10 people shot, 1 victim dead, at Detroit block party

Seastallion · June 22, 2015

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ok....how about, People who don't have guns don't kill people. Take the guns away, and you have people who don't kill people.

So take their guns away!

but the fact is, if some one wants to kill, some else in the absence of a firearm, they will just use another "tool" anyway

I will a agree with you in fact, that a firearm makes it "easier" to kill some one, but taking away a firearm doesn't infer "you have people who don't kill people"

Well, obviously! The point is the silliness of "guns don't kill people..." pat phrase. It's a shiboleth, a catchy phrase that diverts from what is actually happening when a trigger is pulled. A trigger that is part of a gun, that fires a bullet, that enters someone's heart or brain and kills a person.

The fact that it's harder to kill a person (or 9 of them in one go) without a gun is good enough reason to say, lets put some very strict restrictions on guns.

I don't think anyone believes that if guns were taken away from the people, that all the angry people, all the wackos, and all the criminals would start building bombs and carrying knives, or that the death rate would stay the same. We know the death rate would go down.

Suradit69 · June 22, 2015

Don't go into these neighborhoods. The occupants tear them up, fill them with crime, and run the landlords off. This is where it happened.

dcfy.jpg

And that makes it o.k.?

America's enemies do not need to attack.

America's love of guns is killing them off quite nicely.

Telling people reading Thai Visa not to go into these neighborhoods as if they would otherwise be planning to holiday in some American slum and as if the warning is coming from someone with special insight is ridiculous.

Suggesting that many parts of the US,are as dangerous as picnicking in Baghdad or Kabul, whether US inner city slums or parts of the south or south-west if you're a member of the "wrong" race or religion, is probably accurate but a sad description of the country that is supposedly the sole remaining super power and alleged bastion of freedom & democracy.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Suradit69

Baerboxer · June 22, 2015

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ok....how about, People who don't have guns don't kill people. Take the guns away, and you have people who don't kill people.

So take their guns away!

So there you have it. Take away all the guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, slingshots, spears, boomerangs, and their will be no more violent killing.

Good look with that theory.

UKJASE · June 22, 2015

less weapons = less killings. FACT

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Blaming inanimate objects and the NRA instead of the person who did the shooting is flawed thinking IMO

It's a complex, societal issue, not a gun issue.

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Here is another interesting fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns
January 3, 2013 2:44 PM

Share on email 599
View Comments

credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

op 20 List:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) —

Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Any of those hammers or clubs kill 9 people in one incident?

Did any of those hammers of clubs kill 2 people in one incident?

Objects don't kill. People kill. Blaming an inanimate object is flawed thinking and doesn't address the far deeper societal issues that breeds violent crime.

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Here is another interesting fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns
January 3, 2013 2:44 PM

Share on email 599
View Comments

credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

op 20 List:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) —

Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Don't confuse them with facts -- blaming guns is easy. Addressing the societal issues that breed violent crime is not.

So they go for the low-hanging fruit because it's easier than wondering why things like school shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.

When I lived in a somewhat rural area, High School kids would bring their hunting rifles to school so they could hunt after school was dismissed.

And no one shot up the place.

So why is it that school shootings are something that started in the last 20 years or so?

Most of these kids are also on psychiatric meds/anti-depressants and there appears to be a direct correlation between the two.

Blaming Guns is a cop out.

Despite the fact that more people are killed by hammers and clubs than rifles, we never hear the term "Hammer crime" or "Bludgeon crime" or even "Knife crime"

But we hear the term "Gun crime"

chuckd · June 22, 2015

Here is another interesting fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns
January 3, 2013 2:44 PM

Share on email 599
View Comments

credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

op 20 List:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) —

Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Any of those hammers or clubs kill 9 people in one incident?

Did any of those hammers of clubs kill 2 people in one incident?

I don't know.

Check with your local FBI agent and find out.

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Here is another interesting fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns
January 3, 2013 2:44 PM

Share on email 599
View Comments

credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

op 20 List:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) —

Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Any of those hammers or clubs kill 9 people in one incident?

Did any of those hammers of clubs kill 2 people in one incident?

As Hillary Clinton said about the people killed in Benghazi, "What difference does it make?"

More people are killed by a lot of things than rifles,

What difference does it make if someone murders a person with a rifle or a hammer? They are still dead and I would rather be shot to death than beaten to death with a blunt object.

