Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dear whack job gun nuts
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Vic Vaselino
Dec 14, 2012, 2:09:40 PM12/14/12
to
Vic Vaselino
Dec 14, 2012, 2:10:50 PM12/14/12
to
Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
>
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 2:16:01 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 12:10 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
TAKE OUR GUNS!!
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
PLEASE< < < THEY'RE NO LONGER NEEDED!!!!
mo_ntresor
RazzO
Dec 14, 2012, 2:34:27 PM12/14/12
to
RazzO
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 2:35:55 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 12:34 PM, RazzO wrote:
> > TAKE OUR GUNS!!
> > PLEASE< < < THEY'RE NO LONGER NEEDED!!!!
>
> > TAKE OUR GUNS!!
> > PLEASE< < < THEY'RE NO LONGER NEEDED!!!!
>
> Teacher requirement: must be able to possess CCW permit.
MORE SECURITY AT PRE SCHOOL! !@@@1 middle class public union jobs with
pensions for eternity!
mo_ntresor
Vic Vaselino
Dec 14, 2012, 2:46:24 PM12/14/12
to
is the first step toward recovery.
Vic
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 3:01:02 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 12:46 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> > MORE SECURITY AT PRE SCHOOL! !@@@1 middle class public union jobs with
> > pensions for eternity!
>
> > MORE SECURITY AT PRE SCHOOL! !@@@1 middle class public union jobs with
> > pensions for eternity!
>
> Congratulations fellas, admitting that you're a whack job gun nut
> is the first step toward recovery.
if we outlaw druggs they'll diskappear!!!@@#1!
> is the first step toward recovery.
mo_ntresor
Will in New Haven
Dec 14, 2012, 3:12:18 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14, 3:01 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
passing laws. It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
law.
--
Will in New Haven
wrote:
passing laws. It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
law.
--
Will in New Haven
BillB
Dec 14, 2012, 3:19:01 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/2012 12:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote
> What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> passing laws.
Laws definitely affect culture. It can take a while, but it works.
Absolutely no question about it. How many dead children will it take
until you are willing to listen to people who know?
>It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> law.
No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
> What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> passing laws.
Absolutely no question about it. How many dead children will it take
until you are willing to listen to people who know?
>It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> law.
restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
BillB
Dec 14, 2012, 3:20:18 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/2012 11:10 AM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
I don't think you understand them. You see senseless carnage...they see
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
"freedom."
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 3:19:29 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 1:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > if we outlaw druggs they'll diskappear!!!@@#1!
>
> What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> passing laws. It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> law.
it's the simple answer, that's why lawyers in washington pimp it to fools
> > if we outlaw druggs they'll diskappear!!!@@#1!
>
> What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> passing laws. It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> law.
like vic.
mo_ntresor
Vic Vaselino
Dec 14, 2012, 3:25:58 PM12/14/12
to
Will in New Haven
Dec 14, 2012, 3:30:44 PM12/14/12
to
frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
We will feel better.
Will in New Haven
Dec 14, 2012, 3:32:41 PM12/14/12
to
law and change our longitude? There are many more firearms here and
passing a law won't cause them to evaporate.
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 3:29:36 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 1:25 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> > it's the simple answer, that's why lawyers in washington pimp it to fools
> > like vic.
>
> > it's the simple answer, that's why lawyers in washington pimp it to fools
> > like vic.
>
> Think you might feel differently if one of those kids was yours?
my positions don't jerk around with my emotions. there's zero evidence
stricter gun control laws would have done anything to prevent this
senseless massacre.
mo_ntresor
Truthseeker
Dec 14, 2012, 3:51:37 PM12/14/12
to
On 12/14/12 12:10 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
are even cold? Yep.
--
Truthseeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Truthseeker
Dec 14, 2012, 3:54:23 PM12/14/12
to
On 12/14/12 12:46 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> Congratulations fellas, admitting that you're a whack job gun nut
> is the first step toward recovery.
Coming from crude people like you, being called that is a badge of honor.
> Congratulations fellas, admitting that you're a whack job gun nut
> is the first step toward recovery.
Truthseeker
Dec 14, 2012, 3:57:01 PM12/14/12
to
On 12/14/12 1:19 PM, BillB wrote:
> No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
> restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
Some do, some don't, and for many reasons many of which have nothing to
> No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
> restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
do with availability of guns. One of the worst genocides in recent
history was carried out with machetes.
But you creeps always come out and exploit the victims of these horrific
episodes.
Truthseeker
Dec 14, 2012, 3:59:39 PM12/14/12
to
upon the heads of fools exploiting my kid's death, though.
Dave the Clueless
Dec 14, 2012, 4:00:25 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 4:19 PM, BillB wrote:
> On 14/12/2012 12:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote
>
> > What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> > passing laws.
>
> Laws definitely affect culture. It can take a while, but it works.
> Absolutely no question about it.
Yep. Look at how effective the drug laws are!
> On 14/12/2012 12:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote
>
> > What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> > passing laws.
>
> Laws definitely affect culture. It can take a while, but it works.
> Absolutely no question about it.
> How many dead children will it take
> until you are willing to listen to people who know?
> >It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> > a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> > law.
>
> No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
> restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
societies. And FAR different economies.
-------
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand
by itself. - Thomas Jefferson
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 4:03:11 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 1:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
> > Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> are even cold? Yep.
any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
> > Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> are even cold? Yep.
mo_ntresor
BillB
Dec 14, 2012, 4:26:12 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/2012 1:03 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> any idea about gun laws in norway
Norway has much stricter gun laws and a murder rate about 1/7th (one
> any idea about gun laws in norway
seventh!!) that of the US. That general pattern repeats itself all
across the developed world. Not that I would expect a mo_ron to be able
to figure that out. Carry on with your idiocy.
