Members whiteop Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Now tell me that those "outlaws" would have been able to purchase a weapon on the black market. easy. No need for a 'black" market, just a flea market. The FBI has undercover agents that go around to many of the larger ones around the country and they catch lots of guys selling guns without proper paperwork. Felons can get them easy. They just pay the money, pocket the pistol, and walk off. No paperwork at all; just cash and pistols being exchanged. That's not TV that's real life. I think you forget that criminals don't play by the same rules as regular society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted August 14, 2009 Moderators Share Posted August 14, 2009 That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Everyone comes up with ideas for a reason, but sometimes it takes time to digest opposing evidence.How do you feel about "scientists" who stick with old theories that have been proven wrong or there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that indicates their position is false? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 14, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/nyregion/14shoot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp I'd be willing to bet they would have tried elsewhere if they knew the old guy had a shotgun. This is not too different from having an alarm company sign on the lawn, a red LED flashing on your dashboard, or a Dobie lounging on your front step. Sure, you can give it a try, but the overwhelming majority will move on. And if not, they roll the dice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Didn't read every post...me being the lazy asshole that I am. But with everyone asking how he got this gun and how he was banned from getting this gun and if anyone illegally obtained this gun and gave it to him Could it be, I don't know...that he stole the gun? I mean, he IS a criminal, yes? Also, banning guns isn't really the answer to anything. Let's say, for instance, that a fairy god-mother came down and eradicated every gun, everywhere on the planet. No military or civilian guns anywhere. She also takes out the gun factories or wherever their legally made today. I would give it about a month or so before we start seeing guns on the streets again because let's face it, a gun is a pretty simple object for a good machinist to make. Using even the simple designs of a hundred years ago, you could make some pretty good weapons. The M1911 .45 ACP has plans all OVER the place on it's parts...and it's really a simplistic design. These aren't super secret plans on how to make them you know. Plus, it would probably turn into a very lucrative business for the "bad guys". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffBass Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Here in Chicago we got Mayor Richie Daley, who banned guns years ago while the city suffers from unbelievable violence. Repeat violent offenders are walking around all over the place because there's no money in giving them their due punishment. There's money in busting them and then having the post bail though. I watch America's Most Wanted all the time and it freaks me out how many violent offenders post bail and disappear, only to re-appear while committing another murder! Big surprise? Why doesn't somebody hold a microphone up to the judge who set his bail so low? One gangbanger shot up a house with an AK-47, seriously wounding somebody, then posted bail and killed another person! In Chicago we have the Jennifer Hudson case where a family members boyfriend killed her family. He was on probation for carjacking and dragging the victim with the car for blocks. Later he got busted for driving around with a mirror full of coke! The judge said that didn't violate his probation and set him free! Then he murdered Jennifer Hudson's family. Good justice there. The system's set up to make money for the system and the lawyers. Everything else, like protecting society from animals, is secondary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Everyone comes up with ideas for a reason, but sometimes it takes time to digest opposing evidence. In this circumstance, I don't think it is - not when we've been through this same argument more than a couple of times, and Wade has made it obvious that no amount of fact nor reason is going to sidetrack him from the same 'ol BS... - georgestrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Applying your argument to LA, your claim would be that the fully automatic weapons on the street (AK47s, Tek-9s, Uzis, etc.) were all stolen from private owners... The LAPD would disagree with you. And given that only a few thousand people in the whole country even possess the FFL necessary to purchase those weapons (which the LAPD has confiscated in the tens of thousands over the past two decades), anyone who can work simple math would likely disagree with you as well... And that's just one city... "And that's just one city" - yeah, one crazy ass {censored}ed up city. What is your point? That the city of LA is representative of other cities? For someone who seems to champion intellectual honesty, you sure do resort to some sleight of hand to try and make your point. I'm the only mutha {censored}er on this board that doesn't give a {censored} about social acceptance it seems - when the circle jerk starts you fall right in line with the populist opinion. A little intellectual honesty, giving equal consideration to opposing viewpoints would be a refreshing change of pace and quite frankly educational; yet you seem to prefer the relative saftey of the reigning majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 In this circumstance, I don't think it is - not when we've been through this same argument more than a couple of times, and Wade has made it obvious that no amount of fact nor reason is going to sidetrack him from