to carry a gun.

The silly ass comparison to cars is just nonsense because, among other reasons, we pass laws to mitigate the damages that can be done by cars and drunks. We also require that drivers have insurance or can prove they can pay for the damage they cause.

Most hand carry firearms do not have the stopping power to afford a carrier the license to kill. Most are for self defense, you ignorant shit stain on society. That said, most who carry a gun reserve the right TO DEFEND themselves, not kill someone else. But to a moron, there is no difference between the initiation of violence and defending oneself.

Because you can not fix stupid. You just can not.

The real point is that guns are too far out of control in the US, and there are just too many around, to be able to do any real sort of gun control. The NRA has terrorized the populace so much for so long that there probably won't be any going back to a saner society where people don't feel the need to be packing.

the NRA hasn't terrorized anyone. It's a lack of recognition that evil exists in this world. If anything, the NRA has been brutally honest about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True. If we had a sword-fetish society, we'd have sword murders and occasional mass swordings.

The unfortunate difference is, you can't sit in a tower, or in an upper floor of a mall, or in the trunk of a car, and sword people.

For that matter, you couldn't mass-assault a roomful of Amish girls with the firearm technology of the 18th century either.

No, but you can take fertilizer, diesel fuel, and make a bomb that would kill 168 people and injury 680. No gun needed.

Diesel fuel? In the 18th century?

Would you prefer kerosene?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The left needs to get over the fear of guns. The chances of one of you getting hurt in a movie theatre, or in any place where people congregate is extremely low.

Do you feel lucky?

We have three times the murder rate of any other industrialized nation

No we do not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Adding a firearm to the equation turned what would have been a shoving and shouting match into a fatality

You support disarming police? If not, I suggest you think about how you want to rephrase your stupidity.

By the way, did anyone check to see if the theater has a no guns allowed sign? A cop, being above the law, would just flash a badge and get a pass, but most civilians would prefer to see the movie rather than argue the law.

He is no cop......he is a an excop playing tough guy in a movie theater

His carrying a gun turned a minor disagreement into a fatality

He wasn't just a cop, he was SWAT. That means that, by law, he is specifically allowed to carry a weapon anywhere, even onto an aircraft.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Adding a firearm to the equation turned what would have been a shoving and shouting match into a fatality

You support disarming police? If not, I suggest you think about how you want to rephrase your stupidity.

By the way, did anyone check to see if the theater has a no guns allowed sign? A cop, being above the law, would just flash a badge and get a pass, but most civilians would prefer to see the movie rather than argue the law.

"Police" does not automatically mean "armed".
Unless you live in a gun fetish culture of course.

The only people that **** guns are progressive assholes.

 

[Pogo]

No, but you can take fertilizer, diesel fuel, and make a bomb that would kill 168 people and injury 680. No gun needed.

Diesel fuel? In the 18th century?

Would you prefer kerosene?

There's hardly a difference, but inasmuch as Rudolf Diesel wouldn't even be born until 8 decades after the Constitution, it seemed unlikely.

 

[Pogo]

You support disarming police? If not, I suggest you think about how you want to rephrase your stupidity.

By the way, did anyone check to see if the theater has a no guns allowed sign? A cop, being above the law, would just flash a badge and get a pass, but most civilians would prefer to see the movie rather than argue the law.

"Police" does not automatically mean "armed".
Unless you live in a gun fetish culture of course.

The only people that **** guns are progressive assholes.

"**** guns"?

What in the wide world of **** does that mean?

 

[rightwinger]

No, but you can take fertilizer, diesel fuel, and make a bomb that would kill 168 people and injury 680. No gun needed.

Diesel fuel? In the 18th century?

Would you prefer kerosene?

Whale oil

 

[rightwinger]

The left needs to get over the fear of guns. The chances of one of you getting hurt in a movie theatre, or in any place where people congregate is extremely low.

Do you feel lucky?

We have three times the murder rate of any other industrialized nation

No we do not.

