Jeanne Assam is a Hero - CCW saves lives!

Email Print posted by alphasigmookie 12/12/2007 04:11:50 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
http://www.thedenverchannel .com/news/14817480/detail.h tml

In the past few weeks there have been 2 mass shootings in the US.  In the first one...the mall in Omaha 8 people were killed before the shooter thankfully chose to take his own life.  The second one killed only 2 before he was engaged and taken down by legal concealed carry permit holder Jeanne Assam.  The second shooter had 3 guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition with him.  There were over 7000 people on the church campus that day.  How many would have died if a brave citizen with a gun had not been there?  Gun-Free zones are a suicidal maniacs playground.  Self-defense is a personal responsibility. 

< Can we put Bush on trial in Peru? | Classic Cenk: If you haven't seen it, it's new to you! >
 Display:
Jeanne Assam is a Hero - CCW saves lives! | 81 comments (81 topical, 0 hidden)
lol (none / 0)
"The second shooter had 3 guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition with him."

where did they all get there guns..

if we all had guns..lol

by Bungle on 12/12/2007 04:29:02 PM EST

not buying it (none / 0)
Wonder how that nut case that did the shooting at Virginia tech got ahold of those guns? Wonder how that nut case that shot up the mall got ahold of those guns?  Wonder how the nutter that had a history of being both violent and unstable that shot up the church  got ahold of those guns?

Americans are not responsible gun owners. They should be banned, then at least we wouldnt have to hear silly arguments about cars being dangerous too and even a spoon is a weapon.

She said GOD shot the guy.. He steadied her hand. Guess God was taking time off from picking winning football teams and players to shoot someone .

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/12/2007 07:24:59 PM EST

Hmmm (none / 0)
While we're at it, why don't we ban swords and knives as well?

http://news.sky.com/skynews /article/0,,91211-1296651,0 0.html

Welcome to Nerf world!

by alphasigmookie on 12/12/2007 09:48:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
probably because they are incredibly less dangerous.

People are much more inclined to use guns because they can do so from MUCH further away compared to close range weapons.

Guns give people far bigger balls than they could ever hope to imagine, or as Barney on the Simpsons put it after pulling out a gun "Ah, now there's the inflated sense of self-esteem."

Sure, I guess there may have been drive-by-swordings back in the day (i.e. chuck a sword from your horse) but something tells me there weren't all that frequent...or effective.

by ihavenobias on 12/12/2007 10:10:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
guns (none / 0)
Don't you think allowing the government to disarm its citizens to control them is a bad idea?

by acroso on 12/12/2007 10:19:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have mixed feelings (none / 0)
on gun control, partly because it's just not high on my list of priorities.

But I *will* say that the argument that we need them to protect ourselves against the government is absurd.

I know one of the conservative bunch said something about creating some explosive device the other day using a shotgun and something else.  Ha, ha, ha(!)...that's the appropriate reaction.

Even *if* you think you could stop people *trained* to kick your ass AND (trained to)shoot you from long distances (and with likely better strength and endurance), you'd have tanks to deal with, and body armor.

Oh let me guess, you'd make your homemade explosive device?  Ok then, hopefully you can also make a homemade rocket launcher with your shotgun and some baking soda, otherwise those overhead bombings will continue.

And that assumes a scenario in which our army turned against us, which I highly doubt.  But if you're talking about a *private* army, I'm a little more willing to listen.

by ihavenobias on 12/12/2007 11:06:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
government (none / 0)

The Government can never completely control you as long as you're armed. Yes they can kick down your door and kill, but you might even take one of them with you. They also can't really take you prisoner- because the end of the conflict is a final one.

 Without guns, the citizenry are just sheep.

by acroso on 12/12/2007 11:53:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Sheep or a Bear (with a gun) (none / 0)
both die just as easily vs trained military and tanks and bombs.

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 12:14:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Posse Comitatus (none / 0)

That's what Posse Comitatus is for. The military is supposed to be used for foreign enemies not patrolling the streets of Chicaco or New York. That law was repealed during the war on terror for some reason.

Anyways- still better to be armed against the government.

by acroso on 12/13/2007 12:20:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Iraq (none / 0)
It pains me to agree with Acroso, but I have to on this one.  For proof all you need to do is look at Iraq.  The insurgency has shown clearly how much havoc a small group of armed civillians can wreck on a much better trained and equiped military. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 12:51:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Except that (none / 0)
our military was MUCH less familiar with the area and language. 

And they had to be careful not to kill civilians (which may or may not apply in this incredibly unlikely scenario).

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 09:31:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mook and his silly syllogism (none / 1)
ACROSO: Don't you think allowing the government to disarm its citizens to control them is a bad idea?

