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


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 836 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

The solution to gun violence is for everyone to stop with being violent to each other. Since that's not going to happen, we have to determine the degree of violence we're willing to accept.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

How about a bit of the old ultra-violence?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
pres man wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:


I have little doubt that he will be found guilty, but until he has the right to not be refered to as guilty of the crime.
Exactly wrong. He has the right not to be defamed. That doesn't mean I have to call him an alleged burglar. He then has the right to sue me for slander or libel if he is found not guilty of burglary.
To back up ZN for a second, we don't know for a fact he was there to rob the place. He might have in fact been there to rape and murder, and thus calling him a burglar would be in accurate and insulting to burglars (poor old Bilbo). Since we don't yet know what his motivations were there, the most we could confidently say was he was a trespasser and destroyer of property (most likely the front door), and beyond that we will have to wait. Don't be satisfied with labeling him burglar when there might be more appropriate labels we can give him. ;D

In general the definition of burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another with the intent of committing a crime therein. Not just stealing. Most states have expanded that definition to include businesses and attached garages.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Right. And so in your desire to inflict your opinions on the rest of us, you seek to remove or alter the constitutional enumerated rights of the rest of us.

You and I don't agree on what that particular right is in the first place.

But spare me the "inflict your opinions on us" speech. That's what law - all law - is. You're not complaining because someone is "inflicting opinions" on you. You're complaining because someone's "inflicting opinions" on you that you don't like.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

Website of the mexican government says in five years it issued (less revocation) 40K gun permits, in a nation of 112 million.

Or roughly 1 per 15 thousand people.

40,000 permits for 112,000,000 people works out to 1 per 2,800 people.

1 per 2,800.

Not 1 per 15,000.

Did you just make that up? Or think we wouldn't notice? Or did you not bother to check it because it said something you liked? What happened there?

Quote:
That is, effectively, banned.

No, it's not. It's just low compared to the United States. There are plenty of other countries (where firearms aren't banned either) with similarly-low firearms registration rates.


There are, I would guess, less than 10,000 Americans who own (or owned) the PlayStation 1 title Silent Bomber.
Clearly that means it is banned.


The Goblin wrote:
Concealed gun carry permits have increased in conservative states and their crime rates have gone down.

Crime rates have gone down across the entire country. This doesn't say anything about conservative states, and certainly doesn't say anything about concealed carry.

Besides, conservative states don't really have much to be proud of in the whole crime-rate department.


Scott Betts wrote:
The Goblin wrote:
Concealed gun carry permits have increased in conservative states and their crime rates have gone down.
Crime rates have gone down across the entire country. This doesn't say anything about conservative states, and certainly doesn't say anything about concealed carry.

It does say that the effect isn't enough to counteract the general decrease in crime.


pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The Goblin wrote:
Concealed gun carry permits have increased in conservative states and their crime rates have gone down.
Crime rates have gone down across the entire country. This doesn't say anything about conservative states, and certainly doesn't say anything about concealed carry.
It does say that the effect isn't enough to counteract the general decrease in crime.

Sure, but I don't think anyone has argued that issuing CCW permits increases crime rates. I think it probably has basically no effect at all, since concealed weapons by their very nature tend not to come into play until a violent crime is already in commission.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
This is still going on? I thought for sure y'all would have all come to an agreement by now and solved gun violence for ever. Guess I'll check back in an hour or two.

Still more facts, sense, and erudition than you're likely to see from congress.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
This is still going on? I thought for sure y'all would have all come to an agreement by now and solved gun violence for ever. Guess I'll check back in an hour or two.
Still more facts, sense, and erudition than you're likely to see from congress.

In the history of human conflict, the problem has rarely, if ever, been an environment of too much public discourse.

Sovereign Court

depends on the conflict. I really felt I had way too much public discourse over that Bill Clinton impeachment, but then again that was about two connecting adults possibly having sexual relations and the airing dirty laundry, that got lots of debate, but then again that was serious business, not something harmless and common like mass shootings and gun violence. We really should probably ignore this subject and look for some teens having sex.

I'll handle all the research on this one Scott.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Scott Betts wrote:
Crime rates have gone down across the entire country. This doesn't say anything about conservative states, and certainly doesn't say anything about concealed carry.
Scott Betts wrote:
Sure, but I don't think anyone has argued that issuing CCW permits increases crime rates. I think it probably has basically no effect at all, since concealed weapons by their very nature tend not to come into play until a violent crime is already in commission.

