Mass shooting stopped by CCW holder

[her209]

Originally posted by: JD50
This is ridiculous. You are just linking random news stories and you don't even know the context. Basically what you are saying is if ONE crime is committed in an area that allows CCW, then the premise that "allowing CCWs deters criminals" is wrong. That is absurd. You need to actually look at the statistics, not random news stories. Are you really this bad at this kind of debate? Here, I'll show you how ridiculous this is.

Her202 - You shouldn't wear your seatbelt. Seatbelts don't save lives.

JD50 - You are wrong, seatbelts do save lives, look at the statistics.

Her202 - Oh really? Well then why don't you explain this away Woman wearing seatbelt killed when ejected from crashed car in Kitchener, Ont.

JD50 - Ummm....that's one incident, it doesn't really mean anything when you look at the big picture.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? Here is what you should be doing.

Her202 - You shouldn't wear your seatbelt. Seatbelts don't save lives.

JD50 - You are wrong, seatbelts do save lives. Look at the statistics.

Her202 - Here are the statistics, and it looks like you're right 63% of people killed in car accidents are not wearing seat belts.

That stat alone don't prove that seat belts save lives.

Ask:

1) How many people have died:
a) where they weren't wearing a seat belt or they'd live otherwise?
b) where they were wearing a seat belt or they'd live otherwise?
c) where it wouldn't have mattered if they wore a seat belt or not?

2) How many people have lived:
a) where they weren't wearing a seat belt or they'd died otherwise? (Flip of 1b)
b) where they were wearing a seat belt or they'd died otherwise? (Flip of 1a)
c) where it wouldn't have mattered if they wore a seat belt or not? (Flip of 1c)

So, of the people killed in car accidents where 63% were not wearing their seat belts, how many would fall into 1a and 1c? Of the people killed in car accidents where 37% were wearing their seat belts, how many would fall into 1b and 1c?

To prove that "Seat belts don't save lives" , you'd have to find statistics for 1b, 1c, 2a and 2c.
To prove that "Seat belts do save lives", you'd have to find statistics for 1a and 2b.

To prove that "Not wearing seat belts does save lives", you'd have to find statistics for 1b and 2a.
To prove that "Not wearing seat belts doesn't save lives", you'd have to find statistics for 1a, 1c, 2b, and 2c.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: her209
That stat alone don't prove that seat belts save lives.

Ask:

1) How many people have died:
a) where they weren't wearing a seat belt or they'd live otherwise?
b) where they were wearing a seat belt or they'd live otherwise?
c) where it wouldn't have mattered if they wore a seat belt or not?

2) How many people have lived:
a) where they weren't wearing a seat belt or they'd died otherwise? (Flip of 1b)
b) where they were wearing a seat belt or they'd died otherwise? (Flip of 1a)
c) where it wouldn't have mattered if they wore a seat belt or not? (Flip of 1c)

So, of the people killed in car accidents where 63% were not wearing their seat belts, how many would fall into 1a and 1c? Of the people killed in car accidents where 37% were wearing their seat belts, how many would fall into 1b and 1c?

To prove that "Seat belts don't save lives" , you'd have to find statistics for 1b, 1c, 2a and 2c.
To prove that "Seat belts do save lives", you'd have to find statistics for 1a and 2b.

To prove that "Not wearing seat belts does save lives", you'd have to find statistics for 1b and 2a.
To prove that "Not wearing seat belts doesn't save lives", you'd have to find statistics for 1a, 1c, 2b, and 2c.

:roll:

It was just an example, I wasn't really arguing about seatbelts....


At least you get my point that you need to actually look at statistics instead of one or two events in the news. I'll be waiting for you to produce some statistics to back up your original statement about "countless lives" being saved because you can't carry in a bar....

 

[Nebor]

Sorry I was a little late to this one, I've been busy at work and going through the final steps to join the US Army. 🙂

I think it's a sad day when "good news" is that a mass shooting was stopped and 3 people lay dead. This is moderately bad news at best, in that it could have been much worse.

Anglos (UK, Canada, US, Australia) have a violence problem. We're a violent people. We soak in violence every single day, on TV, video games, movies, books, even people jokingly saying "I'll kill you!" We need to correct this societal inability to distinguish between acceptable behavior in the real world and acceptable behavior in fantasy worlds. There used to be a clear line which virtually everyone understood. You didn't see kids or adults shooting up the streets just because Dirty Harry did it, or John Wayne did it.