No, I think it is a much better idea to have the CIA trade weapons to South American murderers and banditos for cocaine, and then process the cocaine into crack, and employ the crips and bloods to sell it on the streets of Compton, and finance them with high powered rifles and machine guns. Why can't we bring back the good old days, the 80's were so much fun. Not like today with all the whining liberals clamoring about rights for rapists and prisoners and little old ladies.

What's neat too is that eventually there is a trickle down effect, so that the machine guns and the crack don't just stay in Compton, eventually they filter down to small towns and high schools all across America, land of the free and home of the brave.

And then of course God Bless the NRA, which helps to ensure the rights of street gangs everywhere to high powered fully and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns. Don't the crips and the bloods and the latin kings and ms13 and the KKK and arian brotherhood and mass murderers everywhere have just as many second amendment rights as you and I?

Good for this lady for pluggin this crazy nutjob, but there are more holes in mook's logic than in a mountain of swiss cheese in the middle of the new york city subway system. For starters, he's extrapolating from the specific to the general and assuming that this ad hoc argument of fallacy of accident has any real bearing without context.

Wherever I go there could be a crazy nutjob with a gun ready to go on a killing spree.

Cops can't be everywhere and I wouldn't want them everywhere even if they could, and the only thing that can stop a crazy nutjob from going on a killing spree with a gun is someone else with a gun.

Therefore we should all have guns.

Mook would prolly make the distinction in the last line that we should all have the right to have guns, and then further his argument by saying we all do have the right (in a broad reading of the second amendment) and that he is simply reaffirming this right with an anecdotal incident, albeit one that is in the news currently and sure to get played up by the candidates. Did I hear photo op? Man, Rudy and Thompson are going to be knocking each other over to get in the frame with this broad. Er, sorry, American heroin. But not to put words in his mouth.

It is kind of a libertarian argument that cuts across party lines and is part of the self-reliance strain in American politics which has been used to justify everything from cannibalism in the original settlers to wiping out the plains Indian. Hoo! Wagon's West, Annie git yer gun!

And the main problem with it, as has already been pointed out here, and I don't mean to be redundant, is that more guns don't make us more safe they make us less safe, since the same laws that allow this fine upstanding American heroin to have her gun in the first place are the same ones that allow the nutjob to have his, and in general more guns make us less rather than more safe.

So I'm sure that the eventual on point message of the NRA wingnut right wing evango-fascists will be an emotional appeal. How would you feel if you were standing right next to these people, what if you were there, would you still be clamoring for gun control if she was about to pull out her pistol?  

Yay, how could you argue with a god fearing woman with a 45, she'll shrink all us liberal pansies down to squirrels holding our nutsacks, you can't make this stuff up, this s better press for the NRA than Charlton Heston in the Omega Man (the third of the four remakes of "I am Legend" based upon the 50's sci fi novel) plugging the homeless gangs with his rifle and looking for their "nest" which ironically enough turns out to be city hall. Kill "em all, kill 'em all!

Perhaps instead we could get our head out of the sand, and realize that there is a commonality between mass murderers who go postal with rifles and global warming (yes for you red blooded Texas red meat eating card carrying NRA members, I did just find the pinko-commie liberal holy grail). Perhaps there is a commonality, they are both increasing with alarming exponentially, and in both cases a large percentage of the population wants to pretend it is somehow natural. Perhaps, as in global warming, there are underlying forces causing these people to snap. Maybe just maybe we need to address some of these issues? Did people always go on these killing sprees? I'm not talking about 1000 years ago with swords, seems to me that gun technology hasn't improved so dramatically in the past say twenty or thirty years that somehow more and more people think, hey let me go to the mall and kill as many people as I can. I mean, when did this become so popular and fashionable an idea? Didn't our serial killers and mass murderers used to like to take their time, building up and doing all sorts of crazy shit with their victims? What the fuck happened to make the profile change so much? Is it really just the availability of the equipment via the NRA and their lobbying? 

by tiggerporn on 12/13/2007 05:43:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
a few points (none / 0)
"And the main problem with it, as has already been pointed out here, and I don't mean to be redundant, is that more guns don't make us more safe they make us less safe"

Why don't you ask the people in the UK how the feel about gun control making them "safe".  They have plenty of experience and it's not very good. 

"Did people always go on these killing sprees? "

The killing sprees are still vanishingly rare compared to other crime.  As I posted after the Omaha incident, my opinion is that it has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with wanting to get attention and become "famous".  I know that's hard to grasp, since every murder sends you liberals into a gun-grabbing tizzy. 

As for the comments about gans and guns, I hate to state the obvious, but how do you think we'll get rid of all their guns?  You think the criminals won't still find ways of getting them?  You think it'll work almost as well as "gun free zones" (ironically where most of the mass murders take place).

It has become abondantly clear to me that at least the radical left has lost all survival instinct.  There is no fight left in them in any way.  It is clear not only in their complete loathing of self-defense, but also in thier inability to stand up to and fight back against the republicans.

