Virginia Shootings leave Several Dead

[FunkyLeprechaun]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8469314.stm

"A lone gunman has killed and injured a number of people in central Virginia, police in the US state say."

---

Sad that the BBC has to report this... this happens so often that people barely give this a second glance.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

1. One of these is a dupe

I think I pressed the button too many times!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

2. Gee

An un-rec already?

I'm so proud.

[joeybee12]

3. You see, stories like this are "anecdotal" whereas pro-nutjob stories

are scientific.

I'll cancel that unrec.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

4. Thanks!!

It just broke on the BBC news site!

[eqfan592]

5. *cough* bullshit *cough* (nt)

[rd_kent]

8. "nutjob"? I guess you know your own when you smell them, huh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. They are all anecdotal as has been stated here many times. DOH.

[Euromutt]

88. Let's take the analogy of the black swan

One black swan is anecdotal evidence, in that it doesn't prove a general rule. It can, however, be used to disprove a general rule.

Does one black swan prove that all swans are black? Obviously not.
Does one black swan prove that not all swans are white? Absolutely.

Similarly, one spree shooting, or even several, do not prove that any significant number of gun owners are mass murderers waiting to happen. One gun owner using a handgun to defend him- or herself against a violent assault does disprove that handguns cannot be used effectively in self-defense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. I get them a lot faster than that.

[bossy22]

6. +8 rec?

who is that sick to actually like this story....whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun

[oneshooter]

7. Meanwhile in the Land of Green

Fatal-stabbing suspect moved to village from crime blackspot
A MAN being questioned last night by detectives probing the fatal stabbing of a father of two had relocated to a rural village from a notorious crime blackspot two years ago.

Sean Murphy (29) died after he was knifed once in the chest on Sunday night outside his home in the picturesque village of Lattin, about five miles west of Tipperary town and close to the Tipperary-Limerick border.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fatalstabbing-suspect-moved-to-village-from-crime-blackspot-2020802.html


Man held in Massereene murders probe
Police investigating the murders of two soldiers in Northern Ireland have arrested a 44-year-old man.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) said the man was arrested in the Toomebridge area of Co Antrim.

He is being questioned over the murders of the two soldiers and the attempted murders of five other people in a dissident republican gun attack at the Massereene Barracks in Co Antrim last March.

Sappers Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey died in the gun attack.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-held-in-massereene-murders-probe-2021441.html


Yes, there is violence and murder in Ireland, despite what some would have you believe.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tejas]

10. Or the suffocation murder of man w/polio and MS plotted by a Staffordshire woman?

No gun, just a cold-blooded killing there.


She was (finally) convicted in '08.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

15. What does this have to do with this topic?

Geez.

[Tejas]

22. It shows, as you stated, that murders happen often enough

that people barely give them a second glance.



GEEZ!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

46. My subject was related to one of the many

Firearm related deaths in the US (where I am originally from). Murders here in the UK happen a lot less than the US. Despite the murders, its fortunate that the murderers themselves are not able to injure/kill multiple people in the process because firearms are not readily available on the black market as there are strict controls over the sales of such weapons.

As for the knifing deaths, we do take notice of them. They are often on the BBC and the Independent papers.

GEEZ!

[Tejas]

83. engrish preeze

"Despite the murders, its fortunate that the murderers themselves are not able to injure/kill multiple people in the process "



huh?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

16. I could also post about a guy who got shot

No less at a gun shop!

Anyway, we have a lot less crime per 100,000 people than America.

[rd_kent]

31. And you have less rights, too. THATS THE POINT!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

44. Oh we do have rights

Such as the right to a fair trail... no death penalty (no cruel and unusual punishment applied in this country)... above all... we have the right to free health care... We also have more open rights for gays to get married (even though it's called civil partnership, but most of the UK recognises that)... etc etc.

and you? You want the right to have guns? Is that all? The UK does too, you can own a firearm as long as you are willing to be subject to a series of interviews and checked if your home and area are suitable for firearms. You are also required to buy a government-approved gun safe (ie the ones with glass cases are a big no no in this country). During the interview, you lose the privilege of owning a firearm if you claim it's for self-defense because that's not a good reason for owning one.

[rd_kent]

52. We have the same rights, but unfortunately, we have yet to affirm them for everyone.

We also have the right to a fair trial...we are working on healthcare...we are working on affirming equal rights for gays, but we do have bigots here holding this up.


We do not want the right to have a gun... we already have it. It is the Second Amendment to our Constitution.


So, as a whole we DO have more rights than you.

[paulsby]

87. the UK does not have the same rights, or as extensive rights

1) there is no right to remain silent. silence upon police interrogation CAN be used against you in a court of law
2) the UK has less rights in regards to search and seizure and specifically no automatic exclusionary rule a la mapp v. ohio in the US (canada has recently upgraded to an exclusionary rule similar ot the US, though)
3) the UK has less de facto privacy since they have FAR more govt. controlled surveillance cameras in their cities than we do
4) you have far more limited right of self defense (especially in the home) than the US
5) free speech rights are FAR more expansive in the US than in the UK. we do not have "hate speech" laws. you do
need i go on?

yes. you are definitely better on health care.

dentistry aside :)

[rrneck]

84. Not exactly a bastion of freedom and liberty there either...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6108496.stm
Britain is 'surveillance society'
Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society" have become a reality, the government's information commissioner has said.
Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored.

Researchers highlight "dataveillance", the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV.

Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.

But surveillance ranges from US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic passing through Britain, to key stroke information used to gauge work rates and GPS information tracking company vehicles, the Report on the Surveillance Society says.

It predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.

As for the right to self defense - does the state guarantee they will intervene if you are assaulted, or do they just reserve the right to review the tape and try to find your murderer?

[paulsby]

86. not if you are in the UK

the UK has significantly more crime (part I and part II) than the US per capita.

they have less MURDERS, no doubt. but the UK has a much higher crime rate.

stats available...

[rd_kent]

9. So, you know NOTHING about what is going on there? I guess when you know nothing.....

you just post anyway. Its not stopped you before.....

[FunkyLeprechaun]

14. What did you mean by this post?

Are you assuming that I've lived in the UK all my life? I've lived in Minnesota for 25 years with some schooling in VA.

[rd_kent]

32. That when youposted this, you knew NOTHING of the details surrounding the story.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

48. So all the so called "Self Defense" stories

That a certain someone posts, can I say "when you posted this, you know NOTHING of the details surrounding the story."?

[rd_kent]

53. In THIS case, there were NO details about what was gong on. None.

And when a self-defense story gets posted, well, the details are there, thats how it is know to be a self-defense story.

[proteus_lives]

13. Yeah, that's terrible.

Crime and criminals happen.

I'd like to hear you're spiel on how we would all be a lot safer if we gave up our rights.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

17. Here's my reasons

I have the right to self-defense, but I can achieve that without guns.
I have the right to public safety, I don't want to get shot by a dumb concealed-carrier. I want to be able to visit a school and not be shot by some loner vowing revenge. I want to be able to visit the US and have rational discussions without being shot for having a differing opinion.
My husband, who is not a US citizen, has the same rights but he cannot purchase a firearm. Do you think it's fair that YOU have those rights but visitors and resident aliens do not?

BTW... it's "your".

[proteus_lives]

18. Flaws.

"I have the right to self-defense, but I can achieve that without guns."
Not if someone assaulting has a gun or other weapon. Or is bigger, younger or stronger then you. Guns allow the elderly to fight off home invaders. Should the infirm and old just accept their fates if assaulted or robbed?

"have the right to public safety, I don't want to get shot by a dumb concealed-carrier. I want to be able to visit a school and not be shot by some loner vowing revenge. I want to be able to visit the US and have rational discussions without being shot for having a differing opinion."

You have that right anyway. CCW holders are among the safest in the country. If you shot by criminal, well it's not like he's obeying the law anyway. Loner? Again, a criminal, gun laws don't matter to them. Last point: Really? Have you actually ever been to the States? Or have you just watched too many westerns? I just just as easily say, "I want to be able to visit the UK without being stabbed or have my head bashed in by a football hooligan because I support a different club." Wow.

"My husband, who is not a US citizen, has the same rights but he cannot purchase a firearm. Do you think it's fair that YOU have those rights but visitors and resident aliens do not?"

So I could visit the UK (again) and do whatever you can do? Can I vote? Run for office? Oh, I guess visitors and resident aliens don't share all the same rights.

Grammar poke? :rofl: That just shows the leaks in your arguments. I suppose if we would having this conversation in person, you'd criticize my posture. :rofl:

[one-eyed fat man]

19. Resident aliens

Can, and do legally buy firearms, PROVIDED, they are not felons, ajudicated mental defectives, fugitives, or any other of the prohibited persons.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2008-11.pdf

Immigrant Alien
The immigrant alien, also known as a resident alien, is a permanent resident of the United States. This person has received permission to live and work in the United States permanently. A sale to this person is generally permitted.

TIP: To verify their immigrant status, ask to see their Permanent Resident Card, their legal proof of residency in the United States.

Non-resident aliens may also buy firearms and ammunition under certain exceptions.

Non-immigrant Alien
There are five general exceptions that allow or enable an NIA to purchase a firearm. They are as follows:

- Hunting purposes or in possession of a hunting permit;
- Official foreign government representative;
- Official foreign government representative w/ State Dept. designation;
- Official foreign law enforcement official on government business;
- Special waiver from the U.S. Attorney General

TIP: The hunting permit/license exception is the most common exception used by non-immigrants. Ask the purchaser for his/her State-issued hunting permit and make a copy for your records.

Only illegal aliens are categorically prohibited from buying firearms or ammunition. So unless your husband is a felon, a wife-beater or undocumented, you have been misinformed.

[Euromutt]

21. State law doesn't always permit it

Federal law permits permanently resident aliens to possess firearms, yes, but there are states that don't allow them to. Washington state, until recently, required permanent residents to acquire an Alien Firearms License (which sounds like something you need to own a Martian heat ray, but I digress) before they could own firearms. New York state, to my knowledge, doesn't permit any non-U.S. citizen to possess any deadly weapon (can't have those darn Irish, Italian and eastern European immigrants owning guns now, can we?).

[one-eyed fat man]

57. true, but

places like New York only grudingingly tolerate US citizens having firearms.

Here in Kentucky there are no restrictions beyond Federal law. Over the years, I have had for hunting and shooting partners, several Liason NCO's to the Armor Center from the armies of Germany, England, Canada and Belgium. All of them were eligible to buy firearms in the US while stationed here under Federal law despite not being allowed bring some or all of their guns 'home' upon completion of their assignments.

I recall one exceedingly rainy rabbit hunt, where a Bundeswehr sergeant major noted if we had been on an FTX at Hohenfels, on the Army's time and dime, in such weather we'd be bitchin' about wet boots and government guns getting rusty, rather than joking, laughing and having a great time watching the beagles work while the fine blue and walnut of guns we had paid OUR hard earned money for were getting drenched.

[Tejas]

23. "I have the right to self-defense, but I can achieve that without guns."

If it weren't for the continuing hilarity, it's getting harder and harder to give you're posts a "second glance".


:rofl:






edit - removed 1,946 rofl's

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Someday, if you're lucky, you won't have the ability to defend yourself so handily.

If you are lucky, you will become an old person. Your strength and speed just won't be what it used to be. A younger man who still has his strength will be able to violently victimize you with impunity.

I am an old fart. And I know that a young mugger will be able to kick my ass, except that I have guns on me. I don't go looking for trouble, but I am ready for it if it comes.

My wonderful wife, at age 21, was 4' 10" tall and weighted 89 lbs. Now, as an elder woman she has shrunk a little bit in height, and has a few extra pounds, and is losing bone density. Do you really think that she could handily defend herself with out her gun?

[spin]

63. Same here ...

I'm a candidate for a hip replacement and my lower back is so screwed up that my doctor told me that any operations on my spine would be. "very challenging".

Predators target members of the herd that are old, weak or infirm.

The fact that I carry concealed may even the odds considerably if my situational awareness fails.

[rd_kent]

36. Your reasons are invalid, funky. You have some bad misconceptions...

I have the right to self-defense, but I can achieve that without guns. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation, right?

I have the right to public safety, I don't want to get shot by a dumb concealed-carrier. You are 5 times MORE likely to be shot by a NON-CCW holder than you are a CCW holder. You are 27 times MORE likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be shot by a CCW holder. So, now that you know that, you can scratch this one from your list.

I want to be able to visit a school and not be shot by some loner vowing revenge. every school shooting was done in a GUN FREE ZONE, where GUNS WERE BANNED. Obviously, banning guns will not stop this from happening.

I want to be able to visit the US and have rational discussions without being shot for having a differing opinion. DO you really think this is the case? That we shoot each other just for having a different opinion? You are delusional on this one.

My husband, who is not a US citizen, has the same rights but he cannot purchase a firearm. Do you think it's fair that YOU have those rights but visitors and resident aliens do not? Looks like one eyed fatman gave you your answer to this one, and you and your husband CAN purchase guns.




So, all of your other reasons are invalid. Knowing this, have you changed your position on gun control? Why not?

[oneshooter]

82. Here are examples of your "Right to self defence"

British model and singer Myleene Klass called the police after she waved a knife and managed to scare off two intruders trying to break in at 12:45 A.M. British police warned her that she might very well be arrested if she did that again.

Worried parents are buying their children body armour to protect them from knife attacks.

A firm that supplies stab and bullet-proof vests to government agencies around the world said it had been flooded with orders following a series of brutal knife murders on Britain’s streets.

http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/self-defence/




WHEN is a householder entitled to use extreme force against an intruder who threatens him, his family or property? This is no academic question, but one that has figured in controversial trials, puzzled juries and given rise to retrials and reversal of verdicts.

On the face of it, the existing law should present no difficulty. A person is entitled to resist with appropriate force, even to kill, in self-defence. But that is not really the situation in practice, and for obvious reasons.

Three years ago the Court of Criminal Appeal put it well when it said it was "impossible to lay down any formula with which the degree of force can be instantly calculated." A person under attack, regardless of his or her age, strength, combative tendency or the lack of it, cannot reasonably be expected to make fine calculations of the degree of the danger or the appropriate response.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/time-to-clear-up-selfdefence-law-1973873.html


If you will notice, these are all UK papers.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[sharesunited]

20. EIGHT people dead, by current count. And the shooter has no criminal record.

He was just a law abiding citizen until he wasn't.

Enjoying his right to keep and bear arms.

Such A Tragedy. Now Carry On Dying Ya'All.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/gunshots_heard_as_authorities_investigate_appomattox_county_incident/23294/

[Euromutt]

24. "He was just a law abiding citizen until he wasn't."

That is such a platitude. A criminal record is some measure of law-abidingness, but it is by no means the only measure, or a definitive one. It's possible for a convicted offender to be reformed and rehabilitated, and thus presently be a law-abiding citizen even if he wasn't in the past. Conversely, a criminal who has managed to avoid being arrested or having a warrant issued for his arrest will not have a criminal record, even if he is by no means a law-abiding citizen.

The idea that someone can remain a law-abiding citizen right up to the moment they pull the trigger is bullshit. With intentional homicides, the intent to harm must exist before the first shot is fired, and at the moment that intent exists, the prospective perpetrator can no longer be said to be a law-abiding citizen; that he has not yet broken the law is less relevant than the fact that he does intend to break it.

And you can bet that it'll emerge that were warning signs with this Speight guy; there always are. People don't go on killing sprees out of the blue, no matter what the College of It Stands To Reason and the news media claim. But for some reason, nobody picked up on it until it was too late, again.

[sharesunited]

25. The problem with warning signs is that they are not enough to force a person to disarm.

In fact, very little is deemed to be sufficient cause to intervene between a man and his gun.

There are dire consequences to having something as willfully deadly as a gun in the hands of the general public.

Impulse triumphs. The impact of bad decisions is magnified intolerably.

This so-called right or liberty is just not worth it.

[SteveM]

28. Be honest: do you think gun prohibition can succeed? How?

[sharesunited]

29. Take the first step. Discontinue sales of new guns and ammo.

Turn the existing public arsenal into collectibles with that one move.

[slackmaster]

35. Please take your ridiculous ideas out of my Democratic Party and go start your own

I'm sure you can find several hundred people who would join it.

[sharesunited]

37. Third parties aren't the way in our system. You're thinking of a parliamentary system.

[slackmaster]

38. Have it your way

Go ahead and move to some other country that has a system that suits you.

[sharesunited]

39. Or stay and oppose what is wrong.

[rd_kent]

41. Fortunately, MOST AMericans think it is RIGHT, so yours is a lost cause.

I applaud your enthusiasm, but you ARE fighting a losing battle. The second amendment has been reaffirmed and is stronger than ever. Its NOT going to get changed.

Gun ownership is at an ALL TIME HIGH while gun crime is at a 50 YEAR LOW!

Those TWO FACTS alone should show you that not only are you not going to get the law changed, but your assertions about the dangers of guns are just wrong.

Knowing this, why do you insist repeating what you know to be false? Seriously, why?

[sharesunited]

42. Because one man shot and killed 8 people in Virginia yesterday afternoon.

That is too much power in the hands of one man.

Proliferation of that power just magnifies the harm, and the good you claim for it is negligible.

[slackmaster]

49. We made a decision about what constitutes "too much power" in 1934

The line was drawn by the National Firearms Act. There is no reason to move that line now.

[sharesunited]

50. Yes, not enough outrage against rampage mass killings yet.

Still too much foggy headed It's All Worth It Notwithstanding.

[rd_kent]

55. Ahh, just what we need, MORE unfactual emotional outcry. Yeah, that works great.

Knee-jerk emotional responses ALWAYS work out for the best, right?

[slackmaster]

60. Rampage mass killings serve your political interests, not mine

:nuke:

[sharesunited]

64. I would have no interest in the issue at all, if it weren't for all the unjust killing.

The problem exists, hence my political interest in it.

[rd_kent]

66. And the problem(if there is one) is minuscule compared to just about EVERYTHING else

SO, again, I ask, why not put your enthusiasm to work towards a goal that is attainable? Like a REAL problem like talking/texting while driving? MORE people die each year because of NEGLIGENT use of their car than do by gunshot.

[rd_kent]

54. Dude, this one story will be included in the statistics that PROVE you are wrong.

Again, I understand your emotion on this, but that is all it is....emotion. The FACTS, you know, evidence used to support a particular position, do NOT support yours.

At any rate, I will expect you to continue to post from an uninformed, uneducated, emotional position, and that is what is truly sad here, shares, truly sad.

[sharesunited]

56. What could be more emotional than I Love Guns And Ammo?

We mustn't interfere with your access to them because they make you feel happier and more complete.

Even when it is proposed that you can keep what you have, the very prospect that you wouldn't be able to get more is terrifying.

Regardless of the danger they pose to society, it's all about you.

Don't try to dress that up as logical.

[Katya Mullethov]

59. And the funniest part is .

In the real Fourth Reich , you'll be the first to go .

[sharesunited]

61. You're still getting ready to go to war with your government? That's why you need your guns?

Been there, done that. It was called the American Civil War. Never again.

[rd_kent]

68. Ugh, your ignorance is truly stupefying, shares, stupefying.

[proteus_lives]

80. It's amazing right?

Utter blindness.

[Katya Mullethov]

81. No ...... I am not

And if we ever end up living under the fantasy regime you keep rattling on about , you will be one of the first your " buddies" drag off and give the noodle .

[armueller2001]

97. I believe it was actually called the

REVOLUTIONARY WAR. When the colonies of the U.S. broke away from an oppressive government. Good thing they had guns, or else it would have been damn near impossible.

[armueller2001]

98. It was actually the

REVOLUTIONARY WAR. When the colonies of the U.S. broke away from an oppressive government. Good thing they had guns, or else it would have been damn near impossible.

[rd_kent]

67. See, this is EXACTLY where you lose ANY SUPPORT you MAY have had. Your projection doesnt work.

We mustn't interfere with your access to them because they make you feel happier and more complete. Really, you know me an my motivations? In reality, you know NOTHING about me or any other gun owner, so you are just making shit up, right?

Even when it is proposed that you can keep what you have, the very prospect that you wouldn't be able to get more is terrifying. See above.

Regardless of the danger they pose to society, it's all about you. See above. Again, I think you are projecting. Your arguments are all about YOU.


Don't try to dress that up as logical. Really? Don;t try and show you just how wrong you and your emotional, unfounded, unsubstantiated, unfactual opinions are? Really?

[rd_kent]

71. See, you just proved me right. Thanks, shares, I knew I could count on your ignorance.

[DrCory]

90. More examples of too much power...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/01/content_8471171.htm

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/five-killed-in-knife-attack-at-belgian-creche-tv-20090123-7osh.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/06/china?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850

I look forward to your knife and motor vehicle harm reduction proposals

[rrneck]

73. What self defense solution do you offer

law abiding citizens that you would disarm?

[rd_kent]

74. None. He offers no solutions at all. At least Don Caballero suggested "natural fighting skills"

[rrneck]

75. Yep.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Especially when supported by arrogant sanctimony. At least "natural fighting skills" was funny.

[rd_kent]

76. Haha! It was pretty funny. He has not been seen since that post, BTW!

I think he ran in shame....

[SteveM]

77. And what would you do about the black market which would ensue?

[inkool]

78. How do you foresee this happaning?

What steps would be necessary to accomplish this goal?

[rd_kent]

79. I think he thinks there is a magic wand that can be waived.

Do not hold your breath with this one, you just may suffocate.

[slackmaster]

34. It's called rule of law and due process

We don't restrict peoples' basic freedoms based on mere suspicion.

It's in the Constitution. Look it up.

[sharesunited]

40. We restrict their freedoms when it is in the public interest to do so.

[slackmaster]

43. Stopping the sale of firearms and amminition is not in the public interest

In fact, it would piss off a whole lot of members of the public including people like me, who vote.

[sharesunited]

45. I cannot help that you like guns and ammo so much. Time to turn off the spigot.

[slackmaster]

47. You don't know what's best for me, or for anyone else other than yourself

Typical authoritarian attitude.

[spin]

65. You would have to replace our current system with a Dictatorship...

You have exactly zero chance of ever getting the Senate and the House to pass the law you suggest.

Hell, we can't even get universal heathcare.

[rd_kent]

69. Broken record projection. Do you EVER have anything more to say?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

51. We do have the right to free speech

But there are limits to that free speech, such as you cannot libel someone. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre so on.

There has to be limits to the 2nd amendment because of incidents like these. That is something that has to be accepted.

[slackmaster]

62. There are limits to 2A rights, and nobody is saying there shouldn't be any limits

Are you familiar with US gun laws?

[rd_kent]

70. You CAN yell fire in a crowded theater, funky. And there ARE restrictions on the 2A.

Please do not allow your ignorance to get in the way of your posting though.

[rd_kent]

72. How come you IGNORE the responses to your posts that PROVE you are wrong in your assertions?

I took the time to rationally and reasonably respond to your allegations on why you fear guns, and you have not responded? Why? You obviously had time as you have made several other posts after I responded to you.

What gives?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

89. Because rd_kent

It's an issue you really do not understand about. It's not just about the guns themselves, it's the availability of the guns and the general feeling from people like you ("It's MY right! It's MY right!"). It's as if you don't really care about other people other than yourself, such as the danger of having a concealed weapon in a public place and the availability of guns for criminals. It's as if you want to advertise that you have guns to potential criminals.

In other words, I am right and you are wrong. It's just unnecessary to argue with you when you use name-calling and no facts to back up your assumptions.

You implied I had never lived in the US, well done for reading my profile. However, I have lived in the US for 25 years before moving here and I've already had encounters with guns, including a CCW person who showed off his weapon as an implied threat towards me after we had a politically charged argument. I've beaten long-time clay shooters, both men, with my aim despite me never handling a shotgun before.

I do not have a fear of guns, I just don't see the need of owning them. Just wondering what YOU fear to justify clinging to your gun at all times.

[rd_kent]

91. YOU CANNOT BE FUCKING SERIOUS!!!

In other words, I am right and you are wrong. It's just unnecessary to argue with you when you use name-calling and no facts to back up your assumptions.


Oh. my. fucking. god.


Are you serious? Facts and data have been provided to you, repeatedly, that refute all of your claims.

Here is a link where I refuted your claims, with facts and reason, WITHOUT insults and name calling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=284311&mesg_id=284412

SO when I asked you why you do not respond to THESE posts, that I and many others took the time to respond to you with facts and reason and without personal insults, your response is this "In other words, I am right and you are wrong. It's just unnecessary to argue with you when you use name-calling and no facts to back up your assumptions." Then you are a bald-faced liar.

Now, lets look at some of your other claims.....


such as the danger of having a concealed weapon in a public place

WHAT danger? How many times to you have to be told and shown that CCW holders are 5 times SAFER than the general public when it comes to guns. Again, I ask you, what danger are you talking about?

You implied I had never lived in the US

Did I? Where?

had encounters with guns, including a CCW person who showed off his weapon as an implied threat toward me after we had a politically charged argument.

I am sorry to hear that, but so what? You experience is the VERY RARE EXCEPTION. I once nearly got into a fight with a drunken Irish guy because I was looking at him being a drunk. Does that mean ALL Irish are fighting drunks? Please.

I've beaten long-time clay shooters, both men, with my aim despite me never handling a shotgun before.

Great. Nice job. So what?

I do not have a fear of guns, I just don't see the need of owning them. Just wondering what YOU fear to justify clinging to your gun at all times.

And it is your CHOICE not to own them. What I fear are people like YOU that would take MY CHOICE away because it is not the choice you have made. I fear people like you that would take away my choice because of YOUR fear of something happening to you that is so statistically small that you have a better chance of drowning in your bathtub than you do of being shot. I fear people like YOU that want to strip my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because of YOUR FEAR that is based on ignorance and fallacy. You wanted to know what I fear to justify my clinging to my guns? I fear YOU.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

93. Constitutional rights?

Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right?

Oh good... I better stay away from you then because you might shoot me because you're scared of me.

[rd_kent]

94. Again, YOU CANNOT BE FUCKING SERIOUS. Have you not read the Second Amendment?

You know, it can be found in the CONSTITUTION, right below the freedom of speech part....


THE STUPID, IT BURNS!!!!!!



And I notice how you have NO RESPONSE to what I posted. Other than your childish attempt at some kind of insult.


Congrats, fucky, you have earned the title of disingenuous flamebaiting ignorant poster of the day.





Are you even going to respond to my last post and/or the post that I provided a link to that you also failed to respond to? Remember where you said I only respond with name calling and no facts?

Here is a fact.....you are a cowardly liar.

[rd_kent]

95. "Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right? " Can anyone help out here?

We have a live one.

[rd_kent]

99. Have you run away now that your true ignorance has been revealed?

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Congratulations, you have passed the test to become a True Believer

"Faith is the rejection of evidence in order to preserve belief"- Tim Minchin

[armueller2001]

92. If you don't see the need of owning guns

then don't own one.

[SteveM]

27. Correction: "Y'all" is the proper form, not "Ya'All."

[slackmaster]

33. Occasionally one slips through the cracks

We don't restrict peoples' basic freedom based on an occasional nut job who manages to avoid detection before committing a horrific crime.

[eqfan592]

58. Bingo

That's what sharesunited doesn't ever seem to understand.

[SteveM]

26. Well, there may be a more prosaic reason the "...BBC has to report this..."

When mainstream media walked the face of the earth like dinosaurs -- well into the 1990s -- and had vast coverage and great influence, it clearly served as the main component of the anti-gun lobby. This has been well-documented. Now, with MSM going down faster than the Lusitania, the average daily/local T.V. probably doesn't have the resources to continue a long, drawn-out campaign to prohibit firearms. They are fighting to survive. The BBC enjoys public funding.

"...this happens so often that people barely give this a second glance." What people are you talking about? Our media? Readers & viewers? I would also point out that the number of violent crimes (including those in which firearms were used) has been in steady decline for over 10 years.

[benEzra]

85. Turns out the shooter was a security guard, according to Yahoo...

i.e. one of the gun-control lobby's Chosen Ones. He had some sort of carry license, but it may have been occupational.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_re_us/us_appomattox_shootings

Explosives found at home of Va. slaying suspect

APPOMATTOX, Va. – Bomb technicians discovered a "multitude" of explosives Wednesday at the home of a man suspected in the shooting deaths of eight people, and crews were detonating the devices as more details about the gunman came to light.

Christopher Bryan Speight, a 39-year-old security guard, surrendered to police at daybreak Wednesday after leading authorities on an 18-hour manhunt following the shootings at a house in rural central Virginia where deputies found a mortally wounded man and seven bodies.

I'm sure the VPC will be out with a joyful press release tomorrow casting this loser as a typical gun enthusiast with a CHL, and won't bother to mention his occupation; I also suspect there was, as usual, a long history of violence and/or mental illness that was missed.

The story says that he also had explosives at his home.

[rd_kent]

96. "Where does it say that owning a gun is a constitutional right? " OMFG!!!!!!

Yeah, this poster ACTUALLY said this.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=284311&mesg_id=284709


I WILL be keeping this handy for future reference.....


THE STUPID, IT BURNS!!!!!