Beheading on American soil - Oklahoma

That's awful.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/us/oklahoma-beheading/index.html

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

What stops a bad guy with a gun (or a knife)?

A good guy with a gun.

Surprise surprise.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '14

Don't be surprised if they classify this a workplace violence just like they did with the Major Hssann massacre at Fort Hood. Eye witnesses said he was shouting in Araabic as he beheaded that poor woman. Thank God there was someone there with a gun so imore lives weren't taken.

kb2755 ✉
Sep '14

More acts of kindness from that religion of peace...

LngVly22 ✉
Sep '14

I'm Muslim, and this is just disgusting me right, My religion doesn't tell me to go and kill people, I speechless, and hopefully this is no sense stop now.

back in the day, in the this country, there was and there will always be some group of people in hot seat just because (the Irish, the Germans, the Italian...and the list goes on and on

Tala ✉
Sep '14

from the article:

"In a crime that New Jersey authorities have described as heinous, a local man is believed to have shot to death two Coptic Christians before severing their heads and hands and burying their bodies in the backyard of a relative's abandoned home."

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '14

My sincere condolences to the victim's family and friends – job well done to Officer Vaughan.

Bonv ✉
Sep '14

The only war being waged is that of fear versus rational thought.

All of these seemingly connected events still amount to significantly less risk for human beings than being hit by lightening,10 times over. It's the proposed response to the risks that is immensely more dangerous, wanting to wage war that will result in the deaths of who knows how many, all because we choose to think emotionally instead of rationally.

Address the problems, fine. Let's not make them worse with fear based hysteria. After all, that *is* what so called terrorist want to achieve, is it not? And we Americans seem all to happy to oblige.

justintime ✉
Sep '14

I guess your right, no video of the beheading. Only another mishap on the news . No big deal. Not in my neighborhood, who cares.

auntiel ✉
Sep '14

JIT says - "All of these seemingly connected events still amount to significantly less risk for human beings than being hit by lightening,10 times over. It's the proposed response to the risks that is immensely more dangerous, wanting to wage war that will result in the deaths of who knows how many, all because we choose to think emotionally instead of rationally."

You should spout this to the families of Colleen Hufford, Traci Johnson, James Foley and Brendan Tevlin I am sure they might have different thoughts. MSNBC already classified this as "Workplace Violence" as we would expect. As we continue to ignore what is happening around us.
Being diligent, protecting yourself and your family and seeing what is really happening without the veil of political correctness is thinking rationally.

Mark ✉
Sep '14

Condolences to the families and friends of the victims. Thank goodness a good guy had a gun.

Calico696 ✉
Sep '14

Ah, the ole "good guy with a gun" equals "right to defend" equals "concealed carry" equals "shall issue or unrestricted" equals "open carry" theory.

The funny part is that the country is mostly "shall issue" already and yet you complain we are not safe enough. Just move, there's plenty of places you can hide your gun under your shirt to feel safe.

Meanwhile, the body count climbs: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Yet Lott has shown us the way. In 2008 there was a 40% increase in gun sales continuing into 2009 and the largest murder rate drop since 1999. See, it's not the guns, it's Obama!!!! :>)

Meanwhile, most scientists reveal that Lott's theories are not statistically valid and there is no credible evidence that concealed carry reduces crime. If it did, with Shall Issue/Unrestricted moving from 9 states in 1989 to 42 states in 2013, shouldn't violent crime be 80% gone? It isn't. And while it's down, it is not steadily down, matter of fact the number of violent crimes went up in 2012, 2005, and 2006.

But the bottom line is there are 42 states you can carry your gun easily; go there, be safe and prosper.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

"Meanwhile, most scientists reveal that Lott's theories are not statistically valid and there is no credible evidence that concealed carry reduces crime"

But concealed carry gives a normally helpless person the ability to defend themselves, whether they fail or succeed, at least they had the right to defend their life, unlike here in jersey.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

I take it the idea of guns is so abhorrent to you that you never visit (or have family) any of those 42 other states, right?

Or maybe you do, and there is no problem with people being able to carry since you always come home safe...

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

and mg, just because we rate middle of the pack makes it unnecessary to have the right to protect ourselves?

Just move.......lmao nice political answer, still doesn't solve NJ's infringing laws.

again you are missing the point, your point is to stop crime, my point is to be able to stop crime if it happens to me.

do you realize the criminal charges you would receive for doing what you suggest aguy?

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Guns are not abhorrent, people with guns are abhorrent. Or at least some of them.

Of course we have the right to protect ourselves, not to would be silly.

I was just pointing out that 42 states offer what you want, that's over 80% of the country. So violent crime should be in the noise by now. At least in those places versus NJ where it must be growing by leaps and bounds since we are an open season gun-free state. Or perhaps if violent crime is still out there, there just aren't enough good guys.

And I noted that if it's that important to you, if you feel unsafe all the time, then what are you doing here? Is Main Street Hackettstown worth the loss of your feeling of safety? If you are cowering all the time, shaking like a leaf, perhaps a change of venue where you can arm up, man up, be prepared to defend, shoot away all bad acts, will calm your nerves.

And I pointed out that we are middle of the pack for violent crime even without the ability to legally have shall issue cc. Just saying that it does not seem all that important; it does not seem that we are walking targets even if you feel that way.

Not sure where you would put the gun given all the baggage you are carrying.

:>)

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

In this case someone was able to save someone else's life with a gun, yet you continually try to smear your anti-gun bullshit on everyone.........same song and dance, and it is old

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Trust me, plenty of people are leaving NJ and taking their tax dollars with them. Hey, at least we are number one at something...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/02/07/the-states-people-are-fleeing-in-2013/


http://www.businessinsider.com/2013-moving-map-2014-1


And your solution is to just open the doors wider? Brilliant!

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

Yeah, I was laughing at that one, pretty silly really. Frankly most of America can carry and the world has not collapsed. Of course it has not gotten any better because of it either. It's still early yet statistically speaking.

And you really need Gadfly to elaborate? Would that be a ...... contest?

The answer to violent crime is not more guns. That's an acceptance position expecting violent crime and praying that you can stop it via more violence. Sure, you have the right to defend yourself, but when defense becomes offense, then your solution is a problem. The states with concealed carry are not any safer than the states without, that's the point.

If everyone who is smart is leaving the state to be able to carry guns to work, I sure wouldn't want to be the last person to turn out the light unless my house was on a toxic waste dump and it glowed in the dark :>)

See thread on Christie's economy and jobs........ NJ has worked hard to lose more jobs than most and to recover slower. The man offers no good solutions except cutting state workers and state benefits, taxing the middle class more, and letting the rich off the hook. It's a migration formula for sure.

Wait a second. DC, influx of people, gun control ----- something's not right.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

"And you really need Gadfly to elaborate? Would that be a ...... contest?"

Yes I do, because nothing but facts have been brought to the table. apparently a difference in opinion is the same thing as pissing and moaning?

still......missing the point......not looking to solve any crime issues, want the right to defend myself from that crime

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

i don't see any four letter words.........

when you exaggerate on something in such a way it turns to ""If you are cowering all the time, shaking like a leaf, perhaps a change of venue where you can arm up, man up, be prepared to defend, shoot away all bad acts, will calm your nerves. " you deserve to have bullshit called on you, if that is what you are talking about. If you are going to poke fun, expect it to be poked back, all I can say.

"DC passed "may issue" putting it on level with NJ and NY.
Congrats on your success, may you have many more like it."

NJ's may issue is just about as good as a won't issue, because they don't issue, but yes, it is a step in the right direction.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

and because you likes sources

"New Jersey calls its permit a "permit to carry a handgun" and is a "may-issue" state for firearm carry, either openly or concealed. Permit applicants must "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." As a result of this tough standard, New Jersey is effectively a "no issue" state unless one is a retired law enforcement officer. Armed security officers and armored car drivers typically get restricted permits limited to carry while on duty only. A letter of need from the security company is required."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

The EPA has machine guns....

The IRS has machine guns...

The USPS has machine guns...

(I'm not kidding)

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

Lucky us Americans are less fanatical than they are....

Our Imams and their functionaries (political leaders and the establishment media) tell us some group is the ultimate evil, and use their constituent's resources and kin (money and family members) to keep provoking them....and we just run out, wave our foam "number one" thumbs up for "Merica, then run back to our basements in fear.

Sure, the true cost is no longer visible.... money- or other- wise, since we are steadily decreasing the value of our currency and national integrity. The cost IS visible to those select Americans and their families who bought into the scam, and now have members who have the mental and physical scars...thanks to our American Imams.

jjmonth4 ✉
Sep '14

Mark, I think we have seen it in our history books too

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

From The Examiner.com
Question !!!
It has been over 48 hours since Jah’Keem Yisrael, also known as Alton Nolen, beheaded an American woman in her own workplace by repeatedly stabbing her and then severing her head with a knife. However, America has yet to hear ONE WORD OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT from President Obama.

It seems odd, since it would at first appear that the golfer-in-chief cares about human life. He certainly had a lot to say about Michael Brown and volumes to say about Trayvon Martin. It leads people to wonder why Colleen Hufford is not as important. Perhaps he does not want to acknowledge this incident because she was murdered by a Muslim. Maybe it's because she was not a criminal or a minority. Perhaps it's because she was not killed with a gun, and therefore her story would do little or no good to further the left's goal to disarm America. Maybe it was because another coworker was saved by a gun, as the incident came to an end when Nolen was shot by the chief operating officer at the plant. Thank God for the Right to Bear Arms!

Old Gent ✉
Sep '14

Gadfly what a dumb comment, I think common sense would say no one wants a comment from the president each time there is a killing. The less we hear from him the better, BUT Old Gents point (seems like you need it explained in simpler terms) was that the president has chosen to selectively comment, extrapolate and define several killings recently, most notably those that gave rise to racial tension and division. One would think when we have a beheading, on American soil, by a individual who is a Muslim, whose FB page was full of anti-american rants, videos of beheadings and a promise to destroy America. One that was spouting islamic statements as he sawed a mothers head off in front of her co-workers that this could be disturbing to many Americans. That Americans that would look to a leader for a response.
What we have is a media and law enforcement organization that has decided to define this as workplace violence. To agree with that classification one needs to be either inane and moronic, a sympathizer to the radical cause, or so politically correct as to fear offending others that they would justify this in their minds as just a guy that was really angry at getting fired.
Our level of being fair and politically correct will be the death of our nation and we are on an accelerated path toward that now.

Mark ✉
Sep '14

So this radical Muslim terrorist named Alton Nolen (with the tattoo of Jesus on his chest and convictions for dealing drugs and assaulting police officers long before he knew anything of Islam... hell, he probably converted in prison) wishes to destroy America and has devoted his life to it. Does he attack a synagogue or some government building? Does he build a bomb to kill the maximum number of people possible? Does he plan an act of terrorism that he has a chance of carrying out and surviving? No.

He walks into the place from where he was recently fired, armed with nothing but a knife and begins killing people that he knows and possibly has a personal grudge against. If that isn't "workplace violence", I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist and we should probably remove the term from the lexicon. We'll just blame whatever religion the perpetrators happen to subscribe to.

Face it. This guy was a loser ex-con who had a shitty job and a bad attitude. He got fired from that job and decided to take revenge. Was he attracted to the violence of radical Islam and the method of beheading? It seems that way. Is any of that really relevant? Would that woman be less dead if he came in with a gun? No. Would more people likely be dead? Yes. Does it matter if Mohammed, the Easter Bunny or Charles Manson gave his sick twisted mind its marching orders? Not at all. My point is that this has nothing to do with an organized act of terrorism by "Islam"... it was the act of a single deranged individual with an axe to grind.

Does that mean that we have nothing to fear and that we should go on with our heads in the sand? Hell, no. Arm yourself and be ever vigilant... against whackos that align themselves with Islam and against whackos who align themselves with anti-government groups and against whackos who are too frigging whacko to align themselves with anything. There are plenty of whackos in this country doing lots of whacko things for lots of whacko reasons. But one whacko in Oklahoma does not an Islamic terrorist crisis make.

ianimal ✉
Sep '14

How about the president just be consistent in his message on anything.

simo ✉
Sep '14

"Darrin.

Let me get this straight. In back to back posts, you advocate torture and then compare OTHER people to Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin? Classic."

Gadfly, Are you kidding me?

I advocated anything that is not what we currently do, give murderers and rapists a free warm place to stay. I feel if the punishment was much much harsher, more people would think twice

The image was stemming from Mark Mc's post.......in which the point was what happens when a government takes guns away from civilians, leaving them defenseless.

Do I really need to explain?

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

I suppose many of you believe the Fort Hood massacre perpetrated by Major Haasan was workplace violence.

kb2755 ✉
Sep '14

wasn't he a recent convert to radicalized Islam, and he was promoting that sharia law was coming to the united states? and in the workplace he was trying to convert his co-workers to this radicalized view of the muslim faith?

i think that was part of the reason he was terminated, no?

now hasn't the ISIS bunch issued fatwas and twitter instructions urging the 'lone wolfs' here and in great britian to go out and kill the infidels wherever they may be?

that is a contributing factor in this case, is it not?

so yes while this one lone, crazed, compromised, sick, twisted, and self-radicalized individual committed workplace violence, it's also part of the story that he is being given a green light by ISIS to do these things. and he has promoted Sharia law for all of the united states and tried to convert those around him to sharia law, including his coworkers

i don't think this is the last time this will happen here. or in canada or in great britian,

and that is just one more reason why the state of new jersey is behind the times and out of touch with the majority of the nation in not having a 'shall issue' CCW law on the books,

we need to be vigilant, and we need to be able to defend ourselves from anyone who attempts to harm us this way. the fact that a firearm was available and was used prevented this tragedy from being even worse than it was.

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '14

i did read that, thanks, and there was another news story about him attempting to make converts to radicalized islam out of his coworkers in the work place, pretty sure that HR would have an issue with that.

he converted while he was in prison, and yes we cant ignore the racial component here, we have come so far in the last 50 years, but looks like we have miles and miles still to go in race relations

but the influence of these fatwa's from the mideast and the affect they have on these radicalized lone wolfs needs to be more fully understood. i do believe it was one of the factors in this case,

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '14

i agree with not being overly fearful, but i always recommend that everybody maintain a good situational awareness, to keep both eyes open as you go about your daily business

now in the context of this case, this guy happened to be a self radicalized sharia law convert,

ISIS has in the last month issued instructions to Muslims everywhere to take up arms against the infidels, in England, in Australia, in Canada and in the USA, and other places, they sent out twitter feeds instructing the faithful to kill the infidel wherever they find them.

this guy is absolutely susceptible to this kind of influence, there are sick lone wolfs among us who can be set off

and he did cut her head off with a knife!

and there are news reports that claimed he was trying to convert his co-workers to his radicalized view of Islam in the workplace.

BrotherDog ✉
Oct '14

ian.."Say what you will about fundamentalist Islam, at least they appear to be color blind and accept all races equally. So, if anything, his issue was that he was a racist, not a religious fanatic."

Isn't it possible to be religious and still be racist?

Also how do we explain the beheading? Seems more religious fueled then anything, I mean how many murderers do we have in our country where the people go as far as to cut their victims head and hands off?

Maybe a coincidence, yes, but when backed with apparent info that he may have converted in prison, somewhat worrying.

Mark, the concern over reason here is discovering if isis exists on our own soil already, and being prepared/on the watch for more potential attacks.

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

"For every story of a good guy with a gun, there are five stories of a good guy going a-wall with a gun"

I would like you to back that statement MG, bet you can't!

Just because the media wants us to constantly hear about the dangers of guns does not mean that it is rare for a gun to save lives.

Police use them every day to save lives, and police have also been known to go a-wall, yet they still carry?

http://gunssavelives.net/

Hear is a whole slew of stories for you

I also like to note that you have used the same numbers in two manners. apparently being able to defend the 375 workplace murders is "small numbers" but when it comes to saving children, even just one kid, that's big numbers?

What is the difference? And why are the 375 people who were unable to defend themselves insignificant? What made their life less valuable then the children that have been murdered during school shootings? I would really like to know why you have played both sides of this number

people should have the right to defend themselves, it's our constitutional right

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

+100 JazzYcatt!

I would also like to point out how this is a pro gun story, someones life was spared because of the right to carry, yet MG is trying to downplay it to be anti-gun, even though the gun saved someone's life.....

Can't you just be glad someone was able to stop the murder of another person instead of constantly trying to find a way to smear your anti-gun campaign on everything?

I fell horribly bad for the person who lost their life, too bad there were not more good guys with guns, then this story and many otrhers may of never happened, at least it was put to a stop

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

One more point to make, this violent crime was committed with a knife. Maybe those should be banned as well. In this story, the gun was the good guy and the knife was the bad guy. I'm kidding....the bad guy was the bad guy no matter WHAT weapon he used. Blame the crazy human, not the device used to inflict harm. He could have murdered someone using a pencil if he wanted to.

Jazzykatt ✉
Oct '14

"Also how do we explain the beheading? Seems more religious fueled then anything, I mean how many murderers do we have in our country where the people go as far as to cut their victims head and hands off?"

The killer was obviously obsessed with the concept of beheading someone as evidenced by the videos he allegedly had on his Facebook page, However, the method of killing doesn't change the underlying facts... that this was a revenge killing by a disgruntled employee with specific targets in mind and therefore "workplace violence" and not an act of terrorism. Is being shot point blank in the face really any less horrific than having your head cut off? Or is it just that we haven't been as desensitized as a culture to that particular method as we have with guns? The only real difference is perception... and on the bright side, it's a hell of a lot less efficient than guns or bombs.

To answer your other question, dismembering of bodies post-mortem happens more often than you think. Whenever a killer doesn't wish the victim to be identified but doesn't have the opportunity to dispose of the entire body, they will remove the head and hands so that dental records and fingerprints can't be used.

ianimal ✉
Oct '14

"Is being shot point blank in the face really any less horrific than having your head cut off?"

Absolutely, quick kill as opposed to suffering

I do agree with you on the workplace violence, but I feel the means of execution was religion based.

There is a big difference in dismembering someone who is already dead to dispose of parts as opposed to dismembering to kill, at least i would think so

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Really? Your list had to go back to 1928 to come up with 10 results?


"America has proven it."

That's very nice of you to speak for all of America based on your sample size of one (yourself) ...

The fact is DGU's far outnumber criminal gun uses with the side benefit of also stopping attacks by knife, blunt object, or simply larger physical size. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) just the presentation of the gun is enough, without having to fire a shot.

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

Also mg, your reference contains 10 stories, far short from the 1303 cases I posted

I believe guns win, but i also bet you didn't even look

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Plenty of people get shot in the face that aren't a "quick kill" and suffer for hours, days or weeks before dying. Some even live, disfigured and paralyzed.

Beheading was actually considered quite humane at one time. Obviously, a guillotine is preferable to a buck knife for a quick, clean kill, but how do you know how much pain is actually involved? I doubt in reality, it's any worse than being strangled or any other method. The sense of panic by the victim would certainly be the same. Again, it's the perception of being barbaric and cruel that everyone reacts to, when the reality might be far different than the perception.

ianimal ✉
Oct '14

Your point?

ianimal ✉
Oct '14

MG, why don't you stay focused on the responses that were directed toward you rather then simply picking on responses to other people because you are stumped and your initial point has been slapped down and you cannot figure anything else to say

Did i hit that nail on the head?

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

"America has proven that more guns do make us safer."

Safer than what? Ourselves?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

LMAO

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

"The only answer many seem to have is more guns. "

The "answer" is the UN-INFRINGEMENT of our constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms, that will do quite nicely, thank you. Stop trying to prevent us from protecting ourselves with our legally owned firearms, and we won't have a problem. (and while you're at it, STOP banning guns types. Enough already!)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

"It's also worth pointing out that this wasn't just a "good guy with a gun", but a law enforcement officer with a gun, and I don't think anyone on this forum opposes LE officers from carrying weapons."

Kinda right/kinda wrong.

This guy is the COO of the company who also happens to be a reserve officer. He isn't a cop who was responding to the 911 call. The threat was over by the time "first" responders got there because a citizen put a stop to it.

Had "nobody" been armed (the way you want it) he could have killed a lot more people with a knife, too.

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

I've met some cops who definitely know less about firearms ... both the safety of them, and the laws regarding them, than I am. I know one cop who sees his gun as a screwdriver... simply a tool of the job. He has no interest or enthusiasm for firearms, and never goes shooting, except once a year, to re-qualify.

If we are going to allow these LEOs to walk around 24-7 armed, don't you think they should maybe be, oh I don't know, EXPERTS or something? Shouldn't they be held to the "expert in safety and use" requirement so many people are trying to get the normal citizenry to endure? It's harder to pass a driver's exam than a pistol safety orientation.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

"It's harder to pass a driver's exam than a pistol safety orientation."

This is why it's so interesting when I read numerous stories about police officers shooting themselves in the leg, or blowing holes in the window or roof of their cruisers...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/daniel-zimmerman/irresponsible-gun-owner-of-the-day-sgt-brian-flaherty/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/irresponsible-gun-owners-day-austin-police-department-officers-shelly-holmstrom-vincent-giles/

Is it really so hard to keep your damn finger off the trigger when you're not intending to shoot? And if/when they DO have a negligent discharge (guns don't just "go off" by themselves) they should face the same repercussions a private citizen would, which would typically be at least a temporary loss of firearm rights and possible a night in the clink.

These are the "experts" that people trust with guns? There isn't enough space here to post all the stories about how they are anything BUT experts.

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

"But frankly, I would be more concerned with training in handling armed confrontations than actual range time firing a weapon."

The needs are different there too. LE does need to train for barricaded suspects, clearing buildings, hostage situations, etc. Private citizens don't need to worry about that because the only time you should use a gun in self defense is when you are in immediate peril which generally isn't a strategic or tactical situation.

If the bad guy ducks into another room or runs down the hallway, it's likely no longer my problem (as an armed citizen). Of course, that assumes I was allowed to be armed in the first place as opposed to just being a defenseless target.

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

Take it easy JR. Don't be in such a rush to get your panties in a bunch.

Gadfly ✉
Oct '14

Congrats on the stellar name calling. You win the race to the bottom!

Gadfly ✉
Oct '14

Mark,

I don't disagree with anything you in your last post. My comment was based on my understanding that the hero in this situation heard what was happening and went after the guy. And good for him. It was certainly to his advantage that (if) he had such training and that the perp was wielding a knife, rather than a gun.

Gadfly ✉
Oct '14

If the *ahem* in fact meant nothing, it wouldn't of been used, I am with JR on this one as it was obviously used for a reaction

Secondly, we can let our imagination go wild and make up coulda woulda shoulda stories all day long and then convince ourselves that this example doesn't clearly back up either side of the gun argument. But the truth of the matter is a second murder was stopped because someone in the workforce had the right to carry. Had the people called the cops, the second person would of been dead. There is no reading between the lines on that, it is a cold hard fact.

It seems people who are against guns always want to play the what if card, why don't we stay focused on stories that actually happened and not wander since the current topic doesn't meet your agenda?

Also why is it people who are against guns are always so against sharing their true feelings? They always beat around the bush and make up what if stories. How about you share you your feelings on guns? Pro-gun people have always openly expressed their feelings, I don;t know why it would be any different the other way around...unless...you are scared?

Also Gadfly, you were already bottom of the barrel, i believe JR just used a plunger to try to get you free.

Is there a difference between name calling and telling someone their panties are in a bunch? Both insults in my book

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

cdc says you are 27 times more likely to die from a bike accident:


CDC, FBI: BICYCLE AND FALLING DEATHS FAR EXCEED DEATHS FROM 'MASS SHOOTINGS

Death statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coupled with crime statistics from the FBI show that bicycle and falling deaths far exceed deaths from "mass shootings."
For example, on September 24 the FBI released a study showing there were 64 incidents of "mass killings" (mass shootings) for the years 2000 through 2013. The gunmen in these incidents took the lives of 418 people.
Breitbart News reported that The New York Times and AP jumped all over the study, producing headlines about how "mass shootings" are on the rise and crafting stories that revolved around the attacks at Sandy Hook Elementary and the Aurora movie theater.
The 418 people who were killed over a 14-year period works out to an average of 29.8 persons a year.
To be clear, no one wants to see even one life lost to tragedy, but the mainstream media's focus on "mass shootings" to the detriment of other news where hundreds or even thousands more lives were lost is telling.

"while there were 418 deaths in "mass shootings" from 2000 to 2013, there were 800 deaths by bicycle in 2010 alone."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/01/CDC-FBI-Bicycle-And-Falling-Deaths-Far-Exceed-Deaths-From-Mass-Shootings

BrotherDog ✉
Oct '14

So you make the argument that accidents kill more people than guns.

Homicide by gun is not an accident.

You are talking apples and oranges.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

No kidding. You guys make me dizzy. ;-)

Calico696 ✉
Oct '14

Come on, tell the truth, you were dizzy before you started reading :>)

Gosh, that's a different second amendment than the one I read. I thought the second amendment was: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the right to self defense? nope, not in the 2nd. self defense is a natural right? gee, not in the second either. as far as the government infringing on any of this ---- well, the other stuff isn't in the 2nd, so that's strike three.......

So reading comprehension and comparison skills need work. Perhaps some Common Core might help you.

Here’s a graphic showing what we lose for each year we continue to shoot each other the way we have been.

http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

Good guys with guns protecting us from bad guys. That's the NRA's and gunnies mantra, ahhhhhhheeeeeem. Where John Lennon said :"All you need is love," the gunnies say: "All we need is more guns in more places held by more people and life will get safer, life will be better." According to Mark, life is already safer due to the accelerated sales of guns. Violent crime is down by 50% since 1996. Gun ownership is way up, gun control laws are crashing down; we are finally winning the battle!!!!! I might add that gun sales are also correlated with Obama election years and perhaps we should blame Obama for our good fortune, but we'll let Mark has his theory.....for now.

Or precisely: “America has proven that more guns do make us safer. Record sales of guns, more states than ever with shall issue laws, the expiration of Federal assault weapons bans (which NJ law mimics), and violent crime is down about 50% since 1996.” Somehow we are claiming our violent crime victory rate on guns even though "correlation does not imply causation" as Mark would have us believe.

First….when someone hands you a timeline that’s overwhelmingly down, the first thing you do is look at the beginning – 1996. From 1960 to 1969, violent crime rose 104%; from 1960 to 1980 --- 241%. From 1960 to 1990, over 300% and from 1960 to violent crime’s all-time high, 1991, 340%. That's basically Mark's starting point; mount violent crime.

So given a 340% increase, are we really that proud of a 50% drop in a couple of decades over a 340% increase in three decades? How many more guns do we need to get to the 1960 violent crime rate? Can we really claim success or failure for either gun control or reduced gun control based on this correlation?

Meanwhile, violent crime is not even necessarily gun crime. Only 26% include a weapon, only 10% include a firearm so how can a 10% usage rate equate to a 50% drop?

Meanwhile our murder rate is up about 100% during the same period, roughly 70% of which committed by a good person gone bad with a gun. But since 1996, our murder rate is only down about 25%. Uh oh. And rape is down only 19%; we must need more women packing. Seems that wild increases in gun sales only marginally affects murder by gun, if it even effects it at all.

Then you look at ownership. We know that gun sales are high; every Obama election year they skyrocket. But has ownership increased? Or are a few dudes cornering the market, or is something else happening. Well, it appears it is not ownership. (see chart). We have more guns for sure, but not a corresponding number of gun owners. So given that each good guy probably only uses one gun to stop a bad guy, we just don't have that many new owners out there.

Maybe we do need more good guys with guns instead of what we have: more guns with less good guys…… But if we have less good guys with guns, but more guns, does that mean we have more bad guys? Help Calico, I am getting dizzy.

So again, are we safer than what? Ourselves? Because we don’t seem to be a very good comparison model to begin with.

I think Darrin said it best when he said it boils down to him feeling safer if he has a gun. And most certainly it is your right to bear arms and it is your right to defend yourself. However, it certainly doesn't seem to be making America safer, or at least not enough considering how many guns are being sold and is probably making us less safe, at least than almost every other developed nation on the planet.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

Since you like graphics so much...

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

There are 23 gun advocacy groups. I would a imagine if they got together on an issue, they would make one hell of a Militia.

Arizona Citizens Defense League
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Georgia Carry.org
Grass Roots North Carolina
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of New Hampshire
Gun Owners' Action League
Handgun Club of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Liberty Belles
Massachusetts Rifle Association
National Association for Gun Rights
National Rifle Association
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association
Pink Pistols
Saint Gabriel Possenti Society
Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Sisters
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah
Students for Concealed Carry
The Truth About Guns
Vigina Citizens Defense League

Old Gent ✉
Oct '14

LOL , Rebecka

Old Gent ✉
Oct '14

"How many more guns do we need to get to the 1960 violent crime rate? Can we really claim success or failure for either gun control or reduced gun control based on this correlation?"

Exactly. It's NOT THE GUNS, stupid. (not YOU ianimal, just coining a phrase)


"Aren't the 1960s when "gun control" BEGAN? So, basically you're just pointing out the front end of Mark's argument... that gun control laws lead to more crime. I'm sure he'll thank you for it."

Even *I* wouldn't make that argument. In truth, what has caused more crime, plain and simple, is the deterioration of society and the lack of personal responsibility. No one want to HAVE TO DO ANYTHING for what they have, and take NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their actions... or at least don't think they should have to. It of course gets far more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

The GUNS are just the tools being used. Trying to control the crime rate with gun control is like trying to stop drug use with drug control. How 'bout that "war on drugs"? That's working great, ain't it? Drug control (making certain drugs illegal) has helped not one whit in the war against drugs. The availability of the guns is NOT "making these people use them for crimes". A criminal is a criminal. Gun, knife, baseball bat- all that matters is that he has a bigger stick than you do. Solution? Always carry a big stick. Or at least *A* "stick."

The gun/drug/etc is a SYMPTOM. you need to start treating the CAUSE. Guns don't CAUSE crime. Criminals USE guns to commit crimes. Druggies TAKING drugs are committing a crime.

Using logic to play this out TO THE FINAL END, "if all guns and drugs were outlawed, no one would get shot and no one would die of an overdose." Riiiiiiiiight.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

Sorry, I was trying to tell the difference between 2010 and 2013 on that graphic.... I keep hearing the music from the finale of V for Vendetta.

Actually 1968. And the point is not the decrease but the rate of decrease. If we have all these guns in all these hands, Mark's point as to that being the causation seems to be lacking given how many guns are out there.

If we go to some anti-gunnite places: UK --- violent crime down 35% since 1995

Here's the theory which might apply to US crime rates:
1. Removal of Lead from Gas
2. Can't afford to get drunk
3. Fighting has become uncool
4. Too busy with smart phone and video games

Point is Iman that correlation does not equal causation and the number of guns is even close to comparison to the drop in crime. Plus overall gun ownership has not dramatically increased meaning the same people who had guns, now just have more (see better chart). And that's just violent crime of which a 10% portion is by gun.

Not to mention that our murder rate, which is 70% by gun, has not fallen at the same rate since 1996, only 25%.

If we believed Mark's correlation is causation, it might be due to extra guns, violent crimes that don't involve guns are way down but murder by gun has not fallen much at all leading us to see that too many guns is stopping murder falling as correlated to violent crime reductions.

So yes, gun control started in 1968 and obviously did not stem violent crime nor murder by gun, however, application has been patchwork. But more guns and relaxation of cc rules has not reduced murder by gun dramatically either. Matter of fact, there is no proof that there is any causation whatsoever.

And when you look at violent crime in America by region, the picture gets even muddier: http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/11/crime-rates-shown-to-be-falling

So like I said, I think all these guns are making us less safe except when we compare it to ourselves. But should our mountain of violent crime from 1996 be the metric that we measure by? Is that comparison to just us good enough?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

iPhone,

Not sure I understand? What position, exactly?

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

Again, if it is correlated, since the rate of increase on the guns is HUGE and the decrease rate on murder by guns is some much smaller, the correlation is either weak or moot.

And the use of violent crime with a 10% gun usage seems to be a straw man that the gunnies like to throw out as a substitute for the gun issue that we are actually talking about. Like guns are the HUGE reason violent crime is down even though we can't really statistically see that and even though guns are only used in vioent crime 10% of the time (thank you NRA for not allowing us to study gun usage).

I did not act as if you don't matter JR; the fact is I did agree with Darrin (and I guess you since you matter) that guns make you feel safer. I think that's special. Are you safer? Use it yet? Because if you haven't, you're not safer yet. But more realistically, in aggregate, while you may FEEL safer, I doubt that you are given the number of gun murders, accidents with guns, suicide with guns, kids killing kids with guns, etc. etc. etc. In aggregate, guns are killing us, by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, at a rate that would wipe out three Hackettstowns every year. And to say "it would have happened anyway ------ darn ---- just like the NRA guy is just not true.

You want to know the truth? Can you handle it? When it comes to guns, we kill each other like a third world country is chaos. We ain't modern, we ain't developed, we just a bunch of dumb cowboys killing each other whenever we get pissed.

"Safer than what? Ourselves?”

Not really grasping at straws, just looking at this from a global view. Sure, our violent crime rate is way down, our murder rate is down less, but down ----- but so is the rest of the world. And against the rest of the world, America is third-world when it comes to violent crime and especially homicide and much of it lies with the number of guns and our ease of committing mayhem with them when we are miffed.

Britain’s violent crime rate is 3 times that of the US. But there’s a difference. “There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011. In America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022.” Do the math, America is off the scale when it comes to shooting each other as compared to the rest of the world.

But if we didn’t have our guns, we would still find a way, darn it.

“This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.”

So does having a gun make you safer?

“In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. Not much of a risk for the criminal, it seems. Perhaps that was because too few Americans own guns or carry them on their persons to have a substantial effect, but it's hard to imagine driving those numbers up much higher; Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control

So my point is you have the second amendment, you have the right to defend yourself, but don't tell me all these guns make us safer because they don't. And safer that what? Us on our worse day? But we stink. Is that the metric for success? Look, we stink less.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

We have been over this all already

let me make a long story short

MG (and others) (maybe one) (possibly two)........(but really just MG)....gets cornered and starts the whole debate from square one rather then confronting the facts that are in front of him

Did I sum it up?

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

IA,

We aren't in disagreement. ??? I didn't use the word "entitlement", but it certainly falls under the "more complicated than that" category.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

-guffaw-

CDC/FBI study....

http://www.westernjournalism.com/cdcfbi-far-people-killed-bicycles-mass-shootings/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

"But don't tell me that good guys with guns save the day or that our solution to violence is more guns. It's pure bunk."

Yeah....that must be why all cops carry guns, because they want to promote violence, good point!

Try telling that to someone who put their life in danger to save someone else, you will most likely be punched or at the very least talked very lowly about

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Again Darrin, there is a difference between a single incident and the aggregate effect. While any time we stop violence is good, in aggregate more guns do not seem to make us safer. Quite the opposite, we murder more than almost any developed nation, often at a rate or 5 time or 10 times more and 70% of the time it is by a gun. Just point n click and problem solved.

Iman --- glad you entered the fray, but STRAWMAN alert...... As you said, the abundance of our prison situation is the war on drugs, not guns nor entitlements.

And it is slightly getting better. Population dropped 1.7% in 2012. Federal population fell by 4,800 this year, Expect 2,000 and 10,000 in following two years.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"Iman --- glad you entered the fray, but STRAWMAN alert...... As you said, the abundance of our prison situation is the war on drugs, not guns nor entitlements."

And how many of the 10,000 murders committed every year are directly or indirectly related to the war on drugs as well? Shouldn't you subtract all of those out of the equation? Once you do, it becomes pretty evident what the real problem is, and it's not guns.

ianimal ✉
Oct '14

Come on Iman, ur just messin witch me now aren't you......

So the fact that we have 5 to 10 times the number of guns per person than any other developed nation in the world leads you to believe it's the drugs that makes us murder each other at 5 to 10 times the rate of other developed nations.

While we most certainly rank high in drug usage, we are not even close to blowin them away like with our gun stockpiles, our murder rate, or our prison population (just to keep your older strawman going). There's no 5 times to 10 times rate here, not close. And in most individual drug categories while in the top ten, we are not usually in the top five. (think I want to retire to Palau even though I wonder where it is but realize it won't matter once I get there :>)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/02/drug-use-map-world

Iman, just go to the WIKI chart for the world list of countries, select sort by rate, lowest first, and then scroll to the US. See how long it takes. Then scroll beyond the US and tell me if there's lots of places worse that us that look great. Very few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Check out our murder-rate neighbors. Feel in good company? Remember, 70% of these murders are by gun: point, click and bang, another murder just like in the video game. And another good guy gone bad. Might be up to 10,000 good guy turncoats every year in America. How many better guys with guns will it take to stop that tsunami of death.

Again, keep your weapons, love the 2nd, defend yourself, protect our country from our county. It's all cool. But don't tell me all these guns are not making us the murder capital of the modern developed world. And please don't tell me we just need more good guys with guns to stem the tide. It's bunk.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

So when a kid finds a gun, points it at someone and pulls the trigger like he's seen on all those TV shows and all his video games, is someone negligent?

Or do we just give the kid a timeout for breaking 1 or more of the 3 sacred rules.

Because more often than not we classify this as a terrible tragedy, we all shed a tear, and then get out with our lives without any punitive actions whatsoever. After all, somebody suffered enough, right?

Darn those accidents. Just another artifact of too many guns with good guys gone stupid.

http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/05/kids-guns-negligent-homicides-and-double-standards/

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

Wait, aren't gangbangers who just want to protect themselves just good guys with guns just looking fer a little self defense.

Which means you have to knock you number in half since half the bangers are good guys with guns.

:>)

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"Wait, aren't gangbangers who just want to protect themselves just good guys with guns just looking fer a little self defense."


See image -->

For those that don't get it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ZGKI8vpcg

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/internetlanguage/f/What-Is-Jump-the-Shark.htm

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

"Again Darrin, there is a difference between a single incident and the aggregate effect. While any time we stop violence is good, in aggregate more guns do not seem to make us safer. "

What is the difference from cops being a aggregate effect and civilians with the right to carry being a aggregate effect?

There is cops that have been know to loose it and shoot people just like there is people with guns that do the same, you will never stop it, the only thing that can stop it is a good guy with a defense mechanism....just as in the two stories that have been posted.

"So when a kid finds a gun, points it at someone and pulls the trigger like he's seen on all those TV shows and all his video games, is someone negligent?

Or do we just give the kid a timeout for breaking 1 or more of the 3 sacred rules.

Because more often than not we classify this as a terrible tragedy"

And there goes those media tactics MG has, kids kids kids....terrible tragedy....

MG we have heard your statistics over and over again. you are really just repeating yourself.

The truth is, MG, for lack of a better way of saying it, people are f*ed up, if not guns they will find another way, even those innocent kids you like to relate to

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/justice/wisconsin-girl-stabbed/

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Because you told me that self-defense is a good thing and who's to say that up to half the gangbangers involved in a shooting are not urban youth looking to join a club to protect themselves. If you don't know, you can't assume they are not upstanding citizens in self-defense mode. Just saying I don't know and, unlike Iman, don't assume :>)

As I have shown Darrin, in every other developed nation, they have indeed found another way to not kill each other as often as we like to do. We kill at a rate of 5 times to 10 ten times the rate they do. 70% of our killings are by gun. While only a correlation, it seems that easy access to guns sure makes killing easier.

And seriously Iman, you don't think there's gangs in England? Try Soccer.... Or racial unrest in France and Germany? Try Muslim.... Darrin, please look at the WIKI list of country homicide rates I as I noted above and tell me, culturally, do we have something in common with our "homicidal neighbors" or perhaps do we just have too many guns?

How can anyone look at that list of homicide rates by country and not gasp at the tragedy that is the United States of America.

Perhaps we should focus more on the kids. Between 7,0000 to 10,000 are shot each year, thanks goodness only a small number of which die. But that's like lining up all of Hackettstown and wounding every single one of us each year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/guns-injure-7-000-u-s-kids-yearly-study-article-1.1592703

Is that too many guns or is it good guys off the chain or both? Less soldiers get wounded in Afghanistan every year than kids living in the USA. More kids die from guns than from cancer, twice as many.

Kids and criminal gun negligence. Sure, use the current law. But we don't. Never have. So an overwhelming number of kid gun murders are called accidents or ruled as not criminally negligent or even homicide which lets the parents off the hook. Beitbart made a big deal when the Washington Post recently stated that we don't know how many kids kill with guns each year. What BB left out was the lobbying of the NRA makes sure that the CDC does not research gun deaths beyond FBI stats. They have successfully lobbied for years to defund gun death and accident research by the government. Your gun lobby does not want you to know how many kids are killing kids and others each year.

But here's the important point; it is estimated that only 25% of cases where kids pull the trigger result in criminal charges. Only 25%. And you say the current law is good enough, after over 230 years of the republic, we just need to enforce it. Bunk. What's going to change if change does not occur. Parents gonna get more responsible --- yeah, right. We gonna start enforcing negligence laws --- haven't yet. No change means no change.

Maybe you should go to your second line of argumentative defense and say more kids die from old age than from guns. Guns don't kill, cars kill.

Or the third line of your defense about how the kids would have killed with something else anyway.

And I'm the one jumping the shark to say that murder rates 5 times to 10 times other developed nations, gun deaths 5 times to 10 times other nations seems wrong. Jumping the shark by not agreeing that it's the overwhelming prison population, drug use, or that we have more gangbangers than other developed nations and that's the real problem. Jumping the shark to say --- hey, when a kid kills with a gun, there's something criminally wrong here that the current laws are not addressing adequately.

Again, don't want your guns, don't want to change the 2nd, but at least man-up, admit we are gun-killing ourselves into a fearful state and perhaps something should be done beyond singing ------
"All we need is guns, all together now
All we need is guns, for everybody
All we need is more guns
More guns is all you need"

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"Again, don't want your guns, don't want to change the 2nd"

You really need to stop lying to yourself, mg. You want us to "call a spade a spade?" Perhaps taking some of your own advice is warranted.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '14

"Because you told me that self-defense is a good thing and who's to say that up to half the gangbangers involved in a shooting are not urban youth looking to join a club to protect themselves. If you don't know, you can't assume they are not upstanding citizens in self-defense mode. Just saying I don't know and, unlike Iman, don't assume :>)"

Okay, got it, so don't assume that all gang members are bad....got it...are you f****in kidding me right now?!?!?!

Straight from your beloved wiki

"A gang is a group of recurrently associating individuals or close friends or family with identifiable leadership and internal organization, identifying with or claiming control over territory in a community, and engaging either individually or collectively in violent or other forms of illegal behavior.[2] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang

your logic is quite far off, and that really takes the cake, you tell me not to assume, but you assume that "up to half" of gang members are really just good guys.......and then even try to change factual numbers posted by someone else with this new found myth

mistergoogle, I don't even know what to say to that, I honestly can't even take you seriously anymore

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Also would like to mention this article goes completely against your past statements, so much so, it is sort of funny you posted it

You advocate how dangerous guns are and how much easier they are to kill someone with, also how easy it is to accidentally kill someone

yet this article (you posted) says

The grim findings by Yale University researchers, published today in the journal Pediatrics, estimate that firearm injuries sent 7,391 children to the emergency room in 2009 — about 20 per day. Of these, 6% go on to die from their injuries.

so 6% of the accidental shootings (just on children) resulted in death, that's a far cry from what you were trying to lead others to believe in old posts.

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Not odd, we draw the smartest from around the world. God help us if this ever stops (and it is slowing down now).

Of my team of developers the top two are from Asia (South Korea and China). History teachers with useless Masters degrees are not what is going to make this country great again.

Interestingly, science teachers are often not getting more compensation than the liberal arts -- they should...

iJay ✉
Oct '14

Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, I believe it's pretty obvious what I am comparing. Both our ridiculously high murder rate and our ridiculously low education rate are directly related to the absolute mess that we have allowed our inner cities to become.

I'm pretty sure that I made sure to point out that guns aren't to blame for either. Now, whether or not you want to have a discussion on the REAL issues is up to you, but I warn you... there aren't any palatable answers.

Legalizing drugs is distasteful to most, and I'll admit that I cringe when I consider the possibility that my son and daughter will grow up in a world where you can walk into a store and buy smack like you were buying beer or cigarettes. But, unless you eliminate the criminal element that goes part and parcel with drugs, the inner cities don't stand a chance and the statistics regarding gun violence and "average" test scores will forever be skewed. And liberals will continue to use them to bemoan the failure of our "gun nut society" while explaining away our "failed education system". The fact is that we are pretty average on both fronts, once the obvious outliers are eliminated. But gods forbid we should even raise that as a possibility..

iPhone-imal ✉
Oct '14

This is America, correct? It's not your place to wish anything on anyone. Or to decide what's best for them. But the alternative to legalization is to institute draconian penalties for drug possession, not drug dealing.

Should we institute the death penalty for drug possession? Because drug dealers aren't the problem. They are just providing a service that's required by the market. We have been incarcerating drug dealers for decades without any results at all. Imagine if we passed laws that made drug users responsible for their actions... with their lives.

Nothing legally short of that will stop its proliferation. Or, should we treat it as a medical issue and take the billions of dollars that we spend on enforcement and punishment and use it for education and treatment instead?

ianimal ✉
Oct '14

"No, you jumped the shark because you think gangbangers are good guys, who just joined the Bloods because the local YMCA was booked."
I never said that, when you go tongue in cheek, it makes Darrin sad.....
I did say we don't know that 50% of every gangbanger shooting is not a person protecting themselves, aka self defense, your mantra, and that you are assuming facts not in evidence. Or just being a......never mind. That's JR putting words in others mouths because he is so frustrated. "

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted from MG just a few posts up

"Wait, aren't gangbangers who just want to protect themselves just good guys with guns just looking fer a little self defense.
"

and then

"Because you told me that self-defense is a good thing and who's to say that up to half the gangbangers involved in a shooting are not urban youth looking to join a club to protect themselves. "

Now if that is not point blank being a strawman, IDK what is

MG, your lies are beginning to get the best of you, and attempting to pit the rest of us against each other is not going to work.

BUSTED!

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

"I strongly remember you saying just a few words (essays) on LCMs...particularly that if states were already 15 there was no reason to go to 10, but states that have no limits should seek limits.........."
Uh, Darrin, LCMs are not guns.......therefore, I did not call for a ban on guns.

" In case you don't realize that would be changing the 2nd amendment"
Not according to the Supreme Court.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

You're right I am not too technical and probably would not understand, gosh, I just don't seem to be able to comprehend the magnitude of a design change to remove some bullets from the mag. It is probably impossible to modify any of these integrated designs with any size mag you like, especially smaller. Is smaller but the same impossible? Not bloody likely. Give me a break, it's probably not even a Class A design change and would represent a dot release. Sorry but you must be even less technical than I.

As for legacy guns, which I am sure would be your next tirade, that could not be retro-fitted easily, gosh, either buy em out or grandfather them. Sorry.

"Just because the supreme court ruled on it doesn't make it right."
Nor does being a bunch of wealthy upper class slaveholders make the words of the second amendment "god's words."
But in both cases, it does make it legal according to our Constitution........sorry.

"Why should anyone be allowed to tell someone what they need to defend their family."
You already are, just man up and admit it.

"That's almost like someone telling you that you have to keep your posts to three sentences..... :->"
They already do have a length restriction, get used to it.

" The day that I would be okay with magazine limits is the day that our military and police are forced to adhere to the same rules. Any reason you can come up with for why they should be allowed LCMs is a reason why we should be allowed LCMs"
This makes even less sense than the last two, it's infantile and not worth response.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

I am sorry, are you trying to equate the Constitution with God's words?

Why infantile he asks (how appropriate :>)
"" The day that I would be okay with magazine limits is the day that our military and police are forced to adhere to the same rules."
So Darrin feels citizens should equal police should equal military when it comes to arms. Gosh, can I get my nukie on Ebay?

"Any reason you can come up with for why they should be allowed LCMs is a reason why we should be allowed LCMs"
The old "no you" "noooo, you" argument which I think Plato invented. Or was that Pluto, Darrin's debate coach? Known as the anything wrong is right defense.

Yes it's infantile and not worth response but since you are failing to see how silly those statements were, I have just for you.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"I am sorry, are you trying to equate the Constitution with God's words?"

Did I say anything that would lead you to believe this?

you said "Nor does being a bunch of wealthy upper class slaveholders make the words of the second amendment "god's words.""

and I said

"Okay, so the documentation that the whole means of our country being born is now also BS according to you.....good one, I will try to remember that"

I am not understanding why you are trying to lead on yet something else that never happened

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

"The day that I would be okay with magazine limits is the day that our military and police are forced to adhere to the same rules. Any reason you can come up with for why they should be allowed LCMs is a reason why we should be allowed LCMs"

Now if the "rule" is that military/police should adhere to the same weaponry rules as citizens why is the line drawn at LCMs since both the military and police have a number of weapons to do not adhere to the same rules as citizens.

Where's the common sense in drawing the line there.

Where does Darrin, Mark or the Constitution have anything to say, of value, to that?

The absurd part was the infantile thought that military and police should be forced to adhere to the same weaponry rules as citizens and that the enforcement line for that inane rule is some Darrin-invented line in the sand at LCMs.

And then to top it off with "Any reason you can come up with for why they should be allowed LCMs is a reason why we should be allowed LCMs" is ludicrous.

Remember, I said the thought was infantile and not worthy of response. Darrin begged the question and then you piled on basically saying I was absurd and off-topic. What did you expect as a response to the ridiculous?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"Mg, I do not believe that bombs are in the same category as "Arms" as declared in the constitution."
We got a Constitutional scholar here we do.....

Yes, why would police and military need arms that citizens don't have? Where is it written that all police, military, and citizens be armed equal, but only to the extent of LCMs and guns, after that it's all right for police and military to have other weapons because the Constitution clearly draws the line at guns and LCMs for citizens and, of course, this line Constitutionally need to be adhered to by police and military for guns and LCMs but not other stuff. Yeah, brilliant and covered under the 2nd Amendment, part 3.

"I still don't see any reasons why our police and or military should have standard capacity that wouldn't apply to why a standard citizen should have access to the same "normal" capacity, you keep saying it is ridiculous but fail to post any facts."
Perhaps one reason might be that the point of the military is to be armed in a superior fashion to other country's militaries. I can just see Patton thinking: nope, don't want the bigger gun, citizens don't have it yet........

And I'm the one blamed for absurdum......

Did that answer your inane question for your infantile statement? You're like a dog with a bone when you ask a question you know.

Talk about changing the topic. Who knows what we were talking about, but it certainly wasn't this, and what ever it was, it didn't have anything to do with this thread anyway. But yet you fixate on my changing the topic for your statement that I said was infantile but you wouldn't let go, and now you expanded the things you won't let go.

Even I want to stop this thread NOW.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"But yet you fixate on my changing the topic for your statement that I said was infantile but you wouldn't let go, and now you expanded the things you won't let go."

Don't try to pass the buck now bud, I do believe it was you who ran with the topic on gun laws after a few praised the good guy with a gun in the OP, we pleaded with you to just be happy that someone's life was saved in this matter, and you didn't care, you wanted to smear your anti-gun agenda on like cream cheese on a hot bagel, butter on a fresh piece of toast, oil on a.....well you get the point

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

"And my initial push back was that, in aggregate, neither good guys with guns nor concealed carry, actually make us safe, at least on average. There was no anti-gun in this, it was just a supported description of current status."

This and what you continue on saying has absolutely nothing to do with what we are currently talking about..(talk about changing the subject) ....

I can see you just simply do not want to answer the question, fair enough, but quit with the infintile crap, you know it was a good question, so good you couldn't answer it.

", then you begged me to respond to an infantile suggestion that I initially refrained from response, and now you continue to continue to ask for me for more."

I already explained once that I never begged, what do I have to do to get this through to the world you live in?

Considering your stance of trying to repetitively talk down my question I am concluding it was a good question, and I was correct, being you keep refusing to give any answers........it's all i can conclude, thank you :->

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

It's all you can conclude because that's your paradigm to begin with. The fact that you believe I did not answer therefore you believe your conclusion is right is not logical.

Although infantile was cute, if you meant it.

And I did answer your question. What was it anyway?

My last response was to your "Don't try to pass the buck now bud, I do believe it was you who ran with the topic on gun laws after a few praised the good guy with a gun in the OP" where I described the current status vis-à-vis good guys with guns which you mistakenly took to be about "gun laws."

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

MG, not being snarky, sorry if you took it that way, but you have been side stepping just about every good question since I have entered the gun debate with you. By side stepping we do not get anywhere.

I believe Mark, JR, myself, or anyone else involved has had answers to everything you have asked, yet you find it okay when confronted with a question you do not like to simply call it stupid and say it is not worthy of a response (this is not the first time, or the second, or even the third)

and if you think you answered you musty of missed what I said, far from a answer, here I will repeat it:

"You gave a answer of "Perhaps one reason might be that the point of the military is to be armed in a superior fashion to other country's militaries"

But I do not see how that would apply, the citizen of the US are not "another country" nor should we be considered the enemy....we are all suppose to be one right? (police, military, civilians) .... after all, we are on the same team? (are you catching the drift yet)"

It is getting really old, copying and pasting, simply because you seem to want to change how things were said, or maybe you don't remember, not sure, but it certainly takes a lot of time away from getting anywhere with a intelligent conversation, that's for sure. And one things for sure, I don't let people change what I said to fit their own agenda, I will keep copying and pasting as long as you keep changing

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Wait, how can you not laugh at Nick Danger, Third Eye?

And then you post another circumlocution...

"yet you find it okay when confronted with a question you do not like to simply call it stupid and say it is not worthy of a response"
MG --- I called your STATEMENT infantile.

And then, after posing an inane question and continually accusing me of "sidestepping" and "not answering," you yourself note: "You gave a answer of "Perhaps one reason might be that the point of the military is to be armed in a superior fashion to other country's militaries"

circumlocution dementia.

But wait, there's more. Then you drone on: "But I do not see how that would apply, the citizen of the US are not "another country" nor should we be considered the enemy....we are all suppose to be one right? (police, military, civilians) .... after all, we are on the same team?"

OK, so my answer was that one reason might be we want our military to be superior to other militaries. Your take is we are all one at least when it comes to guns since that's the level of armament you draw the line at. Why, one can only guess.

Therefore on one side you want your police, military, and citizens to be gun-armed exactly the same even if that means the military will be less than at parity with other militaries since even today there are certain guns they can have that you can't.

Same with police. If they are equally armed to citizens that means they are equally armed with criminals which, IMHO, puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

So no. I would like to see the military be superiorly armed to citizens especially if such superiority gives them an advantage on the world stage. Secondly, no, I have no problem with police being better armed than criminals.

Sorry to have to spell it out, I thought my initial answer was sufficient.

""Los Angeles... he walks again by night! Out of the fog, into the smog... (cough, cough) Relentlessly... ruthlessly (I wonder where ruth is)... doggedly (woof, woof, bow wow)... towards his weekly meeting with... the UNKNOWN. At 4th and Drucker he turns left, at Drucker and 4th he turns right, he crosses MacArthur Park and walks into a great sandstone building!" "Ouch ----- my nose"

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

"I do remember strictly saying magazine capacity, strawman!"

Actually you have interspersed LCMs and guns, but for your sake, we'll adhere to the strict police/military/citizens have the same size LCM capacities Darrin definition. Since citizens have maximum capacity availability, it's a moot point.

Since all police/citizens/police/ have access to largest LCM, the concept of military superiority vis-à-vis LCMs is moot also.

But the concept of military GUN superiority is the rule of the day so the concept of restricting the conversation at LCMs is a stupid idea to begin with. "ITS A TRAP."

Of course on a military level, LCMs only represent a fraction of their gun supply and, since Darrin is so strict, that would leave out belts which would make most military automatics pretty ineffective for example.

Sorry, but "......."Perhaps one reason might be that the point of the military is to be armed in a superior fashion to other country's militaries" is an answer. The fact that you don't like it, don't think it complete, whatever, does not diminish the fact that it is an answer.

What was the question anyway?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

We can keep playing petty games all year long if you want, but your stance has diminished, your day has come and gone, is there anything else I can say that clears up the fact that you are fighting a loosing battle?

Pretty sad that in every post you have to say other people said things they never really did in attempts to make your point, its a written forum, so simple to read up, double check, then call your strawman ass out on it!

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

Yes i did

"its a written forum, so simple to read up"

I only posted it about 4 times

Darrin ✉
Oct '14

I can't find it.

And quit using bad language.

And why do you have to post twice most times you post? Thread stutter issues?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '14

Here, MG, is another example of why every day citizens should be allowed to possess (and carry) standard capactiy magazines, same as police etc..

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/us/st-louis-officer-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c2

This is a *single* police officer facing a *single* armed attacker, and he had to shoot 17 times.

What would happen in NJ if he was limited to 15 rounds (or more likely 10 since that's what is typical for a "compliant" model)?

I'm thinking that a 17 round magazine "saved one life" here. Your neighbors lives aren't worth it, to you?

Mark Mc. ✉
Oct '14

Mark. What do you think would have happened if shooter in your story had fewer bullets? Would the attacker (who was running away) have thrown his jammed gun at him?

Also, this case makes me wonder, if an armed private security officer starts chasing you without cause, and you fire at him, are you protected by Missouri's stand your ground law?

Gadfly ✉
Oct '14

Republicans fear mongering again

A California congressman said on cluster Fox news that the border patrol has apprehended 10 Muslim
terrorists at the border between the US and Mexico. When asked how do you know they were terrorists he told cluster fox I went down and talked to the border patrol when asked to comment on the story the head of Homeland security said it was nonsense he said he gets 2 reports today from border patrol he said if they apprehended any Muslim
fighters you would think that they "might have" put that in one of the reports

oldred
Oct '14