Crime rates have gone down nationwide, but several anti-gun groups had predicted a dramatic increase in shootings if citizens were permitted to legally carry firearms. Their dire warnings were completely mistaken.

It is impossible to objectively establish the impact of concealed carry laws, but the locations chosen by would-be spree killers suggest that the possibility of armed resistance is a factor in their decisions. Over 20 years ago, several different spree killers opened fire in restaurants and workplaces (especially post offices). Since the spread of concealed carry laws, 85% of spree killings have happened in locations where the concealed carry of firearms is illegal (such as schools and colleges). The Aurora killer's thought processes may still be unclear, but he did choose a theater where concealed carry was specifically prohibited.

One pro-gun website I visited (Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment) claimed that when spree killings have been committed in areas where concealed carry was permitted, the killers have encountered resistance from armed citizens approximately 10% of the time. The site acknowledged the difficulty of developing solid figures, as it's hard to tell a would-be killer's plans when someone else interrupts him by leveling a gun at him.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
It's not really fair, either. An untrained civilian in what was probably her first exposure to this type of situation? I wouldn't expect her to think of the most prudent course of action.

She thought about it enough to purchase a gun.

It does not take much effort to go out and get the informaion needed to reduce your risk of crime, and to put in place a simple plan for getting to a place of safety in a emergency in your home. Less effort than purchasing a firearm and firearms safe, and arranging its instilation. I mean, she does have a firearms safe right? She does live with her children after all right?

In her situation, I would not have purchased a firearm safe. It takes too long to get to the weapon if you actually need it for self defense. I would have gotten a trigger lock so that if one of the kids finds it, it's inoperational, but if it was needed, it could be unlocked. You are also forgetting the instinctual panic response to such an event (which takes forever for soldiers and police to incompletely overcome), which tends to make rational thought extremely difficult.

Quote:

But the article does not provide evidence that they where ar risk, only that their was an intruder. For all way know we are talking about a hungry and desperate homeless guy who broke in, discovered them by accident and got shoot for his attempts to get some food. We don't know all the details, so I try to avoid jumping to the conlusion that this is a simple case of "woman heroically defends family with guns which are awesome!"

She was hiding from her, and he confronted her. She didn't know what he wanted, just that he broke in and now was in her face. I'd have shot him, too.


Scott Betts wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
This is still going on? I thought for sure y'all would have all come to an agreement by now and solved gun violence for ever. Guess I'll check back in an hour or two.
Still more facts, sense, and erudition than you're likely to see from congress.
In the history of human conflict, the problem has rarely, if ever, been an environment of too much public discourse.

Just because there is too much noise does not meant that there is any discourse.


Sir_Wulf wrote:

One pro-gun website I visited (Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment) claimed that when spree killings have been committed in areas where concealed carry was permitted, the killers have encountered resistance from armed citizens approximately 10% of the time. The site acknowledged the difficulty of developing solid figures, as it's hard to tell a would-be killer's plans when someone else interrupts him by leveling a gun at him.

People generally ban firearms anywhere that large numbers of people gather, for the simple fact that more people with guns is a greater opportunity for an argument to turn deadly.

Nutjobs like this are looking to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time... so they go where large numbers of people are already gathered.


Guy Humual wrote:

depends on the conflict. I really felt I had way too much public discourse over that Bill Clinton impeachment, but then again that was about two connecting adults possibly having sexual relations and the airing dirty laundry, that got lots of debate, but then again that was serious business, not something harmless and common like mass shootings and gun violence. We really should probably ignore this subject and look for some teens having sex.

I'll handle all the research on this one Scott.

To continue off topic for a moment the thing that always bothered me about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't that a married man was messing around with someone else. It was that a man in a position of authority was having sexual relations with a female subordinate. There is enough evidence of woman being taken advantage of in those situations that it is disturbing to see the President doing it. Claims of two consenting adults don't make that kind of behavior acceptable. We should not be accepting people in power using it to get sexual favors from people subordinate to them.


Monica had a history with older men. She was a willing and enthusiastic participant, not some innocent flower seduced by a lecherous perv.

That doesn't make it all right, but it makes it trivial. Most women who got goo on their dress would get it dry cleaned, I would think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anecdote:
One of my fav t-shirts I had in my early 20's had a picture of Monica with a milk moustache asking "Got Bill?"

Shadow Lodge

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Quote:
You were also trained with side arms, including your service pistol. You have other options.
This is where your lack of knowledge on a subject is leaking through. I was an enlisted soldier and I didn't have a side arm and training with them wasn't SOP. I was lucky enough to be able to use them once in a while because I was friends with the commander and he was requires to train with his. Otherwise, I probably would have never handled one.

Most enlisted in the Air Force are M16 only (most of the fun stuff is reserved for Security Forces). However, my AFSC is contracting, and our primary weapon is the M9. :D

Sovereign Court

Don't get me wrong, I thought Bill was totally a creep for cheating on his wife and taking advantage of an intern, but Hillary forgave him and Monica didn't seem so taken advantage of. I also think politicians are entitled to some foibles or quirks. Makes them seem more human IMO. Now if anyone exploited Monica it was the media. Her face was all over the news. If she was taken advantage of by Bill (I think it was more of a mutual thing) what the news media then did to the poor girl was more akin to assault.

Getting back on topic though: I think violent crime has been going down everywhere, not just in the USA, and so attributing concealed handguns to that drop seems silly IMO. But Sir_Wulf has a point, we haven't seen a rise in concealed handgun shootings, which would seem to indicate that people that get concealed weapons are responsible firearm owners (thank god).


@Guy and Invisible Kierkegaard: Again, my issue wasn't with him having a relationship with someone he wasn't married to. Instead it was him having a relationship with a subordinate. They can all say it was mutual, but when one person has power over the other, those are situations we as a culture should not tolerate. Now if Slick Willy had gone to a bar and picked up Ms. Presidential Kneepads there, I would agree 100% that it isn't anyone's business. But when you have a boss, getting on with their underlings, that is not something that should be tolerated. As they say, "Don't crap where you eat."

It is the same reason that many states have laws against 18 year old high school students and teachers dating. Both are adults, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because there is a power imbalance there and one can use their authority over the other. Cheating on your wife, is bad, using your authority to get sexual favors is worse.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:

@Guy and Invisible Kierkegaard: Again, my issue wasn't with him having a relationship with someone he wasn't married to. Instead it was him having a relationship with a subordinate. They can all say it was mutual, but when one person has power over the other, those are situations we as a culture should not tolerate. Now if Slick Willy had gone to a bar and picked up Ms. Presidential Kneepads there, I would agree 100% that it isn't anyone's business. But when you have a boss, getting on with their underlings, that is not something that should be tolerated. As they say, "Don't crap where you eat."

It is the same reason that many states have laws against 18 year old high school students and teachers dating. Both are adults, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because there is a power imbalance there and one can use their authority over the other. Cheating on your wife, is bad, using your authority to get sexual favors is worse.

I agree to a certain extent. Having relations with a subordinate is creepy and it does stink of abuse of power . . . but on the other hand there are two people in the relationship and automatically assuming that the one party did all the seducing or that the other party was victimized completely exonerates the actions of the other person. I'm not happy Bill was fooling around with his intern, but I can't assume that he was completely in the wrong, and although I believe it was still wrong if Monica did all the seducing I'm willing to forgive the action either way. Although you'd think there'd be some sort policy at the white house for that sort of thing. This was the 90s after all, we as a society should have known better, but what's done is done. I can live with character flaws in my politicians for the most part, I can even tolerate liars, but the one thing I can't stand is a hypocrite. One of the reasons I was pissed off over the whole impeachment thing was you had folks like Newt condemning the president whilst having extramarital affairs of their own.


Sir_Wulf wrote:
Crime rates have gone down nationwide, but several anti-gun groups had predicted a dramatic increase in shootings if citizens were permitted to legally carry firearms.

Given the relative rarity of someone pursuing and being issued a CCW license compared to the number of firearms owned on the whole and the number of annual shootings, I would have been astonished if it made any noticeable difference at all. This sounds like an example of anti-gun fear-mongering with nothing to back it up. Anti-gun groups are guilty of that all the time. Then again, pro-gun groups are guilty of the same, and, from what I can tell, they are guilty of it far more frequently.

Quote:
It is impossible to objectively establish the impact of concealed carry laws, but the locations chosen by would-be spree killers suggest that the possibility of armed resistance is a factor in their decisions. Over 20 years ago, several different spree killers opened fire in restaurants and workplaces (especially post offices). Since the spread of concealed carry laws, 85% of spree killings have happened in locations where the concealed carry of firearms is illegal (such as schools and colleges). The Aurora killer's thought processes may still be unclear, but he did choose a theater where concealed carry was specifically prohibited.

Just a nitpick (and a nerdy, criminology nitpick at that) but the definition of a spree killer is generally taken to mean someone who kills at multiple locations in a string of relatively uninterrupted events. I think you may be confusing those with mass killings. The Aurora shooter, for example, was a mass shooter, but not a spree killer (since his murders were confined to a single location). Contrast with the Connecticut shooter, who killed his mother, then drove to a second location to commit the remainder of his murders, making him a bonafide spree killer.

That said, it would be interesting to develop a study that would look at mass killers' choice of venue to determine whether there was a significant chance that mass killers regularly choose locations where firearms are banned. It would have to control for confounds like the location being chosen for another reason entirely (personal connection, for instance), and that may be fairly difficult to edge out.


pres man wrote:

@Guy and Invisible Kierkegaard: Again, my issue wasn't with him having a relationship with someone he wasn't married to. Instead it was him having a relationship with a subordinate. They can all say it was mutual, but when one person has power over the other, those are situations we as a culture should not tolerate. Now if Slick Willy had gone to a bar and picked up Ms. Presidential Kneepads there, I would agree 100% that it isn't anyone's business. But when you have a boss, getting on with their underlings, that is not something that should be tolerated. As they say, "Don't crap where you eat."

It is the same reason that many states have laws against 18 year old high school students and teachers dating. Both are adults, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because there is a power imbalance there and one can use their authority over the other. Cheating on your wife, is bad, using your authority to get sexual favors is worse.

I don't really follow political sex scandals (although I do glance through them for jollies now and then) but:

Someone quipped last year that Clinton's list of interns with bruised thighs made Herman Cain look like a proper gentlemen.

Otoh, and I haven't gone back and checked the timeline, somebody else quipped that, after ending welfare as we know it, Slick Willy had his eyes on Social Security when, thankfully, the Monica Lewinsky affair changed the White House's priorities.

If there are any White House interns reading this: please, for the sake of all of us, give Obama a hummer before he can land his "Grand Bargain"!


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


Someone quipped last year that Clinton's list of interns with bruised thighs made Herman Cain look like a proper gentlemen.

Well, except that in Cain's case, it's alleged that there may have been actual bruises...


pres man wrote:
@Guy and Invisible Kierkegaard: Again, my issue wasn't with him having a relationship with someone he wasn't married to. Instead it was him having a relationship with a subordinate.

And to this I say: man was the leader of the free world. He doesn't get out and about in the real world without being surrounded by handlers and secret service.

How's a guy supposed to get nookie?
I understand it's probably borderline unethical, but it definitely wasn't illegal. Heck, it's not even illegal for college professors to sleep with their students (though individual universities have various guidelines).

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
Just a nitpick (and a nerdy, criminology nitpick at that) but the definition of a spree killer is generally taken to mean someone who kills at multiple locations in a string of relatively uninterrupted events. I think you may be confusing those with mass killings. The Aurora shooter, for example, was a mass shooter, but not a spree killer (since his murders were confined to a single location). Contrast with the Connecticut shooter, who killed his mother, then drove to a second location to commit the remainder of his murders, making him a bonafide spree killer.

Have to disagree here - Holmes setup a very potential deathtrap at his place of residence with the hopes of getting a secondary high kill count when the cops were to come in to look at his place. He didn't just go spastic and attack a bunch of people in one location (mass killing), he was leaving a trail of mayhem at multiple sites - the only difference here between the two murderers is that the cops didn't fall into his trap so there was no secondary kill count.

With that in mind, I think he would qualify as a spree/multi-site killer based on intent and the very real possibility that he could have killed more people at his apartment with his booby traps.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Have to disagree here - Holmes setup a very potential deathtrap at his place of residence with the hopes of getting a secondary high kill count when the cops were to come in to look at his place. He didn't just go spastic and attack a bunch of people in one location (mass killing), he was leaving a trail of mayhem at multiple sites - the only difference here between the two murderers is that the cops didn't fall into his trap so there was no secondary kill count.

With that in mind, I think he would qualify as a spree/multi-site killer based on intent and the very real possibility that he could have killed more people at his apartment with his booby traps.

It's up for debate, I suppose, but I'm not aware of anyone who has been classified as a spree killer based on intent. A mass shooter who intended to leave his first kill site and kill people at a second but was stopped before he could leave would qualify as a spree killer if we let intent guide the classification. Perhaps we could just call the Aurora shooter an intended spree killer?


A good example of a spree killer would be the DC snipers a few years ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Horseshoes and hand grenades! Shoulda, woulda, coulda! No ding for him, and a less-interesting mass shooter he shall remain! Bring your A game next time, slacker!

Edit: and by the way, the Joker has GREEN hair. That guy just looks like a demented Raggedy Andy doll...


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
A good example of a spree killer would be the DC snipers a few years ago.

This is actually something of a hot-topic in research circles. The timeframe of a spree killing isn't particularly well-defined, and the sniper shootings exhibited some traits typically associated with serial killings. There's no clear consensus on whether the whole ordeal should be classified serial or spree.


I thought that serial killers had targets that shared characteristics. The snipers were just shooting at people.


J. Christopher Harris wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


Someone quipped last year that Clinton's list of interns with bruised thighs made Herman Cain look like a proper gentlemen.
Well, except that in Cain's case, it's alleged that there may have been actual bruises...

Hmm, well, like I said I only glance through them.

Did re-read the HuffPost articles about Cain and the worst thing that was being talked about, as of Nov 2011 was inappropriate groping from which he retreated when faced with being told off.

As opposed to Slick Willy who actually had women accuse him of some nasty shiznit. What the validity of those accusations are, I couldn't say.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I thought that serial killers had targets that shared characteristics. The snipers were just shooting at people.

Shared characteristics is not a requirement of a serial killer. There are serial killers who have targeted their victims on essentially a random basis.


pres man wrote:
To continue off topic for a moment the thing that always bothered me about the Clinton-Lewinsky

There were several things that bothered me about the Clinton thing.

1). Clinton lied to a judge, in a lawsuit. If you do that you go to jail. So should have he.

2. Secondly, I don't think its ok for *any* politician to lie. If we start prosecuting demonstrable lies we can start to get better governance.

Lies are the essence of bad governance because they allow the coverup of everything else.


Lying is not against the law, unless it's to a Judge or a LEO.
Clinton was a known lecher when he was governor of Arkansas.
It should be no suprise to anyone that that happened. I bet it certainly wasn't to Hilary.


Someone at work was telling me a new hanky panky with interns story from Camelot is making the rounds.


Scott Betts wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Right. And so in your desire to inflict your opinions on the rest of us, you seek to remove or alter the constitutional enumerated rights of the rest of us.

You and I don't agree on what that particular right is in the first place.

But spare me the "inflict your opinions on us" speech. That's what law - all law - is. You're not complaining because someone is "inflicting opinions" on you. You're complaining because someone's "inflicting opinions" on you that you don't like.

Well, duh. Its not generally considered inflicted in you like it.

And frankly, its not (so much) because the gun control laws are [idiotic, in your face, ineffective] so much as the process.

I think it is dishonest to suggest that the constitution doesn't protect gun-ownership. But the emphasis of the GCL has been trying to nibble away via courts at enumerated rights.

The constitution is a set of rules we as a nation agreed to live under. If you don't like the rules, then change them the way we have all agreed to: via constitutional amendment.


Scott Betts wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Website of the mexican government says in five years it issued (less revocation) 40K gun permits, in a nation of 112 million.
1 per 2,800.

As for the number, simple math error. Whether its one in 15k or one in 3k is immaterial to the argument (at least to me); I provided the web site I'm not going to lie when the facts are in evidence.

Quote:
That is, effectively, banned.
Quote:
No, it's not. It's just low compared to the United States. There are plenty of other countries (where firearms aren't banned either) with similarly-low firearms registration rates.

Rates of gun ownership are immaterial to whether they are banned or not.

Me deciding I don't want a gun has no relationship to whether govt has removed my right to own a gun.

When the government controls who gets the guns, controls access to the guns, decides what kind of low caliber guns you can get- thats BANNED.

I live in a town of about 25000 people. This works out to about 8 guns - over 5 years. Call it two guns a year.

The evidence in mexico is overwhelming that you must pay bribes (to those in power) to have guns. You have to be on good terms with those in power.

There is one base where an approved citizen is allowed to buy a gun. *One*.

If these facts are correct, I think it is fatuous and dishonest to represent this as anything other than a ban. The government is letting preferred or favored citizens carry - but regular citizens not.

Sovereign Court

ban 1 (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.

pro·hib·it
/prəˈhibit/
Verb

1. Formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority.
2. Formally forbid a person or group from doing something.

Calling Mexican gun control a "ban" is completely contrary to the definition of the word "ban". You may not like it but it's not a ban.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Perfect Tommy wrote:

If these facts are correct, I think it is fatuous and dishonest to represent this as anything other than a ban. The government is letting preferred or favored citizens carry - but regular citizens not.

If these facts are correct, what you see is favoritism and corruption, not a ban.


He's saying it is a ban, in all but name.


Alternate more country music that doesn't send you to a page where every second recommended video has a racist slur in the title

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:
He's saying it is a ban, in all but name.

I'm not sure I'd even call it that. He's entitled to his opinions but if you got the cash and the connections you can still own firearms in Mexico. It's not a system I'd want for Canada, never mind asking Americans to accept that model for themselves, but implemented by a less corrupt society it might work.

Course Mexico is dealing with more then drug cartels with weapons from the US, they also had a near civil war a few years back as well, and so with that sort of unrest I can't really blame them for wanting to control the amount of firearms in the country at the moment.


Doesn't help that Fast and Furious was sending even more over...
But I get the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
I think it is dishonest to suggest that the constitution doesn't protect gun-ownership.

I think it's dishonest to suggest it protects an unrestricted, uninterpretable right to own whatever gun you want.

Additionally, I think it's dishonest to suggest that the kinds of restrictions we are interested in making to gun ownership are un-American without a constitutional amendment. That flies against what we understand to be true about constitutional law, not to mention conflicting with countless examples of existing jurisprudence.

You have a mental conception of what the 2nd amendment is that is only supported by a very particular, very narrow, judicially-rejected reading (and I use the word "reading" charitably) of the text. This mental conception exists only because it is perpetuated by a subculture echo chamber that regularly re-emphasizes to its community members that it is true and correct, and manufactures crises and concerns in order to entrench the need for that interpretation in the minds of firearms advocates.

This thread (and the others here in recent memory) is something of a case study in the power of conservative firearms advocates' bullcrap rumor mill. I long ago lost track of how many falsehoods passed off as fact I've had to track down refutations for. (see: the assertion that gun ownership is banned in Mexico)


On the mexico 'gun ban' it's explained easier with the Obi Wan response.
You'll find that most truths that we cling to are based on a certain point of view. From the point of view of a Mexican in Mexico with no political connections and no extra income to use for bribes, who just wants a handgun to protect his family, it might as well be a ban.

Is it technically accurate to say Mexico has a ban on firearms? No.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
As for the number, simple math error. Whether its one in 15k or one in 3k is immaterial to the argument (at least to me); I provided the web site I'm not going to lie when the facts are in evidence.

A factor of five is hardly immaterial - if you thought the figure didn't matter, you wouldn't have put it forth in the first place. Guns are issued five times more often than you would have had us believe (and five times as likely as you thought when you created your argument, ostensibly; color me astonished that discovering you were off by a factor of five didn't change your position one bit).

Quote:
Rates of gun ownership are immaterial to whether they are banned or not.

Which absolutely explains why you threw the 1-in-15,000 figure at us!

Quote:
Me deciding I don't want a gun has no relationship to whether govt has removed my right to own a gun.

You're right - it's entirely possible that the government allows people to own firearms, but they largely choose not to exercise that right because they don't see the point.

Quote:
When the government controls who gets the guns, controls access to the guns, decides what kind of low caliber guns you can get- thats BANNED.

No it isn't. If the government banned firearms ownership, it's banned. If the government provides a clear way for you to get ahold of your own firearm for any reasonable purpose, that's pretty clearly not banned.

Your entire argument is based on redefining the word "banned" to mean "restricted". You seriously think that's going to fly?

Quote:
I live in a town of about 25000 people. This works out to about 8 guns - over 5 years. Call it two guns a year.

Awesome.

Quote:
The evidence in mexico is overwhelming that you must pay bribes (to those in power) to have guns. You have to be on good terms with those in power.

I haven't seen any evidence for that. The closest you've come to showing that is the NPR report, which didn't make any explicit mention of bribes, and didn't break down its costs. On the other hand, we have pretty clear evidence that huge sums of money are not a legal requirement to own a firearm.

Quote:
There is one base where an approved citizen is allowed to buy a gun. *One*.

That's a shame. If they could own two, they might be able to repel an intruder with the gun in their hands and the gun in their feet!

401 to 450 of 836 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards