Media lies by omission, Someone with a GUN Stopped this!

Zoso

CJMST3K wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

unsung wrote:

You're still blaming an object for a part of society that has failed.

i blame the society that allow access to the object that could kill people..

you're saying you can do as much damage with a spear as a gun that shoots 100 bullets in mins?

Zoso

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

[quote="Zoso"
what part of society failed?

society has ALWAYS had violence from the very beginning... society has made weapons to make it easier to kill. Humans have an inherent nature for violence we cant make a law for that but we can stop the guns part of it.[/quote]

exactly. humanity failed. blaming one sector of society, presumably unsung means the mentally ill, is ill-informed.[/quote]

apparently mentally ill Americans are more prone to mass murder then mentally ill in england :? Every country has mental health issues.

dimitrispearljam

CJMST3K wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

unsung wrote:

You're still blaming an object for a part of society that has failed.

i blame the society that allow access to the object that could kill people..

guess you want to point that greek ancient outfit is hot?

mickeyrat

mickeyrat wrote:

unsung wrote:

But you said that they should all be melted down, no? So how does that not imply a personal message?

he also said they ALL wont be gotten rid of.



I have a question, does society as a whole have the right to assurances that gun owners have them stored in a such a way that they can't be gotten to by others?

hello, anybody? is this thing on?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Zoso wrote:

apparently mentally ill Americans are more prone to mass murder then mentally ill in england :? Every country has mental health issues.

I was presuming that's what unsung was talking about. that wasn't my point.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

mickeyrat wrote:

I have a question, does society as a whole have the right to assurances that gun owners have them stored in a such a way that they can be gotten to by others?

there's no possible assurance that can be made. gun owners store them responsibly until one gets stolen, and then the pro gunners will claim all of a sudden that person must not have been a responsible gun owner.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

This statement is 100% bullshit and 100% not correct.

Smellyman

what would be safer...a mall with half the people carrying guns or people without guns?

unsung

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

I can't resist, good job trolling me back into this. I don't believe that you are ignorant but that really is one of the most mindless statements I've read on the internet, and I've read quite a bit.

I am required to go through extensively strict background checks TO WORK AT MY JOB because of the potential ramifications to the public if something should go astray. Your statement is an insult and I would expect better from a Pearl Jam fan. Politics aside, (we all disagree on just about anything) that statement is irresponsible. I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself but I'm not sure you know shame. Good day.

Horos

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I have a question, does society as a whole have the right to assurances that gun owners have them stored in a such a way that they can be gotten to by others?

there's no possible assurance that can be made. gun owners store them responsibly until one gets stolen, and then the pro gunners will claim all of a sudden that person must not have been a responsible gun owner.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

Liability insurance. Your guns is used in a crime you pay.

unsung

Smellyman wrote:

what would be safer...a mall with half the people carrying guns or people without guns?

Does your hypothetic situation stop people from illegally entering the premises with a gun intent on doing harm? Because a gun free zone is nothing more than a criminal safe zone.

unsung

Horos wrote:

Liability insurance. Your guns is used in a crime you pay.

Just when I thought I'd seen the most ignorant statement you come along and blow me away.

unsung

Still waiting for one of you anti-gunners to address the OP.

pandora

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

This statement is 100% bullshit and 100% not correct.

This the kind of judgement and prejudice that sneaks out.
Some people won't admit they want
all guns banned because that is uncompromising.
But with these feelings gushing out of people we know the motive
for gun control. They want them gone, all gone. They want the right
taken away to protect oneself, their families and their property.
Because they don't want the right they think they can strip everyone of it.
Why the NRA has the following it does.
People want this right and they will fight to keep it.

lukin2006

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I have a question, does society as a whole have the right to assurances that gun owners have them stored in a such a way that they can be gotten to by others?

there's no possible assurance that can be made. gun owners store them responsibly until one gets stolen, and then the pro gunners will claim all of a sudden that person must not have been a responsible gun owner.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

That is a very inaccurate and ignorant statement ... sorry. I know people who hunt and are very resposible.

You'll never ban all guns ... here in NA hunting is a huge part of many people's life.

So people ... you might want to first look at gun control ... here in Canada we have pretty good control laws.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

Still waiting for one of you anti-gunners to address the OP.

she posts a youtube video of a guy in his home with a camera? How is this even accurate or credible?

I posted a link to foxnews about this story. They seem to have relied on AP for their article. So even they, the fair and balanced group, are part of the conspiracy?

dignin

unsung wrote:

Still waiting for one of you anti-gunners to address the OP.

It's hard to respond to a report that says nothing. Do we know that this man saved the day? I have no idea. Did the guy shoot himself because he saw another guy with a weapon? We will never know will we.

This whole video is a huge stretch and irresponsible, but go on believing what you want because it fits your view. Maybe you believe every youtube video you watch.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Still waiting for one of you anti-gunners to address the OP.

I'm still waiting for one of you pro-gunners to clarify if the following 3 reasons are the major reasons why you oppose gun control:

1. The government is waiting to become tyrannical so everybody needs lots of guns to be ready to fight them.

2. People are trying to get you so you need guns to get them before they get you.

3. Guns are fun.

Unsung... these are the only reasons I ever hear of. Am I missing something here? These certainly cannot be the reasons to implement strategies that would ensure proper gun use and responsible owners... are they?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

lukin2006 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I have a question, does society as a whole have the right to assurances that gun owners have them stored in a such a way that they can be gotten to by others?

there's no possible assurance that can be made. gun owners store them responsibly until one gets stolen, and then the pro gunners will claim all of a sudden that person must not have been a responsible gun owner.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.

That is a very inaccurate and ignorant statement ... sorry. I know people who hunt and are very resposible.

You'll never ban all guns ... here in NA hunting is a huge part of many people's life.

So people ... you might want to first look at gun control ... here in Canada we have pretty good control laws.

just to clear the air with all you fuckers who are so quick to judge and call me names: my post simply meant that no one, NO ONE, can control what others may or may not do with their guns.

calling the mother irresponsible is idiotic. she trusted her son not to kill her and 26 other people and all of sudden she's an irresponsible gun owner. any parent would make the same mistake.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

This the kind of judgement and prejudice that sneaks out.
Some people won't admit they want
all guns banned because that is uncompromising.
But with these feelings gushing out of people we know the motive
for gun control. They want them gone, all gone. They want the right
taken away to protect oneself, their families and their property.
Because they don't want the right they think they can strip everyone of it.
Why the NRA has the following it does.
People want this right and they will fight to keep it.

prejudice? I think you might want to look that word up again.

"Won't admit they want all guns banned"? when did I not "admit" this? you must have me confused with someone else. I have stated time and again that non-hunting guns are not necessary, and should be outlawed.

I make no bones about it.