PS Mumbai is not a country lol
Abbey Johnsson
Dec 14, 2012, 4:28:36 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 2:10 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
>
> >
if only some of those 6 yr olds were carrying their own guns, this could
> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
>
> >
have been prevented.
BillB
Dec 14, 2012, 5:00:35 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> are even cold? Yep.
Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> are even cold? Yep.
prevent senseless suffering and violence?
If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
the 48 hour news cycle.
TruthSeeker
Dec 14, 2012, 5:09:52 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
> On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>> are even cold? Yep.
>
> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
> On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>> are even cold? Yep.
>
> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
> If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
> the 48 hour news cycle.
after the funerals.
But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
you're all about.
--
TruthSeeker
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:10:33 PM12/14/12
to
Truthseeker wrote:
> On 12/14/12 12:10 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
>> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> are even cold? Yep.
Good job, a vicious preemptive attack on anyone who dares to raise the
> On 12/14/12 12:10 PM, Vic Vaselino wrote:
>> Feeling a little sick right now, are you?
>
> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> are even cold? Yep.
issue of trying to address gun violence.
Guns don't commit mass murders, whack-jobs with guns do.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:13:03 PM12/14/12
to
Truthseeker wrote:
> On 12/14/12 1:19 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
>> restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
>
> Some do, some don't
No, ALL do.
> On 12/14/12 1:19 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
>> restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
>
> Some do, some don't
, and for many reasons many of which have nothing to
> do with availability of guns. One of the worst genocides in recent
> history was carried out with machetes.
>
> But you creeps always come out and exploit the victims of these horrific
> episodes.
that guns are part of the problem here and the vicious rhetoric begins.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:14:31 PM12/14/12
to
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:15:09 PM12/14/12
to
BillB
Dec 14, 2012, 5:19:46 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/2012 2:09 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
Mine alone? No. But that is irrelevant. It takes millions of people
> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
speaking up at once to make a difference.
>> If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
>> the 48 hour news cycle.
>
> Never is best, but you could at least have the decency to wait until
> after the funerals.
their selfish, apathetic lives. Good thinking!
No, the time to talk about it is NOW. These kids deserve it.
> But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
> you're all about.
not what drives people to insist on sensible gun laws. In fact, in a
large percentage of cases such laws would in one way or another
*inconvenience* the people calling for them. The selfish people are the
ones like you who care about nobody and nothing else other themselves
and their fetishes.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:22:49 PM12/14/12
to
is that the teacher should have kept a loaded gun in her bottom drawer.
The answer is, if arming Kindergarten teachers is what it has come down
to then America surely has a serious gun problem.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:27:15 PM12/14/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>> On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>>
>>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>>> are even cold? Yep.
>>
>> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
>> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>
> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
So everything is fine, is that your answer?
> On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>> On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>>
>>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>>> are even cold? Yep.
>>
>> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
>> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>
> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
>> If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
>> the 48 hour news cycle.
>
> Never is best, but you could at least have the decency to wait until
> after the funerals.
demonizing people who are looking for answers.
>
> But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
> you're all about.
VegasJerry
Dec 14, 2012, 5:31:39 PM12/14/12
to
That school was a "No Gun Zone." What do you suppose the principle and teachers'(guaranteed unarmed victims') last thoughts were as they watched the gunman take a bead on them? Please place your answer here:
(And why hasn't anybody mentioned what color the guy was?)
Jerry 'n Vegas
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 5:29:42 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 3:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
> > any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
> You're a walking fallacy.
it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us learn.
murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
mo_ntresor
VegasJerry
Dec 14, 2012, 5:37:13 PM12/14/12
to
What laws would have prevented this from happening?
Jerry
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:37:30 PM12/14/12
to
committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:39:25 PM12/14/12
to
VegasJerry wrote:
>
> That school was a "No Gun Zone." What do you suppose the principle and teachers'(guaranteed unarmed victims') last thoughts were as they watched the gunman take a bead on them? Please place your answer here:
I said it before, if we're arming kindergarten teachers it's past time
>
> That school was a "No Gun Zone." What do you suppose the principle and teachers'(guaranteed unarmed victims') last thoughts were as they watched the gunman take a bead on them? Please place your answer here:
to stop and look at the whole culture.
> (And why hasn't anybody mentioned what color the guy was?)
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 5:40:55 PM12/14/12
to
VegasJerry wrote:
>
> What laws would have prevented this from happening?
That is the right question, good for you.
>
> What laws would have prevented this from happening?
VegasJerry
Dec 14, 2012, 6:02:09 PM12/14/12
to
On Friday, December 14, 2012 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> >
.> > That school was a "No Gun Zone." What do you suppose the
The best example was 9/11. The hijackers knew the pilots were unarmed. This kid new the teacher was unarmed. The kid that shot up that college, knew it was a No Gun zone. That shooter that took over an island and killed all those kids knew he was the only one armed. Et cetera.
> > (And why hasn't anybody mentioned what color the guy was?)
>
> Who cares?
It was for those that indicate color as a part of the problem when it's a color they don't like.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> VegasJerry wrote:
> >
.> > That school was a "No Gun Zone." What do you suppose the
> > principle and teachers'(guaranteed unarmed victims') last thoughts
> > were as they watched the gunman take a bead on them? Please
> > place your answer here:
.> I said it before, if we're arming kindergarten teachers it's past time
> > were as they watched the gunman take a bead on them? Please
> > place your answer here:
> to stop and look at the whole culture.
But did not answer my question. My point being, the approach they're taking now is not working; that being not having a populous that can arm themselves.
The best example was 9/11. The hijackers knew the pilots were unarmed. This kid new the teacher was unarmed. The kid that shot up that college, knew it was a No Gun zone. That shooter that took over an island and killed all those kids knew he was the only one armed. Et cetera.
> > (And why hasn't anybody mentioned what color the guy was?)
>
> Who cares?
