Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 836 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:


I don't think he feels it is necessary to limit magazine size, but if that would be enough, then he'd be ok with it. If not, well he never thought it was necessary anyway, so forget it.

"No guns" is a possibility as well.

I'm just not seeing any genuine argument for why the line needs to be drawn at semi automatics rather than at machine guns.

1 goes as fast as you can pull the trigger, the other goes faster, maybe?

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm just not seeing any genuine argument for why the line needs to be drawn at semi automatics rather than at machine guns.

The line drawn on what bans and restrictions that are put into place keeps moving further and further...

Let’s look at the restriction on machine guns...

Up until 1986, it was okay to buy any machine gun (once you jumped through all the proper hoops), then after 1986 we were limited to machine guns manufactured prior to that year (so that now, these firearms are super rare, and super expensive)...

Lump semi-automatics in with NFA items; will that be enough? Or will you want to limit them further by restricting their date of manufacture as well?

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:


I don't think he feels it is necessary to limit magazine size, but if that would be enough, then he'd be ok with it. If not, well he never thought it was necessary anyway, so forget it.

"No guns" is a possibility as well.

I'm just not seeing any genuine argument for why the line needs to be drawn at semi automatics rather than at machine guns.

That is the problem, the anti gun folks do not see a line of "acceptable" gun existing. It is simply pushing the line of what they can restrict and take until the line is at repealing the second amendment or rendering it irrelevant

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What do people need 5 bullets a second for? You're telling me there's no way to slow that down a bit?

Slow it down to what? What's an acceptable number to you?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


At this point in the discussion i think we've seen all the slogans we need to.

The only way I'll get killed with my own firearm is if my attacker bludgeons me to death with it.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

The police carry pistols to protect themselves, not you.

And in regards to the M14 vs M1 carbine debate, Marines have always trained with the frontline rifle. In this case and at that time, it was the M14. The M1 carbine was issued to "support" troops. So while your shooter was definitely trained on the M14, it's only possible he was trained on the M1 carbine.

Speaking of which, you can still buy an M14 clone over at Springfield Armory. It's a beautiful, wonderful weapon. Especially the match-grade versions.


Did you know that an increase in hot chocolate consumption in a region correlates with a reduction in crime? Maybe we should mandate everyone to drink more hot chocolate.


Swiss Miss, so that is the secret.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
That is the problem, the anti gun folks do not see a line of "acceptable" gun existing. It is simply pushing the line of what they can restrict and take until the line is at repealing the second amendment or rendering it irrelevant

This is a lie.

You're lying here.
Either you know you're lying, you're crazy, or you're stupid. I'll let you pick, but I'm really, honestly unsure which you think is less onerous.


Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe that , being a marine, the m1 is what he would have trained on and been the most accurate with, yes?

No. Standard issue rifles for the Marines at that time was the M14.

And remember: When the average police response time is nine minutes, the average response time for a .357 JHP round is 1500 feet per second.

Average police response time is likely substantially lower, especially in urban areas (LAPD and CPD response times are at or below 5 minutes or so, now).


Doug's Workshop wrote:
The only way I'll get killed with my own firearm is if my attacker bludgeons me to death with it.

That's a pretty brazen statement.

Statistically, you are far more likely to be killed with your own firearm than you are to ever kill someone else with it.

Quote:
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Do you just look these up, or what? Do they come from a handbook?

Quote:
The police carry pistols to protect themselves, not you.

Like, does the NRA hand these out at meetings or something?

Liberty's Edge

FWIW: The M1 Carbine was a popular firearm that was provided by the US Government for the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Ironically, that same firearm that was given to Civilians by the Government is now on Sen. Feinstein's list of firearms to be banned in her proposed legislation.


Irontruth wrote:
Did you know that an increase in hot chocolate consumption in a region correlates with a reduction in crime? Maybe we should mandate everyone to drink more hot chocolate.

Every now and then, not terribly often, Citizen Truth says something I totally agree with.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
"Lord Snow wrote:
Having a gun to defened yourself is not a good thing, I think. Surley there are ways to defend yourself without having the power to kill at your disposal. Maybe instead of live ammo have something like a dart gun with traunqulizer?

Absolutely not. Tranquilizers take time to take effect, and require a carefully measured dose based on the size and weight of the individual being tranqued (get it wrong, and it'll either not knock the person out or it'll kill them). In a self defense situation, you most likely have the wrong dosage, and it'll take too long to take effect, anyway.

Quote:
Or rubber bullets? Even some kinds of mace or pepper spray should be able to do the job.
In some situations this could be effective, yes, but not everywhere.

And if the intruder is on a certain types of drugs, are themselves armed with a deadly weapon, shooting them with a tranq will most likely end up with an unconscious intruder and a dead or maimed defender.

Imagine a 6'6" tall meth addict breaks in to your house, you want to try to tranq him or shoot him in the FACE!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Problem is solvable. Do more research on the meson cannon concept, to make one viable. Once you have one, put gunpowder detectors every 200 meters or so, all over every major city. Then build two large towers with a meson cannon part in each. Then once the gunpowder detectors sniff positive, which is quite fast due to gases diffusing at about 1.6 km/second, you triangulate the position of the gunpowder explosion and target that place with the meson cannon. It will lead to a localized detonation that will take out the shooter, but very little else. Now make this system fully automated.

Voila, no more firearms problems.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Did you know that an increase in hot chocolate consumption in a region correlates with a reduction in crime? Maybe we should mandate everyone to drink more hot chocolate.
Every now and then, not terribly often, Citizen Truth says something I totally agree with.

Smash the hot chocolate as a symbol of the bourgeoisie!


Sissyl wrote:

Problem is solvable. Do more research on the meson cannon concept, to make one viable. Once you have one, put gunpowder detectors every 200 meters or so, all over every major city. Then build two large towers with a meson cannon part in each. Then once the gunpowder detectors sniff positive, which is quite fast due to gases diffusing at about 1.6 km/second, you triangulate the position of the gunpowder explosion and target that place with the meson cannon. It will lead to a localized detonation that will take out the shooter, but very little else. Now make this system fully automated.

Voila, no more firearms problems.

"You talk with friendly gestures, I talk with this Cannon."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
]That is the problem, the anti gun folks do not see a line of "acceptable" gun existing. It is simply pushing the line of what they can restrict and take until the line is at repealing the second amendment or rendering it irrelevant

I am one of those "anti gun" folks apparently, and if you scroll back to the first page you'll see my only condemnation of this woman was not using a larger gun.

So obviously, i think the line does include some firearms.

This is exactly the problem i was pointing out before: Ya'll cannot articulate a reason for keeping the line where it is. You need to put up a strawman and cry slippery slope.


Digitalelf wrote:

.

Lump semi-automatics in with NFA items; will that be enough? Or will you want to limit them further by restricting their date of manufacture as well?

Limit by date of manufacture, and let them fade out of the population. Its less heavy handed than doing what Australia did and having a mandatory buyback.(which is in turn nicer than just tossing people in jail for owning them with no compensation)

Preliminary "speed limits"

Pistols: slow down to revolver speed. (fanning the hammer doesn't count, you're not hitting anything like that)

Rifles: Slow down to Lever action speed.


That rogue had a lot of hp.


Better yet, ban everything that isn't muzzle loaded. Good sodding luck doing a school shooting with a musket...

The Exchange

meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
That is the problem, the anti gun folks do not see a line of "acceptable" gun existing. It is simply pushing the line of what they can restrict and take until the line is at repealing the second amendment or rendering it irrelevant

This is a lie.

You're lying here.
Either you know you're lying, you're crazy, or you're stupid. I'll let you pick, but I'm really, honestly unsure which you think is less onerous.

I feel the same about you if you really believe that no legal guns is not the end goal of many control groups.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
]That is the problem, the anti gun folks do not see a line of "acceptable" gun existing. It is simply pushing the line of what they can restrict and take until the line is at repealing the second amendment or rendering it irrelevant

I am one of those "anti gun" folks apparently, and if you scroll back to the first page you'll see my only condemnation of this woman was not using a larger gun.