It's a specious argument without merit IMO

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Here is another interesting fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns
January 3, 2013 2:44 PM

Share on email 599
View Comments

credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

op 20 List:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) —

Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Any of those hammers or clubs kill 9 people in one incident?

Did any of those hammers of clubs kill 2 people in one incident?

As Hillary Clinton said about the people killed in Benghazi, "What difference does it make?"

More people are killed by a lot of things than rifles,

What difference does it make if someone murders a person with a rifle or a hammer? They are still dead and I would rather be shot to death than beaten to death with a blunt object.

It's a specious argument without merit IMO

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

less weapons = less killings. FACT

There are numerous studies that prove the opposite.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434967928&sr=1-4&keywords=gary+kleck

Crime and violent crimes in cities, counties and states have lower crime rates because the bad guys don't know who is armed and who isn't.

If you were a criminal, would you rob the house with an NRA sticker on the car in the driveway, or the one next door without?

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ok....how about, People who don't have guns don't kill people. Take the guns away, and you have people who don't kill people.

So take their guns away!

So if a woman is home alone and someone breaks in the house carrying a knife or baseball bat and is intent on doing her harm, how do you suppose she should defend herself?

The facts are that there will always be crime and criminals, and criminals tend to pick the easiest targets such as the elderly, women and disabled people for example.

How has the war on drugs turned out?

Or Prohibition?

Criminals will always look for a way to have an advantage over their intended victims.

A firearm levels the playing field and even gives the intended victim the upper hand.

BTW, in Papua New Guinea, the "Raskols" and the "Kips Kaboni" gangs make their own guns:

https://www.google.com/search?q=kips+kaboni&biw=1600&bih=748&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=o-GHVdm6KYqgyASZq4PYBA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw

https://www.google.com/search?q=kips+kaboni&biw=1600&bih=748&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=o-GHVdm6KYqgyASZq4PYBA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw#tbm=isch&q=Raskols

Guns are banned in Port Moseby, yet it has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.

https://www.google.com/search?q=port+moresby+crime+rate&biw=1600&bih=748&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=EuOHVY7tMsKwyATfiaDYBA&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAA&dpr=1

Criminals would like nothing more than to see people disarmed.

Edited June 22, 2015 by PHP87

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Drive by hit, AJD. Sarcasm. A poke at the 2nd amendment and the ensuing gun culture.

It can be argued that the OP incident, the Charleston incident, and 1000 others would never have happened if the US, both administratively and amongst the people, had a different attitude towards guns.

Your "argument" sounds like a Farang being blamed for a traffic accident in which he was not at fault

"If Farang not here then no accident happen!"

And conversely, it can be argued that the estimated 3 Million crimes prevented in the US by armed, law-abiding citizens would never have happened and 3 million people per year would be victimized by criminals.

Seastallion · June 22, 2015

Oh brother...here we go again!

Can you please keep to saying things just once or twice, and please.....no more of that silly made up graph.

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Detroit is dead because the auto and supporting industry was moved overseas by god loving conservatives.

Nope. You can thank the Labor Unions (United Auto Workers) for making outrageous demands on pay and benefits which made auto companies non-profitable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/02/21/detroit-gave-unions-keys-to-the-city-and-now-nothing-is-left/

PHP87 · June 22, 2015

Oh brother...here we go again!

Can you please keep to saying things just once or twice, and please.....no more of that silly made up graph.

Excuse me, but are you a forum moderator?

And that "silly made up graph" is based on facts.

So because it doesn't fit your narrative it's silly?

Being dismissive of anything you don't agree with sounds a bit silly to me.

Once more for those that missed it last time:

http://www.drgo.us/?p=1241

Seastallion · June 22, 2015

Oh brother...here we go again!

Can you please keep to saying things just once or twice, and please.....no more of that silly made up graph.

Excuse me, but are you a forum moderator?

And that "silly made up graph" is based on facts.

So because it doesn't fit your narrative it's silly?

Being dismissive of anything you don't agree with sounds a bit silly to me.

Once more for those that missed it last time:

http://www.drgo.us/?p=1241

bangon04 · June 22, 2015

The wonderful companies who make and sell guns in the US do not have a division making "illegal" guns. They make legal guns and they sell them to millions of not very smart US citizens, who for various reasons are unable to keep their legal guns safe from passing criminals, small children and more than a few lunatics on the fringes of society.

The legal guns become "illegal" guns, and the wonderful companies who make legal guns then sell more of them to the not very smart US citizens who have the inalienable right to own them.

Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths.......

Keeping guns safe from passing criminals... you mean, those on the avenue, riding the elevated train at night, or those breaking in the windows and robbing you before you are home, or after? ...the criminals you meet in the park or those breaking in, raping your wife who cant access the gun in time and stealing it? "Passing criminals" is not only an odd use of language but it appears to minimize the role of criminals as being the singular problem irrespective of the nature of gun acquisition. Because 1 out of x violent or not robberies results in a stolen weapon and not a dead criminal does not mean that therefore home owners should forfeit their right to own a weapon for some perceived liberal experiment- that has not worked in one single location ever! The world is also full of statistics that have the criminals shot dead when they come into the basement window with a knife, while a child hides in a closet, before the weapon is stolen. Legal gun owners are not the problem> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Well, gun control ostensibly seeks not to rid a country of guns but to rid a country of... violence. Lets consider UK, how has it worked out there? If the effort is guns and not violence it demonstrates the inherent magic and primal fear or the unknown liberals have in inanimate objects. It remains overwhelmingly clear that cars and knives should be outlawed long before guns. The absurdity that guns have a special place is both illogical and unsupportable. If the objective is minimizing violence, then address hammers and blunt objects first. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

In closing, I thank you for making my argument for me: "Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths......"

"...maths"-

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Don't know why you think that the UK is a good example for you - there is a very low probability that a UK citizen will even see a gun, let alone be affected by one. The UK police in the general duty still do not feel the need to carry guns, as they still do not expect to be confronted by the threat on a regular basis. You see the stats for UK police officers killed in the line of duty by gunshot?

Yes you could make the specious argument that any household item could be used for violence and therefore why don't we ban all sharps, all blunt objects etc.... In fact there are already UK laws against knives designed for offensive use.

But as other posters have pointed out, it is the ability to kill multiple victims simultaneously with less effort and presumably less thought required, which is the reason to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I you could guarantee that legal gun owners are smart enough to use their guns in a responsible way and not lose them, then maybe you wouldn't need to rehash the NRA propaganda statistics, but unfortunately your US track record is lamentable, not only for criminals and loonies using guns, but also rabid cops, stupid walmart mothers and the occasional gunclub instructor who should know better when teaching a young girl to play with an uzi.....

Edited June 22, 2015 by bangon04

arjunadawn · June 22, 2015

The wonderful companies who make and sell guns in the US do not have a division making "illegal" guns. They make legal guns and they sell them to millions of not very smart US citizens, who for various reasons are unable to keep their legal guns safe from passing criminals, small children and more than a few lunatics on the fringes of society.

The legal guns become "illegal" guns, and the wonderful companies who make legal guns then sell more of them to the not very smart US citizens who have the inalienable right to own them.

Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths.......

Keeping guns safe from passing criminals... you mean, those on the avenue, riding the elevated train at night, or those breaking in the windows and robbing you before you are home, or after? ...the criminals you meet in the park or those breaking in, raping your wife who cant access the gun in time and stealing it? "Passing criminals" is not only an odd use of language but it appears to minimize the role of criminals as being the singular problem irrespective of the nature of gun acquisition. Because 1 out of x violent or not robberies results in a stolen weapon and not a dead criminal does not mean that therefore home owners should forfeit their right to own a weapon for some perceived liberal experiment- that has not worked in one single location ever! The world is also full of statistics that have the criminals shot dead when they come into the basement window with a knife, while a child hides in a closet, before the weapon is stolen. Legal gun owners are not the problem> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Well, gun control ostensibly seeks not to rid a country of guns but to rid a country of... violence. Lets consider UK, how has it worked out there? If the effort is guns and not violence it demonstrates the inherent magic and primal fear or the unknown liberals have in inanimate objects. It remains overwhelmingly clear that cars and knives should be outlawed long before guns. The absurdity that guns have a special place is both illogical and unsupportable. If the objective is minimizing violence, then address hammers and blunt objects first. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

In closing, I thank you for making my argument for me: "Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths......"

"...maths"-

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Don't know why you think that the UK is a good example for you - there is a very low probability that a UK citizen will even see a gun, let alone be affected by one. The UK police in the general duty still do not feel the need to carry guns, as they still do not expect to be confronted by the threat on a regular basis. You see the stats for UK police officers killed in the line of duty by gunshot?

Yes you could make the specious argument that any household item could be used for violence and therefore why don't we ban all sharps, all blunt objects etc.... In fact there are already UK laws against knives designed for offensive use.

But as other posters have pointed out, it is the ability to kill multiple victims simultaneously with less effort and presumably less thought required, which is the reason to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I you could guarantee that legal gun owners are smart enough to use their guns in a responsible way and not lose them, then maybe you wouldn't need to rehash the NRA propaganda statistics, but unfortunately your US track record is lamentable, not only for criminals and loonies using guns, but also rabid cops, stupid walmart mothers and the occasional gunclub instructor who should know better when teaching a young girl to play with an uzi.....

I enjoyed your post, though I disagree with some things.

It is perverted to assert a citizen with no record should provide the burden of proof that they should be able to have and use a firearm. Courts are increasingly upholding this and have made mincemeat out of the inversion of burden of proof with regard to such places as DC and Chicago, already among the strictest gun control areas on earth. Gun control invariably leads to more violence because gun control renders the population who would be targets irrespective, disarmed, soft targets.

I don't agree that it is a specious argument to apply the same standards to other products that cause death often far in excess for which guns do. Why would this possibly be a specious argument? The convince of those now suggesting that gross violence, violence in numbers in one event, is the standard that can only be addressed by gun control is vacant. Singularly gun deaths in America, for example, are so overwhelming compared to occasional and horrible mass murders that to remove this from equal standing- "the ability to kill multiple victims simultaneously"- is revealing. Singularly, knives and other objects contribute so much violence that to dismiss the as not equivalent just because... it is dismissed as not equal says literally nothing. The association is valid. Since guns have never killed anyone on their own volition the same standard can be applied elsewhere. But we dont, do we. We ban guns for some intrinsic reason that actually seeks to not only disarm but to render incapable self defense. That is why gun control frequently exists in environments where all sorts of prohibitions exist on the right to self defense or rights that are so narrowly defined as to further incapacitate the general population.

And yes, UK is an interesting example as I cited. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

The notion that guns alone kill "multiple victims" at the same time is simply an emotive argument. It may be valid on its face, but it is not exclusive. Other means can and do exist to kill, maim, or otherwise hurt innocent people singularly or in mass. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/at-least-two-killed-in-austria-after-man-drives-into-crowd-before-stabbing-passersby-in-graz-10333891.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsOW_93z2jI

There are a number of citations for other mass murder instruments such as cars.

http://thelogicaloutlook.blogspot.com/2013/06/things-that-kill-more-people-than-guns.html

http://top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=cd8296da

I do agree its lamentable but I dont agree with the mechanisms for addressing the issue. I do not agree with the premise. Gun control kills more people than guns.

PHP87 · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

Seastallion · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Seastallion

arjunadawn · June 23, 2015

Yes, and people who kill people eat food, therefore food is... this is such false logic. If the issue was not so deadly serious it would be black comedy.

Again, why guns? The absurdity that somehow those who assert gun control get to limit the narrative and cars, knives and blunt objects are ruled out is absurd. Why stop at guns? Guns make better neighbors, period. I refuse to accept the statistical irrelevant misfortune of the few (relative to billions) justify the enjoining of the rights of the many. There has been so much gun control already and the only thing it has achieved is the concentration of guns into the hands of those who would not otherwise follow the law in any event.

America started... started becoming truly foolish when it developed this social conscience that sets in motion collective emotions to rally upon Rights whenever media or protest stir up the next cause of the day. I might be more receptive or less skeptical of more gun control if it were not for the fact that those who push it most are some very, very scary people acting out gross social experiments broadly in America, with some really screwed up consequences. Look at the things the pols in the US have already inflicted their good upon and then consider their aim to do for gun management what they have done for other pet projects.

Its not gun control per se, its that they are ~~g d~~ liars and bastardizers, destroying the US cultural fabric on nearly every political topic. A cursory look at even single project progressives have touched has resulted in crime, abuse, dissolution of rights, culture, mores, values, standards, orientation, pride, ad naseum- this is who bears gun control fruit. There should be no expectation that gun control authority, broadly granted, would result in anything other than the same evil ends associated with every other program the liberal progressive movement has touched. Example: Stalking horses. Watch my very point above bear fruit with regard to progressives, this administration, and the trade authority they are pushing, cramming, forcing... coercing... inflicting upon America from secret rooms, secret passkeys, secret handshakes, in the dark of night. Watch the gun control subsequently grow on this tree within 18 months. Pray it fails.

Heroin does not have a burden of proof to demonstrate; there is no inherent Right of Man to shoot poppy but this is an inherent Right of Man to defend Himself and that defense can be tailored but not broadly detailed by the state and the defense should evolve proportional to government's reasonable ability to also apply domestic force.

Neurath · June 23, 2015

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

Sure. Drugs DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

No point having drug prohibition and control either - that just means that criminals will have drugs and law abiding people won't. Can't have that.

arjunadawn · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

Were I to assert that those who's opinions I reject "cannot think things through" or that their conclusion is a "cop out" because I see things differently, what would I really be saying? I would be asserting that because someone else looks at the comparable facts but reach different conclusions... because they do not reach the same conclusions I reach, they must necessarily have erred or lack the tools to deduce or infer properly. It is most certainly not a commentary worthy of a meaningful discourse.

arjunadawn · June 23, 2015

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

Sure. Drugs DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

No point having drug prohibition and control either - that just means that criminals will have drugs and law abiding people won't. Can't have that.

Drugs do not kill people, you are correct. People kill people whether it is self or others, whether with guns or drugs.

Many people do not believe it is wise to have drug prohibition; I am not one of them. Like common sense regulations on gun access, which exist, though in

broken pieces, drug restrictions limit abuse, to an extent. The only way to totally lock down drugs... or guns... is in a police state.

It is an infectious malady that strikes a people and suspends accountability. This is evident on every level of society now.

PHP87 · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

You're trying to use drug addiction as an analogy to Constitutional Rights yet you call my reasoning stupid?

That's irony at it's best. Or worst.

Take your pick.

People have been killing other people long before the advent of black powder and firearms.

There will always be criminals, nutcases, drug addicts that wish to do harm onto others which is why firearms are an effective equalizer.

Criminals will always avoid someone that can fight back.

Strip away the 2nd Amendment and the crime rate would go up.

The existence of the gun is to blame in your eyes, yet mine and 99.9999% of them has never been used in a fit of anger or for any other purpose than shooting at paper targets at the range.

And never mind the evidence that says responsible gun owners prevent up to 3 Million crimes from taking place per year in the US. 3 Million people being victimized, not to mention the collateral damage done to family and friends of a crime victim, for instance, a woman that was raped.

But you would rather have another 3 million people victimized due to the irresponsible behavior of the 0.0001%

How would you like that same standard applied to other things such as Cars. Alcohol. Retiring in the Country of your choice?

Ah, this farang is a bad man, so no more farang allowed in Thailand. All farang must leave Thailand now! Yeah, that makes sense.

Again, blaming an inanimate object is not only a cop out, it also removes the burden of responsibility from the person that misused it.

And we all know what a soft spot liberals have for criminals.

I would love to see your "logic" tried in a court of law: "But your honor, my client wouldn't have shot those people if that evil piece of steel wasn't available, even though he stole it"

Facts are that the fantasy utopia many like you dream of does not exist, nor will it ever.

Even in books and movies, the Eloi had to contend with the Morlocks.

And again, you call my reasoning "stupid"?

Staggering.

So I invite all of those that wish to ban guns to stand up for your principles and place these signs around the outside of your residence:

And let's pretend that you are a criminal.

Which home would you be more likely to burglarize?

The one on the left, or the one on the right?

Edited June 23, 2015 by PHP87

Seastallion · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

Were I to assert that those who's opinions I reject "cannot think things through" or that their conclusion is a "cop out" because I see things differently, what would I really be saying? I would be asserting that because someone else looks at the comparable facts but reach different conclusions... because they do not reach the same conclusions I reach, they must necessarily have erred or lack the tools to deduce or infer properly. It is most certainly not a commentary worthy of a meaningful discourse.

Because I was not replying to you. I was replying to a chap that loves to call everyone who disagrees with him "infantile", "unintelligent", etc.

Somehow, I knew you'd take exception to my response to him.

Seastallion · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

You're trying to use drug addiction as an analogy to Constitutional Rights yet you call my reasoning stupid?

That's irony at it's best. Or worst.

Take your pick.

People have been killing other people long before the advent of black powder and firearms.

There will always be criminals, nutcases, drug addicts that wish to do harm onto others which is why firearms are an effective equalizer.

Criminals will always avoid someone that can fight back.

Strip away the 2nd Amendment and the crime rate would go up.

The existence of the gun is to blame in your eyes, yet mine and 99.9999% of them has never been used in a fit of anger or for any other purpose than shooting at paper targets at the range.

And never mind the evidence that says responsible gun owners prevent up to 3 Million crimes from taking place per year in the US. 3 Million people being victimized, not to mention the collateral damage done to family and friends of a crime victim, for instance, a woman that was raped.

But you would rather have another 3 million people victimized due to the irresponsible behavior of the 0.0001%

How would you like that same standard applied to other things such as Cars. Alcohol. Retiring in the Country of your choice?

Ah, this farang is a bad man, so no more farang allowed in Thailand. All farang must leave Thailand now! Yeah, that makes sense.

Again, blaming an inanimate object is not only a cop out, it also removes the burden of responsibility from the person that misused it.

And we all know what a soft spot liberals have for criminals.

I would love to see your "logic" tried in a court of law: "But your honor, my client wouldn't have shot those people if that evil piece of steel wasn't available, even though he stole it"

Facts are that the fantasy utopia many like you dream of does not exist, nor will it ever.

Even in books and movies, the Eloi had to contend with the Morlocks.

And again, you call my reasoning "stupid"?

Staggering.

Making things up again, like your silly home-made graph.

I would love to see your "logic" tried in a court of law; "But your honour, people have been killing people since Cain killed Abel, my client should be excused on the grounds that it's always happened, so why should it not continue to happen?"

Pakboong · June 23, 2015

I think it may be time to sterilize all convicted felons. Obviously, we have laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms so all the gun issues are moot. America has a prison population which breeds violence and there is nothing that can be done about it short of stopping the ability to procreate. This is a solution that may take a couple of generations but it is sure to do the trick. On top of it all, there are welfare issues that become solved as well.

We could stop having to bribe the entitled masses to leave the rest of us alone.

Sounds a bit like the dark ages but it does have promise.

PHP87 · June 23, 2015

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

You're trying to use drug addiction as an analogy to Constitutional Rights yet you call my reasoning stupid?

That's irony at it's best. Or worst.

Take your pick.

People have been killing other people long before the advent of black powder and firearms.

There will always be criminals, nutcases, drug addicts that wish to do harm onto others which is why firearms are an effective equalizer.

Criminals will always avoid someone that can fight back.

Strip away the 2nd Amendment and the crime rate would go up.

The existence of the gun is to blame in your eyes, yet mine and 99.9999% of them has never been used in a fit of anger or for any other purpose than shooting at paper targets at the range.

And never mind the evidence that says responsible gun owners prevent up to 3 Million crimes from taking place per year in the US. 3 Million people being victimized, not to mention the collateral damage done to family and friends of a crime victim, for instance, a woman that was raped.

But you would rather have another 3 million people victimized due to the irresponsible behavior of the 0.0001%

How would you like that same standard applied to other things such as Cars. Alcohol. Retiring in the Country of your choice?

Ah, this farang is a bad man, so no more farang allowed in Thailand. All farang must leave Thailand now! Yeah, that makes sense.

Again, blaming an inanimate object is not only a cop out, it also removes the burden of responsibility from the person that misused it.

And we all know what a soft spot liberals have for criminals.

I would love to see your "logic" tried in a court of law: "But your honor, my client wouldn't have shot those people if that evil piece of steel wasn't available, even though he stole it"

Facts are that the fantasy utopia many like you dream of does not exist, nor will it ever.

Even in books and movies, the Eloi had to contend with the Morlocks.

And again, you call my reasoning "stupid"?

Staggering.

Making things up again, like your silly home-made graph.

I would love to see your "logic" tried in a court of law; "But your honour, people have been killing people since Cain killed Abel, my client should be excused on the grounds that it's always happened, so why should it not continue to happen?"

Flawed logic and reasoning. The analogy doesn't fit like the one I wrote.

And "home-made" graph?

Look up FBI crime stats if you like, along with gun ownership stats as well.

Or are you afraid of what you might find? Or perhaps you want others to do it for you?

Better bring some proof before you make those type of allegations of a "home-made" graph. Otherwise, you're the one that looks silly.

That's all that liberals have; childish insults and zero facts to back up their claims.

I lived most of my life in San Francisco and the Bay Area. I know how liberals "debate" better than they do.

Childish insults, flawed arguments, false allegations, etc.

But rarely any facts or substance. And they love their far-left wingnut web sites to backup their opinions instead of sourcing non-partisan data and facts like FBI crime stats, for example.

So do you call me a "nazi" in your next response or the one after?

I believe you've already played the race card. But if it wasn't you it was someone else.

I wish you guys would be more consistent, although still very predictable.

The pages from your playbook are dog-eared and worn out.

Sign In

10 people shot, 1 victim dead, at Detroit block party

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US