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 12:43:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Serious Question (none / 0)
What do you think about things like tazers and rubber bullets (or some other long range, non-lethal weapon)?

For example, what about this?

IMO, if you can knock someone out (literally or figuratively temporarily) without killing them, it's a win-win.

It's a bit of a false dichotomy to suggest it's either a Colt 45 or your bare hands.

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 01:27:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
thats to wacky (none / 0)
Nope as long as you can shoot something . Why bother with anything else. To suggest any alternatives would be very.. wacky liberal.

You know like suggesting using diplomacy and other tactics in leu of invading a sovereign country. Thats all wacky liberal stuff.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 04:55:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You dont have to be radical just have eyes (none / 0)
It has become abundantly clear to me that people who make statements like the radical left has lost the will to fight  are willfully ignorant.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 01:50:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought it was strange (none / 0)
that he used that statement in the context of also saying it "pained him to agree with Acroso" as if A was a radical liberal (as opposed to being a moderate liberal of course ;).

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 02:08:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A wako righty (none / 0)
lets get this straight, I dislike the wakco righties just as much as the wacko lefties. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 02:27:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
liberarians are wacky left or right (none / 0)
Lets get another thing straight. There is nothing "wacky" about sesnible gun laws.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 02:50:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Personal Responsibility (none / 0)
I guess we certainly would seem so to folks who are scared to death of personal responsibility and need their nanny government to take care of them. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 02:58:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's another false dichotomy (none / 0)
I could just as easily say "I guess we certainly would seem so to folks who are scared to death of social responsibility and think they should only care for their immediate family and friends as if they lived in tiny islands rather than actual communities."

I think we need both personal AND social responsibility.  One might even characterize that statement as "moderate" or "reasonable".

Besides, the republican party is not immune from the highest order of government intrusion, in fact, I'd say they are far worse in this regard.

Generally speaking, they want to tell you who you can have sex with (and what type of sex is ruled out, sodomy, etc.), who you can and can't marry, when you can die (euthanasia *and* death penalty, ironically) and lately, they want to listen to your phone calls (and do any other number of privacy/rights related intrusions).

It seems like many conservatives are just fine with Big Government IF it's on a personal level.  But when it comes to helping society in general, God forbid the government have any role.

In other words, you (not you specifically, speaking generally here) trust the government to decide if you can live or die (or if we can attack other countries and kill people, directly or indirectly) but you don't trust them with your health insurance or retirement fund?

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 03:31:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
liberals (none / 0)
 Liberals are supposed to neutor themselves to stop global warming- and becomes Vegans so who's worried about guns?

by acroso on 12/13/2007 03:46:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perfect (none / 0)
That's another fictional lose-lose situation I've seen by those that deny man-made global warming.

Let's see...on the one hand you have that damn hypocrite Al Gore, who *talks* tough about global warming but lives in a BIG house, sometimes eats meat, and flies in planes.

We should ignore the science he presents because he hasn't transformed into a luddite hermit.

On the OTHER hand, we should ignore global warming promoters because they apparently want all of us to eliminate any and all modern conveniences to become cave dwelling vegans that ride around on horses (aka, technology hating crazies).

In other words, yet another false dichotomty (I know, it's the word of the day), i.e. we either do NOTHING about global warming OR we go all out and live in caves and eat grubs and berries.

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 04:00:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Arianna Huffington (none / 0)

Here is the Huffington-mobile on her way to the Sierra club for a global warming meeting.

 

uff
 

 

She's no gulf stream liberal like Gore is, but she sures has a big SUV she drives around in! 

by acroso on 12/13/2007 04:06:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
By that logic (none / 0)
if your doctor was a raging fat ass (but had a PhD in nutrition and biochemistry) and admitted he didn't follow his own advice, would you ignore him if he told you how to eat and exercise to look and feel better and live longer (assuming you wanted to achieve those goals)?

In other words, I care about the quality of the information in this case, not the personal habits of the messenger.  I realize the quality of the messenger IS more important in some cases, like if you're a church leader preaching about homosexuality or something (because he/she is a *moral* authority rather than a scientific authority). 

But this is about science, and you can look past the messenger (and read the message for yourself, as written by scientists).  If the scientists drive giant SUV's and ride around in private jets, so what, maybe they're lazy and selfish (a lot of people know how they *should* behave but choose not to)...does that really give me an excuse to contribute to potentially screwing the planet for myself and future generations?

What do you teach your kids about the "but other people do it" excuse?

Don't get me wrong, blatant hypocrisy (which as I've pointed out is not really the issue you make it to be WRT global warming promoters) is a bad thing and people should expect to take their lumps for it.

But *unless* these people move into caves, they won't meet the ridiculous luddite-like requirement that would satisfy this conservative talking point (which I addressed in my previous post).

Maybe Arianna pours lots of money to alternative energy investments.  Maybe that SUV is outfitted with something that gives it more MPG. Maybe she cut her meat consumption.  Maybe her house has solar panels on it. The point is, how do we know either way?

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 04:21:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sorry (none / 0)

Sorry not buying it. When you see Gore making 6K per minute during his fake speeches while refusing questions from reporters, you know it's all fake.

by acroso on 12/13/2007 04:29:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WHAT is all fake? (none / 0)
Gore is all fake?  Did you even read my posts on this issue? 

Why is dismissing Al Gore a substitute for an actual point by point refutation of the claims made by the majority of experts on these issues?  Hint: It's not.

Al Gore has (annoyingly)  become some sort of global warming straw-man for conservatives.

At any rate, go back to my 'fat doctor giving you nutrition advice' analogy so I don't have to retype it because the thing you're "not buying" was already addressed by me twice.

PS---Saying "not buying it" is not a sufficient argument.  You have to then go on and elaborate, preferrably with sound logic and or links to a sound argument as to the exact reason(s) you aren't buying it. 

Referencing how much he makes per speech doesn't invalidate his claims.  In fact, I'm sure he could've made quite a bit of money backing off his claims if he'd just asked one of the major oil companies to sponsor some new research on the issue.

Besides, if global warming really was fake there'd be no reason for people to edit research on the issue like this, right?

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 04:49:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think I undertsand your logic now (none / 0)
Lets sort out this whole fake thing.

The Dr says you have cancer and its spreading from one part of your body to another and you need treatment or you will die. But since you dont believe in the science he used to make the diagnosis.. the pier review of your  X rays  .. blood work.. Cat scan etc.. therefore you dont have cancer. Right?  

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 04:50:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually, (none / 0)
following my analogy I think it would be something like:

His doctor tells him he may well develop lung cancer and or other respiratory problems if he continues smoking a pack a day.

But he doesn't believe his doctor is telling him the truth because he sometimes sees the guy outside of the office and he has a cigar in his mouth from time to time (therefore the science behind the doctor's claims is irrelevant, because if he *truly* believed it, he'd never, ever smoke himself).

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 04:57:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The NRA are communist infiltrates (none / 0)
Since America has by far the highest gun murder rate in the known universe. The personal responsibility argument should be self evident.

I tried to make the topic wacky for you

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 05:02:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure, IF (none / 0)
"Sensible gun laws" means registration and enforcement, rather than banning.

by jarett on 12/13/2007 03:54:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Define well regulated militia (none / 0)
I mean if there is a shit load of gun related violence. Do what is necessary to stop it up to and including banning guns.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 04:41:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't have to define it. (none / 0)
The Supreme Court is about to interpret the Second Amendment, and then you will have to live with their decision for the rest of your life.

Elections have consequences.

Buh bye now!

by KenTX on 12/13/2007 04:51:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes they do mr wizard.. (none / 0)
Yea elections have consequences something that is going to become painfully clear to the 28% in the comming yr and you will have to live with it. Well you dont have to. You can put your gun to good use. See? I can be funny just like you!  But dont expect me to refer to myself in the 3rd person any time soon .

Toodles!

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 05:08:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ginsburg (none / 0)

Ginsburg will be using the French constitution to justify her opinion in the case no doubt.

 

She likes to do that. 

by acroso on 12/13/2007 05:11:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right of the PEOPLE (none / 0)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But to answer your question, back in the days when the constitution was written a militia consisted of private citizens carying their OWN private weapons.  Notice that the bill of rights does not say "the right of the states" or "the right of the government", it says "the right of the PEOPLE" shall not be infringed. 

Then again who needs that pesky old piece of paper anyway?  What did those old farts that founded our country know?

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 11:48:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Scalito (none / 0)

I guess ScAlito and Roberts are good for something now and then hey?

 

hehe 

by acroso on 12/13/2007 11:52:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Scalia Quote (none / 0)
''We had 400,000 German prisoners -- 400,000 -- in our country in World War II,'' Justice Antonin Scalia noted, ``and there was not a single habeas petition.''

''Do you have a single case in the 220 years of our country . . . in which habeas was granted to an alien in a territory that was not under the sovereign control of the United States?'' Scalia asked the detainees' attorney, Seth Waxman, adding later that ``there's not a single one in history.''

Antonin Scalia questioning counsel for Gitmo detainees this week during SCOTUS proceedings.

by KenTX on 12/14/2007 12:39:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
pfft (none / 0)
Since when are you not a liberal?!

's'far as I can tell, you've always proved out to be much like me: pro-gun, pro-small business, pro- civil liberties (i.e. ALL the rights in the Constitution) liberal Democrat.

by jarett on 12/13/2007 03:53:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pro-Middle Class (none / 0)
For *me*, that has to be included.

Anyway, carry on.

