I'm sorry. You're going to have to diagram this one out for me. I'm not try to be facetious...you've really lost me. Yes...he had a plan...he was prepared...and sadly he was shot. I need you to explain that highlighted part for me. I understand that it doesn't apply to
a) Miss Ruby
b) the lady in your neighboring town
c) The police officer at Texas A&M
I'm having trouble understanding when those words DO apply.
Have you read the entire thought pages and pages back?
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?
I thought so...
have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?
I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....
at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.
I have read the full thought and I'm very willing to admit I don't get it. If you could help me understand in which situations those statements about victims apply, that would be great. Thanks.
What page was my orginal thought on then ? ...
you must have focused greatly more than I on it
really think I won't muddle through 120 pages and I think was that a couple weeks ago now
but I don't think I gave any situations in my original thought
as it was about people in general how they react to protecting themselves and their methods... with or without a gun...
I think it came from more of a philosophical place, though I was thinking of a couple
personal situations and regret felt for not being more prepared.
I know you and many focused on it using it as though I was attacking victims,
something I would never do, make a crime their fault, although we do regret after.
But you already know this...
funny trying to turn what is not an attack into one ... ironic indeed
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls, What don't you get about that?
People are responsible and when will you understand far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?
so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.
To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...
Good taking out of context there. Who said anything about 'controlling' criminals? Yes... illegal guns... but a lot of these are bought LEGALLY because THERE ARE NO CHECKS, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, WHEN BUYING FROM UNLICENSED DEALERS - PERFECTLY LEGAL GUNS! Unlicensed does not mean dodgy dealers...
I say a few background checks here would have gotten 'criminal' guns off the street. And you would be obviously obtuse/contrary to say otherwise. I guess you take it personally because hubby owns a gun.....
Laws we have...
"In most states convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers."
Closer to you:
" Georgia does not:
Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties (my clarification - private parties are unlicensed dealers, ie gun shows, person to person, internet) ;
Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”);
Regulate ammunition sales;
Allow local governments to regulate firearms; or
Provide local governments with the discretion to deny concealed weapons permits."
Based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in every year from 2006 to 2009, Georgia supplied more crime guns to other states than any other state. When population is taken into account, Georgia had the tenth highest rate of crime gun exports among the states in 2009. Georgia also exported more than two times the national average number of crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants in that year.
I wonder why that is? Could it be because of the LAX GUN LAWS?
And, just for the record, I will repeat Colorado's 'non-laws' " No ban on assault weapons
No ban on high capacity ammunition clips
No registration
No gun owner licensing
No background checks for on line gun sales and other person to person gun transactions
No police discretion to determine who carries concealed handguns in public
No 'good cause' required for concealed carry permit applicants
No limit on the amount of handguns you can buy in one purchase"
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls, What don't you get about that?
People are responsible and when will you understand far more than a vast majority of legal gun owners are :fp: ?
so stop thinking you can control criminals by gun laws because you can't.
Stricter laws for punishment and getting illegal guns off the streets
is the way to make our country safer.
Not removing rights and restricting law abiding citizens.
If that works for you great.
To own a gun is a right that the vast majority here in the US will keep,
as we can see by the sheer numbers who own guns for protection, sport, and collecting.
Enforce the laws we have...
james holmes was a law abiding citizen UNTIL he commited the crime.. so maybe just maybe strict new gun laws would have prevented him from buying up so much ammo and dangerous weapons.. thats all we have been saying. otherwise 'law abiding citizens' are free to buy as much weapons and ammo as humanely possible until they feel like not being law abiding anymore.
maybe isn't good enough when millions own guns responsibly and should not be restricted.
The point is you can not control a criminal... or a mentally ill person with a purpose
while in a delusion, they will find a way.
You are dreaming if you think so and attempting to removing the rights of others in doing so.
When will you understand the only people who follow laws
are the law abiding so why make more?
It will not stop mass killings, it will not stop Saturday night guns brawls,
.
So why have any laws at all?[/quote]
For the criminals to break of course :fp: [/quote]
so we should have a world without laws because people will break them anyway?
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Good taking out of context there. Who said anything about 'controlling' criminals? Yes... illegal guns... but a lot of these are bought LEGALLY because THERE ARE NO CHECKS, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, WHEN BUYING FROM UNLICENSED DEALERS - PERFECTLY LEGAL GUNS! Unlicensed does not mean dodgy dealers...
I say a few background checks here would have gotten 'criminal' guns off the street. And you would be obviously obtuse/contrary to say otherwise. I guess you take it personally because hubby owns a gun.....
Laws we have...
"In most states convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers."
Closer to you:
" Georgia does not:
Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties (my clarification - private parties are unlicensed dealers, ie gun shows, person to person, internet) ;
Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”);
Regulate ammunition sales;
Allow local governments to regulate firearms; or
Provide local governments with the discretion to deny concealed weapons permits."
Based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in every year from 2006 to 2009, Georgia supplied more crime guns to other states than any other state. When population is taken into account, Georgia had the tenth highest rate of crime gun exports among the states in 2009. Georgia also exported more than two times the national average number of crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants in that year.
I wonder why that is? Could it be because of the LAX GUN LAWS?
And, just for the record, I will repeat Colorado's 'non-laws' " No ban on assault weapons
No ban on high capacity ammunition clips
No registration
No gun owner licensing
No background checks for on line gun sales and other person to person gun transactions
No police discretion to determine who carries concealed handguns in public
No 'good cause' required for concealed carry permit applicants
No limit on the amount of handguns you can buy in one purchase"
those weren't exactly the laws I've found and posted :fp: guess we can twist those too
Yes Georgia has its share of legal weapons that's not our problem though...
its the illegal weapons often owned by illegals and criminals ...
and good news crime is way down since 2009... like the entire nation
did you also read about Kennesaw?...
look it up and tell me guns don't make a difference in crime rates,
oh but you won't want to hear that huh?
Have you read the entire thought pages and pages back?
or do you only focus on the last lines and try to make them something to fit your agenda?
I thought so...
have you read the replies the countless time I have addressed those couple few lines?
I thought not...
maybe you should finally admit you just don't get it or you refuse to get it
because after all it has been thoroughly explained....
at this point take it the way you see it... this is logical, yes?
you have no problem doing that towards some people without a second thought.
I have read the full thought and I'm very willing to admit I don't get it. If you could help me understand in which situations those statements about victims apply, that would be great. Thanks.
What page was my orginal thought on then ? ...
you must have focused greatly more than I on it
really think I won't muddle through 120 pages and I think was that a couple weeks ago now
but I don't think I gave any situations in my original thought
as it was about people in general how they react to protecting themselves and their methods... with or without a gun...
I think it came from more of a philosophical place, though I was thinking of a couple
personal situations and regret felt for not being more prepared.
I know you and many focused on it using it as though I was attacking victims,
something I would never do, make a crime their fault, although we do regret after.
But you already know this...
funny trying to turn what is not an attack into one ... ironic indeed
It's on page 51. I posted it in full, but highlighted that portion. I'm trying to understand in which situation and to which victims those statements apply, because whenever anyone has referenced those comments we've been called insensitive. If you could very clearly explain to me in which situations and perhaps give an example of someone being a victim due to weakness, etc that would help clarify. I'm trying to understand the difference between a deserving and undeserving victim. Thanks.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
those weren't exactly the laws I've found and posted :fp: guess we can twist those too ?
If this response wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable. Laws (or lack thereof) are laws/the reality. I've already referenced the source of these in this thread.
It just goes to show that some don't want to see the loopholes that could have maybe saved this lady who got shot by a burglar. Who is to say that he did not acquire his firearm LEGALLY - certainly the LACK OF LAWS which could have prevented this would have allowed him to do so with no problem whatsoever.
Also, your little :fp: is getting quite tiresome when you lack convincing arguments.
Also, why is no one in arms that 6 people were killed yesterday in a DWI accident in Albany?
Because the topic of this thread is 'shootings' and not car accidents.
But shit...3 times more people were killed in one illegal car accident here in this shit hole of a city than by the highly publicized shooting yesterday? I just wonder how many more were killed in a DWI accident yesterday across the country? I would have to think at least one. :fp: Oh my God...ban the cars and stop this senseless violence!!!!
Dude, we get it!! Aren't you getting bored of saying the same thing over and over? We've already read everything you have to say on the car issue! :fp:
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The paramedic that tried to save the shooter yesterday: "I was asking him questions, like if he knew he was allergic to anything," Cisneros said. "He looked up at me and asked me to apologize to the officer that was shot."
Too late, asshole. He's dead and his kids don't have a dad.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Oh tthhhaaaat's why you keep presenting it! You haven't realized it doesn't make any logical sense. Now you know- the amount of everyday car usage obliterates the amount of gun usage and comparatively speaking (even though it is very difficult to compare a transportation mode with a killing weapon), the percentages reveal automobiles to be infinitely safer.
If you had presented an analogy where you spoke of how dangerous pavement is and how many falls we have each year on pavement that result in death or injury... you might have had a better chance of convincing someone that guns aren't as dangerous as everyday items.
You have a gun problem in your country, sir. You have an idiot problem too. It is hard to establish which people are the idiots at face value (at the point of purchase). The answer isn't more accessible guns. The answer is careful screening and limiting the types of weapons people can have. That might mean that a good person doesn't get a handgun to spin on his finger while shooting beer cans, but it does mean people can go watch Batman with some safeguards in place.
]It's on page 51. I posted it in full, but highlighted that portion. I'm trying to understand in which situation and to which victims those statements apply, because whenever anyone has referenced those comments we've been called insensitive. If you could very clearly explain to me in which situations and perhaps give an example of someone being a victim due to weakness, etc that would help clarify. I'm trying to understand the difference between a deserving and undeserving victim. Thanks.
As I am trying to understand what some mean by the term 'responsible' gun owner (since it would seem all rests on this word). In context of gun ownership, in their own words - not a cut and paste of the meaning of the word 'responsible'. What exactly does one have to do to be 'responsible' in terms of owning a gun. Clarification would indeed be useful in this thread.
those weren't exactly the laws I've found and posted :fp: guess we can twist those too ?
If this response wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable. Laws (or lack thereof) are laws/the reality. I've already referenced the source of these in this thread.
It just goes to show that some don't want to see the loopholes that could have maybe saved this lady who got shot by a burglar. Who is to say that he did not acquire his firearm LEGALLY - certainly the LACK OF LAWS which could have prevented this would have allowed him to do so with no problem whatsoever.
Also, your little :fp: is getting quite tiresome when you lack convincing arguments.
Actually it is very effective or you wouldn't mention it
Funny why debate if I'm not convincing? :?
and yes your laws are twisted to fit your agenda.
I know all about loopholes in some states. States can make their own laws.
So in those states, as I mentioned before, those citizens have not voted to address the loophole.
I am all for the states and each states citizens deciding what is right for them.
Perhaps you are for big governmentcoming in and taking away citizens rights.
I just don't know...
I know I am not for that and I think I am not alone.
those weren't exactly the laws I've found and posted :fp: guess we can twist those too ?
If this response wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable. Laws (or lack thereof) are laws/the reality. I've already referenced the source of these in this thread.
It just goes to show that some don't want to see the loopholes that could have maybe saved this lady who got shot by a burglar. Who is to say that he did not acquire his firearm LEGALLY - certainly the LACK OF LAWS which could have prevented this would have allowed him to do so with no problem whatsoever.
Also, your little :fp: is getting quite tiresome when you lack convincing arguments.
Actually it is very effective or you wouldn't mention it
Funny why debate if I'm not convincing? :?
and yes your laws are twisted to fit your agenda.
I know all about loopholes in some states. States can make their own laws.
So in those states, as I mentioned before, those citizens have not voted to address the loophole.
I am all for the states and each states citizens deciding what is right for them.
Perhaps you are for big governmentcoming in and taking away citizens rights.
I just don't know...
I know I am not for that and I think I am not alone.
Voted to address loopholes???? These things aren't put up to a vote. They are changed by lawmakers!
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
The paramedic that tried to save the shooter yesterday: "I was asking him questions, like if he knew he was allergic to anything," Cisneros said. "He looked up at me and asked me to apologize to the officer that was shot."
Too late, asshole. He's dead and his kids don't have a dad.
The shooter is dead yes?
I'm glad he had an opportunity to say those words as he passed.
He knew what he had done.
Well, well... I see one edited her post to remove some stupid 'finger pointing elitism' (ie, you're not one of 'us' so you wouldn't know...), pretending it never happened.
But too late!.... it's been quoted!
The paramedic that tried to save the shooter yesterday: "I was asking him questions, like if he knew he was allergic to anything," Cisneros said. "He looked up at me and asked me to apologize to the officer that was shot."
Too late, asshole. He's dead and his kids don't have a dad.
The shooter is dead yes?
I'm glad he had an opportunity to say those words as he passed.
He knew what he had done.
Many could not even give a damn....
Did he? He told the paramedic to tell a dead man he was sorry. He obviously didn't give a damn. He killed 2 people over being evicted.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
The paramedic that tried to save the shooter yesterday: "I was asking him questions, like if he knew he was allergic to anything," Cisneros said. "He looked up at me and asked me to apologize to the officer that was shot."
Too late, asshole. He's dead and his kids don't have a dad.
The shooter is dead yes?
I'm glad he had an opportunity to say those words as he passed.
He knew what he had done.