That being said, there are clearly a lot of people out there disconnected from reality, and willing to take out their frustrations on innocent people. I see it as my right, and my duty to protect myself and those around me from such people. I've never used a firearm to harm an innocent person. I have used a firearm to protect myself, and innocent third parties.

Furthermore, as can be seen by the enormous number of "illegal" guns used and found in Chicago, NYC, etc., gun laws are not enforceable without trampling on the rest of the Bill of Rights. Every person in this thread that said bars should be "gun free" had better be prepared to go through a metal detector, and interact with an armed guard\police officer whenever you want to go to the bar. And pay for that security through higher drink costs. Because that is the only way you can hope to create a truly "gun free" zone. Thinking that laws and signs will stop is pure pipe-dreamery.

So I'll leave you with this thought: I will never give up my guns, which are only used in innocent, righteous pursuits. If any of you would have a police or military SWAT team descend upon my home to kill or imprison me because of some objects that I own, that have never been used to harm an innocent person, then perhaps you need to take a step back and re-evaluate if guns are really the greatest evil you can think of.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: sandorski
Imagine how great this would have turned out if the first shooter didn't have a gun in the first place.

Hahahaha you win the Alice in Wonderland award of the day. Congratulations! *Wide-eyed, stupid smile*

You and those who responded in like fashion come from a long line of Status Quo is all there ever will/should be. "Negros Humans?", "Women Vote?", "Equal Rights". Things can be better, but you have to want it first.

Hell, why stop there? "free speech", "freedom of the press", "right to privacy", "unlawful search and seizure" etc..... Oh wait, that's right, you show a bunch of mock outrage WRT to those issues.

But please, by all means, convince the DNC to run on a platform of pushing a constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment, I'm sure that will go over well....

I'm not trying to convince the DNC. It is Americans that need convinced. Perhaps if a Swiss like culture regarding Guns existed in the US there might not be a problem, but there isn't such a culture and the consequences have been bad.

If there was more "well regulated Militia" and less Indivdualist Entitlement, the problem might not exist either.

Wait a minute, I thought you said that guns were the problem? Yep, that's pretty much how this thread started out. It looks like you, GWB, and McCain have more in common than you thought, you all enjoy trampling the Bill of Rights.

Guns are the problem. Add in a lack of respect and they're even a bigger problem.

Nanny staters such are yourself scare me far more than the machine gun toting maniacs that you and ericlp fantasize about.

BOO!

Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: punchkin
I guess you haven't seen the murder statistics compared to countries with stricter gun control.

EDIT: By the way, you don't have a natural right of gun ownership, but rather a constitutional right to at least some sort of gun use, the sort of which is hopefully about to be decided.

Sigh. Once again, statistics are pointless, especially between countries. I could easily find numbers that show that countries like the UK have higher violent crime rates and increasing murder rates, but it proves nothing.

And our constitutional right is based on the natural right to self-defense against ALL enemies, domestic and foreign. They are one and the same. Plus, there is no doubt that the supreme court will rule in favor of an individual right. The question is whether or not that right can be restricted any more than, say, the first amendment.

No. There is a strong correlation in developed countries between the murder rate and gun ownership. The UK has a much lower murder rate than the U.S.

You don't really know yet what the constitutional right is, but it's actually not as simple as you make out. First, there is no natural right of gun ownership despite what you claim it's based on-- because guns weren't invented for much of human history, this should be obvious. They are not one and the same. In addition, you obviously don't know much about the history of the Second Amendment to make that claim; it was created almost exclusively in response to fears of a standing federal army being used to oppress the states.

The time in which guns have existed is irrelevant. Everyone has a natural right to own anything which they can defend. That's just nature in action. If one animal has claws and fangs and another doesn't, which one has a natural right to own a specific cave? If I have a gun and you don't, guess who's going to be able to defend their other property?

As for the second amendment, what's your point? That alone is good enough reason to protect the right of gun ownership . The federal government is more oppressive now than it was 200 years ago, not less.

You don't really understand anything boy, move along.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The time in which guns have existed is irrelevant. Everyone has a natural right to own anything which they can defend. That's just nature in action.

Nope. You quite obviously need to read up a bit.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
As for the second amendment, what's your point? That alone is good enough reason to protect the right of gun ownership . The federal government is more oppressive now than it was 200 years ago, not less.

You don't really understand anything boy, move along.

You need to become literate before you can have an informed opinion, troll. It's not at all certain that the Second Amendment guarantees anything about gun ownership at all.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

No. You would have been hauled off to jail, and later to prison.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

No. You would have been hauled off to jail, and later to prison.

Just proves that most people that own guns ... shouldn't be owning them.

It's the gun owners that get plasterd and then think they want to start playing with their toys.


These conversations are worthless ... Since, everyone thinks I am talking to the sheep. Well, then why does California police force have high powered weapons? Maybe because this shit has happened before? It's almost hilarious to listen to these people claim I have a fantasy about it and that it has never happened before. It has and will continue as long as we allow it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The time in which guns have existed is irrelevant. Everyone has a natural right to own anything which they can defend. That's just nature in action.

Nope. You quite obviously need to read up a bit.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
As for the second amendment, what's your point? That alone is good enough reason to protect the right of gun ownership . The federal government is more oppressive now than it was 200 years ago, not less.

You don't really understand anything boy, move along.

You need to become literate before you can have an informed opinion, troll. It's not at all certain that the Second Amendment guarantees anything about gun ownership at all.

:roll:

So you imagine that people would be allowed to "keep and bear" that which they aren't allowed to own? You're not illiterate, you're just plain stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

No. You would have been hauled off to jail, and later to prison.

Just proves that most people that own guns ... shouldn't be owning them.

It's the gun owners that get plasterd and then think they want to start playing with their toys.


These conversations are worthless ... Since, everyone thinks I am talking to the sheep. Well, then why does California police force have high powered weapons? Maybe because this shit has happened before? It's almost hilarious to listen to these people claim I have a fantasy about it and that it has never happened before. It has and will continue as long as we allow it.

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, how many people have been killed by civilians guns vs military owned guns? Yet you want to take guns away from civilians and leave them only in the hands of government?

You have severely distorted priorities, boy.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

No. You would have been hauled off to jail, and later to prison.

Just proves that most people that own guns ... shouldn't be owning them.

It's the gun owners that get plasterd and then think they want to start playing with their toys.


These conversations are worthless ... Since, everyone thinks I am talking to the sheep. Well, then why does California police force have high powered weapons? Maybe because this shit has happened before? It's almost hilarious to listen to these people claim I have a fantasy about it and that it has never happened before. It has and will continue as long as we allow it.

I think your referring to the North Hollywood shootout correct?

Ok, number 1, the weapons they used were illegal. So let's just throw this out here even though it will be ignored: the law that made them illegal was already in place, and it failed. The law did not stop the criminals from getting guns, all those people who said that if criminals wanted big guns that were illegal, this is an example that gives them credibility. All those people who said big scary guns would not be able to be acquired because the guns are not like drugs, well this is an example of them being wrong in this case.

number 2, The big problem was their body armor, not their guns. If they had used the same guns, with no body armor, the incident would have been over a lot sooner. The police were hitting them, and had it not been for the body armor, they would have been dead men a lot sooner.

Phillips was hit 11 times, including the self-inflicted shot to the head; Matasareanu was hit 29 times

The real star of that shootout was their body armor, their guns were big and scary, but the body armor made them a problem that was hard to stop. Not their guns, their body armor.

The police have big rifles so that they can go through body armor those guns are a response to the very problem the body armor posed.

The police arsenal here now includes M-16 rifles powerful enough to pierce body armor like that worn by two heavily armed bank robbers last February.

Cnn

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The time in which guns have existed is irrelevant. Everyone has a natural right to own anything which they can defend. That's just nature in action.

Nope. You quite obviously need to read up a bit.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
As for the second amendment, what's your point? That alone is good enough reason to protect the right of gun ownership . The federal government is more oppressive now than it was 200 years ago, not less.

You don't really understand anything boy, move along.

You need to become literate before you can have an informed opinion, troll. It's not at all certain that the Second Amendment guarantees anything about gun ownership at all.

:roll:

So you imagine that people would be allowed to "keep and bear" that which they aren't allowed to own? You're not illiterate, you're just plain stupid.

Keep it up and I'll invite a moderator to smack you down. You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Go read the majority of circuit decisions, and learn if you are able.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: sandorski
Imagine how great this would have turned out if the first shooter didn't have a gun in the first place.

Hahahaha you win the Alice in Wonderland award of the day. Congratulations! *Wide-eyed, stupid smile*

You and those who responded in like fashion come from a long line of Status Quo is all there ever will/should be. "Negros Humans?", "Women Vote?", "Equal Rights". Things can be better, but you have to want it first.

Hell, why stop there? "free speech", "freedom of the press", "right to privacy", "unlawful search and seizure" etc..... Oh wait, that's right, you show a bunch of mock outrage WRT to those issues.

But please, by all means, convince the DNC to run on a platform of pushing a constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment, I'm sure that will go over well....

I'm not trying to convince the DNC. It is Americans that need convinced. Perhaps if a Swiss like culture regarding Guns existed in the US there might not be a problem, but there isn't such a culture and the consequences have been bad.

If there was more "well regulated Militia" and less Indivdualist Entitlement, the problem might not exist either.

Wait a minute, I thought you said that guns were the problem? Yep, that's pretty much how this thread started out. It looks like you, GWB, and McCain have more in common than you thought, you all enjoy trampling the Bill of Rights.

Guns are the problem. Add in a lack of respect and they're even a bigger problem.

Nanny staters such are yourself scare me far more than the machine gun toting maniacs that you and ericlp fantasize about.

BOO!

Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

See, that's the problem.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski
Imagine how great this would have turned out if the first shooter didn't have a gun in the first place.

It would be even better if everyone had a pet unicorn and magical fairies to take care of their every wish and desire.

I want a pony!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Keep it up and I'll invite a moderator to smack you down. You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Go read the majority of circuit decisions, and learn if you are able.

Wrong.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski
See, that's the problem.

Actually, you're the problem. The 2nd amendment exists because of people like you. The founders of the United States knew the people like you existed and that in order to protect ourselves from big government elitists like you, people like me need the right to keep and bear arms.

You're the very reason the thing you hate exists. Kind of a strange paradox, eh?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: punchkin
Keep it up and I'll invite a moderator to smack you down. You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Go read the majority of circuit decisions, and learn if you are able.

Wrong.

Yes, you are persistently wrong on this, making your name-calling even more pathetic. You "know" only as much of this issue as happens to agree completely with your own opinion. LOL

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
See, that's the problem.

Actually, you're the problem. The 2nd amendment exists because of people like you. The founders of the United States knew the people like you existed and that in order to protect ourselves from big government elitists like you, people like me need the right to keep and bear arms.

You're the very reason the thing you hate exists. Kind of a strange paradox, eh?

Ah. So you made a factually incorrect statement (that you'd be within your rights to shoot someone instantly for yelling "BOO!"), but sandorski's the problem. And you know nothing of the history of the Second Amendment, as you demonstrate over and over... but sandorski is the problem.

Lest we forget...

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The time in which guns have existed is irrelevant. Everyone has a natural right to own anything which they can defend. That's just nature in action.

Heh heh. Never "argue" with a pimple-faced teenager who will never admit a mistake, knows nothing, and doesn't want to learn, I guess is the lesson I can draw from your posts here.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
See, that's the problem.

Actually, you're the problem. The 2nd amendment exists because of people like you. The founders of the United States knew the people like you existed and that in order to protect ourselves from big government elitists like you, people like me need the right to keep and bear arms.

You're the very reason the thing you hate exists. Kind of a strange paradox, eh?

O'rly?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
See, that's the problem.

Actually, you're the problem. The 2nd amendment exists because of people like you. The founders of the United States knew the people like you existed and that in order to protect ourselves from big government elitists like you, people like me need the right to keep and bear arms.

You're the very reason the thing you hate exists. Kind of a strange paradox, eh?

Ah. So you made a factually incorrect statement (that you'd be within your rights to shoot someone instantly for yelling "BOO!")...

It actually depends on the situation (and state): if sandorski snuck up behind boberfett on bober's property, he'd be well within his right to shoot sandorski in self defense. In public, no.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
See, that's the problem.

Actually, you're the problem. The 2nd amendment exists because of people like you. The founders of the United States knew the people like you existed and that in order to protect ourselves from big government elitists like you, people like me need the right to keep and bear arms.

You're the very reason the thing you hate exists. Kind of a strange paradox, eh?

O'rly?

Ya rly.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
See, that's the problem.

Actually, you're the problem. The 2nd amendment exists because of people like you. The founders of the United States knew the people like you existed and that in order to protect ourselves from big government elitists like you, people like me need the right to keep and bear arms.

You're the very reason the thing you hate exists. Kind of a strange paradox, eh?

Blah blah blah, I'm a moron, blah blah blah.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The time in which guns have existed is irrelevant. Everyone has a natural right to own anything which they can defend. That's just nature in action.

*drooling*

Is that all you've got, fool?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: punchkin
Keep it up and I'll invite a moderator to smack you down. You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Go read the majority of circuit decisions, and learn if you are able.

Wrong.

Yes, you are persistently wrong on this, making your name-calling even more pathetic. You "know" only as much of this issue as happens to agree completely with your own opinion. LOL

You have yet to demonstrate that you know anything, so excuse me if I don't simply take your word for it. I know what I've read, and it certainly doesn't agree with you.

Tell me again, little man, what are your qualifications? You always claim to be qualified to understand the law better than anybody else, but you have yet to prove it.

I'll be waiting, son.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good thing you didn't do that while standing behind me. I'd have been well within my right to shoot you in the face.

No. You would have been hauled off to jail, and later to prison.

Just proves that most people that own guns ... shouldn't be owning them.

It's the gun owners that get plasterd and then think they want to start playing with their toys.


These conversations are worthless ... Since, everyone thinks I am talking to the sheep. Well, then why does California police force have high powered weapons? Maybe because this shit has happened before? It's almost hilarious to listen to these people claim I have a fantasy about it and that it has never happened before. It has and will continue as long as we allow it.

I think your referring to the North Hollywood shootout correct?

Ok, number 1, the weapons they used were illegal. So let's just throw this out here even though it will be ignored: the law that made them illegal was already in place, and it failed. The law did not stop the criminals from getting guns, all those people who said that if criminals wanted big guns that were illegal, this is an example that gives them credibility. All those people who said big scary guns would not be able to be acquired because the guns are not like drugs, well this is an example of them being wrong in this case.

number 2, The big problem was their body armor, not their guns. If they had used the same guns, with no body armor, the incident would have been over a lot sooner. The police were hitting them, and had it not been for the body armor, they would have been dead men a lot sooner.

Phillips was hit 11 times, including the self-inflicted shot to the head; Matasareanu was hit 29 times

The real star of that shootout was their body armor, their guns were big and scary, but the body armor made them a problem that was hard to stop. Not their guns, their body armor.

The police have big rifles so that they can go through body armor those guns are a response to the very problem the body armor posed.

The police arsenal here now includes M-16 rifles powerful enough to pierce body armor like that worn by two heavily armed bank robbers last February.

Cnn

You beat me to it. Got anything else ericlp, or are you just going to wait until the next gun control thread and bring up your same tired argument?

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman
Cars kill people and allow criminals to get away, those should be outlawed for everybody, too.

What else can be outlawed because of hazards resulting from irresponsible or insane people? Tobacco, alcohol, tools, electricity, fire, etc?

Great happy place that we'd all live in.

Guns killing people are merely fulfilling their purpose. The other things you listed have a different purpose.

Shooting a weapon at a target range gives many people pleasure, having a weapon also provides some people with comfort (safety).

Alcohol is for pleasure and ends up getting a person intoxicated....no danger there, especially while driving or operating machinery.
Knives, what are they for? Chopping, cutting, stabbing things....
Cigarettes are for pleasure, but have a little downside called cancer....
The list could go on and on, and I would suppose you would call for a ban on all these things and much more (expand it to baseball bats, etc).

Ownership of a gun doesn't make you a murderer of fellow human beings. Your assumption that it does is very unrealistic.
Do you think of police officers as killers waiting to be unleashed because of your perceived need to fulfill their duty as gun owners?

Let's look at it this way: if you have the right to shoot-your-mouth-off in these forums (freedom of speech), then everybody else can have the right to own a gun of their choosing and target practice with it (right to bear arms).

What other rights are you and your kind looking to take away?

strawman

Great reply.....we're you in danger of falling short of your 10-posts-per-day quota?