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 04:53:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
directed at me? (none / 0)
I think this was directed at me, but its hard to tell after acroso took a shit all over this thread.  Oh I still consider myself a moderate democrat/libertarian and yes I think our politics are fairly similar.  I'm just starting to get about as fed up with the ultra left as I am with the ultra right.  I used to be able to stand them under the guise that we are generally on the same side, but my tolerance has been waring down on some things.  The most irritating thing is that I find that many have picked up the annoying republican trait of mindlessly repeating talking points and are completely incapable of making an independent rational argument.    

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 11:11:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What? No spoon analogy? (none / 0)
because you cant shoot someone with a sword..  

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/12/2007 10:56:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How the gun ban is working out in the UK (none / 0)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ uk_politics/2656875.stm

http://www.reason.com/news/ show/28582.html


"In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent"

by alphasigmookie on 12/12/2007 10:48:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Last time I checked this wasnt the U.K (none / 0)

They eat more pickle flavour chips in the U.K as well..

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/12/2007 10:58:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
U.K. (none / 0)
The U.K. has become a police state. \

by acroso on 12/13/2007 12:49:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
U.K. (none / 0)
The U.K. has become a police state. \

by acroso on 12/13/2007 12:49:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think I got it (none / 0)
So what you are saying is.. in your opinion  the UK has become a police state.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 01:26:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Kennedy (none / 0)
I was trying to talk like Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy.

by acroso on 12/13/2007 01:37:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Britian (none / 0)

UK Camera Police State.

 

The UK has become so balkanized with Muslim extremists that the two solutions are either- stop letting them in the country or start a police state, which is politically correct. 

by acroso on 12/13/2007 03:12:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
concealed weapons (none / 0)

Concealed weopons without a doubt saves lives because people who want to carry concealed to kill people never bother with the permit (usally..)

 

I heard that second killing she didn't actually kill him tho. He shot himself. At least that's wut drudge had up although when i clicked the link it didn't work.. 

by acroso on 12/12/2007 10:03:23 PM EST

3 hits (none / 0)
Supposedly she hit him 3 times.  He may have finished the job, but she stopped the rampage. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/12/2007 10:52:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
check into it (none / 0)
God killed him. At least thats what she said.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/12/2007 10:59:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Have poor judgement, will travel (none / 0)

Guns do two things:

1)  They put the power to take life into the hands of the otherwise unskilled

and

2)  They make it much easier to kill someone without even thinking about it. 

Ban swords and knives?  Are you joking?  When was the last time you read a headline about an innocent bystander being killed in a knife fight?  You can't use the "any object is a weapon" logic against gun control; no object is as weapon-y as a gun.

by OneHitKill on 12/13/2007 06:27:58 AM EST

Seriously look at the UK (none / 0)
I am serious on this, please if you really believe in gun control at least take a serious look at its effects on the UK.  If your idiology wins out, this is the path we will put ourselves on.  It is not pretty.  They have found that banning guns has not made them safer, so now they're off to ban any object that could potentially kill.  They literally tried to ban pointy kitchen knives a few years ago and they did pass a ban on swords that goes into effect in April.  Having an opinion is fine, having an uninformed one is dangerous. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 12:48:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right (none / 0)
We *should* look at the UK to see if it works overall, and why or why not.

Obviously it's a complicated issue and while the UK can provide a solid example and starting point, it's only one petri dish.  There are likely many factors at play, factors that may not be in play if we tried something like that here (not necessarily saying we should or shouldn't).

The first thing that comes to mind is, like legalization of drugs, I can only assume there would be an initial, short term (relatively speaking) *increase* in the very behavior you'd like to prevent.

This test will be much more informative and valuable if they continue it for 10 years rather than stopping after 2-3 (unless of course the results become absurdly disastrous), at which point we'll actually have some real data to measure (and time for law enforcement and citizens to adjust to the new paradigm).

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 01:33:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
states/cities (none / 0)
We also have states and cities to act as social experiments.  The laws in NYC and Dallas are completely different and allow us to experiment with different sets of laws to see who the influence things like public safety.  I'd be quite interested to see a comparison of violent crime vs. strictness of guns laws on a state by state or big city by big city basis.  I'll do a google search and get back to you.

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 02:10:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
very poor corelation (none / 0)
http://www.infoplease.com/i pa/A0004912.html

http://www.infoplease.com/i pa/A0921299.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/United_States_cities_by_c rime_rate

From my breif unscientific study it seems there is very poor corelation between strict gun laws and violent crime and murder.  NY, NJ, DC, MD, and CA are all rated A or B by the brady campaign yet the continue to have crime rates comperable to other states.  DC has a complete ban on all handguns yet is still near the top of every list. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/13/2007 02:36:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
right? (none / 0)

Because America is armed to the teeth that they have the lowest gun murder rate in the world. Im sure you have access to stats that prove America is the safest country in the world.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 02:53:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The only problem is (none / 0)
Bans in US cities are obviously very different than a countrywide ban.

Ok, guns are banned in (fill in the blank city), so I have to take a short road trip to (legally) purchase a gun.

by ihavenobias on 12/13/2007 02:42:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is one thing thats clear (none / 0)
Since America has the highest gun murder rate on the planet, it shows that arming people to the teeth does not make America safer. I dont give a shit what they doin the U.K .

Again..

The gun murder rate in America proves beyond a shadow of any doubt regardless what they do in the U.K or antartica or anywhere else, that arming people to the teeth does not make America safer.

ok Ill repeat it again

UK.. not America
Gun crime HIGH in America
Arming people to the teeth  still HIGH  even HIGHER

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 01:55:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hunting (none / 0)
You oppose hunting too then?

by acroso on 12/13/2007 11:30:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spay\Neutor (none / 0)

Democrats want to spay\neutor by taking their guns away and want them to be sheeple. The patriot act already mandated that all cell phones have gps tracking systems installed so the government could track everyone.

The next step is disarming them. 

by acroso on 12/13/2007 11:33:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WTF (none / 0)
Which party is pro patriot act?

by z1p101 on 12/13/2007 11:43:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nerf World: Only real men survive (none / 0)
Which party is anti getting shot by a twitchy guy who mistakes you for "dangerous?"  ; I'd like to think both, but.....

by OneHitKill on 12/14/2007 09:54:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The UK? That's your horror story? (none / 0)

They have found that banning guns has not made them safer, so now they're off to ban any object that could potentially kill.

Let them.  I just got done saying this would not generate outrage in me.  Of course other items besides guns have the potential to kill.  But there are varying degrees of that potential.  Comb the news for accidental stabbings and bludgeonings.  You'll be so busy setting aside all the shootings, you'll forget what it was you were looking for.

by OneHitKill on 12/13/2007 08:25:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought this guy killed himself. (none / 0)
This is turning out like the meth head in Georgia (?).

by HoneyBearKelly on 12/13/2007 07:27:45 AM EST

Guns are usually a poor choice (none / 0)

By far most gun deaths are not like the spectacular shootings like in Omaha.  They're usually associated with infighting between drug dealers, robberies, rejected boyfriend, husband or wife, or the occasional fool that simply loses his temper.  For those types of crimes any gun will do and controls won't make much of a difference.

As for self-defense, I don't find guns practical in most situations.  Even if you own several you are unlikely to have them at hand when a violent situation presents itself.  That old cherished tale of someone breaking into your house and you shooting them coming through the window is actually quite rare in real life.  In a confrontation, there are very, very few circumstances where you are legally justified in pulling a gun on someone.  You're very likely to get charged with assault with a deadly weapon unless you can prove that someone presented a serious threat to you.  That is a serious charge that can actually earn you jail time if you're not mighty careful.  The actual use of a gun is ten times more serious.  I know someone who spent 25 years of his life in the pen for killing someone who had just stabbed him.  He made the mistake of going out to the parking lot to his car and getting his gun, then coming back in and killing the guy.  Once he left the place and was out of danger he could no longer claim self-defense when he returned with the gun.  He was around 19 when he went in and around 45 when he got out.   For most people, those constitute the best years of life.  I can't imagine t would be worth it.

What you do, where you go, who you hang out with, how much you expose yourself to certain environments is much more important a factor in determining your personal safety than carrying around a gun. 

by bfaul on 12/13/2007 04:46:50 PM EST

None of that matters (none / 0)
The bottom line is .. Americans have a right to indiscriminately murder each other with their own weapons and no one should take it away! The NRA thinks every mom driving her kids on the way to school should have a rocket propelled grenade launcher in the back and isn't that what America is all about? heh

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/13/2007 04:59:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NRA (none / 0)
The NRA has no position on RPGs.

by acroso on 12/13/2007 08:30:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ammunition (none / 0)
More ammunition on Huckabee supporting "consulate cards", which is some sort of federal I.D. card that illegals can pick up in the states if they just..show up.

by acroso on 12/13/2007 11:01:16 PM EST

social darwanism (none / 0)
Wow, talk about your social darwinism, Mook, what century are you living in exactly, brother? Liberals have given up their will to live, their survival instinct? So this goes along with the Right to Life movement? You believe you and your kind have evolved? What, you've got sharper claws and fangs now, the better to eat me with?

Hmm, funny, cause as I remember it, it was the ones who developed larger brains and developed complex societies, the ability to reason, to speak, to communicate, to live together in large groups, which led to things like commerce, towns, villages, cities, the arts, and finally education and state sponsored school systems in which we decided to teach our children and pass on the lessons of life. Such that evolution, survival of the fittest, in an alpha male dog eat dog world in which might was right and whomever had the biggest stick, or sword, or gun, ruled the day, was no longer the only mode by which people could better themselves such that their children might have a better life than they did.

You know, I've suspected that certain factions of republicans and libertarians and the like have been living in a different reality, this just confirms it. Do you sleep with your gun at night? Do you have a pet name for it like Bessie? Does it make you feel insecure and emasculated and weak if it is locked up or isn't near when you hear something go bump in the night?

So as I understand it, according to you, Mook, I am irresponsible for not owning a gun? Not just weak and stupid, not just irrelevant or lazy, but actually irresponsible.

It doesn't ever enter your frame of reference that you might be part of the problem and not the solution. So your logic is, because we can't get rid of the guns, we, meaning the US gov't should arm gangs to the teeth? What, because we should profit off it? Because we'd be stupid not to, because they are going to kill each other anyway? And what, in the process they are killing each other off and saving you, the truly irresponsible citizen, the vigilante, the thug, who thank God at least does more damage shooting off his mouth than anything else, as far as I know, from doing it for them?  

Mook's statements paraphrased (probably slurred since he's drunk when saying them) : Ah all the niggers and spics should just off themselves, fuckin liberal faggots don't want us giving 'em guns, fuck it, let 'em klll each other off, it's scientific, survival of the fittest, burp, just like Darwin said, burp.

The subtext of your message is that liberals are pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun rights. The weak, 19th century social darwin theory that as a result, they are themselves saying they don't want to reproduce or defend themselves, means they should be wiped out because it will happen eventually, is actually the same thing behind both the KKK and the nazis. It goes along with measuring the size of the skull, and was used to support Jim Crow laws in the south and apartheid in South Africa for many years. Sadly enough, in the 1920's it was linked with the IQ test and was actually quite influential in American Southern politics, enough to creep into the US army by the 1950's. And of course, it was the basis by which the Nazis exterminated six million Jews in concentration camps.

Thankfully, today we live in a sane world where this theory, sometimes linked with eugenics, is for the most part out of favor, except among some real nutjobs like yourself. Unfortunately, neo-nazis, the KKK, the NRA and other factions associated with these movements in the past are still quite present in our society and have made some pretty serious inroads in places like Indiana and South Carolina into more mainstream politics through shadow organizations. David Duke was just the tip of the iceberg.

 

by tiggerporn on 12/13/2007 11:56:55 PM EST

ROTFLMAO (none / 0)
WOW!  Awesome!

Let me just get this straight...because I believe in the Constitution of the United States and that individuals should take personal responsibility for their own protection (since the police are incapable of completely doing so), I am:

Pro-Life
Have claws and fangs
Living in a different reality (ever think of checking which reality you lived in?)
Racist
Anti-Gay
Calling for Genocide
Compared to KKK
Compared to Nazis
Supporter of Eugenics
A Nutjob
Part of David Duke's Iceberg

And you wonder why people have a hard time taking you seriously? 

Dude, spend a few less hours Jacking off and spend a few more learning how to formulate an argument. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/14/2007 12:37:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
alpha (none / 0)

Alpha- quit pimpin' for the reich-wing-fascist noise machine.

jeesh. 

by acroso on 12/14/2007 01:10:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you need help (none / 0)
It has become abondantly clear to me that at least the radical left has lost all survival instinct.

brave citizen with a gun

While we're at it, why don't we ban swords and knives as well?

Welcome to Nerf world!

I guess we certainly would seem so to folks who are scared to death of personal responsibility and need their nanny government to take care of them.

 

Maybe you should put down the bottle and the gun and find a healthier outlet for all your pent up aggression. Since when did being pro-gun become a liberal cause? Sorry, you have to forgive me, I feel a bit like Rip Van Winkel waking from a long sleep to find things a bit off. And when did being pro-gun control become a wacky leftist liberal conspiracy? As far as I know gun control is considered to be the main stream in the democratic party. Maybe you're indeed right and I'm not in reality though, please inform me, share your view since you seem to be very self assured you have the correct vision of what should and should not be the mainstream agenda for the democratic party in 2007-8.

Last I checked the vast majority of the NRA's lobbying money was spent buyin high balls on the down low for the former dixiecrat Southern baptist state's rights wing of the republican party.

Being pro-gun is now a liberal cause? How did I miss this? It is high on the democrats wish list for christmas along with pulling the troops out, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy, defending Roe v. Wade from the Supreme Court and electing a democratic president? As far as I know all the major candidates on the democratic side support gun control and don't go to NRA meetings.

Do you belong to the NRA?  Aww, what's the matter you won't be able to go out in the woods and play Rambo and smear grease on your face and chew skoal and kill bucks? Aww, you won't be able to get piss drunk and take target practice at empties?

Self defence? Go fuck yourself bitch, I bet you have two rifles locked in a vault and subscribe to Deer Hunter magazine and like the taste of venison. Does firing a gun make you feel all manly? Does it make you feel powerful to know you can kill?

by tiggerporn on 12/14/2007 02:39:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
moron (none / 0)

Since we're now on the subject of animal rights.. 

What's wrong with killing deer? Are you a Vegan???? Those damn things starve in the winter anyway if we don't kill them. They reproduce like mad and overfill their eco-niche so there are too many of them and not enough food. If we keep their numbers down, then their is plenty of food for all of them. They live a good life- and then we shoot them.

Sure beats a meat factory IMHO, which I don't care for myself. You prefer to have cows and such sit in a barn all their life being gorged as fat as they can get and then go to slaughter house where they probably aren't treated the best?

 Living in the meat factory vs. living in the wild

All animals out in the wild meat a tragic end- they starve to death in the winter, get disease, or they eaten by something, or they get taken out by some buck hunter so he can have fun and have a good meal. That's just life 

 

 

by acroso on 12/14/2007 03:27:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
welcome to conservatism (none / 0)
"Let me just get this straight...because I believe in the Constitution of the United States and that individuals should take personal responsibility for their own protection.."

And individuals should take personal responsibility for earning their own living.

And individuals people should take personal responsibility for providing their own health care.

And individuals people should take personal responsibility for providing their own retirement. 

by KenTX on 12/14/2007 04:18:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Right, right (none / 0)
it's like Lord Of The Flies.  Just some giant fucking island where it's every man for himself.

The concept of community is totally lost on you, which would actually be just fine if you lived in a small group of people (your wet dream I'm sure).

It's about finding a balance.  100% social responsibility doesn't work for a country, and neither does 100% personal responsibility.  But hey, if you (or TWBA or anyone else) would like to show me ONE example of a successful libertarian society, please share it with us.

by ihavenobias on 12/14/2007 08:14:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
O cruel love (none / 0)

That's one of them thar fancy pants ox-eye-morons they was tellin' us about in school!

1. Jumbo shrimp

2. Military intelligence

3. Libertarian society 

by OneHitKill on 12/14/2007 09:57:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Coward[s] (none / 0)

The culture of fear rears its ugly head again. What's so bad about the New Life Church that they need a Security Guard? Must be doing something awful to make them a target, especially by their own members, like Kevin Maloney.

"...How many would have died if a brave citizen with a gun had not been there?..."

How many would have died if all gun dealers, including at gun shows, had to conduct background checks on everybody who purchased guns?

How many would have died if all gun buyers were required to prove knowledge and skills of gun safety before getting a gun?

How many people would have died if every gun owner had to have a license to carry? Hunters are licensed, why not guns, since they're more dangerous than rifles because they can be concealed more easily?

How many people would have died if owners were responsible for crimes committed with their stolen guns?

To keep the privacy advocates happy, the background data doesn't have to be saved in a permanent database, but it's INSANE to sell guns to anyone without checking their records first.

How many people would have died if the kid with the gun hadn't been kept isolated and brainwashed by that crazy church? What are they doing sending their missionaries to a Muslim country like Bosnia? Considering his background the kid with the gun wasn't so crazy after all. If he grew up in a sane environment, he and his victims would still be alive. 

by zenie on 12/14/2007 11:10:32 AM EST

go easy (none / 0)
I'll go easy on you since you are one of the first ones to try and bring logic and reason into the debate:

"How many would have died if all gun dealers, including at gun shows, had to conduct background checks on everybody who purchased guns? "

They do, its called the NICS system, they have to call in all your information and they do a background check...it takes about 20 min (sweet sweet information technology)

"How many people would have died if every gun owner had to have a license to carry? Hunters are licensed, why not guns, since they're more dangerous than rifles because they can be concealed more easily?"

In the 39 states that allow conealed carry, all (except maybe vermont and alaska) you have to take a training class (8 hours in ohio and AZ) and submit paperwork to get a license to CC.  In many states you must specify exactly which guns you plan to carry.  In the other states it is illegal to concealed carry or you must meet special requirements to carry.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Concealed_carry

How many people would have died if owners were responsible for crimes committed with their stolen guns?

That sounds like a wonderful precident to set.  Why dont' we also make people responsible for crimes commited with their stolen cars?  If your car is stolen and used in a high speed chase that results in the death of a police officer we can charge you with manslaughter. Brilliant!

I just have one other "how many people would have died" statement on this specific case:

How many people would have died if the Media didn't pounce on every one of these mass shootings and turn it into a 24 hr media orgy.  It is becoming clear that the motive of these attacks is increasingly fame and not merely revenge. 

by alphasigmookie on 12/14/2007 02:50:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cult of Celebrity (none / 0)
I didn't mean to blame just the media, our American  "Cult of Celebrity" is also partly to blame.  I guess it's all Andy Warhol's fault!

by alphasigmookie on 12/14/2007 02:54:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jeanne Assam is a Hero - CCW saves lives! | 81 comments (81 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: