Has anyone ever pulled a gun and fired back at one of these shooters?

[MrPerson]

Probably no.

So what kind of protection is that?

The protection argument is BS.

Ban all the fucking guns.

[Taverner]

1. Only happened once, and that was at a church by an off duty cop

Keep in mind, the cop was TRAINED for this, the average Joe the Plumber isn't

[Bill McBlueState]

2. I'm sure you'll be presented with an anecdote or two

designed to trump your claim.

[Abq_Sarah]

3. Yeah, actually

They have. On numerous occasions.

How about "banning all fucking criminals"? Will that work?

[MrPerson]

7. Good. Make it a crime to own a gun.

[Abq_Sarah]

23. It's already a crime

To use a gun in the commission of a crime but that hasn't stopped people, has it?

We call them criminals for a reason. If it weren't a gun, it would be a knife or something else.

[MrPerson]

29. I'll take my chances with knives.

[walkaway]

75. That would be quite a feat killing 14 people with a knife!

This gun culture makes me sick.

[slackmaster]

Only a crazed Asian could pull off something like that

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

:sarcasm:

[Abq_Sarah]

112. What disgusts me

Is the culture that blames the weapon instead of the perpetrator. Take away the rights of all to own and operate firearms and only criminals will retain them. Remove as many from society as you can and the criminals will find other alternatives.

[MrPerson]

114. Exhibit A - Great Britain Exhibit B - Japan.

Next NRA talking point.

[slackmaster]

124. In Japan, the police can enter and inspect anyone's home at any time without a search warrant

If you want to live in that kind of society, or pay the kind of taxes and put up with the restrictions on freedom of speech they have in the UK, by all means move.

[MrPerson]

144. Is that on the NRA website.

[slackmaster]

154. I don't know, but my brother and his family lived there for two years

And I have a friend who taught English at a girls' school in Osaka for about 15 years.

It's a very regimented society, with restrictions on liberty that would be very hard for many Americans to adjust to.

But thank you for revealing your prejudice.

[MrPerson]

160. Oh I'm prejudiced. Against guns.

[slackmaster]

166. And against people who own them, apparently

Or maybe against people who simply don't agree with you.

[Caliman73]

254. Apparently you are.

Prejudice comes from ignorance and irrational fear which you have clearly displayed here.

[TheWraith]

132. Both Britain and Japan are on the slippery slope towards being police states. Try again. nt

[Fumesucker]

147. Britain and Japan both have an incarceration rate far lower than the USA

Based purely on how many citizens are under lock and key, the US is far closer to being a police state than the either Japan or Britain.

Try again.

[slackmaster]

158. That's not anywhere near a valid measure

:argh:

[Fumesucker]

214. Really?

Do you have a rationale for your statement?

Or is that just your unsupported opinion?

[TheWraith]

235. Because they're not as obsessed with non-violent drug offenses as we are.

Doesn't change the fact that both countries have no real protections for personal privacy, and Britain is actively restricting it. You know the Brits now have 4.2 million cameras monitoring every possible public place? That's one camera for every 14 people. And now they're actively profiling the population looking for people who they think MAY commit crimes in the future.

If it's a choice between the US' stupid obsession with locking up non-violent drug addicts, and a country that's tipping toward V for Vendetta, I'll choose the former.

[DavidMS]

275. Drug Decriminalization

I posted this elsewhere, but the short version is that I saw Glen Greenwald at Cato today and the national discourse is shifting. Someone apparently handed some of our political elites a clue card. They are starting to realize what we know: Criminalizing a medical and public health problem makes it worse and leads to second and third order negative externalizes.

[damntexdem]

177. Yeah, so many people standing across a street are hit by inaccurately thrown knives.

Those drive-by knifings are a real threat.

[rl6214]

262. Computers are used to spread child porn

Make it a crime to own a computer. You turn in yours first.

[rvablue]

84. Link and examples please. Facts, not just hyperbole. It doesn't fly well here.

And I'm not disagreeing with you. Just challenging you on your statement since you had to knee-jerk at the OP, while bringing nothing of substance to the discussion.

[wolfgangmo]

176. which occasions?

I would love to see some links.

[slackmaster]

4. Yes, it has happened

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

There have also been incidents where someone tackled and subdued the shooter. One at a school IIRC.

[Fumesucker]

34. The tackling of the shooter happened at a UU church not long ago too.. n/t

[flvegan]

5. If everyone was armed, everyone could shoot back.

A little bit of crossfire is an acceptable risk, right?

[Terry in Austin]

183. Just imagine what a COURTEOUS nation we would be then! n/t

[polichick]

6. Oh-oh, better duck and cover - the gun clingers will be here shortly.

[MrPerson]

8. You'd think it was their dicks.

[tammywammy]

11. Do you feel the same about women that own guns and want to uphold the 2nd Amendement? n/t

[MrPerson]

14. Yeah. I do. And FUCK the Second Amendment.

[tammywammy]

17. What other constitutional rights would you like to get rid of? n/t

[MrPerson]

19. Give me some time, I'll think of one.

[polichick]

22. It's absurd how people interpret that amendment these days...

There is no way in the world that the founders meant to support the kind of senseless violence this country now suffers.

[baldguy]

107. The 2nd Amendment Über Alles.

And fuck everyone who dies.

[polichick]

152. Love that Carter quote you have!

[Raskolnik]

123. The founders were quite familiar with physical danger, and chose to protect

liberty. Perhaps you disagree with that choice, but I kind of like it.

[polichick]

149. Oh sure, they imagined gunmen shooting up our kids in schools...

GET A GRIP!

[Raskolnik]

165. Wait, now we're talking about school shootings? Are those on the rise?

Or do you just bring them up to make the discussion extra-emotional?

[polichick]

167. I bring them up because it's ABSURD to think that the founders...

...meant for their amendment to lead to the situation this country is in today ~ and every thinking person knows it. Unfortunately, gun clingers are too fearful to think.

[Raskolnik]

169. What "situation" are we in that necessitates cutting out a portion of the Bill of Rights?

Your fear does not mean the rest of us have to give up our civil liberties.

[polichick]

170. LOL - nice try!

[Raskolnik]

173. Um, ok. If you can't explain why a portion of the Bill of Rights should be excised

and our civil liberties curtailed, I don't think you should be arguing for it.

[polichick]

178. You need to read more carefully.

[Raskolnik]

196. I'll agree to read more carefully if you agree to keep your mitts off the Constitution. n/t

[polichick]

209. Once again, you've put words in my posts. Get it yet??

[Raskolnik]

219. Please point out where I've mischaracterized you. Thank you.

[polichick]

221. See #220

[Caliman73]

256. The founders did not envision school shootings

But they would also place the blame on the criminal that engaged in the crime not on the tool which they use to commit the crime. Unfortunately people who are irrationally fearful of an object that can be used for good or bad tend to cling to arguments that suit their purpose. The founders made the amendment because they were aware that liberty is fragile and that armed people were less likely to be subjugated than those without means of defense. No gun owner says that these killings are a good thing. They are disgusting and people who use ANY object to murder innocents is disgusting. Instead of acting out of fear and emotion, try addressing the issues that motivate these people to murder.

[tammywammy]

32. I'd ponder the right to free assembly

Those protests can easily turn into riots and be very dangerous.

[MrPerson]

35. No. Right now its guns. Ban the guns.

[tammywammy]

42. Good luck with that

You have such an articulate position on why. I'm sure they'll be banned in no time.

[slackmaster]

55. Yes, ban all those nasty guns

Except for the ones in the hands of government employees and criminals.

:eyes:

[MrPerson]

60. Ban them all. Every one.

[slackmaster]

69. You are the first person I have ever heard calling for that

All the other ban proponents I've met at least allow for police to keep theirs.

Kudos to you for being consistent, albeit unrealistic.

:hi:

[MrPerson]

76. Its the way to victory.

[Renew Deal]

86. Victory for who?

The government or our enemies?

[MrPerson]

88. The next potential shooting victims.

[Renew Deal]

127. Maybe, maybe not. But it's a loss for our freedom as citizens

[MrPerson]

142. And thoose people would be still alive today.

[Renew Deal]

145. Maybe, maybe not.

You can't say that. It would change society. One threat would diminish and another would rise.

[MrPerson]

156. I'll take my chances.

[Tim01]

18. Democratic platform?

[Renew Deal]

63. Any other amendments you want to say that about?

They're the only reason you can say things like that.

[Raskolnik]

83. At least you're honest about the fact that you don't like the Constitution. n/t

[MrPerson]

91. I'm for amending it and taking out the Second Amendment.

AND THEN BANNING GUNS.

[Raskolnik]

102. Anything else you want to snip out of the Bill of Rights? That pesky 4th Amendment

sure results in a lot of criminals going free, and we would be a lot safer without it. How's that sound?

[MrPerson]

104. Nope. Ban the guns.

[Raskolnik]

129. You've convinced me with your insightful analysis. n/t

[MrPerson]

151. Not insight. EMOTION.

[Raskolnik]

174. On this we agree. n/t

[Iktomiwicasa]

257. No shit, Sherlock

Since it is obvious you haven't tried to reason your way through this matter.

[dairydog91]

259. Thank you for clarifying.

[rl6214]

264. No, fuck the first amendment

And your right to use it.

[uppityperson]

24. only some interpretations of the 2nd amendment. eom

[TheWraith]

128. How about the one sanctioned by the Supreme Court?

District of Columbia vs. Heller. The court unanimously agreed that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep weapons, including all normal types such as handguns, for all lawful purposes.

[MrPerson]

138. You like the Roberts Court?

[uppityperson]

153. Thank you Justice Roberts. As I said, only some interpretations.

I think the Roberts Supreme Court is full of fools, tools and idiots who are dead wrong about a whole lot of stuff. Funny how most of them were put in place by Repub administrations, isn't it? I'm waiting for them to rule against Roe v Wade and won't agree with them their either.

[Raskolnik]

172. Could you point out which portion of Heller you take issue with? n/t

[MrPerson]

213. I liked Catch-22

[TheWraith]

227. No, the Ginsburg/Stevens/Souter court.

The agreement that the right to bear arms is a personal right was unanimous. They only disagreed whether the right to own a handgun was primarily protected under the 2nd amendment or the 9th.

[wolfgangmo]

179. Tammy

It depends. Does the woman in question have a (as they say in the marines) package?

[tammywammy]

180. I'm not a gun nut

Heck, I don't even own one, but I do defend the 2nd Amendments, so I must be stupid and fearful. :eyes:

[polichick]

13. Exactly.

[Abq_Sarah]

27. So does that mean

You view freedom of speech as your vagina?

[MrPerson]

33. I'm a mouthy penis. Shoot me.

[rl6214]

263. Didn't take long

For the penis envy to show up.

[Tim01]

21. No need to duck. We just make our point.

It is the anti-2nd amendment people who shriek and throw stuff.

[polichick]

26. See #22

[Tim01]

54. This again, huh? Already been done too many times.

Are you going to convince me, and the supreme court,and probably 2/3 of the people in this country we are interpreting the constitution wrong?

[polichick]

61. Banning certain weapons is Constitutional - fortunately the President...

...and our Democratic Congress know that.

[tammywammy]

62. The OP wants to ban ALL guns. n/t

[MrPerson]

68. DAMN RIGHT!!!!!!

[rl6214]

267. Who are you to say what should be banned

Are we not a representive democracy. Let's put it to a vote by the entire nation just like we elect the president. Majority rules.

[polichick]

70. I'd love that too - but the gun clingers will have to become less fearful first.

[tammywammy]

80. Yes, we clearly should only trust the government to have guns

The police and military, that's all. Nothing to worry about then.

[polichick]

85. What are you so afraid of? The fearfulness of gun clingers is ridiculous imo.

[tammywammy]

93. Fascism.

Wait, what am I saying. No I fully trust our government and everyone that runs it. I mean there couldn't possibly be a chance that someone with less than good intentions gets in there. Nah, that could never possibly happen!

BTW, I don't own a gun, but I support the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, and would be fearful of anyone trying to take rights away.

[polichick]

Funny how gun sales didn't go up when we actually had a fascist gov't.

[MrPerson]

105. No. Only when we have good people in government.

[polichick]

111. It's such an irrational fear!

[Caliman73]

266. I don't know about everyone else

I bought all my firearms during the Bush administration :7

[MrPerson]

87. Democracy. Trust it.

[FudaFuda]

92. Hitler was elected by a democratric process. And then he passed gun control. And then ...

Sorry, trusting government is something Thomas Jefferson taught me not to ever, ever do.

[MrPerson]

100. So keep a gun handy just in case? They have nukes, dood.

[Raskolnik]

96. If you want to put blind faith in the government to always to the right thing

that's your business. Other people don't.

[NeedleCast]

97. Turst Bush, did you?

[dairydog91]

248. Human Nature. Learn more about it. nt

[democrat in Tallahassee]

90. your handgun is gonna help against the gubbermint?

how? pray tell? they'll just nuke your ass right after they taser you

[NeedleCast]

94. Yes

That was pretty much the entire point of the 2nd Amendment.

If they're going to nuke me, why would they taser me first? Waste of a good taser, ini't?

[tammywammy]

101. Yep. n/t

[FudaFuda]

98. Ask the mujahideen about it. nt

[Raskolnik]

140. Historically? Yes. Quite a bit. n/t

[maxsolomon]

9. "it's WAY too late for gun control in America"

-Mr. Steve Earle

[derby378]

10. What kind of argument is that?

:shrug:

[MichaelHarris]

12. I wonder

how long the pro Assault weapon people will be able to continue using that 3% figure, the one where only about 3% of the weapon crimes were committed using a rifle? I still feel that number is low. In five weeks now at least 20 to 30 people have now been murdered with rifles. I don't know what rifle was used in this case yet but it has been reported the shooter had one.

[krispos42]

279. To be more specific

After all, the pro-gun side doesn't want to be accused of manipulating fact...



Slightly less than 3% of all homicides in the US are done by a rifle. However, the legal definition of "assault weapon" from the 1993 ban is, confusingly, applicable to handguns, rifles, and pistols.

However, when most people talk and think about "assault weapons" they are referring to rifles that fall under the definition of "assault weapon; namely derivitives of the AK-47 or AR-15. There are relatively few pistols that fall under the definition of "assault weapon" (most commonly the old TEC-9), and the same is true of shotguns.

3% of all homicides are due to rifles. This includes hunting accidents (negligent homicides) as well as deliberate murder. A portion of that 3% is done with rifles that would fall under the "assault weapons" definition; the rest are by non-assault-weapon semiautomatics, lever-actions, bolt-actions, pump-actions, and single-shots.

[Tim01]

15. Yes it does happen. Not that many people carry a gun though.

A school principal stopped a kid who was walking around the school shooting kids with a deer rifle.
The kid had finished at this school and was going down the street to the next school when the principal caught up to him in the parking lot. The principal had to run to his car to get his handgun which was not allowed in the school.
The kid gave up when confronted. They usually give up or kill themselves as soon somebody retaliates.

[NeedleCast]

16. Yeah! Stupid 2nd Amendment!

[polichick]

39. Stupid interpretation by today's gun clingers.

[mudesi]

41. A WELL REGULATED Militia.....(nt)

[immoderate]

110. Not sure if you know this...

Regulated means the same thing as "qualified" in the language of the day. It does not mean "restricted" as is often thought.

--imm

[fascisthunter]

135. so would qualified mean back then as opposed to now?

[X_Digger]

189. well equipped / well running

Like the 'regulated clock'.

[immoderate]

269. I'm not sure what qualified meant back then, but that's irrelevant.

Other words that we could use for that meaning of well regulated might be "unrestricted" or "proficient." The point was that the Second Amendment encourages good shooting. The same term is used in the Federalist Papers in context.

--imm

[MrPerson]

20. Good thing no one I know or care about was ever killed by a gun.

GOOD THING!!!!

[MrPerson]

25. Lets ask today's victims what they think. OH WAIT. THEY'RE DEAD.

[rvablue]

103. Why do you respond to your own comment that is in response to your OWN OP?

Were the flames of your flamefest not turning into a raging inferno quickly enough for you and you thought you had to throw some fuel on it.

Sad.

[57_TomCat]

291. It seems to me to be a case of...

post count run up. 1500 plus in two months and none of them making sense.

[NeedleCast]

28. Well there's a heck of a reason to amend the constitution...

[MrPerson]

31. No. Lets wait and kill more people.

[NeedleCast]

36. Because no shootings ever happen in ares where guns are banned

wait...

You seem to want a ban on things that kill people. That's going to be a long list.

[MrPerson]

38. No. Just guns. Ban the guns.

[NeedleCast]

49. You should let your congressman and rep know

Just be prepared for them to be replaced by Repulicans in the next election if they're currently Democrats.

Good luck, no support from me.

[MrPerson]

56. He's a Republican.

[NeedleCast]

67. Guess you're boned then

[MrPerson]

73. Yep

[oneshooter]

270. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people

than my guns.

Except maybe the '42 M1 Garand, 1918 #3MK1 Enfield, 1941 Mosin Nagant, 1907 Hook Safety Arisika, 1941 Springfield, 1943 M1 Carbine, and a few others. BUT they have not killed, or injured anyone since I have owned them!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[kctim]

48. My father was

and he would come back from the grave and kick my ass if I EVER entertained the thought of getting rid of even one of our rights.

[MrPerson]

57. My dad never owned a gun.

[rl6214]

274. Maybe that's why you are

such a girl when it comes to guns.

[SsevenN]

30. These shootings..

...Usually take place in supposedly safe 'gun free zones'.

Maybe there is a reason for that?

[MrPerson]

37. Did your parents let you play with guns as a child?

Has anything changed?

[tammywammy]

46. You're replying to yourself, don't you know the answer?

BTW, my father kept a loaded gun in his chest in the bedroom, on the right on the top shelf next to the antique watch from his grandfather. Yet, I never killed anyone and neither has he. Strange how that works.

[MrPerson]

65. You missed the thread where I was about 90 of the 100 posts.

[virginia mountainman]

272. So you like to talk to yourself??? NT

[rvablue]

106. Why do you keep responding to your own OP? I wish others responding to this thread would catch on

to the game you are playing.

It stinks.

[MrPerson]

109. I keep thinking new thoughts. Shoot me.

[Caliman73]

265. My parents did not let me play with guns.

My father taught me to accept the responsibility of owning an in animate object that could hurt or kill someone when used. He taught me to use that inanimate object, a gun. He taught me to handle it responsibly and with full understanding of what it can do. He also taught me not to have irrational fears about inanimate objects. I also learned to handle conflict by avoiding it whenever possible and defending myself and others as a last resort. Any other irrational questions you want to ask?

[MrPerson]

40. If he didn't have a gun would he have been able to shoot 17 people?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Case closed.

[Abq_Sarah]

43. yeah, he might

Have been forced to resort to bombing the building.

[MrPerson]

45. It would have been harder. Ban the guns.

[Abq_Sarah]

47. Actually

It wouldn't have been harder.

[tammywammy]

50. Nah, diesel fuel and fertilizer is easy to buy, even easier than a gun. n/t

[MrPerson]

53. Great. Just fucking great. OK keep your gun. NOT

[tammywammy]

58. I don't own a gun. n/t

[rvablue]

113. There you go again. This is the fourth time you've tried to gin up this flame war by responding to

your own OP.

Who knows. Maybe this is normal for you. I mean talking to yourself.

If not, it's a pathetic attempt at creating a flame war.

Do you need the attention? Did you forget you originally posted this. Or do you have a specific agendy you are trying to accomplish.

Probably all three.

[MrPerson]

119. Yes. Outrage.

[X_Digger]

190. And if he didn't have a blowtorch..

..he wouldn't have been able to burn 17 people.. and if he didn't have a nuke he wouldn't have been able to nuke 17..

Truism / tautology. Learn it, love it.

[MrPerson]

198. What about pointed sticks?

[krispos42]

280. Case reopened

Would banning and confiscating guns reduce the total number of homicides in this country? Or would it just eliminate incidents of mass-killing while leaving the overall rate untouched?



Remember, an average of 47 people are murdered a day in this country, or about one every 30 minutes.

[medeak]

44. yep....two local anecdotes

A few months ago a mental case started a shooting spree in restuarant and taken out by man who was in the restroom and heard the noise and had concealed weapon permit.

About a decade ago highway patrolman was shot after making traffic stop .. it was hunting season and every pickup on highway had a rifle.. they all stopped and took potshots at the shooter not killing him but def used him for target practice until help arrived (was on remote highway)

[RamboLiberal]

51. Besides the church where the female security(ex-cop) did

There was a shopping center where an off-duty cop out to dinner with his wife stopped a spree shooting with his carry gun.

And one school shooting where a teacher held the shooter outside the school when he retrieved his .45 from his car.

[MrPerson]

52. Is there a nut that DOESN'T have a gun?

[slackmaster]

59. Yes, I know a few of them personally

Like my friend with Multiple Sclerosis who is also psychotic and confined to a nursing home.

[MrPerson]

64. That's one.

[Renew Deal]

66. What about you?

:evilgrin:

[MrPerson]

71. You got a point. That's two.

[slackmaster]

77. I could name several others, but it would violate the posting rules

Since they have all been Tombstoned.

[slackmaster]

72. Chortle, titter, giggle...

GUFFAW!

:nuke:

[MrPerson]

79. Yeah. The guy that wants to ban guns is a nut. Sheesh.

[slackmaster]

81. Not a nut MrPerson, just someone who is angry and has an impossible dream

It's OK to be you.

[Traveling_Home]

99. I don't!

How 'bout you?

;-)

[Z_I_Peevey]

74. One of the first concealed-carry laws came about

because of the Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas. One of the people in the restaurant had a handgun with her on the day of the massacre, but could not bring it inside the building under the laws then, and so left it in her vehicle outside.

[Raskolnik]

78. Could you wait at least until the bodies are room temperature before using them

to advance your agenda?

[MrPerson]

82. No. Because the next shooter isn't waiting.

[Raskolnik]

89. Fear mongering sure is useful when you want to curtail constitutional rights, isn't it?

You and Bush, et al are in agreement about that.

[MrPerson]

95. Bush would make your argument.

[Raskolnik]

120. Yeah, Bush sure was a big fan of defending the Constitution in the face of fear-mongering, wasn't he

Think of all those times he went on TV and told us that, although the world can be a dangerous place, our ideals and our civil liberties are worth protecting. Wait...is that what happened over the last 8 years?

[MrPerson]

122. He was a friend of the NRA

[Raskolnik]

137. And you are fear-mongering to justify limiting civil liberties. n/t

[MrPerson]

148. Lets ask the victims.

[Raskolnik]

150. Non sequitor. n/t

[MrPerson]

155. They all have families.

[Raskolnik]

162. And your point is...? (he asks, knowing better) n/t

[MrPerson]

163. Ban the guns. I am tired of the NRA talking points.

They just want to sell guns.

[Raskolnik]

168. You appear to be the only one bringing up the NRA on this thread. n/t

[MrPerson]

194. Because they're the one who spew the talking points.

There is no argument for guns.

They are evil, deadly and psychotic.

[Raskolnik]

201. No, you bring them up because you need a boogeyman.

The idea that rational, progressive, normal people may value their civil liberties and own guns, and those same people may never hurt a soul, doesn't figure into your thinking, so you need to make this about the NRA.

[MrPerson]

208. What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

[Raskolnik]

212. When you don't have an argument, you post a too-clever-by-half non sequitor

I guess we all acted poorly when we were teenagers, though, so I'm not going to hold it against you.

[MrPerson]

242. This is abuse. You want next door.

[X_Digger]

202. One argument for guns..

Unless you can squinch your nose, make monkey's fly out your ass, and make the guns disappear from the planet, criminals will still have guns.

[MrPerson]

247. Every time I try that I fart.

[Iktomiwicasa]

260. Your posts

to this thread have equal substance too.

[MrPerson]

261. I fart in your general direction.

[dairydog91]

249. What?

They are an amalgamation of metal, plastic, and/or wood. That they are used by some to commit heinous crimes says something about human nature. That is, unless you want to take the magical/mystical view that we're all inherently good until an evil object possesses us.

[rvablue]

108. Nope, he can't. As he's had to respond to his own OP several times in order to keep

his flame war going.

Psyops. It's the new black.

[MrPerson]

116. Stop the ad hominem attacks.

I'm just being overly talkative.

[SteppingRazor]

115. Call me when you repeal the Second Amendment.

Until then, I'm keeping my guns. I like them. They put holes in stuff and make loud noises.

[MrPerson]

117. And you see nothing wrong with that?

[SteppingRazor]

118. Not a thing.

But then again, I haven't shot anybody.

[MrPerson]

121. Would you turn the gun in if it would save lives?

What if someone stole it and killed someone with it?

[slackmaster]

125. I'd turn in all of mine if you could provide solid proof that doing so would save lives

Have at it.

[SteppingRazor]

126. Hypotheticals don't mean squat.

What if aliens landed and threatened to blow up the United States unless I provided them with a firearm? Under your complete ban, I guess America would be destroyed, wouldn't it? So, my question for you is, why do you hate America?


:popcorn:

[MrPerson]

159. I agree. Lets just ban the guns and ask questions later.

[SteppingRazor]

161. Which brings me back to my original point: Get back to me when you've repealed the 2nd amendment.

n/t

[MrPerson]

164. It apparently will require more shooting deaths to convince you.

How many more?

[SteppingRazor]

171. The price we pay to live in a free society.

I hear Saudi Arabia has a low crime rate.

Banning guns is the same mindset involved in bombing Iraq because maybe they might attack us soon. The tragedy of being the good guys, of wearing the white hat, is that we can only react to evil, lest we become it ourselves. Selah.

[MrPerson]

225. JFK and RFK and MLK was too steep a price.

[tammywammy]

130. What if someone stole my car and ran over someone? n/t

[MrPerson]

134. Nope. No one ran over 17 people today.

[Raskolnik]

157. I'd be willing to bet that far more than 17 people died in car accidents today.

I'm not always a big fan of the car/gun comparison, but there it is.

[Renew Deal]

133. One could argue that owning it saves lives.

[MrPerson]

136. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!

[Renew Deal]

141. Is this entire thread a joke?

Is that what this is supposed to be?

[MrPerson]

146. No I'm making fun of your "saves lives" comment.

[dairydog91]

250. Apparently, you can't handle the Caps Lock key. nt

[dashrif]

277. Nice

Jack

[MrPerson]

131. Can't have a discussion w/o someone wanting the thread locked,

[Renew Deal]

139. It's crass to use a tragedy like this to push your political agenda so soon after it happened.

And if you ban guns, someone will find something else. Are you planning on banning fertilizer, gasoline, and matches too?

[MrPerson]

143. No agenda. I'm tired of this shit.

[SsevenN]

186. Those who do not learn the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat it

'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.-Mohandas Gandhi



‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ — Jefferson



‘‘The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.’’ — James Earl Jones

[damntexdem]

175. If they did, then the carnage increased.

Unless it was a trained person, a police officer for example, they would likely have fired wildly and hit many more bystanders.

Not that all police are that well trained nor self-controlled; but I sure wouldn't trust just any Tom, Dick, or Dirty Harry.

[rl6214]

276. I train much more than any

Tom, Dick, Harry or any officer for that matter. I am a better shot and have better control and tactics because I tain for it yet I am not a police officer.

[L0oniX]

181. Blatant flame war op.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson

I am more worried about some asshole stupid driver killing me.
:popcorn:

[tammywammy]

182. Jefferson was clearly fearful and stupid

What the heck did he know anyways. Overrated Founding Father.


;)

[polichick]

184. Jefferson kept slaves too - things change.

[tammywammy]

187. .

[Raskolnik]

205. Yes, things generally change in the direction of *increased* civil liberties in this country

you are arguing for *decreasing* civil liberties in the name of "safety."

[polichick]

211. Yet again, you put words in my posts.

[Raskolnik]

217. I didn't put words anywhere. I pointed out that your "things change" post is

baloney, because you are advocating for changing things in the direction of *less* civil liberties.

[polichick]

220. LOL - nowhere have I said that we should toss out the second amendment.

[Raskolnik]

226. Nope, you just want to ignore it. Even worse.

[polichick]

231. I also have not said to ignore it - see what I mean about reading carefully?

[Raskolnik]

239. Then I'll ask you directly, since you seem to want to dance around your actual position:

do you think the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms?

edit typo

[MrPerson]

246. Dancing is cool.

[Throd]

185. What mechanisms would you use to "ban all guns"?

Please provide some details as to how this should happen.

[MrPerson]

188. OK

1. Repeal the Fairness Doctrine.
2. Repeal the Second Amendment.
3. Ban all guns.
4. Give a $1,000 tax credit for every gun you turn in.
5. If you are found in possession of a gun after one year, a mandatory five years in jail.

[Throd]

191. Would you support the government confiscating legally purchased firearms?

[MrPerson]

192. Yes. But they can't enter your house to look for them.

If you are found with a gun. You go to jail.

That $1,000 tax credit is compensation.

[slackmaster]

197. Step #2 is going to be a tough row to hoe

You need the approval of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures.

[MrPerson]

199. That's why you need to silence the RW talkers.

[Raskolnik]

207. There's a *bunch* of the Constitution you don't care for, isn't there?

[MrPerson]

210. They have a right to free speech, just not a monopoly on it.

[Raskolnik]

215. "That's why you need to silence the RW talkers." Your words, not mine.

You just don't like civil liberties very much.

[MrPerson]

218. They can talk. Just not on my radio unless a liberal has equal time.

Which pretty much silences them. Good. Their rules.

[Raskolnik]

223. What an asinine, juvenile view of free speech. n/t

[MrPerson]

230. No. Its their rules.

[NewMoonTherian]

281. Did you catch a look at the OP? n/t

[slackmaster]

258. The Fairness Doctrine didn't silence anyone, and doing so would be un-American and unconstitutional

Other than that, I commend you for having a plan to achieve your goal the right way.

[NewMoonTherian]

273. Strictly speaking...

Step one would currently be impossible. Though if we could re-repeal a law, I would never get tired of repealing that piece of censorship garbage. Bah, another thread for another forum.

[dairydog91]

253. Ja, ja, zees are very good ideas.

But you do not go far enough. In order to bring about a true end to the American gun culture, a "final solution" if you will, we should round up anyone who has ever owned a gun. However, due to the fact that these people are armed and might put up a fight, I suggest that we do not speak out loud about it until we have most of them on the trains to the camps.

Seriously dude, you've already taken a giant steaming dump on the First and Second Amendments, and no doubt the roundup will involve smashing the Fourth as well. You're not a tiny bit bothered by what people in the gov't might do with that level of power?

[MrPerson]

204. I would also melt the guns into pretty peace signs.

[The Straight Story]

193. Worst and stupid post I have seen yet on DU by an anti-rights person (nt)

[MrPerson]

195. I thank you for your opinion, sir. Have a cookie.

[The Straight Story]

203. you're scared and want to control the rest of us because of what a few do (war on terror anyone?)

Common practice among those who want a police state because they live everyday in fear that someone might do something wrong. Take away our freedoms and we just live in a big prison cell without bars.

Ban smokes, guns, alcohol, cars, hell anything that makes you afraid and then the only people who will those things are the ones who will use them to hurt you anyway.

Stupid ass idea. But hey, if it FEELS good.

Let only our government have guns, all they will use them for is invading other countries and killing people.

Want to stop crime - fund health care and end poverty. Or take the wimpy way out with feel good legislation.

[MrPerson]

206. No. I want to buy the world a Coke, dood.

[polichick]

216. Looks to me like the most fearful ones in this culture are the gun clingers.

[MrPerson]

222. I like your peace sign, polichick. What's your sign, BTW?

[polichick]

229. You mean horoscope sign?

[MrPerson]

233. Yes. I'm a cancer. Its also my sign.

[The Straight Story]

224. Rights clingers (nt)

[polichick]

228. Except when it comes to the right to live peacefully instead of being gunned down.

[The Straight Story]

236. Let me check...oh wait, there are already laws regarding that, who knew? (nt)

[MrPerson]

240. A real deterrent today.

[applegrove]

200. It will be interesting to find out what type of gun the monster used.

[polichick]

234. So far they've just said "hand guns."

[TheWraith]

238. Two pistols, a 9mm and a .45. nt

[madinmaryland]

232. Shouldn't this be sent to the Gungeon.

:shrug:

[MrPerson]

237. I'm sure its going to be.

[madinmaryland]

243. Thank the Mods, it did!

[MrPerson]

245. You probably alerted them you stinker.

[jody]

241. Who will protect citizens? SCOTUS says it's not government's job. Have you thought through all

aspects of your gun-ban proposal?

[MrPerson]

244. Yep. Ban em.

[jody]

251. I see the answer is "NO" to "Have you thought through all aspects of your gun-ban proposal?" n/t

[MrPerson]

252. Its not that hard. I don't buy the "protection" argument.

[jody]

255. What part of SCOTUS saying govt. is NOT obligated to protect an individual don't you understand?

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154) 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

As we said in Harris v. McRae:
Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference, . . . it does not confer an entitlement to such {governmental aid} as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.
448 U.S. at 317-318 (emphasis added). If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot {p197} be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

When attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes away!

[aikoaiko]

268. I get it -- you're upset about the recent gun violence and maybe all criminal use of guns. I am too

But you're never going to ban guns.

[MrPerson]

289. Never say never.

We can start by banning the manufacture.

Next prohibit them from being inherited.

In 40 years problem solved.

[aikoaiko]

290. pie in the sky.

It will never happen, but if it makes you feel good to think about such things - then by all means.

[virginia mountainman]

271. Are you going to go door to door??

Or , are YOU going to send someone else to do your dirty work???

BTW, You can't have mine....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, now what do you plan to do??


After all, it is my civil right.

[MrPerson]

288. I'll probably send someone else. I'll let you know.

[dashrif]

278. TAAADAAAA

[NewMoonTherian]

282. Are we including defense against one-on-one attackers?

I can site a couple of anecdotal cases from my own family which cemented in my mind the need for personal arms. There are many more such cases every year.

As for mass shootings; they are thankfully extremely rare occurances, and their locations have historically been areas where guns aren't allowed, so a potential defender would have to be breaking the proprietor's rules - and in most cases the law - in order to be able to shoot back. On top of that, concealed carry, while on the rise, still isn't as mainstream as it needs to be to put an armed citizen in every location all the time.

Imagine a Venn diagram. For a shooting to potentially be stopped by an armed citizen, it would have to take place in a state that allows CCW, in a facility that allows weapons, at a time when a CCW holder happened to be there and happened to be carrying. Produces a very small percentage of shootings, which we've already determined are quite sparse.

Despite all this, the church shooting already covered previously was stopped. That finds me as a ringing endorsement of arming the general populace to the greatest extent possible, taking into consideration proper safety instruction and screening of course.

To borrow the OP's format;

Has anyone ever pulled a gun and fired back at one of these shooters?

Absolutely.

It's the only viable method of protection.

The protection argument is sound.

Remove all the fucking gun restrictions.

[pipoman]

283. It is amazing how many people wasted time out of their life to respond to this Troll

Mr. 1400 posts in 60 days..his posts in this thread identify him as an obvious disruptor.. :crazy:


It is equally amazing that the mods allow such tripe to remain in other forums for as long as they did but rarely allow for well reasoned posts with the opposite message to remain, much less news stories which actually fit in, say, LBN forum..

[NewMoonTherian]

284. The same thought occurred to me.

Yes, it was obvious from the OP the poster was ignorant of the issue and had no desire(or possibly capacity) to learn more. It seems apparent the mods were malfeasant in their duties, probably as a result of bias on the issue. It's also a sad reflection on us that this ignorant, poorly-conceived OP has generated such an epic thread.

Then another thought occurred to me. Lighten up and flame away. We could all use a little silliness after the tragic events of yesterday. As long as we don't develop ulcers taking this chap too seriously, he's harmless.

[MrPerson]

287. I think we should tombstone his ass.

[jody]

286. Agree but it has been an uphill struggle for pro-RKBA DUers since before 2001. We survived because

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS A NATURAL, INHERENT, INALIENABLE/UNALIENABLE RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

[Euromutt]

285. Shooters tend to select "gun-free zones" for a reason

Note where most spree killings tend to occur: shopping malls and educational facilities. Typically, there's some level of regulation that prohibits the carrying of firearms by private citizens. Even here in Washington state, one of the original "shall-issue" states, the Washington Administrative Code permits the expulsion/firing of any student, faculty or staff member who carries on-campus, even if licensed to do so by the state. Similarly, most malls have a policy of no firearms, even legally.

Is it any major surprise that when spree shooters strike in places where citizens are discouraged from being armed, there is no armed citizen to intervene?