the same 'ol BS... - georgestrings C'mon George, is that all you got buddy? So you hate dem liberals, and I guess I have come to represent that to you. SO rather than present something meaningful, you instead resort to 3rd grade level garbage like this. I'll leave you fanbois to your rabid circle jerk - it's quite obvious that this is not a respectful discussion; my fault for thinking that this could occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Hmmm... Sounds like Canada has a problem with gun-related crime, too. We don't need more laws. We need to consistently enforce the existing laws. My two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 How do you feel about "scientists" who stick with old theories that have been proven wrong or there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that indicates their position is false? Look man, we can {censored}ing have a respectful discussion or this goddamn thread should be locked. What's it gonna be? This {censored} is getting tired - you fuickers need to find someone else to screw with. {censored}ing circle jerk. Because where you are wrong about me is that i don't have a position: I'm trying to engage in a discussion but you guys would rather close ranks and go with the idiotic caveman binary logic that is so prevalent around here. If we dont' know where the {censored}ing guns are coming from, we can't possibly have an informed opinion about gun control, BE IT PRO OR CON. We have INSUFFICIENT DATA TO MAKE A CONCLUSION. GET IT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 What is your point? That the city of LA is representative of other cities? My point is what I explicitly said: That you claim there is no smuggling of weapons and that illegal weapons come from legal owners is demonstrably and dramatically false. For someone who seems to champion intellectual honesty, you sure do resort to some sleight of hand to try and make your point. Yeah, all that direct rebuttal sure is confusing...not for most folks, of course...but yeah... I'm the only mutha {censored}er on this board that doesn't give a {censored} about social acceptance it seems - when the circle jerk starts you fall right in line with the populist opinion. A little intellectual honesty, giving equal consideration to opposing viewpoints would be a refreshing change of pace and quite frankly educational; yet you seem to prefer the relative saftey of the reigning majority. Once again, you make your points without a single shred of evidence in support, then you either misunderstand or misrepresent other people's arguments, then you proceed in polemic against points that were never made, while ignoring those that were... And, as usual, you have the gall to accuse others of poor argumentation and intellectual dishonesty... At least it's no longer surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 If we dont' know where the {censored}ing guns are coming from, we can't possibly have an informed opinion about gun control, BE IT PRO OR CON. We have INSUFFICIENT DATA TO MAKE A CONCLUSION. GET IT? Nah, we have a basis of understanding from other things that are or have been illegal. Drugs are illegal and people still buy, sell, and use them. When we tried outlawing booze, people still bought, sold, and used it. Cuban cigars are illegal yet people still smuggle, buy, sell, and smoke them. To me, it's the same argument with guns and abortion... If we outlaw them, they will still be bought, sold, and used (with respect to guns) and performed (with respect to abortion). Being that both of these are legal, they can be regulated and for the most part we can ensure they're being procured and performed correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Look man, we can {censored}ing have a respectful discussion or this goddamn thread should be locked. Seems like everyone else is conversing with each other without issue. And yet everyone seems to have a problem with your posts. The problem must be everyone else, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Well, consider that one month ago my sister in law had her head blown off by her nutjob ex husband. Consider that my cousin blew his head off due to easy access to his father's gun. Consider that my old man was killed by a gunshot to the head. Consider that there are people out there GRIEVING, suffering terrible loss, at the hands of some asshole who had easy access to a weapon. Why don't you go to one of those funerals and preach your rah rah rah ideology - see how that goes over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Well, consider that one month ago my sister in law had her head blown off by her nutjob ex husband. Consider that my cousin blew his head off due to easy access to his father's gun. Consider that my old man was killed by a gunshot to the head. Consider that there are people out there GRIEVING, suffering terrible loss, at the hands of some asshole who had easy access to a weapon. Why don't you go to one of those funerals and preach your rah rah rah ideology - see how that goes over. That would be in bad taste. I'm sorry you blame the guns for what happened to the people in your family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Seems like everyone else is conversing with each other without issue. And yet everyone seems to have a problem with your posts. The problem must be everyone else, right? No, you need to consider that social pressure does not apply equally to everybody. Dissenting opinion should be treated more respectfully. George has provided no rebuttals, yet he claims to have "shot me down" so many times. C'mon mr. intellect - if you're so honest, why won't you call that out? Oh - that's right - because his position agrees with your own. You sir are intellectually dishonest and biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Well, consider that one month ago my sister in law had her head blown off by her nutjob ex husband. Consider that my cousin blew his head off due to easy access to his father's gun. Consider that my old man was killed by a gunshot to the head. Consider that there are people out there GRIEVING, suffering terrible loss, at the hands of some asshole who had easy access to a weapon. Why don't you go to one of those funerals and preach your rah rah rah ideology - see how that goes over. No offense, but all of that just proves you're not the one being rational here. You're the one obviously influenced by emotionally traumatic experiences. It's fine to base your opinions on such events, many people would given similar circumstances. But to hold yourself up as a paragon of dispassionate and unbiased reason, and then to declaim everyone else as emotionally-driven troglodytes, when that's obviously not the case is going to get you exactly where you currently are...dismissed by nearly everyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 That would be in bad taste. I'm sorry you blame the guns for what happened to the people in your family. No, I blame EASY ACCESS to guns. You'd better hope nothing like this ever happens to you: it will shake you to the core and you WILL start asking the tough questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 No offense, but all of that just proves you're not the one being rational here. You're the one obviously influenced by emotionally traumatic experiences. It's fine to base your opinions on such events, many people would given similar circumstances. But to hold yourself up as a paragon of dispassionate and unbiased reason, and then to declaim everyone else as emotionally-driven troglodytes, when that's obviously not the case is going to get you exactly where you currently are...dismissed by nearly everyone... Bull{censored} - this response was to disrespectful words directed my way. There were three whole pages of assumptions and conclusions reached with no data cited whatsoever. Where were you then? Instead, you'd rather focus on my response to being dis-respected and use that discredit everything I have offered up in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 No, I blame EASY ACCESS to guns. You'd better hope nothing like this ever happens to you: it will shake you to the core and you WILL start asking the tough questions. My cousin killed himself 15 years ago. Shotgun to the face. I've been there dude, and it wasn't the gun's fault, nor the fact that his dad lived on a farm, had guns to kill coyotes, and is a hunter. He was depressed and didn't want to live. If there hadn't been a gun he'd have found another way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members collinwho Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 It appears to be an example of poor law enforcement, not an example of why gun control laws don't work. I understand the point of "see look, criminals still get guns, regardless", but in this situation, it seems like the criminal never really payed his debt to society. If he were, he would probably still be in prison, not on the streets. Although I would definitely accept that is only prolonging the inevitable. Whether he came out of prison now or in a couple of years, he would still have been able to get a gun (in spite of the laws) and he still would have used it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 No, I blame EASY ACCESS to guns. That's because you're being irrational in yet another discussion on guns - I don't think you're capable of anything else... I'm sorry for your losses, but to blame them entirely on guns is simplistic at best... - georgestrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Dissenting opinion should be treated more respectfully. Opinions deserve the respect their evidence demands. You've provided none, and when challenged, you evade. You also have not addressed the points made by others. Why should people treat your opinions with respect when you do not do the same for them? George has provided no rebuttals, yet he claims to have "shot me down" so many times. C'mon mr. intellect - if you're so honest, why won't you call that out? Is it my job to police George for you? If his claim is false, demonstrate it to be false. If your claim is true, demonstrate it to be true. It's not my job to keep George from "being mean to you"... Oh - that's right - because his position agrees with your own. No, it's because I don't take anything he says seriously. His behavior is generally little better than yours (and sometimes worse). And no, his position does not agree with mine. You sir are intellectually dishonest and biased. Everyone is biased. It's the person who claims they're not who's being dishonest. And "disagreeing with Wade" is not tantamount to "Intellectual dishonesty", especially when you're going on one of your polemical rants. You've made numerous claims that I've personally insulted you, yet have never actually pointed out the insult...And I'm dishonest? You've misrepresented the content of our discussions, and when the actual posts are quoted, you abandon your claims without any statement of apology...And I'm dishonest? Even in this thread you can't maintain one version of your own posts, flitting between two positions...and I'm dishonest? You evidently are unclear as to the meaning of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 There were three whole pages of assumptions and conclusions reached with no data cited whatsoever. Yes, they were your posts. Where were you then? With Geezer, quoting Canadian law to rebut your unsubstantiated claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted August 14, 2009 Moderators Share Posted August 14, 2009 {censored}ing circle jerk. That's quite convenient, yet any number of threads could be linked here where KK and I have went round and round ad nauseum in complete disagreement. That's just for starters. Same with Zachoff, PG, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.