| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2015 12:57:30 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by tate:
Blurring the lines of trust - please don't protect me. Geez, they just can't wait for the zombie apocalypse? |
Great first comment:
Originally posted by End of Empire:
1. Two soldiers, including the recruiting center officer in charge, were armed, in defiance of orders. At least one returned fire, and it was not effective in stopping the attack.
2. The US Military does not need faux patriots standing around looking tough. You want to be a tough guy, Zachary Gallegos? Walk in to that recruiting station and sign an 8-year contract. |
|
|
|
|
07/24/2015 01:12:29 PM · #352 |
what's funny about this is that the military has decided they dont want military personal to carry gun in areas where they dont need to be carrying guns, you know, so accidental gun mishaps dont happen.
they realized the miniscule odds of a terrorist attacking an obscure recruiting center in mid America was lower than any other possible negative outcome of having trained military personal have ready access to guns.
Message edited by author 2015-07-24 13:14:05. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:04:16 PM · #353 |
And we'll stipulate that you equate any and all gun owners with being bloodthirsty, one-eyebrowed, mouth-breathing, lower life forms.
"Lower life forms" are far less bloodthirsty and far smarter (and more civilized) than you are:
(1)They never kill for fun. If it's "instinctive", and you want to use that as YOUR excuse, then I guess you're a lower life form.
(2)They don't need a weapon to do you in....they use what God gave them. Why don't you?
(3)They don't have issues with their manhood like you do.
(4)If they fear you (the way you fear them), they simply run away.
(5)They possess skills of self-preservation, the likes of which you will NEVER have....because you never developed them. Because you had to have a gun instead.
But do you really think that we're happy about these tragedies?
No. But, I think you love your guns more than you love the victims. But, hey. Why should you love anyone who isn't you and just MIGHT want to take your guns away for obvious reasons?
Why would you blame the entire gun owning populace with the actions of a few extremists?
Because US gun laws....as shown by every credible stat known to man....mean EVERYONE/ANYONE can own a gun. In Iowa, even blind peeps can own guns. Anyone farther right than the most leftist leftie is hesitant to support laws that prevent whackos from having guns. Or anyone else. Shall we talk about "responsible gun owners"? I'm happy to engage....with credible sources.
What makes you feel that you can paint an entire segment of the population with [i]"the hatred for government, your ignorance of the constitution, and your lust for gun violence"?[/i]
Do you (1) not hate the government? Are you (2) not ignorant of the constitution? (someone has already pointed that out, I believe....I'd have to scroll and I'm not in the mood) (3) lust for gun violence - This is an assumption, of course, since you seem averse to any kind of gun control. If I'm wrong, you're more than welcome to correct me...with credible sources if necessary to bolster your argument.
I'm sorry, but you're just way out of line and no better than the type of person you attempt to paint us as. And it's tiring.
Take a nap.
I'm certainly not that type of person, I know Ray isn't, Brennan isn't, and Adam?
Good!
Still waiting for an answer as to your solution to the problem.
I think I stated clearly that I don't think there IS a solution to the problem. There are too many of you who need guns to rule your life, despite stats that say you're more likely to die from your gun than to protect anyone from harm with that gun. (If you need stats, I shall provide them....though I think you do NOT need them) If you have stats to the contrary ( :-D ) I'm more than happy to see them.
Since you're so vehement in your objections, surely you have a solution.
Nope. Not in keeping with the 2nd amendment.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:16:56 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(3)They don't have issues with their manhood like you do. |
You've never seen Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep in rut, have you? |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 03:35:00 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You've never seen Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep in rut, have you? |
DPC gun-obsessed posters are Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep in rut? I had no idea! |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 06:23:33 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You've never seen Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep in rut, have you? |
DPC gun-obsessed posters are Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep in rut? I had no idea! |
You seemed to state that "animals" don't have "issues with their manhood" and I tried to provide just one (of many) examples of animals which do ... |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 06:34:04 PM · #357 |
| Alternative thread title: Lafayette shooter with history of felonies, violent behavior and mental illness kills with legal gun |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 07:02:42 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Alternative thread title: Lafayette shooter with history of felonies, violent behavior and mental illness kills with legal gun |
Anybody know what felony the guy was actually convicted of over a decade ago? I thought I read marijuana possession somewhere, which wouldn't disqualify a gun buyer. Nor would mental illness or a mere claim of violent behavior unless he was officially judged mentally unhinged or involuntarily committed. In other words, this person's right to own a gun for "self defense" would have been fiercely defended, and any increased scrutiny likely ridiculed, by most gun rights advocates... right up until he opened fire on a crowd of people. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 07:08:07 PM · #359 |
| I believe he tried to hire someone to burn down a lawyer's house, but instead of finding an arsonist he found an informant. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 07:22:51 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Alternative thread title: Lafayette shooter with history of felonies, violent behavior and mental illness kills with legal gun |
Anybody know what felony the guy was actually convicted of over a decade ago? |
NPR story from yesterday.
Originally posted by Linked Story transcript:
ALLEN: In the hours since the shooting, another picture has emerged of Houser - that of what may be an angry man with radical right-wing views who sometimes espouses violence against those he disagreed with. And that's a big group.
HEIDI BEIRICH: Well, what's interesting about Houser is he basically exhibits every extremist belief that we track.
ALLEN: Heidi Beirich tracks hate groups with the Southern Poverty Law Center. She's found comments that appear to have been posted by Houser on numerous extremist forums and websites, like Twitter.
BEIRICH: He supports the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church. He praises Hitler. He discusses looking online for white power groups. He hates the government vehemently. He criticized the United States. So it's everything from antigovernment to white supremacists to anti-Semitic beliefs.
ALLEN: Police in Lafayette today said Houser bought the gun he used in the shooting legally last year at a pawn shop in Alabama. In 2006, because of a past arson conviction, he was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama. Two years later, Houser's wife had all guns removed from the house because, as she told the court, she was worried about her husband's, quote, "volatile mental state." Greg Allen, NPR News. |
|
|
|
|
07/25/2015 08:08:48 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
ALLEN: Police in Lafayette today said Houser bought the gun he used in the shooting legally last year at a pawn shop in Alabama. In 2006, because of a past arson conviction, he was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama. Two years later, Houser's wife had all guns removed from the house because, as she told the court, she was worried about her husband's, quote, "volatile mental state." |
A few things: Houser was never convicted of arson. He was arrested for conspiring to commit arson in 1989, but a grand jury failed to indict him and the charges were dropped in exchange for voluntary mental health treatment, none of which precludes gun ownership. He was denied a concealed carry permit due to a domestic violence report, but that appears to be a case of discretion (which is extremely limited) rather than a legal prohibition, and he could still legally purchase the gun itself under Alabama law. The last sentence shows that guns were present in the house two years after that domestic violence report, and Alabama law does not require courts to notify domestic abusers when they become prohibited from possessing guns or ammunition under federal law or require them to be disarmed. Worse, even if an officer disarms an individual during a domestic dispute, he must return the gun unless there's an arrest or it's seized for evidence. In fact, the ONLY part of Alabama law that deals with guns and domestic violence says a judge can require disarmament as a condition of bail after someone has been charged with domestic violence or violation of a protection order.
I think nearly everyone would agree in hindsight that a man so obviously unstable and filled with hatred shouldn't have access to a gun (even while reciting the "guns don't kill people.." line), but there doesn't appear to be any Federal or state law that would prevent a dealer from handing him a shiny new Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun with a 10 round magazine and saying, "Here ya' go... have fun!" When people argue that we don't need more laws or gun control, THIS is what they're defending.
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 20:59:08. |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 08:21:18 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And we'll stipulate that you equate any and all gun owners with being bloodthirsty, one-eyebrowed, mouth-breathing, lower life forms. |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
"Lower life forms" are far less bloodthirsty and far smarter (and more civilized) than you are: |
Really?? Bloodthirsty?? Perhaps you can cite even one reason whatsoever why it is that you would tell me I'm bloodthirsty.
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(1)They never kill for fun. If it's "instinctive", and you want to use that as YOUR excuse, then I guess you're a lower life form. |
And again with the fun. In my particular case, I have a 9mm for protection in my home, and a .204 I use for varmint control. My latest kill was a rabid racoon. Were you aware that wild animals, those pesky non-bloodthirsty critters can get rabies and will attack anything?