Afraid we do

Guns don't kill people.......people with guns kill people

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That was a woman actually.

The idea is not, and never has been, that "only" guns can kill. It's that (a) they make it so much easier, and (b) they're hawked continually by the testosterone-drowning NRA mentality to a culture already bent on violence. Guess where that combination leads.

My father was diagnosed has having the predisposition of a psychopath. Not only did he serve in Grenada and The Gulf War, he is a law abiding gun owner and NRA member. He's also a trained marksman. I mean he could have gone DC sniper on the entire neighborhood but he never did. He could have at any time turned his guns on me, my brother, his wife or my grandmother. To say that this culture is "bent on violence" is a misnomer. Criminals are "bent on violence" not law abiding gun owners (with the exception of a few very extenuating circumstances).

No, I'm talking big picture, not just crimes. Our values are those of violence. We've been at war somewhere or other for my entire lifetime, and I'm way older than you. That's a culture of violence. We play video games involving blowing things up and chopping heads off. That's a culture of violence. Every prime time TV lineup and most movies involve some kind of killing or beating or dismemberment. That's a culture of violence. Ingrained values that just glorify death and destruction at every turn.

Hell we even pave over our wetlands and forests and extinguish the flora and fauna therein just as we exterminated Native Americans. If that's not a culture of testosterone-huffing violence I don't know what is. Just look at the very next post after yours:

It's more than obvious you have no balls.

Your witness, counselor.

It’s more a matter of our society condoning violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution – be it corporal punishment in our schools or capital punishment in our prisons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Very true.....

Our society is suffering from the Gubmint gunning down 13,000 Americans a year

The 2nd amendment was about protecting Americans from redcoats and indians. Since neither is now a threat, the 2nd amendment is now obsolete.

Nope, the Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government can do, and one final option. Jefferson was very clear that he knew that ALL governments grow corrupt and he wanted to make sure that the citizens of this country had the means to remove an illegitimate government.

Jefferson was not the only Founding Father, and the Framers were never of one mind as to any aspect of the Constitution.

Which is why the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

And Second Amendment case law acknowledges a right to self-defense and the right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. By codifying an individual right of self-defense, the Second Amendment in no way authorizes armed rebellion against a Federal government subjectively perceived by some to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment, citizens first and foremost have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, to seek relief from government excess through the ballot box or the Federal courts, where citizens are not authorized to take it upon themselves to ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government without the consent of a majority of all the people of the Nation; to do so without the consent of the majority of the American people would be an act of treason and rebellion, not an act of ‘restoration.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Police" does not automatically mean "armed".
Unless you live in a gun fetish culture of course.

The only people that **** guns are progressive assholes.

"**** guns"?

What in the wide world of **** does that mean?

It seems a failed attempt at being ‘clever.’

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Diesel fuel? In the 18th century?

Would you prefer kerosene?

There's hardly a difference, but inasmuch as Rudolf Diesel wouldn't even be born until 8 decades after the Constitution, it seemed unlikely.

ANFO does not require diesel fuel, it just requires fuel oil. I think diesel makes a more stable mixture, but you can, theoretically, use jet fuel if you want.

Not actually sure about the chemistry there, so won't try to defend all of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Police" does not automatically mean "armed".
Unless you live in a gun fetish culture of course.

The only people that **** guns are progressive assholes.

"**** guns"?

What in the wide world of **** does that mean?

People with a gun fetish get off sexually on guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

Diesel fuel? In the 18th century?

Upper floor of a mall in the 18th century?

Trunk of a car in the 18th century?

I didn't propose those comparisons.
But they'll work to the same point.

What you actually said was: "True. If we had a sword-fetish society, we'd have sword murders and occasional mass swordings.

The unfortunate difference is, you can't sit in a tower, or in an upper floor of a mall, or in the trunk of a car, and sword people.

For that matter, you couldn't mass-assault a roomful of Amish girls with the firearm technology of the 18th century either."

I responded by pointing out that guns are not required to kill a large number of people.

My example is valid.