Jerry 'n Vegas
Welshman
Dec 14, 2012, 5:59:32 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 12:30 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Dec 14, 3:25 pm, "Vic Vaselino" <ppol...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14 2012 3:19 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 14 2012 1:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> >
> > > > > if we outlaw druggs they'll diskappear!!!@@#1!
> >
> > > > What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> > > > passing laws. It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> > > > a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> > > > law.
> >
> > > it's the simple answer, that's why lawyers in washington pimp it to fools
> > > like vic.
> >
> > > mo_ntresor
> >
> > Think you might feel differently if one of those kids was yours?
>
> That's right. We should be ruled by emotion. If people are angry and
> frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
> the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
> We will feel better.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Well you managed to do it right after 9/11, why not now.
> On Dec 14, 3:25 pm, "Vic Vaselino" <ppol...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14 2012 3:19 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 14 2012 1:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> >
> > > > > if we outlaw druggs they'll diskappear!!!@@#1!
> >
> > > > What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
> > > > passing laws. It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> > > > a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> > > > law.
> >
> > > it's the simple answer, that's why lawyers in washington pimp it to fools
> > > like vic.
> >
> > > mo_ntresor
> >
> > Think you might feel differently if one of those kids was yours?
>
> frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
> the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
> We will feel better.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Well you managed to do it right after 9/11, why not now.
~M~
Dec 14, 2012, 6:18:07 PM12/14/12
to
"Welshman" wrote in message news:kjnsp9x...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> That's right. We should be ruled by emotion. If people are angry and
>> frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
>> the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
>> We will feel better.
>
--
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of
labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”
- Thomas Jefferson
>> That's right. We should be ruled by emotion. If people are angry and
>> frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
>> the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
>> We will feel better.
>
>Well you managed to do it right after 9/11, why not now.
We don't want the same results.
--
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of
labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”
- Thomas Jefferson
brattt
Dec 14, 2012, 6:16:32 PM12/14/12
to
this is pure EVIL. I can't think of any way to stop pure EVIL.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry's litigate that Walmart employees did not strike Walmart
LABOR BOARD CALLS WALMART STRIKE DECISION 'COMPLEX'
On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.
http://tinyurl.com/cmskadk
mo_ntresor
Dec 14, 2012, 8:12:15 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 3:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us learn.
> >
> > murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
> > other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
>
> > it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us learn.
> >
> > murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
> > other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
>
> Nobody is talking about gang members killing each other or even
> committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
>
> It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
> prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
> difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
> there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
> and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
norway's a country of how many, and how many school shootings in america
> committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
>
> It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
> prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
> difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
> there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
> and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
add up to the murder done there? how many school shootings in america add
up to the murders in mumbai?
mo_ntresor
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 11:23:18 PM12/14/12
to
brattt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2012 4:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> mo_ntresor wrote:
>>> On Dec 14 2012 3:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>>>>
>>>> You're a walking fallacy.
>>>
>>> it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us learn.
>>>
>>> murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
>>> other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
>>>
>>> mo_ntresor
>>>
>>
>> Nobody is talking about gang members killing each other or even
>> committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
>>
>> It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
>> prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
>> difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
>> there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
>> and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
>
> I'm not so sure. I don't have any details yet, but someone who would do
> this is pure EVIL. I can't think of any way to stop pure EVIL.
I don't find that word has a whole lot of meaning. This was a young man
> On Dec 14 2012 4:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> mo_ntresor wrote:
>>> On Dec 14 2012 3:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>>>>
>>>> You're a walking fallacy.
>>>
>>> it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us learn.
>>>
>>> murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
>>> other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
>>>
>>> mo_ntresor
>>>
>>
>> Nobody is talking about gang members killing each other or even
>> committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
>>
>> It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
>> prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
>> difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
>> there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
>> and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
>
> I'm not so sure. I don't have any details yet, but someone who would do
> this is pure EVIL. I can't think of any way to stop pure EVIL.
who was probably fairly normal at one point and who lost it for some
reason and went berserk. If he didn't have easy access to firearms at
that point in time he may not have gone on that rampage. Maybe he would
have calmed down or even gotten help. Probably some of the thousands of
young men who are potential rampage killers would be deterred from
carrying out the mayhem if there were not guns right in front of them
when they reached the apex of their madness. Common sense says that if
guns were not so accessible that many of these incidents would be
averted, not all, but many.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 11:33:14 PM12/14/12
to
individuals. Indisputable common sense says that the more easily these
individuals can access guns the more often these types of attacks are
likely to occur. The US record on such incidents bears this out. A
determined wacko will always find a way, but many will find their meds
or wise up before he acts out if there is no gun readily available.
TruthSeeker
Dec 14, 2012, 11:35:40 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/12 3:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
> mo_ntresor wrote:
>> On Dec 14 2012 1:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>>> are even cold? Yep.
>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
> mo_ntresor wrote:
>> On Dec 14 2012 1:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>>> are even cold? Yep.
>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
> You're a walking fallacy.
So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
TruthSeeker
Dec 14, 2012, 11:40:56 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>>> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
>>> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
>> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
> So everything is fine, is that your answer?
Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>>> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
>>> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
>> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
> So everything is fine, is that your answer?
only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
do). You may learn that, in time.
>>> If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
>>> the 48 hour news cycle.
>>
>> Never is best, but you could at least have the decency to wait until
>> after the funerals.
>
> You could have the decency to wait until after the funerals to start
> demonizing people who are looking for answers.
on the rest of us and crassly exploiting the deaths to do it.
>> But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
>> you're all about.
> Don't shoot the messenger.
My Governor here in Colorado did the right thing after the Aurora
Theater shootings. Pressed to weigh in on gun control, he said he was
going to wait a decent interval before doing so. By the way, he's a
Democrat and a good Governor.
BillB
Dec 14, 2012, 11:51:18 PM12/14/12
to
On 14/12/2012 8:35 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
>> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
So you do not know that the rate of gun deaths in Norway is 1.8/100,000,
>>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
>> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
about one fifth that of the United States?
Do you know how many lives would be saved EACH YEAR if the US could
replicate Norway's gun death rate (which isn't the best)? Has to be
about 25,000. We aren't talking about fetuses here. We're talking about
real people, with families, and friends and lives. Over a decade,
replicating Norway's gun death rate would be akin preventing a nuclear
attack on a major city. Does that scale of carnage mean ANYTHING to
you...at all??
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 11:51:43 PM12/14/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 14/12/12 3:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> mo_ntresor wrote:
>>> On Dec 14 2012 1:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>>>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>>>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>>>> are even cold? Yep.
>
>>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
>> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
One lone gunman, as opposed to one a week.
> On 14/12/12 3:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> mo_ntresor wrote:
>>> On Dec 14 2012 1:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>>>> At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
>>>> exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
>>>> are even cold? Yep.
>
>>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
>> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
Alim Nassor
Dec 14, 2012, 11:58:46 PM12/14/12
to
half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
And BTW your math is off.
Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
Norway.
Dutch
Dec 14, 2012, 11:59:45 PM12/14/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>>>> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
>>>> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>
>>> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
>>> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
>
>> So everything is fine, is that your answer?
>
> Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
> only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
> do).
Why would that be? Why would common sense not rule, fewer guns makes it
> On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 14/12/12 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>>>> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
>>>> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>
>>> Yes. Your cries will do nothing to reduce the violence and deaths. You
>>> just use these rare events for sensationalist exploitation.
>
>> So everything is fine, is that your answer?
>
> Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
> only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
> do).
more difficult for wackos to get access.
> You may learn that, in time.
>>>> If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
>>>> the 48 hour news cycle.
>>>
>>> Never is best, but you could at least have the decency to wait until
>>> after the funerals.
>>
>> You could have the decency to wait until after the funerals to start
>> demonizing people who are looking for answers.
>
> They aren't looking for answers, they are trying to impose their wishes
> on the rest of us and crassly exploiting the deaths to do it.
answers.
>>> But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
>>> you're all about.
>
>> Don't shoot the messenger.
>
> When the messenger is the problem, why not?
more restrictions on guns would not facilitate rampage shootings.
> My Governor here in Colorado did the right thing after the Aurora
> Theater shootings. Pressed to weigh in on gun control, he said he was
> going to wait a decent interval before doing so. By the way, he's a
> Democrat and a good Governor.
Alim Nassor
Dec 15, 2012, 12:04:54 AM12/15/12
to
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 12:08:17 AM12/15/12
to
On 14/12/2012 8:58 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
> half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
And you are implying one caused the other?
> Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
> half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
> And BTW your math is off.
> Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
> Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
25,000 lives saved a year if you can just get to where Norway's at, and
they aren't even anywhere near the best. That's like preventing a 9/11
month after month, forever. That's not a worthwhile goal?
When they are THAT much better than you, don't you think there might be
*something* to be learned from their approach?
Alim Nassor
Dec 15, 2012, 12:10:57 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14, 11:08 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 14/12/2012 8:58 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>
> > Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
> > half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
>
> And you are implying one caused the other?
>
> > And BTW your math is off.
> > Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
> > Norway.
>
> I was looking at this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...
> On 14/12/2012 8:58 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>
> > Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
> > half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
>
> And you are implying one caused the other?
>
> > And BTW your math is off.
> > Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
> > Norway.
>
> I was looking at this:
>
>
> 25,000 lives saved a year if you can just get to where Norway's at, and
> they aren't even anywhere near the best. That's like preventing a 9/11
> month after month, forever. That's not a worthwhile goal?
>
> When they are THAT much better than you, don't you think there might be
> *something* to be learned from their approach?
I was looking at the overall murder rate. Does it makes you feel
> 25,000 lives saved a year if you can just get to where Norway's at, and
> they aren't even anywhere near the best. That's like preventing a 9/11
> month after month, forever. That's not a worthwhile goal?
>
> When they are THAT much better than you, don't you think there might be
> *something* to be learned from their approach?
better that a larger percentage of their victims are pushed out of
windows?
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 12:20:32 AM12/15/12
to
On 14/12/2012 9:10 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>> I was looking at this:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...
>>
>> 25,000 lives saved a year if you can just get to where Norway's at, and
>> they aren't even anywhere near the best. That's like preventing a 9/11
>> month after month, forever. That's not a worthwhile goal?
>>
>> When they are THAT much better than you, don't you think there might be
>> *something* to be learned from their approach?
>
> I was looking at the overall murder rate. Does it makes you feel
> better that a larger percentage of their victims are pushed out of
> windows?
Is that what you think is going on? Really??
>> I was looking at this:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...
>>
>> 25,000 lives saved a year if you can just get to where Norway's at, and
>> they aren't even anywhere near the best. That's like preventing a 9/11
>> month after month, forever. That's not a worthwhile goal?
>>
>> When they are THAT much better than you, don't you think there might be
>> *something* to be learned from their approach?
>
> I was looking at the overall murder rate. Does it makes you feel
> better that a larger percentage of their victims are pushed out of
> windows?
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 12:19:12 AM12/15/12
to
Pepe Papon
Dec 15, 2012, 12:22:58 AM12/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:19:01 -0800, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>On 14/12/2012 12:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote
>Absolutely no question about it. How many dead children will it take
>until you are willing to listen to people who know?
>restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
What would you propose to do about all the guns that are already out
there? Also, it's possible that a law could change the culture, but
in the US, the gun culture is deeply entrenched, and change would
likely take a long, long time.
--
Pepe "Superior to Pickle" Papon
>On 14/12/2012 12:12 PM, Will in New Haven wrote
>
>> What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
>> passing laws.
>
>Laws definitely affect culture. It can take a while, but it works.
>> What guys like Vic want is to feel better and they can do that by
>> passing laws.
>
>Absolutely no question about it. How many dead children will it take
>until you are willing to listen to people who know?
>
> >It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> > a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> > law.
>
>No, that isn't clear. What is clear is that similar countries with more
> >It is clear that someone like the perp today would obey
> > a law that said he couldn't have a gun. After all, it would be the
> > law.
>
>restrictive gun laws have FAR less gun carnage. duh.
What would you propose to do about all the guns that are already out
there? Also, it's possible that a law could change the culture, but
in the US, the gun culture is deeply entrenched, and change would
likely take a long, long time.
--
Pepe "Superior to Pickle" Papon
Pepe Papon
Dec 15, 2012, 12:24:24 AM12/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:30:44 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>
>> Think you might feel differently if one of those kids was yours?
>
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>
>> Think you might feel differently if one of those kids was yours?
>
>That's right. We should be ruled by emotion. If people are angry and
>frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
>the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
>We will feel better.
Not only might it not solve the problem, it might actually make the
>frightened they should pass laws. This will make them feel better. On
>the other hand, it may not solve the problem. But that won't matter.
>We will feel better.
problem worse. See the War On Drugs.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 12:24:03 AM12/15/12
to
went down also.
> And BTW your math is off.
> Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
> Norway.
Alim Nassor
Dec 15, 2012, 12:26:16 AM12/15/12
to
Pepe Papon
Dec 15, 2012, 12:26:40 AM12/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:29:42 -0800, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
>other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
Translation: it's mostly blacks; blacks don't matter.
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
>other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
Pepe Papon
Dec 15, 2012, 12:28:25 AM12/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:12:15 -0800, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>norway's a country of how many, and how many school shootings in america
>add up to the murder done there? how many school shootings in america add
>up to the murders in mumbai?
This is why people talk about such things in terms of rates. You
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>norway's a country of how many, and how many school shootings in america
>add up to the murder done there? how many school shootings in america add
>up to the murders in mumbai?
probably slept through that lesson at the University of Chicago.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 12:26:13 AM12/15/12
to
Pepe Papon
Dec 15, 2012, 12:31:25 AM12/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:27:15 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
>> you're all about.
>
>Don't shoot the messenger.
An apt metaphor, given the situation.
>> But you won't. Exploiting people's suffering and trolling is what
>> you're all about.
>
>Don't shoot the messenger.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 12:33:13 AM12/15/12
to
to you. No more 2nd Amendment bullshit.
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 12:35:56 AM12/15/12
to
On 14/12/2012 9:08 PM, BillB wrote:
>> US rate is only 2.6 times that of
>> Norway.
haha...I just clued in to the unintentional humor in that statement.
>> US rate is only 2.6 times that of
>> Norway.
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 12:37:53 AM12/15/12
to
On 14/12/2012 9:26 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>>> I was looking at the overall murder rate. Does it makes you feel
>>> better that a larger percentage of their victims are pushed out of
>>> windows?
>>
>> Is that what you think is going on? Really??
>
> No Bill, it was a joke. Taken from "All in the Family"
So you don't want to talk about the 25,000 excess deaths? What if they
>>> I was looking at the overall murder rate. Does it makes you feel
>>> better that a larger percentage of their victims are pushed out of
>>> windows?
>>
>> Is that what you think is going on? Really??
>
> No Bill, it was a joke. Taken from "All in the Family"
were fetuses? I bet you'd be willing to do something then.
risky biz
Dec 15, 2012, 12:35:40 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 3:00 PM, BillB wrote:
> On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> > At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> > exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> > are even cold? Yep.
>
weapons.
To prevent senseless suffering and violence.
> On 14/12/2012 12:51 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> > At all the anti-gun nuts coming out of the woodwork right on cue,
> > exploiting a tragedy that their laws wouldn't avert, before the bodies
> > are even cold? Yep.
>
> Exploiting? Is that what you call crying out for sane laws to help
> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>
> prevent senseless suffering and violence?
>
> If not now, when? These kids will be forgotten upon the expiration of
> the 48 hour news cycle.
Well, there is a precedent. Nazi Germany made it illegal for Jews to own
> the 48 hour news cycle.
weapons.
To prevent senseless suffering and violence.
risky biz
Dec 15, 2012, 12:42:01 AM12/15/12
to
prevent senseless suffering and violence.
Then promptly committed physical and cultural genocide against them.
Alim Nassor
Dec 15, 2012, 12:44:18 AM12/15/12
to
bullshit.
Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. And that Dutch IS
bullshit.
Alim Nassor
Dec 15, 2012, 12:57:53 AM12/15/12
to
death in this country. It's not even in the top 10 of preventable
causes of death. Intentional homicide of children is even further
down the list of preventable causes of death. Far behind fall,
drowning etc etc.
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 1:16:06 AM12/15/12
to
25,000 excess lives lost from gun deaths. What if they were fetuses?
Would you care then? Even a little?
You aren't even slightly curious how Norway is accomplishing this
amazing feat?
(by the way, that is atrocious logic you just tried to use. plug in some
different variables and it gets stupid really fast)
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 1:35:10 AM12/15/12
to
risky biz
Dec 15, 2012, 1:40:57 AM12/15/12
to
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 1:41:46 AM12/15/12
to
far, far different country than 2012 USA.
> Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. And that Dutch IS
> bullshit.
senseless bloodshed.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 1:46:08 AM12/15/12
to
planned to exterminate them. Is somebody planning to exterminate you?
risky biz
Dec 15, 2012, 1:56:49 AM12/15/12
to
- Schmuel Finkelstein, Berlin, 1931
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 2:22:51 AM12/15/12
to
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 15, 2012, 3:34:56 AM12/15/12
to
not want the same type of government or the same laws Norway has.
And you changing from gun deaths to abortion deaths is to be
considered acceptable logic? Not.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 15, 2012, 3:37:35 AM12/15/12
to
In 1987 there were 9 "shall issue" or unrestricted states. In 2011
there are 41. Crimes rates have dropped dramatically.
Murder rate in 1987 8.3 per 100k
Murder rate in 2011 4.7 per 100k
Violent crime rate in 1987 609 per 100k.
Violent crime rate in 2011 386 per 100k
Forcible rape rate in 1987 37.4 per 100k
Forcible rape rate in 2011 26.8 per 100k
Aggravated assault in 1987 351 per 100k
Aggravated assault in 2011 241 per 100k.
The trend is still downward.
risky biz
Dec 15, 2012, 3:33:11 AM12/15/12
to
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 3:56:57 AM12/15/12
to
On 15/12/2012 12:34 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
> No, I'm not interested in how Norway does it. I'm not Norwegian, I do
> not want the same type of government or the same laws Norway has.
Not even interested in the slightest? Not even willing to look? So the
> No, I'm not interested in how Norway does it. I'm not Norwegian, I do
> not want the same type of government or the same laws Norway has.
25,000 lives really don't mean a whole hell of a lot to you, do they? Be
honest.
> And you changing from gun deaths to abortion deaths is to be
> considered acceptable logic? Not.
of victims were fetuses, because for some reason you seem to care a lot
more about fetuses than about real live people.
Alim Nassor 1
Dec 15, 2012, 4:18:10 AM12/15/12
to
not much more restrictive than our own. Semi auto rifles and handguns
are widely owned.
What does make them stricter is what I am not interested. What
Norway does have is a completely different, homogenous culture than
what we have.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 4:35:07 AM12/15/12
to
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 4:36:49 AM12/15/12
to
Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
> No, I'm not interested in how Norway does it. I'm not Norwegian, I do
> not want the same type of government or the same laws Norway has.
So murdered women and children be damned, you want gun laws just the way
> No, I'm not interested in how Norway does it. I'm not Norwegian, I do
> not want the same type of government or the same laws Norway has.
they are, no, MORE liberal.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 4:37:40 AM12/15/12
to
Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
> Senseless bloodshed is being reduced.
Not by shall carry laws.
> Senseless bloodshed is being reduced.
Alim Nassor
Dec 15, 2012, 5:25:36 AM12/15/12
to
always more difficult to show. As you know, since you cannot produce
any causation that shows any other factors reducing it.
RIght to Carry Laws have expanded greatly. Gun numbers have grown by
the tens of millions. During that same time period, murder and other
violent crime has gone down dramatically. The trend is still
downward.
Will in New Haven
Dec 15, 2012, 8:20:09 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14, 11:51 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 14/12/2012 8:35 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
> >> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> > So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> > in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
>
> So you do not know that the rate of gun deaths in Norway is 1.8/100,000,
> about one fifth that of the United States?
But incidents like the one at the school are a very small reason. Many
gun deaths in the U.S. are children killing children because one gang
of children wants to sell drugs in the territory claimed by another. I
don't pretend that this isn't tragic but it is mainly the laws
forbidding drugs that cause this problem. It is not legal for criminal
gang members to own firearms anyway.
People in favor of gun control laws often mention the huge number of
guns in this country. At the same time they talk about the other
countries, with stricter laws, that have a lesser problem with gun
violence.
What they are missing is that none of those countries had a huge
number of firearms in private hands when they passed those laws and
most of them had a much greater amount of social control in general.
People who weren't consciously criminals or revolutionaries were
accustomed to obeying the law and/or their "betters."
These things make the situation in this country unique and render the
utility of laws rather weak.
I know that Canada is exceptional in this regard. There have always
been more firearms in private hands there than in countries like
England or Japan. However, I think Canadians are just nicer than we
are. It is a terrible thing to say but there it is.
--
Will in New Haven
> On 14/12/2012 8:35 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
> >> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> > So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> > in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
>
> So you do not know that the rate of gun deaths in Norway is 1.8/100,000,
> about one fifth that of the United States?
But incidents like the one at the school are a very small reason. Many
gun deaths in the U.S. are children killing children because one gang
of children wants to sell drugs in the territory claimed by another. I
don't pretend that this isn't tragic but it is mainly the laws
forbidding drugs that cause this problem. It is not legal for criminal
gang members to own firearms anyway.
People in favor of gun control laws often mention the huge number of
guns in this country. At the same time they talk about the other
countries, with stricter laws, that have a lesser problem with gun
violence.
What they are missing is that none of those countries had a huge
number of firearms in private hands when they passed those laws and
most of them had a much greater amount of social control in general.
People who weren't consciously criminals or revolutionaries were
accustomed to obeying the law and/or their "betters."
These things make the situation in this country unique and render the
utility of laws rather weak.
I know that Canada is exceptional in this regard. There have always
been more firearms in private hands there than in countries like
England or Japan. However, I think Canadians are just nicer than we
are. It is a terrible thing to say but there it is.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Dec 15, 2012, 8:21:19 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14, 11:58 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > replicate Norway's gun death rate (which isn't the best)? Has to be
> > about 25,000. We aren't talking about fetuses here. We're talking about
> > real people, with families, and friends and lives. Over a decade,
> > replicating Norway's gun death rate would be akin preventing a nuclear
> > attack on a major city. Does that scale of carnage mean ANYTHING to
> > you...at all??
> On Dec 14, 10:51 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/12/2012 8:35 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > >>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
> > >> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> > > So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> > > in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
>
> > So you do not know that the rate of gun deaths in Norway is 1.8/100,000,
> > about one fifth that of the United States?
>
> > Do you know how many lives would be saved EACH YEAR if the US could
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/12/2012 8:35 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > >>> any idea about gun laws in norway or mumbai?
>
> > >> You're a walking fallacy.
>
> > > So you do not know that Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws
> > > in the world, but a lone madman there was able to kill 70 people?
>
> > So you do not know that the rate of gun deaths in Norway is 1.8/100,000,
> > about one fifth that of the United States?
>
> > replicate Norway's gun death rate (which isn't the best)? Has to be
> > about 25,000. We aren't talking about fetuses here. We're talking about
> > real people, with families, and friends and lives. Over a decade,
> > replicating Norway's gun death rate would be akin preventing a nuclear
> > attack on a major city. Does that scale of carnage mean ANYTHING to
> > you...at all??
>
> Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
> half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
> Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
> half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
> And BTW your math is off.
> Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
> Norway.
If you round 1.8 down to 1 and 4.7 up to 5, he is correct.
> Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
> Norway.
mo_ntresor
Dec 15, 2012, 9:26:44 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 9:33 PM, Dutch wrote:
> mo_ntresor wrote:
> > On Dec 14 2012 3:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >>> it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us
learn.
> >>>
> >>> murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
> >>> other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
> >>
> >> Nobody is talking about gang members killing each other or even
> >> committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
> >>
> >> It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
> >> prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
> >> difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
> >> there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
> >> and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
> >
> > norway's a country of how many, and how many school shootings in america
> > add up to the murder done there? how many school shootings in america add
> > up to the murders in mumbai?
> > mo_ntresor
>
> The relevant statistic is the *number* of rampage attacks by unhinged
> individuals. Indisputable common sense says that the more easily these
> individuals can access guns the more often these types of attacks are
> likely to occur. The US record on such incidents bears this out. A
> determined wacko will always find a way, but many will find their meds
> or wise up before he acts out if there is no gun readily available.
uh, no. the measure is how many can be killed and terrorized before
they're put down or put themselves down knowing they'll be put down. how
many people did it take to terrorize and lockdown an entire city of 15M+
that was unarmed, ten, eleven?
mo_ntresor
> mo_ntresor wrote:
> > On Dec 14 2012 3:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >>> it's impossible to control killers when nobody's armed. some of us
learn.
> >>>
> >>> murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
> >>> other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
> >>
> >> Nobody is talking about gang members killing each other or even
> >> committing armed robberies with smuggled guns.
> >>
> >> It's not impossible to do what is reasonable. Would stricter gun laws
> >> prevent massacres like this? The answer is, if it were made much more
> >> difficult to acquire guns, such as taking sales out of gun shows, then
> >> there would be fewer guns around, in the hands of irresponsible people,
> >> and some of these incidents simply would not happen.
> >
> > norway's a country of how many, and how many school shootings in america
> > add up to the murder done there? how many school shootings in america add
> > up to the murders in mumbai?
> > mo_ntresor
>
> The relevant statistic is the *number* of rampage attacks by unhinged
> individuals. Indisputable common sense says that the more easily these
> individuals can access guns the more often these types of attacks are
> likely to occur. The US record on such incidents bears this out. A
> determined wacko will always find a way, but many will find their meds
> or wise up before he acts out if there is no gun readily available.
uh, no. the measure is how many can be killed and terrorized before
they're put down or put themselves down knowing they'll be put down. how
many people did it take to terrorize and lockdown an entire city of 15M+
that was unarmed, ten, eleven?
mo_ntresor
mo_ntresor
Dec 15, 2012, 9:28:02 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14 2012 10:26 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
> >other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
>
> Translation: it's mostly blacks; blacks don't matter.
> >murder rates in the us are predominantly obama denominators killing each
> >other. we're a nation of 300M; shit happens.
>
this is where i already annihilated your idiot post about "rates". you
can't think for shit.
mo_ntresor
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 10:10:21 AM12/15/12
to
On 15/12/2012 5:21 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>> Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
>> half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
>> And BTW your math is off.
>> Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
>> Norway.
>
> If you round 1.8 down to 1 and 4.7 up to 5, he is correct.
Or if you can read, I was also correct. I said the gun death rate, not
>> Did you know that the murder rate in the US had dropped by more than
>> half since the number of shall issue CCW states went from 9 to 41?
>> And BTW your math is off.
>> Norway at 1.8 vs the US at 4.7. US rate is only 2.6 times that of
>> Norway.
>
> If you round 1.8 down to 1 and 4.7 up to 5, he is correct.
the murder rate. The numbers according to wiki are 1.8 and 9.
risky biz
Dec 15, 2012, 10:25:04 AM12/15/12
to
what happened at that school in Connecticut.
You don't see any problem whatsoever with a government that is
increasingly assuming to itself the grave dictatorial powers that
Americans hundreds of years ago gave their lives to prevent a government
from ever having. You seem to be, in fact, thrilled by the prospect of it.
TruthSeeker
Dec 15, 2012, 12:59:07 PM12/15/12
to
On 14/12/12 9:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
>> only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
>> do).
> Why would that be? Why would common sense not rule, fewer guns makes it
> more difficult for wackos to get access.
Because too many laws get pushed through on emotion and wishful
thinking, and not rationality.
Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs" efforts at
suppression prevented people who want them from getting drugs? Then
explain how such government efforts regarding guns would prevent the
wackos from getting them.
> > You may learn that, in time.
>
> Don't patronize me boy.
Why not? Stop arguing like a juvenile and I'll stop.
...
>>> Don't shoot the messenger.
>> When the messenger is the problem, why not?
> The messenger is definitely not THE problem. You may see it as one, but
> more restrictions on guns would not facilitate rampage shootings.
It won't stop them either.
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
>> only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
>> do).
> Why would that be? Why would common sense not rule, fewer guns makes it
> more difficult for wackos to get access.
Because too many laws get pushed through on emotion and wishful
thinking, and not rationality.
Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs" efforts at
suppression prevented people who want them from getting drugs? Then
explain how such government efforts regarding guns would prevent the
wackos from getting them.
> > You may learn that, in time.
>
> Don't patronize me boy.
Why not? Stop arguing like a juvenile and I'll stop.
...
>>> Don't shoot the messenger.
>> When the messenger is the problem, why not?
> The messenger is definitely not THE problem. You may see it as one, but
> more restrictions on guns would not facilitate rampage shootings.
