The Numbers Don't Lie

[fd15k]

Look at it this way. You want to circle around and act like you are getting further away (spin). You say if he had a harder time obtaining that specific gun, what happened or "worse" would not have happened. You are blaming the tool then that was used by this specific type of guy (citizen), BUT, Imagine this, NOT the same tool when it is used by those you approve of. Which is not other civilians. But only an 'Authority' such as the U.S Government & all other Governments wish to claim with the U.N agenda.

You're faith & loyalty was proven when you first spoke up against someone that did not do what this guy did (every other civilian), yet excused your desire to take away from those that did not do what this guy did. You exempt the police & other internal needed UN approved employees. After all if this tool was made harder to obtain for all other's except your approved 'authorities', what could possibly be the worst to happen. that has NOT already happened in the history of Governments? The slow processing within your brain, is causing you to not see immediately, what is known immediately. & that is your stupidity.

I've read your post twice, and couldn't understand the thought in it. Not reading it third time.

 

[shooter58]

Part of successful reasoning lies in proper understanding of the opposing argument. I am not sure where you heard that stuff about blame being put on the gun. Most anti-gun theories related to this (and similar) incident are that the gun facilitated his actions, and should he had a harder time to obtain one, it may never had happen, or at least without so many casualties.

I'm sorry but if I was sitting next to this same guy with the same evil intent I would not feel any safer if anti-gun laws were in place! This same evil person would be walking among us thinking about nothing else than doing us harm. How then would I feel better being unarmed?
Or not having acsess to superior weapons to possibly equalize the situation. Why is the thought of over kill in a defense situation to defend against a violent act that I wasn't looking for a bad thing?

 

[chariot13]

It's not my burden to figure out why evil people do evil things. It is my burden to understand that evil people will do evil things and my burden to decide to protect myself and other good people.

If you can't figure out why something has happened then your guess is as good as what, where, when & how it's happening. You're making $h1t up & you have zero clue to anything & just rolling with it because you can't do $h1t about it & acting just like every 'authority' that has ever claimed to be an authority in government. Government is not the Author in life anymore than it is the Authority. They have to live (& die) no less & no more than whoever they so call hurt or help.

 

[shooter58]

If you can't figure out why something has happened then your guess is as good as what, where, when & how it's happening. You're making $h1t up & you have zero clue to anything & just rolling with it because you can't do $h1t about it & acting just like every 'authority' that has ever claimed to be an authority in government.

Like I said, not my problem to figure out why. I just know that it will happen as history has taught us. Also, I don't make s--t up ...
How is knowing that bad things will happen and wanting to defend myself with weapons of my choice making s..t up??

 

[shooter58]

If you can't figure out why something has happened then your guess is as good as what, where, when & how it's happening. You're making $h1t up & you have zero clue to anything & just rolling with it because you can't do $h1t about it & acting just like every 'authority' that has ever claimed to be an authority in government. Government is not the Author in life anymore than it is the Authority. They have to live (& die) no less & no more than whoever they so call hurt or help.

Since 1976 the only people or entity that has had a problem with my owning or carrying a gun were ones who meant me harm. I'm thinking that has not changed.

 

[fd15k]

I'm sorry but if I was sitting next to this same guy with the same evil intent I would not feel any safer if anti-gun laws were in place!

Different people have different comfort thresholds when it comes to safety. Question is not whether some unenforceable laws are present, but whether the evil doers have the means to do evil with great efficiency.

 

[shooter58]

Different people have different comfort thresholds when it comes to safety. Question is not whether some unenforceable laws are present, but whether the evil doers have the means to do evil with great efficiency.

Like I said I am not comfortable walking among evil and me being unarmed. You call that a threshold, I call it common sense. I will agree that is a legitimate difference of opinion.

 

[chariot13]

Like I said, not my problem to figure out why. I just know that it will happen as history has taught us. Also, I don't make s--t up ...
How is knowing that bad things will happen and wanting to defend myself with weapons of my choice making s..t up??

My post wasnt towards you specifically but a generalization such as how I responded to fd15k, when i generalized the guy in CT to every other 'civilian' out there that has the same exact gun but didn't do what he did. I actually agree with your above post very much & it provided me with the 'question's' argument where every question is equal in my book. Until we have all the answers we don't really know anything that we need to know. By thinking we know something with an answer from a single question such as why (that can easily change with some other answer to some other question like what, when, how or what?) is not actually knowing.

 

[HKFooey]

I've read your post twice, and couldn't understand the thought in it. Not reading it third time.

Why are you always such a buzz kill? - Do you like being adversarial or are you just a troll?

The point of the article from the newspaper says that gun sales are up and violent crime is down. Something anti-gun advocates always try to connect. This article does not support their argument so the article is valid. The argument made by anti-gun folks isnt about how many gun owners there are versus the crime rate, it is about the quantity of guns as a whole.

It does not matter if the gun sales are to separate individuals or all to the same fricken guy. The point is the same - sales up - crime down.

Play nice - stop annoying people just because you can.

 

[fd15k]

Why are you always such a buzz kill? - Do you like being adversarial or are you just a troll?

The point of the article from the newspaper says that gun sales are up and violent crime is down. Something anti-gun advocates always try to connect. This article does not support their argument so the article is valid. The argument made by anti-gun folks isnt about how many gun owners there are versus the crime rate, it is about the quantity of guns as a whole.

It does not matter if the gun sales are to separate individuals or all to the same fricken guy. The point is the same - sales up - crime down.

Play nice - stop annoying people just because you can.

Basically you're okay with playing against the lowest (junior) league of the opposition. Fair enough

 

[chariot13]

are you just a troll?

Yes it is.

 

[HKFooey]

Basically you're okay with playing against the lowest (junior) league of the opposition. Fair enough

This is what I am talking about - Troll

 

[Swedish K]

Don't forget - college educated middle class urban residents are more likely to lean left

How unfortunate for them

 

[RoneKiln]

fd15k has not in any way posted anything challenging the value of guns, concealed carry, or anything else counter to what most people on these boards tend to advocate. The only criticism posted has to do with the statistical validity of the article. Those criticisms are correct. The anti-gun crowd uses similar arguments that are just as invalid. If we want to present intelligent, strong arguments in favor of 2A rights, being aware of what research is reputable and what is not is important.

The anti-gun crowd does tend to argue "more guns leads to more harm." This article can be used to weaken that argument. It does not support that more gun owners reduce violence (other studies have though), or any other argument we may want to make, for the exact reasons fd15k outlined.

Chariot13, I'm sure we agree on gun rights for very similar reasons. However, I cannot understand most of your posts here either.

 

[chariot13]

fd15k has not in any way posted anything challenging the value of guns, concealed carry, or anything else counter to what most people on these boards tend to advocate. The only criticism posted has to do with the statistical validity of the article. Those criticisms are correct. The anti-gun crowd uses similar arguments that are just as invalid. If we want to present intelligent, strong arguments in favor of 2A rights, being aware of what research is reputable and what is not is important.

The anti-gun crowd does tend to argue "more guns leads to more harm." This article can be used to weaken that argument. It does not support that more gun owners reduce violence (other studies have though), or any other argument we may want to make, for the exact reasons fd15k outlined.

Chariot13, I'm sure we agree on gun rights for very similar reasons. However, I cannot understand most of your posts here either.

Whatever you say hoss