Many could not even give a damn....
Did he? He told the paramedic to tell a dead man he was sorry. He obviously didn't give a damn. He killed 2 people over being evicted.
obviously he did care and had no idea he was dead...
He made the decision to shoot a police officer that knocked on his door for no reason. I have a hard time believing that he felt much remorse. After shooting at people for 30 minutes!
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Comments
you must have focused greatly more than I on it
really think I won't muddle through 120 pages
but I don't think I gave any situations in my original thought
as it was about people in general how they react to protecting themselves and their methods...
with or without a gun...
I think it came from more of a philosophical place, though I was thinking of a couple
personal situations and regret felt for not being more prepared.
I know you and many focused on it using it as though I was attacking victims,
something I would never do, make a crime their fault, although we do regret after.
But you already know this...
funny trying to turn what is not an attack into one ... ironic indeed
Good taking out of context there. Who said anything about 'controlling' criminals? Yes... illegal guns... but a lot of these are bought LEGALLY because THERE ARE NO CHECKS, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, WHEN BUYING FROM UNLICENSED DEALERS - PERFECTLY LEGAL GUNS! Unlicensed does not mean dodgy dealers...
I say a few background checks here would have gotten 'criminal' guns off the street. And you would be obviously obtuse/contrary to say otherwise. I guess you take it personally because hubby owns a gun.....
Laws we have...
"In most states convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers."
Closer to you:
" Georgia does not:
Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties (my clarification - private parties are unlicensed dealers, ie gun shows, person to person, internet) ;
Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”);
Regulate ammunition sales;
Allow local governments to regulate firearms; or
Provide local governments with the discretion to deny concealed weapons permits."
Based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in every year from 2006 to 2009, Georgia supplied more crime guns to other states than any other state. When population is taken into account, Georgia had the tenth highest rate of crime gun exports among the states in 2009. Georgia also exported more than two times the national average number of crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants in that year.
I wonder why that is? Could it be because of the LAX GUN LAWS?
And, just for the record, I will repeat Colorado's 'non-laws'
" No ban on assault weapons
No ban on high capacity ammunition clips
No registration
No gun owner licensing
No background checks for on line gun sales and other person to person gun transactions
No police discretion to determine who carries concealed handguns in public
No 'good cause' required for concealed carry permit applicants
No limit on the amount of handguns you can buy in one purchase"
The point is you can not control a criminal... or a mentally ill person with a purpose
while in a delusion, they will find a way.
You are dreaming if you think so and attempting to removing the rights of others in doing so.
For the criminals to break of course :fp:
so we should have a world without laws because people will break them anyway?
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Yes Georgia has its share of legal weapons that's not our problem though...
its the illegal weapons often owned by illegals
and good news crime is way down since 2009... like the entire nation
did you also read about Kennesaw?...
look it up and tell me guns don't make a difference in crime rates,
oh but you won't want to hear that huh?
hows the working out?
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
It just goes to show that some don't want to see the loopholes that could have maybe saved this lady who got shot by a burglar. Who is to say that he did not acquire his firearm LEGALLY - certainly the LACK OF LAWS which could have prevented this would have allowed him to do so with no problem whatsoever.
Also, your little :fp: is getting quite tiresome when you lack convincing arguments.
Too late, asshole. He's dead and his kids don't have a dad.
fixed...
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
not criminals preying on others.
As I am trying to understand what some mean by the term 'responsible' gun owner (since it would seem all rests on this word). In context of gun ownership, in their own words - not a cut and paste of the meaning of the word 'responsible'. What exactly does one have to do to be 'responsible' in terms of owning a gun. Clarification would indeed be useful in this thread.
Funny why debate if I'm not convincing? :?
and yes your laws are twisted to fit your agenda.
I know all about loopholes in some states. States can make their own laws.
So in those states, as I mentioned before, those citizens have not voted to address the loophole.
I am all for the states and each states citizens deciding what is right for them.
Perhaps you are for big government coming in and taking away citizens rights.
I just don't know...
I know I am not for that and I think I am not alone.
Voted to address loopholes???? These things aren't put up to a vote. They are changed by lawmakers!
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I'm glad he had an opportunity to say those words as he passed.
He knew what he had done.
Many could not even give a damn....
Well, well... I see one edited her post to remove some stupid 'finger pointing elitism' (ie, you're not one of 'us' so you wouldn't know...), pretending it never happened.
But too late!.... it's been quoted!
Did he? He told the paramedic to tell a dead man he was sorry. He obviously didn't give a damn. He killed 2 people over being evicted.
but probably did know he was
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"