It won't stop them either.
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
TruthSeeker
Dec 15, 2012, 1:01:54 PM12/15/12
to
On 14/12/12 10:26 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Alim Nassor wrote:
>> Looks like common sense and rational thought is winning.
> Tell that to the families in Newton, Conn.
And here we see another example of an emotional non sequitur response to
a rational statement.
> Alim Nassor wrote:
>> Looks like common sense and rational thought is winning.
> Tell that to the families in Newton, Conn.
And here we see another example of an emotional non sequitur response to
a rational statement.
fffurken
Dec 15, 2012, 1:11:01 PM12/15/12
to
On Dec 15, 5:59 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
> Because too many laws get pushed through on emotion and wishful
> thinking, and not rationality.
>
> Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs"
Buh blah buh..
> Because too many laws get pushed through on emotion and wishful
> thinking, and not rationality.
>
> Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs"
> Why not? Stop arguing like a juvenile and I'll stop.
> >>> Don't shoot the messenger.
> >> When the messenger is the problem, why not?
> > The messenger is definitely not THE problem. You may see it as one, but
> > more restrictions on guns would not facilitate rampage shootings.
>
> It won't stop them either.
BillB
Dec 15, 2012, 1:22:40 PM12/15/12
to
On 15/12/2012 9:59 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs" efforts at
> suppression prevented people who want them from getting drugs? Then
> explain how such government efforts regarding guns would prevent the
> wackos from getting them.
The US does not, for the most part, have Draconian drug laws. Countries
> Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs" efforts at
> suppression prevented people who want them from getting drugs? Then
> explain how such government efforts regarding guns would prevent the
> wackos from getting them.
that do have Draconian laws (real ones, not your drama queen version)
have much lower rates of drug use and abuse. See Singapore for example.
"Narcotics laws established by the Misuse of Drugs Act are very strict.
Anyone caught with more than 15 grams (0.53 oz) of heroin (diamorphine),
30 grams (1.1 oz) of cocaine or morphine, 250 grams (8.8 oz) of
methamphetamine, or 500 grams (18 oz) of cannabis faces mandatory
capital punishment, as they are deemed to be trafficking in these
substances.[20] The stated quantities are the net weight of the
substances after they have been isolated by laboratory analysis. Between
1991 and 2004, 400 people were hanged in Singapore, mostly for drug
trafficking, one of the highest per-capita execution rates in the
world.[13] Persons caught with amounts of controlled substances less
than the quantities that would warrant the mandatory death sentence may
be spared from the gallows. They may, however, still face harsh
penalties ranging from long terms of imprisonment to a maximum of 24
strokes of the cane (for males)."
"According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on
drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in
Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and
0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates – such as heroin, opium and
morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore"
bub
Dec 15, 2012, 2:30:36 PM12/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:41:46 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>It's bullshit, the 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago in a
>far, far different country than 2012 USA.
so was the 1st amendment. so you're saying freedom of speech,freedom
>It's bullshit, the 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago in a
>far, far different country than 2012 USA.
of the press should only involve quill pens and parchment?
what would all you canadians do without internet newsgroups? seems
that's about all you canadians do is post on here. what a life you
folks live.
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 3:49:04 PM12/15/12
to
semi-automatic weapons seems irrelevant to you, but without that he
could not have done what he did. It seems to me more doable to control
guns bettter than to control the mental states of countless disturbed
young men.
> You don't see any problem whatsoever with a government that is
> increasingly assuming to itself the grave dictatorial powers that
> Americans hundreds of years ago gave their lives to prevent a government
> from ever having. You seem to be, in fact, thrilled by the prospect of it.
the screams of children and a funeral pyre.
You already surrender some of your freedom in the name of public safety,
common sense is calling for more. Everybody has a place at the table.
Good luck, I'm a Canadian, we have our own problems. <out>
Dutch
Dec 15, 2012, 4:20:28 PM12/15/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 14/12/12 9:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>>> Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
>>> only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
>>> do).
>
>> Why would that be? Why would common sense not rule, fewer guns makes it
>> more difficult for wackos to get access.
>
> Because too many laws get pushed through on emotion and wishful
> thinking, and not rationality.
>
> Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs" efforts at
> suppression prevented people who want them from getting drugs? Then
> explain how such government efforts regarding guns would prevent the
> wackos from getting them.
>
>> > You may learn that, in time.
>>
>> Don't patronize me boy.
>
> Why not?
Because it's childish and rude.
> On 14/12/12 9:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 14/12/12 3:27 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>>> Everything is not fine. More gun laws are NOT the answer, they will
>>> only do more harm than good (as feel-good government actions so often
>>> do).
>
>> Why would that be? Why would common sense not rule, fewer guns makes it
>> more difficult for wackos to get access.
>
> Because too many laws get pushed through on emotion and wishful
> thinking, and not rationality.
>
> Tell me, how well has the extreme, draconian "War on Drugs" efforts at
> suppression prevented people who want them from getting drugs? Then
> explain how such government efforts regarding guns would prevent the
> wackos from getting them.
>
>> > You may learn that, in time.
>>
>> Don't patronize me boy.
>
> Why not?
> Stop arguing like a juvenile and I'll stop.
view is shared by millions of people, many of them smarter and more
mature than either of us. Stop being an ass.
>>>> Don't shoot the messenger.
>
>>> When the messenger is the problem, why not?
>
>> The messenger is definitely not THE problem. You may see it as one, but
>> more restrictions on guns would not facilitate rampage shootings.
>
> It won't stop them either.
Can you imagine what might have taken place in Sandy Hook School if this
guy's mother had not owned an assault rifle? <hint> He managed to
inflict between 5 and 10 gunshot wounds in each victim in a span of
about 2 minutes.
I suspect that you also oppose government funding for psychological
treatment services, one thing unrelated to guns that might have helped
in this case.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages