9 year old girl shot yesterday...

1…911131415

Comments

  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    I ask the question
    if at the rally where these people were killed uf everyone pulled their own weapon out of their pants and started blatting away how many more would have died
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    why do these redneck americans who feel the need to own arsenals of weapons to defend themselves call Iraqi and afgani citizens terrorists when they shoot back at foreign invaders.

    same thing isnt it
    maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    do you have any clue as to what "per capita" means, MG?

    and actually, no, I commend HJ for saying this. It's refreshing. As I actually also did earlier. It's called an adult conversation.
    MG79478 wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    haha, yes that does look bad now that i read what I wrote... My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.

    A knee jerk reaction would be to say that was bad. Again, a lefty would like to look at just that statement and say “GOTCHA”, but that is all they ever do. They can’t articulate an argument on their own, so they wait to pick apart what you say. But it’s really no different than saying:

    There are more car accidents in countries where there are more cars. (Does that mean they are worse drivers?)

    More Americans are killed by polar bears in Alaska than any other state. (Does that mean there is a polar bear problem in Alaska?)

    Etc, etc.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    it's not just "rednecks" that own guns. it's country-wide. And also whiteneck Canadians. :lol: we just shoot bears, not each other. :lol:
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    why do these redneck americans who feel the need to own arsenals of weapons to defend themselves call Iraqi and afgani citizens terrorists when they shoot back at foreign invaders.

    same thing isnt it
    maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    Paul David wrote:
    it's not just "rednecks" that own guns. it's country-wide. And also whiteneck Canadians. :lol: we just shoot bears, not each other. :lol:
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    why do these redneck americans who feel the need to own arsenals of weapons to defend themselves call Iraqi and afgani citizens terrorists when they shoot back at foreign invaders.

    same thing isnt it
    maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod


    gotta point out that not all gun owners are rednecks ( im talking about redneck gun owners)
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,726
    What HeidiJam said that is under debate:

    "we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns."

    I agree that it "looks" bad. But that doesn't mean that it is bad. Looks can be deceiving. I'm not so sure you understand what per capita means. Or maybe your English just isn't great? Start by showing me where HeidiJam says the words "per capita" or talks about a concept that is "per capita" in the above quote. When you can't find that, come back and apologize. What Heidijam said is directly relatable to my analogies. (more cars = more car accidents)
    Paul David wrote:
    do you have any clue as to what "per capita" means, MG?

    and actually, no, I commend HJ for saying this. It's refreshing. As I actually also did earlier. It's called an adult conversation.
    MG79478 wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    haha, yes that does look bad now that i read what I wrote... My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.

    A knee jerk reaction would be to say that was bad. Again, a lefty would like to look at just that statement and say “GOTCHA”, but that is all they ever do. They can’t articulate an argument on their own, so they wait to pick apart what you say. But it’s really no different than saying:

    There are more car accidents in countries where there are more cars. (Does that mean they are worse drivers?)

    More Americans are killed by polar bears in Alaska than any other state. (Does that mean there is a polar bear problem in Alaska?)

    Etc, etc.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,726
    keeponrockin wrote:
    Like I said earlier to 'the gun is civilization'... The very gun that allows a man to defend himself against a bunch of drunks with baseball bats also allows a man to murder 6 innocent individuals going to see their congresswoman.

    But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    "The Gun Is Civilization"

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

    Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    So, if the 'lefty nut job' thought about killing a mass amount of people, why didntt he use a bomb or a car in the first place? I remember ONE bomb that killed a mass amount of people recently. But I remember dozens of accounts with guns in the last year alone. Is it maybe because guns are easier to get? easier to hide? easier to kill quickly with? I think so. He doesnt use abomb because they're pretty hard to make compared to getting a gun. I dont like the attitude of, "well they're gonna do it anyways, so we shouldnt do anything." that doesnt solve anything. Unless you dont think there's a problem. Thats what its begining to look like to me. These arguments are making me think that some people are OK with innocent people getting gunned down. And I formed all those opinions on my own, imagine that.
    MG79478 wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    Like I said earlier to 'the gun is civilization'... The very gun that allows a man to defend himself against a bunch of drunks with baseball bats also allows a man to murder 6 innocent individuals going to see their congresswoman.

    But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    "The Gun Is Civilization"

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

    Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?

    This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. Its almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here. I might have been brainwashed into saying this from too much CNN though.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    MG79478 wrote:
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    "The Gun Is Civilization"

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

    Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?

    But seriously, do you agree with what this Major is saying here in this paragraph? That dying is somehow comparable to serious injury? What sense does this make at all? he says it is fallicious to say that lethal gun confronataions that would otherwise result in injury have anything to compare with overwhelming injury? You gotta question this guys motives if he seriouslty believes this.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    MG79478 wrote:
    Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?

    I think it's a very sad day when CNN is regarded as representing left-wing thought in America.
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Byrnzie wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?

    I think it's a very sad day when CNN is regarded as representing left-wing thought in America.
    That's what I was thinking....
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,726
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.

    This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. It’s almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here. I might have been brainwashed into saying this from too much CNN though.

    Imagine I typed killed instead of hurt. To me, getting hurt includes getting killed. It's just semantics. You're really not focusing on the right things. That's why you guys are impossible to debate with, you focus in on one tiny thing and run with it like a mad man. Instead you just refuse to look at my point, which was:

    -Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not. I also believe that using other means would have resulted in more injury and death (Injury and death, hopefully that is specific enough). This is true because the gun was not a lunatic, the gun did not commit a crime, the man did.
    -Take away guns and you DEFINITLY leave the innocent law abiding man unprotected, leading to more crime, injury, and deaths.

    That trade off is ridiculous! You want to have this knee jerk reaction to ban guns, but want to ignore the negative consequences of doing so.
    haffajappa wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?

    I think it's a very sad day when CNN is regarded as representing left-wing thought in America.
    That's what I was thinking....

    Is it even up for debate that most of the mainstream media on the US is liberal? That's why you had the emergence of Fox news and talk radio.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,726
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    But seriously, do you agree with what this Major is saying here in this paragraph? That dying is somehow comparable to serious injury? What sense does this make at all? he says it is fallicious to say that lethal gun confronataions that would otherwise result in injury have anything to compare with overwhelming injury? You gotta question this guys motives if he seriouslty believes this.

    I just don't understand where you get this comparison stuff from? He doesn’t use the word compare or any synonym in the excerpt you quote. I just don’t understand what you are inferring from this.

    But since you want to compare the two… Compare overwhelming injury to your family, your wife and kids. (Injury that could affect them their entire lives, physically and mentally, or possibly even kill them) Versus the death of a law breaking stranger who wants to do them harm. Since you seem to think that using a gun automatically makes it lethal, let’s go with that false premise. Let’s ignore the fact that the gun itself could be enough of a deterrent to stop all injury from every party involved until the police arrive, or that you could incapacitate someone without killing them.

    So are you basically saying that you would let a criminal seriously injure your loved ones before you would use a gun to protect them? You would send that person back out on the street to do it to someone else?
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    MG79478 wrote:
    Imagine I typed killed instead of hurt. To me, getting hurt includes getting killed. It's just semantics. You're really not focusing on the right things. That's why you guys are impossible to debate with, you focus in on one tiny thing and run with it like a mad man. Instead you just refuse to look at my point, which was:

    -Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not. I also believe that using other means would have resulted in more injury and death (Injury and death, hopefully that is specific enough). This is true because the gun was not a lunatic, the gun did not commit a crime, the man did.
    -Take away guns and you DEFINITLY leave the innocent law abiding man unprotected, leading to more crime, injury, and deaths.

    That trade off is ridiculous! You want to have this knee jerk reaction to ban guns, but want to ignore the negative consequences of doing so.

    I've been focused on all sides of the debates, but my point was that you post some gun loving Marine saying things that are kinda ludicrous comparing injury to death, it doesnt back your stance much.

    Also, I NEVER said band guns, and it certainly isnt a knee jerk reaction. I've thought this through for years.
    MG79478 wrote:
    -Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not.

    ^^ this is all I'm looking for (but not taking away guns altogether). I just would like for some gun advocates to consider that MAYBE, just maybe less people would've died if there were stricter laws, 10 limit rounds in magazines, or longer waiting periods. Thats all I want is a 'maybe'.

    I honestly believe that the kid in AZ was going to do this no matter what. BUT, if handguns were banned (just handguns, not rifles, shotguns, etc..), maybe he wouldve used a shotgun and oly got off two rounds.

    or if magazine limits were at 10 rounds, he wouldv'e been tackled after gettting off 10 rounds instead of 30. People say he would've just got two guns .. thats still only 20 rounds, and who is to say he could even afford two guns? Remember, he did purchase these legally.

    OR, if there were mandatory 2-3 month waiting periods on gun purchases, maybe that would've been long enough for someone to realize he was a little off-balance and maybe the sale ultimatley doenst go through.

    There are too many little things that could be done to just attempt to get to that 'maybe'.

    I think this kids went to the mall in AZ that day just to shoot Giffords and create havoc, hoping the police would kill him. I think our lousy laws made it easier for him to kill 6 people and wound the other 16 (or whatever it was). Stricter laws could've prevented some injury and death.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    MG79478 wrote:
    "The Gun Is Civilization"

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    Ok MG79, sorry I wasnt clear.
    But I wasnt clear becasue its so hard to make any sense out of this guys paragraph^^.
    Hes' REALLY stretching it in this one. He is suggesting that an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. Yes, the potential is there, but there is no comaprison.
    My point is that I'd MUCH rather have a confrontation with an attacker that has bat, knife, or fists that a gun. I'd rather have 10 guys with fists than ONE guy with a gun. DEATH is wwwaaaaaaaaay more likely with a gun that with fists, and I didnt get that from watching tv like he suggests, I used common sense.

    He says 'its fallicious in several ways', and follows with nothing to make sense of his first claim.
    Seriosly, he sounds like he's suddenly arguing against guns!
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    If removing a large amount of the weapons in your country will allow criminals to run rampant over the rest of the society . Please explain why this has not happened in Australia.
    Martin Bryant killed a lot of people in Port Arther Tasmania with Semi Automatics. After this attack the then Howard government cracked down on all semi automatics ( banned) and also gun ownership (storage issues)
    at the time the message you are sprouting was screamed from everyrooftop.
    Guess what
    sure baddies still ave guns ( they will get them from somwhere) but our society has not been affected.
    so the basis of your argument is proven wrong

    sure people still kill people with whatever they gety their hans on ( or even justvtheir hands) but at least the easiest and most deadly option has been removed
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,726
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    If removing a large amount of the weapons in your country will allow criminals to run rampant over the rest of the society . Please explain why this has not happened in Australia.
    Martin Bryant killed a lot of people in Port Arther Tasmania with Semi Automatics. After this attack the then Howard government cracked down on all semi automatics ( banned) and also gun ownership (storage issues)
    at the time the message you are sprouting was screamed from everyrooftop.
    Guess what
    sure baddies still ave guns ( they will get them from somwhere) but our society has not been affected.
    so the basis of your argument is proven wrong

    sure people still kill people with whatever they gety their hans on ( or even justvtheir hands) but at least the easiest and most deadly option has been removed

    Your point seems to be that since Australia did not descend in to total anarchy, that it was OK to ban guns. I had always thought that when guns got taken away, crime increased, I'd heard that and it just makes sense. But I am open minded and figured I could be wrong, so I did some research. Everything I found while searching the net says that crime has gone up in Australia since the ban. It also appears to be consistent with other countries that have done similar bans. I think you just because you personally haven't seen a noticeable difference doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Obviously this depends on where you live and other factors. If you were pro-gun ban, that would only taint your opinion, especially if your definition of success for a gun ban was avoiding total anarchy.

    I also disagree that a gun is the easiest and most deadly option, that is so subjective and is just your opinion. For example, a knife is easier to buy and learn to use. A bomb would be more deadly.
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    Ok MG79, sorry I wasnt clear.
    But I wasnt clear becasue its so hard to make any sense out of this guys paragraph^^.
    Hes' REALLY stretching it in this one. He is suggesting that an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. Yes, the potential is there, but there is no comaprison.
    My point is that I'd MUCH rather have a confrontation with an attacker that has bat, knife, or fists that a gun. I'd rather have 10 guys with fists than ONE guy with a gun. DEATH is wwwaaaaaaaaay more likely with a gun that with fists, and I didnt get that from watching tv like he suggests, I used common sense.

    He says 'its fallicious in several ways', and follows with nothing to make sense of his first claim.
    Seriosly, he sounds like he's suddenly arguing against guns!

    I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times? I agree an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. But if the victim has a gun, the attacker can do no damage. If you had to confront an attacker with a bat, knife, or fists, or 10 guys with fists, they can't really do anything if you have a gun. I agree that no one wants the bad guys to have guns, but banning law abiding citizens from gun ownership doesn’t change what the bad guys have. All that does is assure the bad guys that you can't protect yourself from them.

    I don’t read it the same way you do in regards to the “fallacious” part. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    MG79478 wrote:
    I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times? I agree an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. But if the victim has a gun, the attacker can do no damage. If you had to confront an attacker with a bat, knife, or fists, or 10 guys with fists, they can't really do anything if you have a gun. I agree that no one wants the bad guys to have guns, but banning law abiding citizens from gun ownership doesn’t change what the bad guys have. All that does is assure the bad guys that you can't protect yourself from them.

    I don’t read it the same way you do in regards to the “fallacious” part. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    I guess so.. (agree to disagree)..But I think you are giving the assailant with the bat the worst case scenario, while giving the assailant with the gun the best case scenario.

    Given the worst case scenario with a gun = Death.
    Given the best case scario witha bat = I get the bat away from assailant and break his knees and call the cops.

    apples and oranges to me.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    MG79478 wrote:
    I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

    how can you even justify that?

    and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...

    your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"

    if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    MG79478 wrote:
    I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

    Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.

Categories