So obviously, i think the line does include some firearms.

This is exactly the problem i was pointing out before: Ya'll cannot articulate a reason for keeping the line where it is. You need to put up a strawman and cry slippery slope.

YOU may or not be reasonable. they are not all you. But as i see farther down your line in revolvers and lever action rifle. currently. what will you say if we get more mass shootings with a marlin style gun?


Sissyl wrote:
Better yet, ban everything that isn't muzzle loaded. Good sodding luck doing a school shooting with a musket...

I don't know what guns were used but it did take place in 1764:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_Rebellion_school_massacre


Andrew R wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
]That is the problem, the anti gun folks do not see a line of "acceptable" gun existing. It is simply pushing the line of what they can restrict and take until the line is at repealing the second amendment or rendering it irrelevant

I am one of those "anti gun" folks apparently, and if you scroll back to the first page you'll see my only condemnation of this woman was not using a larger gun.

So obviously, i think the line does include some firearms.

This is exactly the problem i was pointing out before: Ya'll cannot articulate a reason for keeping the line where it is. You need to put up a strawman and cry slippery slope.

YOU may or not be reasonable. they are not all you. But as i see farther down your line in revolvers and lever action rifle. currently. what will you say if we get more mass shootings with a marlin style gun?

That at least they didn't have the rate of fire to kill dozens more, and people had time to run away.

There are legitemate needs for firearms, even excluding sport. I have never heard one that justifies automatic weapons, or even semi-automatics.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Better yet, ban everything that isn't muzzle loaded. Good sodding luck doing a school shooting with a musket...

I don't know what guns were used but it did take place in 1764:

Linkyfied


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.

The limits of your right to inflict harm on someone, even someone trying to hurt you, is a topic worthy of philosophical inquiry. I find that many gun rights advocates fall prey to false dilemma thinking here, i.e., have trouble understanding the idea that doing something "bad" doesn't wholly abrogate your morally considerability. Thinking in black and white is certainly easier on the poor, overwhelmed human brain than contemplating the complexities of this issue, but I don't accept that once you try to commit a trangression against me all moral bets are off and nearly anything I do to you is justifiable.


So apparently school massacres are quite possible when using MUZZLE-LOADERS. Let's just agree that magazine size, semi-automatics, or anything that has been discussed in the thread previously is at all relevant...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Scott Betts wrote:
Statistically, you are far more likely to be killed with your own firearm than you are to ever kill someone else with it.

Dr. Kellerman's misleading statistics have always been a source of great aggravation to me. Applying his methodology, more martial artists are likely to be murdered by non-gun violence than they kill in self-defense: Therefore, one should not study martial arts...

In the US, there are approximately 2 million defensive firearm uses by citizens each year. In 2010, the US had 326 justifiable homicides by non-law enforcement personnel. That suggests that guns are used defensively 6,150 times for each time they are used to shoot a criminal dead.

The US had 11,493 firearm homicides in 2009. Of these, approximately 800 were justifiable (including those killed by LEOs). That suggests that the chance of the gun being used defensively is 186 times the probability of its being used in any sort of non-justified homicide.

Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Dr. Kellerman.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Before it was practical to slaughter people with guns, the sort of vermin who planned massacres resorted to explosives or arson.


A very traditional tool is the SWORD, really. You just need to be a few people so you can prevent the intended victims from running away. Shouldn't be a problem... how many schools have more than two exits or so from EVERY classroom?


Sir_Wulf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Statistically, you are far more likely to be killed with your own firearm than you are to ever kill someone else with it.

Dr. Kellerman's misleading statistics have always been a source of great aggravation to me. Applying his methodology, more martial artists are likely to be murdered by non-gun violence than they kill in self-defense: Therefore, one should not study martial arts...

In the US, there are approximately 2 million defensive firearm uses by citizens each year. In 2010, the US had 326 justifiable homicides by non-law enforcement personnel. That suggests that guns are used defensively 6,150 times for each time they are used to shoot a criminal dead.

The US had 11,493 firearm homicides in 2009. Of these, approximately 800 were justifiable (including those killed by LEOs). That suggests that the chance of the gun being used defensively is 186 times the probability of its being used in any sort of non-justified homicide.

Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Dr. Kellerman.

Your statistic includes chasing a raccoon away from your garbage with a gun as a "defensive use of a gun". It also counts "every use in the past 5 years" as being in the same year, and also runs into the trap of relying on long term human memory, which is exceptionally problematic.

Kellerman's statistics might be flawed. But they're FAR better than the one you're trying to reference.


Sir_Wulf wrote:
Before it was practical to slaughter people with guns, the sort of vermin who planned massacres resorted to explosives or arson.

Fire has legitimate and useful purposes in human society. You can successfully use fire in a utilitarian manner without hurting or threatening to hurt a single person.

The same can be said of explosives.

The only utilitarian purpose of a gun is as a plot device.


Ah, just remembered... barring the doors of a house and setting it on fire, or setting the house on fire to get people out so you can murderize them are also classics in the massacre department.

Politicians apparently have an unending capacity for stupidity. Case in point is Franco Frattini, previous commissioner of the EU, who some years back wanted to make it impossible to search for the words "terror", "bomb", "kill" and "genocide" on the internet. This moron apparently thought google was a kind of booze or something. Let's go through the words:

"Terror": Okay, I can see where this comes from. Then again, not letting people search for the word will limit their ways of getting information on stuff like Lockerbie. Good? Not according to me, but okay.

"Bomb": This might have some sort of legitimacy. If you have a severely addled mind, or have drunk too much google.

"Kill": I think he wanted to remove this possibility because... uh... because... No. I got nothing. Sorry.

"Genocide": In contrast to these others, this is obviously legit. After all, we don't want the populace to learn how to murder entire population groups. Everyone would be doing it, wouldn't they? It's not as if you need, say, massive political pull and resources, contacts in law enforcement, military access, control of infrastructure, or the like. It's just to grab a sharp stick and start in one end of the country, right?

Seriously... they didn't want to let people search for "genocide", to get information on one of the few crimes that are actually impossible for a private individual to commit??? And there was NO other reason for this, say, having an easier way to hide politician crimes?

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pistols: slow down to revolver speed. (fanning the hammer doesn't count, you're not hitting anything like that)

Rifles: Slow down to Lever action speed.

Semi-automatic firearms were not invented in order to shoot faster (fully automatic firearms were invented in order to shoot faster), because firearms prior to the semi-auto shot plenty fast, they were invented in order to avoid having to manually cycle the action after each shot...

The action of a revolver is actually faster than that of a semi-automatic. And no, we’re not talking about "fanning" the hammer... In fact, the world record holder for fastest shooter was using a revolver, and not only was he was not fanning the hammer, he was on target...

A bolt action rifle is only 1-2 seconds slower than a semi-auto for shots that are just casually aimed...

Heck, semi-automatic firearms weren't even invented so that they could hold more ammunition. Those first semi-autos usually held 10 rounds or less; the Colt 1911 for example, only held 9 rounds...

There is a lot of misunderstanding as to what firearms (like revolvers and bolt guns) are actually capable of doing, even in the hands of a novice shooter.


Andrew R wrote:
YOU may or not be reasonable. they are not all you. But as i see farther down your line in revolvers and lever action rifle. currently. what will you say if we get more mass shootings with a marlin style gun?

I think you'd be surprised how much reasonable middle ground there is is before you hit the whackos. But if you don't pick us up as some friends now, we're still going to be with the far left for the next round of ratcheting things down.

the same thing I'm saying after a the shooting with the shotgun.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Irontruth wrote:

Your statistic includes chasing a raccoon away from your garbage with a gun as a "defensive use of a gun". It also counts "every use in the past 5 years" as being in the same year, and also runs into the trap of relying on long term human memory, which is exceptionally problematic.

Kellerman's statistics might be flawed. But they're FAR better than the one you're trying to reference.

I don't think you and I are likely to find common ground on this topic. My contempt for Dr. Kellerman's manipulation of the facts makes it difficult for me to believe his work is "FAR better" than any set of honestly derived statistics, no matter how flawed the study.

Furthermore, neither you nor I are citing only one study. Journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine have produced reams of poorly-designed studies and articles, each pushing an anti-gun political agenda.

Similarly, I could cite dozens of articles (some scientific, some clearly not) that assess defensive gun use much more favorably. Their conclusions vary wildly, varying between 3.6 million defensive gun uses per year (a 1994 L.A. Times poll) and 777,000 per year (a Gallup survey from way back in 1991). As you asserted, many of these studies do indeed rely on long-term memory, which may produce a large number of "false positives".

One of the most informative articles that I have seen about potential inaccuracies in such studies is THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN USE ESTIMATE DOWN by Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz. While written to rebut criticism of their work published by David Hemenway (and, thus, hardly objective), the article contains a wealth of information about the weak points of such surveys.


Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pistols: slow down to revolver speed. (fanning the hammer doesn't count, you're not hitting anything like that)

Rifles: Slow down to Lever action speed.

Quote:
Semi-automatic firearms were not invented in order to shoot faster

The phonograph wasn't invented to play music either, but that's what it did.

Quote:
The action of a revolver is actually faster than that of a semi-automatic. And no, we’re not talking about "fanning" the hammer... In fact, the world record holder for fastest shooter was using a revolver, and not only was he was not fanning the hammer, he was on target...

I am about as worried what the world records fastest shooter can do with a revolver as i am what bruce lee can do to me to his fist: not very because they're pretty unlikely to be the ones on a shooting spree.

Quote:
A bolt action rifle is only 1-2 seconds slower than a semi-auto for shots that are just casually aimed...

1-2 seconds per shot, 30 shots, thats an extra minute of running.

Quote:
There is a lot of misunderstanding as to what firearms (like revolvers and bolt guns) are actually capable of doing, even in the hands of a novice shooter.

There's a lot of "misunderstanding" facts to support your argument here.


We could have better research on guns, but the NRA was successful in getting congress to prevent such studies done by government agencies.


Sir_Wulf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Your statistic includes chasing a raccoon away from your garbage with a gun as a "defensive use of a gun". It also counts "every use in the past 5 years" as being in the same year, and also runs into the trap of relying on long term human memory, which is exceptionally problematic.

Kellerman's statistics might be flawed. But they're FAR better than the one you're trying to reference.

I don't think you and I are likely to find common ground on this topic. My contempt for Dr. Kellerman's manipulation of the facts makes it difficult for me to believe his work is "FAR better" than any set of honestly derived statistics, no matter how flawed the study.

Furthermore, neither you nor I are citing only one study. Journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine have produced reams of poorly-designed studies and articles, each pushing an anti-gun political agenda.

Similarly, I could cite dozens of articles (some scientific, some clearly not) that assess defensive gun use much more favorably. Their conclusions vary wildly, varying between 3.6 million defensive gun uses per year (a 1994 L.A. Times poll) and 777,000 per year (a Gallup survey from way back in 1991). As you asserted, many of these studies do indeed rely on long-term memory, which may produce a large number of "false positives".

One of the most informative articles that I have seen about potential inaccuracies in such studies is THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN USE ESTIMATE DOWN by Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz. While written to rebut criticism of their work published by David Hemenway (and, thus, hardly objective), the article contains a wealth of information about the weak points of such surveys.

They're horrible studies. And if you cite them, then I get to make up whatever statistics I want and we also get to call them valid.


Irontruth wrote:
They're horrible studies. And if you cite them, then I get to make up whatever statistics I want and we also get to call them valid.

I believe he just effectively finished saying the same thing to you.

Also, speaking of horrible studies, Kellerman is a hack, and has even been called out as such by people on the same side of the argument.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Irontruth wrote:
They're horrible studies. And if you cite them, then I get to make up whatever statistics I want and we also get to call them valid.

At least we agree about the anti-violence effects of hot chocolate.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Moro wrote:
Also, speaking of horrible studies, Kellerman is a hack, and has even been called out as such by people on the same side of the argument.

I'm not sure that calling him a "hack" effectively rebuts Kellerman's conclusions. After all, the prestigious, peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine wouldn't repeatedly publish misleading studies from a politically-motivated "hack".

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The phonograph wasn't invented to play music either, but that's what it did.

You missed my meaning...

Semi-autos are only portrayed as being faster than a revolver or even a lever action, when the fact is, the action of these "older" firearms functions faster than a semi-automatic firearm.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I am about as worried what the world records fastest shooter can do with a revolver as i am what bruce lee can do to me to his fist: not very because they're pretty unlikely to be the ones on a shooting spree.

I mentioned the record holder ONLY to illustrate my point that the action of a revolver IS in fact faster than the action of a semi-auto (the difference being that with the semi auto, one does not need to manually work the action after each shot)...

To further illustrate my point, the record holder also used a semi-auto, but was FASTER using the revolver (and he was equally skilled in the use of both).

BigNorseWolf wrote:
1-2 seconds per shot, 30 shots, thats an extra minute of running.

So if one fires from the hip in the "spray-and-pray" manner that a lot of mass shooters use, while marginally slower than a semi-auto firearm, you will shoot even faster than those 1-2 shots per second you got while aiming... So the bolt gun is still quite deadly... Your typical bolt gun with its larger caliber can reach out further and pass through thicker obstacles (like walls and multiple people) than the average "assault weapon" could ever dream of doing.

The point is: making the semi-auto shoot as fast as a revolver or lever action would only serve to increase their cyclic rates. And having it shoot as fast as a bolt gun would only marginally slow it down (as in one or two seconds slower overall)...


Sir_Wulf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
They're horrible studies. And if you cite them, then I get to make up whatever statistics I want and we also get to call them valid.
At least we agree about the anti-violence effects of hot chocolate.

Yup, the hot chocolate and crime is a correlation, not causation. Statistics without evidence of cause are just correlations, which is primarily what pro-gun rights advocates rely on. Anti-gun advocates do much the same, but I've seen better science in several of them, such as using epidemiology methods to determine risk factors (same methods that can be used to determine that smoking increases the odds of lung cancer).

The crux of my position is: I don't like being shot.

So I advocate policies that I think will help with that. To be fair, I've never been shot, but I think this is one of those things I should be allowed to prejudge.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the Motor City Madman...

Ted Nugent wrote:

“So those of us of goodwill, decency, and logic and who’ve studied the evidence and the facts we know that it’s not a gun issue, it’s not an ammo issue, it’s not caliber issue, it’s not a rate of fire issue,” he said. “It is mostly a prescription drug and a mental derangement issue where we do not take care properly of the people that show signs of dangerous behavior and mental retardation.”

“Increasing evidence that is coming in from all angles that every perpetrator of these mass slaughters,” Nugent added, “was on some type of psychiatric pharmaceutical and that every one of these mass murderers was known by everyone around them, their associates, their family, their fellow workers, that they were psychos, they were dangerous, they were mentally deranged, and that they were indeed a threat.”

“But no one acted on it because of this curse, this surge of political correctness where we’re more concerned about hurting a psychopath’s feelings than to have him controlled and put away to save innocent lives,” he said.


Sir_Wulf wrote:
Dr. Kellerman's misleading statistics have always been a source of great aggravation to me.

I don't really care about Kellermann. We have a body of literature that demonstrates conclusively that firearms ownership is dangerous, and that you are, statistically speaking, less likely to suffer crime-related or firearms-related injury or death if you do not own one.

Quote:
In the US, there are approximately 2 million defensive firearm uses by citizens each year.

No.

Here, I'll even give you Hemenway's review.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I'd wager it's from a gun rights group. The field of criminology discredited those figures years ago.

Stop using awful information. Start using reliable information.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Better yet, ban everything that isn't muzzle loaded. Good sodding luck doing a school shooting with a musket...

I don't know what guns were used but it did take place in 1764:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_Rebellion_school_massacre

I'm not sure this qualifies. One person was shot (the instructor) and the remainder of the children were attacked with tomahawks. Also, there were four attackers to ten victims. Also, it was part of a war.

This sort of illustrates exactly what we were saying, don't you think? 18th century firearms technology means you get to murder one person, and then you have to tomahawk the rest.


Sir_Wulf wrote:
I agree with the Motor City Madman...

That is a mistake. Ted Nugent is incredibly dangerous, himself - he has made very public statements that drip with psychopathy.

On him dodging the Vietnam draft:

Ted Nugent wrote:
If I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody.

On Obama:

Ted Nugent wrote:
Obama, he’s a piece of s**t. I told him to suck on my machine gun.

On South Africa and apartheid:

Ted Nugent wrote:
My being there (South Africa) isn’t going to affect any political structure. Besides, apartheid isn’t that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal.

On women:

Ted Nugent wrote:
What’s a feminist anyways? A fat pig who doesn’t get it often enough?

On foreigners:

Ted Nugent wrote:
Foreigners are scum; I don’t like ‘em; I don’t want ‘em in this country; I don’t want ‘em selling me doughnuts; I don’t want ‘em pumping my gas; I don’t want ‘em downwind of my life-OK?

He is a terrible person, and unfortunately his unapologetic attitude towards his own insane beliefs has garnered him a substantial following of other, similarly-minded individuals who see him as evidence that their equally-insane beliefs are somehow legitimate. This is what makes him most dangerous - not any action he may take himself (it's likely that, for all his arrogant bravado, he is too much a coward to act on his own beliefs), but his ability to act as a reinforcing agent for those who would act on their deranged beliefs.

Ted Nugent wrote:
“Increasing evidence that is coming in from all angles that every perpetrator of these mass slaughters,” Nugent added, “was on some type of psychiatric pharmaceutical and that every one of these mass murderers was known by everyone around them, their associates, their family, their fellow workers, that they were psychos, they were dangerous, they were mentally deranged, and that they were indeed a threat.”

That is not at all the case. Nugent is speaking out of ignorance (combined with an arrogant desire to deflect blame leveled at his pet cause - guns - onto something else - in this case, mental health and medication). Some mass killers and serial killers were medicated, and were known to be less-than-stable. Others were not.

You will be a better human being if you never say anything along the lines of, "I agree with Ted Nugent," ever again.

Ted Nugent wrote:
So those of us of goodwill, decency, and logic

It's hard to get more false than that.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps I should have spoken more precisely and stated that I particularly agree with THIS STATEMENT from Ted Nugent...

Ted Nugent wrote:
“So those of us of goodwill, decency, and logic and who’ve studied the evidence and the facts we know that it’s not a gun issue, it’s not an ammo issue, it’s not caliber issue, it’s not a rate of fire issue,” he said. “It is mostly a prescription drug and a mental derangement issue where we do not take care properly of the people that show signs of dangerous behavior and mental retardation.”

I didn't mean to imply that I agree with him all the time, but I definitely agree that our nation has failed to care properly for those who suffer from mental health issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No insult Wulf, but if you're going to speak precisely, you might as well go the distance and find a more reputable reference than Mr Nugent. You ruin your own credibility by quoting him, no insult.

I don't think anyone has spoken in favor of gun control to the exclusion of mental health care. I do find it very telling that those have worked to remove reasonable gun control are also those who call accessible health care socialism.

This is the first time I've posted in this thread, so let me just say, I don't think the woman did anything wrong. It's all well and good to talk about escape routes and all, but if you're hiding in a closet with your kids and the guy with the crowbar who broke into your house finds you, by all means, shoot him, right in the face, five times.

501 to 550 of 836 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards