Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on December 14, 2007, 07:11:37 PM

Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: wrag on December 14, 2007, 07:11:37 PM
from the media...........

http://www.nraila.org//news/read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=10366

Might want to have a look here.  Seems one of the news caster on MSNBC has a bias?

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3318

[Edited to add this link]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/12/11/mika-church-shootings-inane-think-armed-citizen-can-make-differenc
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: lazs2 on December 15, 2007, 10:20:26 AM
but of course..  there is no liberal anti gun bias in the media.. we all know that.

lazs
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Donzo on December 15, 2007, 12:01:34 PM
Wow. :huh

What an idiot that woman is.







From a post left on the NewsBusters page where one of the article is:

Quote
Notice that most gunmen, including suicidal types like the kid in Omaha, or a nutjob like the guy in the church shootings, don't go shooting up gun shops, rifle ranges, police stations, skeet competitions, or other public places where a lot of folks are likely to shoot back. Even in their suicidal or delusional minds, they know to go where the unarmed sheep are, and if the word got out that a lot of people going shopping or praying were armed, that would be two more target areas off the list.


Exactly.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Tigeress on December 15, 2007, 12:26:20 PM
Here is the Youtube direct version in case the volume was too low and you wish to boost it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRtVDDqzM_0

I absolutely LOVE the fact that this Socialist gun hating woman, Mika Brzezinski, got it shoved in her face on camera by her co-anchor by making Mika Brzezinski admit to the viewing lefty audence that Jeanne Assam, a private citizen armed with her own gun and ccw permit, stopped that killer dead in his tracks and saved so many lives.

Mika, repeat after me, gun in the hands of the good guys defending unarmed people is a good thing. Therefore, guns are not killers... murderers are killers.

WOOOO HOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This just MAKES MY DAY!!!

Her co-anchor made her look like the bellybutton she is, in my opinion

Here is a comment about the video from a Youtuber:

"wilburjr: I usually vote democratic but believe that #2 means 'me and you'. If a gun stops a nut from hurting people, then a gun is good. Please view search word wilburjr  -thanks."

The backlash amongst the lefties against vilifying guns instead of people is starting, it seems...

TIGERESS
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 01:05:26 PM
She emphasized that Jeanne Assam only wounded Murray. Assam may not have fired the killing shot but she stopped the guy from killing more people which would have been very likely had she not acted. To diminish her role in this because she may not have killed the guy is criminally stupid.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Tigeress on December 15, 2007, 01:47:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
She emphasized that Jeanne Assam only wounded Murray. Assam may not have fired the killing shot but she stopped the guy from killing more people which would have been very likely had she not acted. To diminish her role in this because she may not have killed the guy is criminally stupid.


Hi Mr AKIron,

I noticed that too and phooey to Mika Brzezinski!

I was thinking, what a wonderful thing... Jeanne Assam had brought him down and was no longer a threat but didnt kill him thus saving Jeanne the emotional burden of having ended a human life, even a murderous one.

The fact that she didn't kill him with her gun but stopped him in his tracts with a gun also flies in the face of the "outlaw all guns" crowd.

I am glad he did not get media attention he would have gotten had he been hospitalized and arrested and gone through the judical process.

Instead of him being a martyr for the "but he was a victim of his life crowd" Jeanne Assam is a hero and poster girl for the "guns dont kill people; people kill people crowd."

TIGERESS
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: john9001 on December 15, 2007, 01:52:09 PM
the story i heard from the witness was that she wounded him (bad guy)and asked him to surrender but he tried to aim his gun at her so then she killed him.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Tigeress on December 15, 2007, 01:53:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
the story i heard was that she wounded him and asked him to surrender but he tried to aim his gun at her so then she killed him.


I heard the same thing AKIron did...

When and where did you hear this John?

links?

TIGERESS
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 03:50:33 PM
Courage comes in many genders, well, at least two, and Jeanne Assam deserves recognition as the person of the year imo. Really surprised the "media" isn't all over her.

Tigeress, I promise not to call you Ms if you won't call me Mr. ;)
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 05:14:00 PM
I can't understand how this or shootings like the Nebraska shopping mall can possibly occur. After all, we have the 2nd amendment, which is supposed to allow us to tool up and be able to thwart the actions of these evil gunmen. So why isn't it happening?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 05:16:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
I can't understand how this or shootings like the Nebraska shopping mall can possibly occur. After all, we have the 2nd amendment, which is supposed to allow us to tool up and be able to thwart the actions of these evil gunmen. So why isn't it happening?


The actions of this angry young anti-christian were thwarted, haven't you been paying attention?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 05:19:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
The actions of this angry young anti-christian were thwarted, haven't you been paying attention?
The Nebraska mall shooter? I heard 8 people died. Not been able to keep up with the news this week = hospitalized Mon/Tue - sorry.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 05:24:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
The Nebraska mall shooter? I heard 8 people died. Not been able to keep up with the news this week = hospitalized Mon/Tue - sorry.


This thread is about the recent church shootings.

Perhaps if more people, nix the perhaps, if more people exercised their second amendment rights these lunatics going on murdering sprees would have less success in destroying other people's happiness. I think those inclined to infamy might even be completely dissuaded from their evil adventure if they knew the old lady they set their sight on might be aiming back.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Tigeress on December 15, 2007, 05:43:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Courage comes in many genders, well, at least two, and Jeanne Assam deserves recognition as the person of the year imo. Really surprised the "media" isn't all over her.

Tigeress, I promise not to call you Ms if you won't call me Mr. ;)


Ok Miste... ahhh Ironman :)

TIGERESSD
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 05:45:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
This thread is about the recent church shootings.
Sorry - there seems to be so many shootings going on these days, it's easy to confuse one with another.

So... the problem is that even though people are free to carry a weapon when they go shopping, most don't, and then a whackjob with an assault rifle takes advantage of the situation because he wants to "go out in style". Hmmmm... we need to do more to convince ordinary folk of the importance of taking a gun when they go shopping. I wonder why so many don't.  
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 05:47:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Sorry - there seems to be so many shootings going on these days, it's easy to confuse one with another.

So... the problem is that even though people are free to carry a weapon when they go shopping, most don't, and then a whackjob with an assault rifle takes advantage of the situation because he wants to "go out in style". Hmmmm... we need to do more to convince ordinary folk of the importance of taking a gun when they go shopping. I wonder why so many don't.  


You won't get me arguing that there aren't more nutbags today than 50 years ago. Why do you think that is?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 05:50:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
You won't get me arguing that there aren't more nutbags today than 50 years ago. Why do you think that is?
- because you can't be bothered to argue?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 05:51:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
- because you can't be bothered to argue?


Or, because there are a lot more nutbugs today than 50 years ago. Availability of guns have less than nothing to do with that.

I did find your reply amusing. :)
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 05:56:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Or, because there are a lot more nutbugs today than 50 years ago. Availability of guns have less than nothing to do with that.
Agreed, but then why can't more ordinary citizens be persuaded to carry a .45 or equivalent, every time they drive down to the shops to pick up a few groceries? Surely the NRA and Armed Citizen articles make a compelling case, so why isn't it happening?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 06:00:34 PM
I suspect it is happening. Wackos going off the deep end is still relatively rare though making the chance of them encountering an armed civilian not likely. Statistically though the odds just went way up with this church shooting.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 06:06:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Wackos going off the deep end is still relatively rare  
Relative to what - other countries? Doubtful. Hardly a day goes by without some shooting or other. You mentioned church shootings in the plural. Then we've had all the school shootings - Columbine, VA Tech, Wisconsin, then that event just recently at Las Vegas. Plus the Neb Mall shooting of course.

Who wants to have to worry about what gun to take when they go shopping... It's kinda sad when it comes to that :(
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 06:09:43 PM
Relative to not encountering a wacko going off the deep end. I've never seen one, have you?

I have a concealed carry license but usually don't carry. Still, carrying a gun is not a huge burden nor would I ever feel "sad" about doing so. I don't feel sad about wearing a seat belt because someone is much more likely to run into me than shoot me either.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: john9001 on December 15, 2007, 06:13:22 PM
not everyone wants to carry a gun, not everyone has the ability to use a gun, not everyone would have the mental attitude to use the gun even to protect their own life, they want/expect/hope someone else will protect them.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 06:34:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Relative to not encountering a wacko going off the deep end. I've never seen one, have you?
As a matter of fact, yes I have - San Francisco Feb 1982 near the Embarcadero Center. I was trying to get to the train station but it was cordoned off with about 100 police cars. Usual story - nutjob shot a few people and then killed himself. Obviously I didn't see the gunman else I would not be here now!
Quote
not everyone wants to carry a gun, not everyone has the ability to use a gun, not everyone would have the mental attitude to use the gun even to protect their own life
 - and this is where the whole thesis of expecting ordinary citizens to arm themselves against a dangerous gunman falls apart. Heck even trained police officers come off worse in many of these confrontations.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 06:37:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
  - and this is where the whole thesis of expecting ordinary citizens to arm themselves against a dangerous gunman falls apart. Heck even trained police officers come off worse in many of these confrontations.


Of course most of these dangerous gunmen are ordinary citizens with a serious chip on their shoulder. If I came face to face with one I'd rather be armed than not, you?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: john9001 on December 15, 2007, 06:39:05 PM
Louis, i don't care what other people do , i carry a gun for my protection.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 15, 2007, 06:43:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Of course most of these dangerous gunmen are ordinary citizens with a serious chip on their shoulder. If I came face to face with one I'd rather be armed than not, you?
You said yourself that these wacko incidents are "relatively rare". But I've seen one (was within 150 yards of the bldg where it happened) but you say you never have. I don't carry a gun btw. I don't care what John9001 does.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 06:49:24 PM
It's true, the last time I was within 5 miles of anyone being murdered was when JFK was shot. That these things happen probably on average less than once per year makes them rare I think. I carry a gun in my car occasionally but don't have one small enough to carry on my person. I aim to remedy that soon.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: wrag on December 15, 2007, 06:53:06 PM
Here is a little more news on the person that is reported as doing the shooting.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59203

Alister Crowley is listed as one of his???????

Hearing voices?

Many Rock musicians hear voices?

Interesting.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: lasersailor184 on December 15, 2007, 06:55:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
It's true, the last time I was within 5 miles of anyone being murdered was when JFK was shot. That these things happen probably on average less than once per year makes them rare I think. I carry a gun in my car occasionally but don't have one small enough to carry on my person. I aim to remedy that soon.


Small?  What are you, some sort of girly man?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: wrag on December 15, 2007, 06:56:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
I can't understand how this or shootings like the Nebraska shopping mall can possibly occur. After all, we have the 2nd amendment, which is supposed to allow us to tool up and be able to thwart the actions of these evil gunmen. So why isn't it happening?


Several of these shootings have happened in so called GUN FREE ZONES!

This means the common person is NOT permitted to carry a firearm anywhere within the area.  (That mall you refer to was such a place.)

This Church however was NOT a GFZ.  The Pastor, when informed of the situation, encouraged people to arm themselves.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 15, 2007, 11:30:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Small?  What are you, some sort of girly man?


I only own two handguns, a beretta 92fs and a glock 21. Both are too large for me to properly conceal.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on December 15, 2007, 11:39:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I only own two handguns, a beretta 92fs and a glock 21. Both are too large for me to properly conceal.


Get a HIGH quality concealment rig. It makes a huge difference. It won't make a big 44 Magnum disappear on a small woman, but the right rig can hide a full size weapon on the average male frame, provided you're wearing clothes.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: lazs2 on December 16, 2007, 10:05:20 AM
louis.. I think you are missing the point..   and it is a big one.  The mall was a "gun free zone"   the church was not.. in the mall.. the sheeple ran screaming and dying until the cops showed up and chalked the outline of their bodies in the blood pools.

In the church... people with concealed carry took the shooter out right away and saved dozens or more lives... probly more that have been killed by these nutjobs all year were saved in one incident.  

I ask you..  when your are barricaded in your art class with a bunch of people.. listening to a shooter kicking in doors and shooting the sheeple hiding under their desks...  do you want to be in the room with the board of directors who passed the "gun free zone" law or... some concealed carry guy with a .45?

Shoot more of the nuts and the fad will die.   sorta like skyjacking.   We are a nation of fads and 15 minutes of fame.. some will debase themselves on "reality shows" to get that fame and some..  will shoot sheeple in a murder suicide thing.. they know the more they kill.. the more that they will be lionized and talked about in the media... if they get shot after only killing one or two...

Well.. that just takes the fun right out of it.

If everyone in the USA could carry a gun... only about 10% ever would but.. that would be enough to make us one hell of a lot more polite society.

lazs
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 16, 2007, 12:21:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
louis.. I think you are missing the point..   and it is a big one.  The mall was a "gun free zone"   the church was not.. in the mall.. the sheeple ran screaming and dying until the cops showed up and chalked the outline of their bodies in the blood pools.
The entity "gun free zone" is a meaningless attempt at a PR exercise, designed to make people comfortable about going to the shopping mall/school district etc. But it means... NOTHING.

Ever see those highway signs that say "police speed check area"? Does that mean that police check speed in these areas but nowhere else? Good luck to anyone who believes that. :lol

The mall is not, never was and never will be a "gun free zone" because the USA is not a gun free zone. In designating the mall a "gun free zone", how was the number of guns carried by private citizens reduced? Any stats/links on that? No, didn't think so...

Still, you think that arming private citizens is the answer to dealing with church shootings. How many church shootings have occurred in England/Wales in the last 10 years, in light of the fact that the church congregations there cannot be armed? There, it really is a gun free zone, and according to your "logic" there should be church shootings galore every Sunday. Well guess what - there isn't. Care to explain that one to me?

:D
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 16, 2007, 12:29:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
The entity "gun free zone" is a meaningless attempt at a PR exercise, designed to make people comfortable about going to the shopping mall/school district etc. But it means... NOTHING.

:D


I must differ, rather than meaning nothing it guarantees there will be NO law abiding concealed carrying civilians present to stop these sociopaths.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 16, 2007, 12:33:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I must differ, rather than meaning nothing it guarantees there will be NO law abiding concealed carrying civilians present to stop these sociopaths.
I repeat - Any stats/links on that? No, didn't think so...
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: john9001 on December 16, 2007, 12:33:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
There, it really is a gun free zone, and according to your "logic" there should be church shootings galore every Sunday. Well guess what - there isn't. Care to explain that one to me?

 


yes, the criminals are too busy robbing unarmed people in their own homes.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 16, 2007, 12:36:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
yes, the criminals are too busy robbing unarmed people in their own homes.
You're making a big assumption that burglars and murderers are one and the same. Seems like you attended the same school of logic as Lazs.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 16, 2007, 12:37:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
I repeat - Any stats/links on that? No, didn't think so...


Stats/links on what? I assure you that it is illegal in Texas to carry a concealed weapon onto property that denial has been posted iaw the law. Therefore, any one who does carry a concealed weapon there is a law breaker. Are you arguing this or are you claiming the mall where the recent shooting occurred wasn't a no gun zone?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: john9001 on December 16, 2007, 12:41:57 PM
i spoke in error, i said the people were unarmed, i forgot about the cricket bats.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 16, 2007, 12:41:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Stats/links on what? I assure you that it is illegal in Texas to carry a concealed weapon onto property that denial has been posted iaw the law. Therefore, any one who does carry a concealed weapon there is a law breaker. Are you arguing this or are you claiming the mall where the recent shooting occurred wasn't a no gun zone?
I'm asking for stats/links which show how many guns are no longer carried in these "gun free zones". Many people won't carry of course, but then they probably wouldn't have done anyway BEFORE it became a "gun free zone". How can we tell?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 16, 2007, 12:45:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
I'm asking for stats/links which show how many guns are no longer carried in these "gun free zones". Many people won't carry of course, but then they probably wouldn't have done anyway BEFORE it became a "gun free zone". How can we tell?


I specifically said law abiding gun carriers. Guess you missed that part.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 16, 2007, 12:48:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I specifically said law abiding gun carriers. Guess you missed that part.
I missed the part which states to what extent gun carriage has been reduced since designated areas became "gun free zones". Oh wait, it's not there. That would explain why I missed it. :aok
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Maverick on December 16, 2007, 12:51:55 PM
Yep beetle is definitely back.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: AKIron on December 16, 2007, 12:52:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
I missed the part which states to what extent gun carriage has been reduced since designated areas became "gun free zones". Oh wait, it's not there. That would explain why I missed it. :aok


Do you think it's possible to get anywhere near an accurate count on who is carrying their gun in violation of the law? Like I said, there will be exactly 0 law abiding ccw carriers in "gun free zones". The stats they do have indicate that CCW citizens on average are more law abiding than non CCW citizens. Will that one work for ya?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Bronk on December 16, 2007, 01:38:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
Yep beetle is definitely back.

He has 2 shades going , just so you know.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Yeager on December 16, 2007, 01:42:37 PM
I carry a legally concealed pistol any time I'm in a public place.  In my State, I would guess every one out of twenty people is legally packing heat in crowded public places.  However, it just goes without saying that gun free zones are the best places to commit mass murder/suicide with a gun...... go figure :aok
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: WWM on December 16, 2007, 02:20:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
How many church shootings have occurred in England/Wales in the last 10 years, in light of the fact that the church congregations there cannot be armed?
:D



    I spent time in a variety of countries while serving in the military.   I don't feel it is credible to compare our populous to that of another county. The populous will act according to how they were raised in their culture (usually).  When I was in Honduras we had people coming to base for medical attention that had been hacked with a machete while being robbed.  Guns too expensive and machete works fine.    When I was in Germany they left churches unlocked where insides were decorated with gold plating. People actually respected their country and didn't destroy steal or vandalize them.  I have been in the business of protecting communities and teaching people how to protect themselves for a number of years.    Anyone that has stood in innocent blood and witnessed what another human being can do another human being will probably feel a need to learn some type of defense.  Others may feel compelled to go a step further and take a position where they can defend other if needed.  

  Respectfully,
Warren M
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 16, 2007, 03:16:19 PM
Warren - interesting post. My point was that some people here are giving full credit to a few armed citizens as the reason for preventing church shootings. All hail to the mighty gun. :rolleyes: All I'm saying is that in other countries, where the whole damn country is a "gun free zone", there are no church shootings. The absence of these church shootings does not result from an armed congregation, because none of them is armed.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: WWM on December 16, 2007, 05:37:01 PM
I understand your point.  We are a "drug free nation" though and I could go to the city next door where they don't know me and buy crack in about an hour because it is smuggled into our country. This is a breakdown in our PC nation. Most of the criminals I've seen caught with guns did not obtain those guns through a legal source.  If criminals, who will do unspeakable things to other innocent human beings, will have a gun..I want those I love to be able to defend themselves from that threat.  What is the answer in your opinion?
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: FrodeMk3 on December 16, 2007, 11:15:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Warren - interesting post. My point was that some people here are giving full credit to a few armed citizens as the reason for preventing church shootings. All hail to the mighty gun. :rolleyes: All I'm saying is that in other countries, where the whole damn country is a "gun free zone", there are no church shootings. The absence of these church shootings does not result from an armed congregation, because none of them is armed.


Louis, I'd go with what Warren said-I mean, lots' of third-world countries have shootings in churches, sometimes on a regular basis. Think places like Rhodesia in the late seventies, Central America in the Early '80's, North Ireland during the period of '69 on. How many of those countries had a ban on firearms?

Granted, almost all of those countries listed had active conflicts going on.

At this point, It would be impossible to disarm the U.S. citizenry to the point that countries' like Germany and England have. And even those countries' still have some numbers' of weapons.

We need to be realistic. We should not wish for a situation we do not have. If, in order to provide true safety, Some should go armed if capable and willing, then so it should be. As I and many in a previous thread have stated, Having a Policeman there at exactly the right time and place is extremely rare, and a practical impossibility, to say the least.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 17, 2007, 04:39:59 AM
Warren - thank you for your reply.

Like you, I have been to various foreign countries including those in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. In the Middle East - places like Dubai/UAE and Muscat/Oman, they don't have churches but they sure as hell have shopping malls. And yet in these unarmed societies or "gun free zones" where the whole country is a gun free zone, shopping mall shootings are unheard of.

The problem in America is three-fold. [list=1]The problem with point 3 is that instead of preventing these people from getting guns in the first place, they're allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, with disastrous consequences, as seen in the Nebraska shopping mall. And this pattern is and will  forever more be repeated time after time after time. And nothing will ever stop it as long as the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms because there's no way of knowing who will own them responsibly, and who will do a Nebraska shopping mall job.

And that's why ~10,000 people will be murdered with a firearm in 2008 in the US.

Other countries are proactive, and don't allow guns in the first place. It seems to work for them.

As for America, I don't know what the answer is. Arming yourselves is a reasonable response, but is certainly not a watertight solution.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: Louis XVII on December 17, 2007, 05:16:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Louis, I'd go with what Warren said-I mean, lots' of third-world countries have shootings in churches, sometimes on a regular basis. Think places like Rhodesia in the late seventies, Central America in the Early '80's, North Ireland during the period of '69 on. How many of those countries had a ban on firearms?

Granted, almost all of those countries listed had active conflicts going on.
Frode!

I think it would be quite incorrect to consider a country like Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to be "third world". The whites there enjoyed a very high standard of living, with homes on 3-acre plots, pavilions, swimming pools and servants. There, it certainly was possibly to own a firearm legally.

As for Northern Ireland, by no stretch of the imagination can it be considered third world. It is part of the UK, currently the fifth largest economy in the world, and largest donor in solving the current world banking crisis! The conflict in Ulster (Northern Ireland) was instigated by the IRA, an illegal, paramilitary organization which acquired most of its weaponry from the USA.
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: lazs2 on December 17, 2007, 08:41:47 AM
louis..  are you seriously saying that in the schools and the malls that are "gun free zones" that there were citizens there that ignored the laws and carried their guns anyway... that they never pulled out the guns?

that is a very interesting theory..  It would mean that the citizens were willing to break the law and face loss of their permit and their freedom but not willing to use the gun that they had snuck in.   It would mean that a random search in schools would turn up lots of guns carried on adults.  This is of course... nonsense and wishful thinking on your part..  the penalty is too high for a law abiding citizen.. the only ones who break the law are the ones that don't care.. they don't plan on coming out alive anyway.

Too many guns?  that would mean that the presence of guns was a problem.. shootings at gun clubs and hunting lodges and shooting ranges and wilderness plinking ranges would be ten times more likely.. maybe hundreds of times more since the per capita gun carrying would be 100 or more times as much.

If guns don't work.. then why did the sky marshal program work... concealed carry was all it was...  

If it doesn't work.. then why in your country, england... are more than half the burglaries commited while the homeowner cowers under his bed shaking while here..  the worst criminals in the world fear a homeowner more than a cop?

None of your "feelings" on the matter make sense in the cold light of day.   If you could turn us all into subjects of the queen and sheeple.. maybe.. too late for that.   we ended that hundreds of years ago and don't want to go back.

lazs
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: SIG220 on December 17, 2007, 09:04:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Louis XVII

The problem in America is three-fold. [list=1]
  • Ingrained gun culture, and the tendency for whackjobs to adopt "copycat" behavior to make their presence felt, viz. the Nebraska shooter who wanted to "go out in style".
  • A ready supply of deadly weapons that is made available to everyone, including people like this.
  • A judicial system that adjudges the shooter to be a "law abiding citizen" right up until the time he starts committing crimes with his gun(s) because he has no previous history of gun crime.
The problem with point 3 is that instead of preventing these people from getting guns in the first place, they're allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, with disastrous consequences, as seen in the Nebraska shopping mall.


I'm afraid that you have your facts extremely wrong regarding this Nebraska case.  

This young man STOLE the firearms he used just before the incident happened.   He did not legally own them.  That AK-47 belonged to the man who was his stepdad.   The teenager knew where he kept it, and broke into the house to get it.

No law would have prevented him from owning a gun, as he already broke the law to get his hands on these weapons.

This was one seriously messed up kid.  His parents divorced when he was very young, so he never had a chance to grow up with his actual parents together.  Both parents had thrown him out, and he could not live with either of them anymore.   Even this family that took him in for the past year, had just told him that he had to leave.   So he was facing being homeless again, as well as being out of work, facing minor criminal charges, and being left by his girlfriend.   And he had no mother or father that he could turn to.

He wrote hateful messages online about this mother mistreating and abusing him while he grew up, yet in his suicide note he professed his love for both her, and also his father.   And this was despite being estranged from both of them.

There are much bigger problems in our society here, that brought about this terrible tragedy.  

A number of adults did make very bad choices in this incident.  The mother of the family that he lived with actually saw the assault rifle in his room the day before the shooting, yet thought nothing of it, despite the boy's many problems.   And for the Step dad to not have had the gun locked up in a safe was also most irresponsible.  The police came and confiscated the rest of his gun collection, as part of their investigation.

SIG 220
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: lazs2 on December 17, 2007, 09:10:12 AM
no matter how he had the guns stored the police would have come and confiscated em all for the "investigation".

If someone steals your car and kills someone..  no big deal.   They don't come and confiscate the rest of your cars for the "investigation".

lazs
Title: More on the Church shooting
Post by: WWM on December 17, 2007, 11:00:02 AM
It simply boils down to the old saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."    As long as outlaws have guns then don't take them away from me and my friends.  Yes, there are going to be mistakes, accidents, poor decisions, people that used to be sane do insance acts etc...  

IF we were going outlaw guns there are several other "holes" that need mending first.  I suppose you play this game so I will make an analogy.   It would be like trying to capture a Vehicle base without taking out the vehicle hanger and the other side putting up a strong defence.  No matter how many GV's you make disappear, they just keep coming out.  
           We simply will not do what it would take to stop illigal items from coming across the borders.  If we did then we would see an end to a big quantity of the drugs.  Instead there are literally TONS being smuggled over on a regular basis.