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

1246

Comments

  • Cosmo wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    Portland Mall Shooter Stopped by CCW holder, Media lies by omission.

    Published on Dec 15, 2012
    Found this news report. Notice it did not become breaking news on CNN and was hardly mentioned other places. This is how the media lies by omission. Our "news" is nothing more than propaganda.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI
    ...
    Wait. Didn't the gunman... SHOOT HIMSELF.
    So.. the gunman... was the one that actually shot the shooter. So, the Gunman... was the hero?
    What the fuck?

    :lol: essentially he finally protected people from himself?
    haha..both fuckin smart comments!!
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    haha..both fuckin smart comments!!


    don't your work for the greek air force? isn't the point of an airforce to kill people.....not that anybody is actualy scared of the greek military :lol:
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    DS1119 wrote:
    haha..both fuckin smart comments!!


    don't your work for the greek air force? isn't the point of an airforce to kill people.....not that anybody is actualy scared of the greek military :lol:

    That is not its point, no. Its point is to protect its citizens. Killing people is sometimes necessary but that is not its point.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    JimmyV wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    haha..both fuckin smart comments!!


    don't your work for the greek air force? isn't the point of an airforce to kill people.....not that anybody is actualy scared of the greek military :lol:

    That is not its point, no. Its point is to protect its citizens. Killing people is sometimes necessary but that is not its point.


    And US citizens owning legally obtained weapons for protection are doing it for the same exact reasons.
  • JimmyV wrote:

    That is not its point, no. Its point is to protect its citizens. Killing people is sometimes necessary but that is not its point.
    i serve my country to protect it from foreign and domestic enemies..
    for continue my nation live in democracy and peace and the citizens of my country be safe
    if my country start first a war and attacks another country,they will get my resignation first thing tomorrow morning....
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • DS...

    Do you have a reasonable timeline when the government is going to become tyrannical and enslave all of its citizens?

    You refer often to the distrust you have for the government and their sinister, lurking, bigger agenda that they have been waiting for over 250 years to unleash.

    Is paranoia enough to prevent measures taken to curb gun violence? Britain once ruled the world. They have fought extensively building empire and in major wars. Taking it even further... they fought a tyrannical King and sent him to the guillotine. They still have an active, armed, and impressive military. Yet... the country doesn't harbour deep fears that they may get thrust back into a time where oppression rules. They have laid down their arms and their children are safer for doing so. I speak of Britain's past because often, gun lovers suggest that the gun culture that exists in the USA stems from the violent past the country has.

    Look at the following 2010 stats and tell me what jumps out at you:

    Gun ownership per 100 people:
    UK 6.72
    US 88.82

    Number of murders by gun:
    UK 58 (equivalent to 290 murders with a US population)
    US 8,775

    How do you refute these numbers?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • DS...

    Do you have a reasonable timeline when the government is going to become tyrannical and enslave all of its citizens?

    You refer often to the distrust you have for the government and their sinister, lurking, bigger agenda that they have been waiting for over 250 years to unleash.

    Is paranoia enough to prevent measures taken to curb gun violence? Britain once ruled the world. They have fought extensively building empire and in major wars. Taking it even further... they fought a tyrannical King and sent him to the guillotine. They still have an active, armed, and impressive military. Yet... the country doesn't harbour deep fears that they may get thrust back into a time where oppression rules. They have laid down their arms and their children are safer for doing so. I speak of Britain's past because often, gun lovers suggest that the gun culture that exists in the USA stems from the violent past the country has.

    Look at the following 2010 stats and tell me what jumps out at you:

    Gun ownership per 100 people:
    UK 6.72
    US 88.82

    Number of murders by gun:
    UK 58 (equivalent to 290 murders with a US population)
    US 8,775

    How do you refute these numbers?

    I've seen this posted before, but if more guns made us safer, we'd be the safest country in the world.

    It's obvious that the inverse is true.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    DS1119 wrote:


    And US citizens owning legally obtained weapons for protection are doing it for the same exact reasons.

    But the laws regarding what is a legally obtained weapon should be changed, and many types of weapons that can be legally obtained today should never be obtained.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    JimmyV wrote:

    That is not its point, no. Its point is to protect its citizens. Killing people is sometimes necessary but that is not its point.
    i serve my country to protect it from foreign and domestic enemies..
    for continue my nation live in democracy and peace and the citizens of my country be safe
    if my country start first a war and attacks another country,they will get my resignation first thing tomorrow morning....

    :clap:
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    JimmyV wrote:

    That is not its point, no. Its point is to protect its citizens. Killing people is sometimes necessary but that is not its point.
    i serve my country to protect it from foreign and domestic enemies..
    for continue my nation live in democracy and peace and the citizens of my country be safe
    if my country start first a war and attacks another country,they will get my resignation first thing tomorrow morning....


    But if you feel guns don't make you or your country safer why do you have them? And I guess whay you're saying is that you believe it's ok to murder someone if you're being attacked...kind of the same exact feeling legal gun owners in this country have actually.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS...

    Do you have a reasonable timeline when the government is going to become tyrannical and enslave all of its citizens?



    Sorry. I can't see into the future.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    DS1119 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    That is not its point, no. Its point is to protect its citizens. Killing people is sometimes necessary but that is not its point.
    i serve my country to protect it from foreign and domestic enemies..
    for continue my nation live in democracy and peace and the citizens of my country be safe
    if my country start first a war and attacks another country,they will get my resignation first thing tomorrow morning....


    But if you feel guns don't make you or your country safer why do you have them? And I guess whay you're saying is that you believe it's ok to murder someone if you're being attacked...kind of the same exact feeling legal gun owners in this country have actually.

    Guns in the hands of trained military personnel are not the same as guns in the hands of a sometime untrained populace. Also, military personnel are assigned specific weapons for specific operations. They are not after the biggest and most powerful assault rifle one can buy.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    ifonly_zps36c77de2.jpg
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    JimmyV wrote:

    Guns in the hands of trained military personnel are not the same as guns in the hands of a sometime untrained populace. Also, military personnel are assigned specific weapons for specific operations. They are not after the biggest and most powerful assault rifle one can buy.


    The military doesn't use semi automatic rifles. They use much bigger weapons.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    inmytree wrote:
    ifonly_zps36c77de2.jpg

    I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    JimmyV wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    ifonly_zps36c77de2.jpg

    I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother.

    huh...?
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    inmytree wrote:
    ifonly_zps36c77de2.jpg


    He needs to qualify his statement by saying a "responsible gun owner".
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    DS1119 wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    ifonly_zps36c77de2.jpg


    He needs to qualify his statement by saying a "responsible gun owner".


    define "responsible gun owner" please
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    inmytree wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother.

    huh...?

    I'm not 100% sure what Michael Moore is trying to say here. I hope it is not that Adam Lanza's mother should have used her guns on her son at some random time before Friday morning.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    JimmyV wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother.

    huh...?

    I'm not 100% sure what Michael Moore is trying to say here. I hope it is not that Adam Lanza's mother should have used her guns on her son at some random time before Friday morning.

    now you're being obtuse...you exactly what his point is...

    do tell, what what yours...?
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    inmytree wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    ifonly_zps36c77de2.jpg


    He needs to qualify his statement by saying a "responsible gun owner".


    define "responsible gun owner" please



    Someone who keeps their guns away from other people. There are lockboxes and strong boxes that insure just that.

    Also, considering she was a teacher and knew her son was mentally unstable exposing him to guns was 100% irresponsible of her. Having those guns in her home and accessible to him is 100% unacceptable. 100% of the blame should be laid upon her shoulders.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    inmytree wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    inmytree wrote:

    I'm not 100% sure what Michael Moore is trying to say here. I hope it is not that Adam Lanza's mother should have used her guns on her son at some random time before Friday morning.

    now you're being obtuse...you exactly what his point is...

    do tell, what what yours...?

    No, I really don't. I thought she was a gun owner? If I am wrong and he is not saying she should have gunned down her son, please tell me where my mistake is.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV wrote:
    No, I really don't. I thought she was a gun owner? If I am wrong and he is not saying she should have gunned down her son, please tell me where my mistake is.

    I'm just guessing, but it seems like a sarcastic jab at the NRA.
  • KatKat Posts: 4,893
    He retweeted people's comments about what he was saying right after he tweeted it. I think it's the irony.
    twitter.com/mmflint

    16 Dec Kaz ‏@kazic284
    @MMFlint Thanks for pointing out how dumb that logic is. People have been screaming, "If only the principal had a gun!" Missing the point.
    Retweeted by Michael Moore


    16 Dec marla sue ‏@marlasuehale
    @MMFlint obviously that argument the NRA folks have been using doesn't work after all.
    Retweeted by Michael Moore


    16 Dec Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint
    If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.
    Expand
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • JimmyV wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother.

    huh...?

    I'm not 100% sure what Michael Moore is trying to say here. I hope it is not that Adam Lanza's mother should have used her guns on her son at some random time before Friday morning.
    i think is clear..its ironic -sarcasm comment...his mother could stop it if has guns...
    he got the guns from her...
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    JimmyV wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother.

    huh...?

    I'm not 100% sure what Michael Moore is trying to say here. I hope it is not that Adam Lanza's mother should have used her guns on her son at some random time before Friday morning.

    I think he is making a point (quite cleverly too) that the whole NRA argument that everyone should be armed (the teachers at the school) to prevent this kind of thing is ridiculous circular logic. I may not be explaining this right though.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    DS1119 wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:

    He needs to qualify his statement by saying a "responsible gun owner".


    define "responsible gun owner" please



    Someone who keeps their guns away from other people. There are lockboxes and strong boxes that insure just that.

    Also, considering she was a teacher and knew her son was mentally unstable exposing him to guns was 100% irresponsible of her. Having those guns in her home and accessible to him is 100% unacceptable. 100% of the blame should be laid upon her shoulders.


    interesting...blaming a gun owner who legally purchased and owned guns....

    you seem to know more than I do about the Lanza home...you appear have knowledge that these guns were out and easily accessible vs. being locked up...where did you get this info...?
  • the meaning is very clever...

    guns lover moto is that suppose people own guns to protect them selfs..as the shooter mom...
    and those "protection" guns become the murder weapons
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    JimmyV wrote:
    No, I really don't. I thought she was a gun owner? If I am wrong and he is not saying she should have gunned down her son, please tell me where my mistake is.

    I guess you've not read heard the notion of "if only the victim had a gun, this would have never happened"...anyhoo others have chimed in to help you understand...

    I still would like to know what you meant by "I imagine the same could be said about Michael Moore's mother"...
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    inmytree wrote:

    interesting...blaming a gun owner who legally purchased and owned guns....

    you seem to know more than I do about the Lanza home...you appear have knowledge that these guns were out and easily accessible vs. being locked up...where did you get this info...?


    You asked what being a responsible gun owner is. I told you. Being a responsible gun owner is insuring the guns are not accessible to others. No different than if a toddler drinks some Clorox and dies. Who's to blame? The toddler or the parent who didn't secure the Clorox?
Sign In or Register to comment.