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(2)They don't need a weapon to do you in....they use what God gave them. Why don't you? |
I'll give you a buzz next time there's a rabid critter in my back yard. You can come choke it or snap its neck with YOUR bare hands.
And I *DO* use what God gave me. (I'll let that one go.....you sure can't prove THAT point.) A brain & the power of reason.
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(3)They don't have issues with their manhood like you do. |
I love this little tidbit you keep hanging your hat on. How is this even in the discussion? I have *zero* issues with my manhood, and it's certainly not part of any reasonable discourse......but then you have yet to be reasonable throughout this thread.
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(4)If they fear you (the way you fear them), they simply run away. |
Okay......what is this fear I have of animals? You keep throwing out these ridiculous statements as if they have any veracity or relevance to the discussion. I'm pretty much not afraid of animals in my normal travels in the areas where I live......which I'd venture to say is a damn sight more wild than where you spend time. I have a good healthy respect for animals, especially in cases where I might be impinging on their territory (i.e. Walking in rocky, mountainous areas where rattlesnakes live for example.) but fear? Not so much.
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(5)They possess skills of self-preservation, the likes of which you will NEVER have....because you never developed them. Because you had to have a gun instead. |
Again.....how do you keep arriving at these ridiculous conclusions? I have quite a few self-preservation skills. I grew up in a rural environment and have been able to provide myself with food and shelter if I needed to since I was about 10. I'm also pretty darn handy as far as being able to fix almost anything mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and utilize some pretty competent carpentry skills. My friends and family seem to be okay with that when they need a hand. I've been involved in situations where hurricanes, floods and other tragedies have caused me and the people around me to go to some fairly extreme measures to get through them.And none of them involved a gun, though in the case of the flood of '72, we did stand guard, armed, to discourage looters.
How about you? How are your self-preservation and/or survival skills? What skills do you have that you put to good use for your friends and family? Can you replace a hot water heater? Can you delimb and cut up a tree that fell on the house during an ice storm? Do you grow or hunt any of your own food?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But do you really think that we're happy about these tragedies? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
No. But, I think you love your guns more than you love the victims. But, hey. Why should you love anyone who isn't you and just MIGHT want to take your guns away for obvious reasons? |
Wow.....love the guns more than the victims. In the first place, I don't even know these victims. Why is it that I'm supposed to love them? And I don't love my guns......a gun is an inanimate object. I don't find myself "In love" with inanimate objects.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Why would you blame the entire gun owning populace with the actions of a few extremists? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Because US gun laws....as shown by every credible stat known to man....mean EVERYONE/ANYONE can own a gun. In Iowa, even blind peeps can own guns. |
Huh? Did you read the question? What does this have to do with your ravings about all gun owners relative to a few extremists and crazies?
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Anyone farther right than the most leftist leftie is hesitant to support laws that prevent whackos from having guns. Or anyone else. |
Really? You've decided to engage with me, yet at least twice in this thread I've spelled out that I would like to see more responsibilty taken by gun owners, registration of firearms, training, and specifically called out the NRA to become involved in education. How is that not being in support of forward progress?
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Shall we talk about "responsible gun owners"? I'm happy to engage....with credible sources. |
See above, and maybe take an honest look at the people you've been condemning in this thread.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What makes you feel that you can paint an entire segment of the population with "the hatred for government, your ignorance of the constitution, and your lust for gun violence"? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Do you (1) not hate the government? |
Nope. Do I hate what it does and have issues with them? Sure! Don't you?
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Are you (2) not ignorant of the constitution? (someone has already pointed that out, I believe....I'd have to scroll and I'm not in the mood) |
Oh, please! You know the whole thing chapter and verse, front to back? Here's a secret.....I know the writers of the second amendment never envisioned gangbangers or AK47s.
Originally posted by Luciemac:
(3) lust for gun violence - |
Proof, or STFU. You're coming across worse than those of us you claim to be so barbaric.
Originally posted by Luciemac:
This is an assumption, of course, since you seem averse to any kind of gun control. If I'm wrong, you're more than welcome to correct me...with credible sources if necessary to bolster your argument. |
Yeah......you make a lot of those. You stated above you couldn't be bothered to go back and cite previous posts.......so there's no reason you would have noticed that I, and others, have discussed reasonable steps. How convenient.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[i]I'm sorry, but you're just way out of line and no better than the type of person you attempt to paint us as. And it's tiring. |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Take a nap. |
Good one! Well said!
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm certainly not that type of person, I know Ray isn't, Brennan isn't, and Adam? |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Good! |
I noticed that you snipped out the rest of what I said about Adam. Well, he's trained by our military, and he has answered a call to duty, willingly, to defend your right to abuse us verbally without knowing one damn thing about us.
Is it okay if he bears arms doing what he's told......by the government? Or is he just a bloodthirsty savage because of his service and the mindset it must take to be a patriot?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Still waiting for an answer as to your solution to the problem. |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
I think I stated clearly that I don't think there IS a solution to the problem. There are too many of you who need guns to rule your life, despite stats that say you're more likely to die from your gun than to protect anyone from harm with that gun. (If you need stats, I shall provide them....though I think you do NOT need them) If you have stats to the contrary ( :-D ) I'm more than happy to see them. |
Yeah, yeah......again with the tiresome rhetoric rather than provide any useful suggestions. Nobody's disputing the the gun tragedy stats. But instead of hammering it again and again, why not make even one intelligent suggestion.
Oh......just for fun, why don't you explain to me what this phrase means: There are too many of you who need guns to rule your life. It really makes no sense. You think gun owners build shrines and pay homage to their firearms or something? How bizarre. I await this answer, too.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Since you're so vehement in your objections, surely you have a solution. |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Nope. Not in keeping with the 2nd amendment. |
Subterfuge. Obfuscation. Bullshit.
Nobody qualified the query as to a solution. You just continue to throw fuel onto your witch hunt bonfire and have nothing whatsoever constructive to offer.
I've offered up suggestions to enact training programs, I'd like to see more regulation, registration, and more accountability. This won't change overnight, either, but I'm sure as hell in favor of trying to do something.
It seems you just want to bitch and cast aspersions on anyone who doesn't have your worldview.
Good luck with that.
Message edited by author 2015-07-27 09:06:31.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2015 08:42:31 AM · #363 |
man...ya'll have been busy on here this weekend. I'm going to have to catch up I guess
|
|
|
|
07/27/2015 10:33:14 AM · #364 |
People like  Cory and Cowboy221977 must be standing in total bewilderment and wondering just how someone could consider me a gun crazed lunatic who thirsts for blood.
Who da thunk eh guys? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 10:41:14 AM · #365 |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 11:03:57 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
People like Cory and Cowboy221977 must be standing in total bewilderment and wondering just how someone could consider me a gun crazed lunatic who thirsts for blood.
Who da thunk eh guys? :O)
Ray |
*shrug*
You're still a moderate, no matter how we slice it. Hell, even Cowboy and myself are moderates.  Luciemac is definitely on the outer banks of radical.
For what it's worth, even I think the gun problem is a real problem, I just honestly wish we could trust that reasonable movement could be allowed on the issue without the end result being WAY beyond reasonable. |
I think things like this could move things along...
//www.citylab.com/politics/2013/03/striking-relationship-between-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/ |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 11:43:20 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by Cory:
For what it's worth, even I think the gun problem is a real problem, I just honestly wish we could trust that reasonable movement could be allowed on the issue without the end result being WAY beyond reasonable. |
Cory I absolutely agree with this statement. The only prob is give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Once the ball starts rolling it's hard to stop it.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2015 12:54:51 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by Cory:
For what it's worth, even I think the gun problem is a real problem, I just honestly wish we could trust that reasonable movement could be allowed on the issue without the end result being WAY beyond reasonable. |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Cory I absolutely agree with this statement. The only prob is give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Once the ball starts rolling it's hard to stop it. |
"Giving an inch and having them take a mile" is the same kind of assumptive, extreme rhetoric that gets everyone nowhere.
How about a middle of the road step?
How about since you have to go through background checks and register handguns instituting a training program to make sure that the purchaser has had instruction in safe handgun practices?
Message edited by author 2015-07-27 12:55:23.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2015 01:19:38 PM · #369 |
You would think so, yet two years after that study was published we're still at it, gun laws have only been relaxed, and now we have politicians calling for carrying guns into movie theaters and decrying "gun-free" zones. Never mind that the only gun-free zones in Lousiana law are around schools (only 4 school shootings in the last 15 years for the state with the 2nd highest rate of gun deaths), or that several of the Chattanooga victims were armed. |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 01:45:40 PM · #370 |
Here is another citizen with a concealed weapons permit that returned fire. I looked on CNN and of course they don't have this story.
Message edited by author 2015-07-27 13:45:54.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2015 02:15:37 PM · #371 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I looked on CNN and of course they don't have this story. |
Oh, of course CNN would never publish a story like, say, the subject of this thread. Perhaps the news wasn't worthy of national headlines if it's as common as you claim, or maybe they're investigating an incident that happened less than 24 hours ago before reporting on it? After all, this could be very a different narrative if two people were having a verbal argument when a man with a concealed carry permit approached with the attitude of knowing he was packing. Do we know at this point if the "bad guy" also had a concealed carry permit or if the situation would have escalated to violence at all if they WEREN'T carrying guns? |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 03:33:37 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Giving an inch and having them take a mile" is the same kind of assumptive, extreme rhetoric that gets everyone nowhere.
How about a middle of the road step?
How about since you have to go through background checks and register handguns instituting a training program to make sure that the purchaser has had instruction in safe handgun practices? |
You know I agree with you, but those assumptions have been proven out many times in many places.
I'd support any gun legislation which was both reasonable and put a 25-50 year moratorium on further restrictions, lest we find ourselves headed down that 'extreme rhetorical' slippery slope.
I figure that reasonable would allow the collection of statistics and would institute exactly the sort of background checks and handgun registration you suggest. Training requirements (fully funded by the tax payers, NOT the buyers), would be fine too. Finally, I'd even support a mandatory requirement to report private sales and transfers as well as thefts.
Finally, I'd even support the CRAZY idea of a built-in cell phone pinger that reported the ID of the weapon and it's location every time the gun is fired. Whatever, as long as it doesn't restrict my ability to own and buy guns, and doesn't greatly increase the burden of ownership in terms of time or costs. (In this case anything more than a 10-20% increase in 'overhead' would be considered too much)
Message edited by author 2015-07-27 15:34:40. |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 03:50:27 PM · #373 |
Luciemac is like a witness at a murder trial that could provide key evidence that would exonerate the defendant, but is so batshit crazy that the defense lawyer is just... Yeah, no, we'll take our chances without her.
In other word, she may be on your side, but you really kind of wish she wasn't. |
|
|
|
07/27/2015 04:06:39 PM · #374 |
How about since you have to go through background checks and register handguns instituting a training program to make sure that the purchaser has had instruction in safe handgun practices?
Great ideas! Ideas which have been rejected by the GOP, the NRA and most of the country since before the Columbine shootings in 1999. Since you're for background checks, registration, training and regulation, can you tell us why none of it has happened on a federal level after more than a few mass shootings in 16 years? Not to mention the lastest news from WaPo......204 mass shootings in 204 days. //www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/24/there-have-been-204-mass-shootings-and-204-days-in-2015-so-far/ If none of those peeps had had guns.....
As for the shooter and the Wild Wild Cincy: there must be a reason why this incident was covered ONLY by the right-wing gun-promoters. Reputable big-city newspapers, in keeping with journalistic ethics and a desire not to appear yellow and sensational, most always will make sure their ducks are in a row before reporting a story like this. Anyone have a guess as to why this one didn't make the Big Time? And, no.......it's not because journalists are left-wing. Unless you've been employed or otherwise involved in the journalism biz, don't EVEN go there.
Message edited by author 2015-07-27 16:07:47. |
|
|
|
07/28/2015 08:28:52 AM · #375 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You would think so, yet two years after that study was published we're still at it, gun laws have only been relaxed, and now we have politicians calling for carrying guns into movie theaters and decrying "gun-free" zones. Never mind that the only gun-free zones in Lousiana law are around schools (only 4 school shootings in the last 15 years for the state with the 2nd highest rate of gun deaths), or that several of the Chattanooga victims were armed. |
i think its funny when you read the comments on article like this that people try to discredit it. "the study didn't take this into account, or this, thus its invalid."
yet when you look outside the US, you see the same trends.
i think its safe to that more guns equals more gun homicides, if by observation only. |
|
