Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum
FORMER CNN ANCHOR: ‘NOTHING TO DEBATE,’ HAVING A GUN SAVED MY LIFE
On July 8, former CNN anchor Lynn Russell wrote a column for Fox News in which she recounted the alleged June 30 attack and attempted robbery she survived because her husband won a gunfight.
She said, there is “nothing to debate” on guns. Rather, the clear lesson is that having a gun saved her life.
On the night of the 30th, Russell opened the door to the motel room so she could go to the car and get food for their dog. She detailed what happened next:
The armed guard patrolling the second floor was engrossed in a phone conversation, instead of checking the parking lot. I unlocked our door, picked up the food I’d placed at my feet and was assaulted by a jackass with a big, silver semi-automatic weapon. He shoved me into the room. I was airborne and landed on the bed. He shut the door and stood behind it, gun on me, debating his next move.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/08/former-cnn-anchor-nothing-to-debate-having-a-gun-saved-my-life/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)is in the entrenched backing of MSM. There are stories like this out there -- they clutter the innertubes via videos of security camera footage of violent store robberies and some residences -- but MSM generally doesn't cover them. Now, a family feud video of a shooting can for a time get in GD by AP's persistent coverage of a local incident; after all, there is a national agenda to be served.
Maybe if MSM did a reasonable job, Breitbart can wither away into irrelevance.
villager
(26,001 posts)It's rightwing sites like Breitbart that push these stories while conveniently overlooking the fact she had to protect herself from a man with... a gun.
And while conveniently not carrying the many more stories of women slain with guns in recent days....
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)number. Women seem to be aware of the threat to them, and are arming themselves accordingly if recent data are accurate.
BTW, I saw the story concerning this incident on some other web site, but only by stumbling across it.
villager
(26,001 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)... who, of course, take a political stand -- sadly supported by many here -- against it.
Shamash
(597 posts)But perhaps you can enlighten me. Let's say we end up with a Republican President in 2016, to go along with our Republican majority House and Senate and conservative Supreme Court.
Would you be comfortable with the CDC taking ideological stances on public health matters like abortion or vaccinations for cervical cancer or the best way to deal with sexually transmitted diseases? Or would you prefer that they simply did sound science-based research and left "political stands" out of it?
I just want to see if your idea of an ideologically biased CDC is equitable or is only a good thing when it is your ideology being touted.
villager
(26,001 posts)Boehner & co. would be proud! 
Shamash
(597 posts)If the only response you can give is a logical fallacy, it pretty much means you have no argument and you would have been better off not saying anything at all.
villager
(26,001 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)The one commissioned by the President, specifically on the causes and prevention of firearm violence?
It didn't advocate for or against anything, it just presented the facts and conclusions. Which is perfectly acceptable.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)It is very easy to start with a premise that "guns is bad," then shop for research to support that notion, all under the veneer of Science.
The CDC itself summarized the research on guns as they related to crime indices, injury and health as pretty lame. This included John Lott's "studies" which purported tonshow that more guns are linked to falling crime rates. I'd much rather the CDC stick with reducing the threat to public health from evolving pathogens, and the growing ineffectiveness of anti-biotics, lest we be saddled with hat & cane recommendations on how thick sheet metal, or tensile strength factors of composites, should be for autos so as to reduce accident fatalities.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts).......which don't support Controller "logic".
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
villager
(26,001 posts)As in Casablanca, they would seem to be "misinformed!"
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The last refuge when one is losing the argument.
villager
(26,001 posts) blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)It's the excuse the pro-control side uses when they lose an argument or cannot get legislation passed.
villager
(26,001 posts)Or do you have a position different than theirs in this matter?
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The issue was CDC research that validated the number of defensive gun uses (DGU).
villager
(26,001 posts)You share exactly the NRA position on this, without the courage to cop to it.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The issue was the CDC research that supported the claim of the frequency of DGU. You attempted to deflect to the NRA Boogeyman when you could not sustain your argument.
villager
(26,001 posts)You as much as admit you share the NRA's view on this. You lack the courage to say so.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You continue to try to change the subject and introduce the "genetic fallacy" when your argument falls apart. The CDC has conducted research that indicates a high frequency of successful, legal DGU.
villager
(26,001 posts)Again, you support the NRA on this. That's the subject.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You're still wrong. The subject was CDC research, you tried and failed to change the subject when your argument fell apart.
villager
(26,001 posts)You support the NRA's position on CDC research.
While at the same time claiming the research they're shutting down supports your pro-NRA viewpoint.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The subject was the lack of CDC research; when it was demonstrated that the CDC conducted research that confirmed the frequency of DGU you jumped onto the NRA Boogeyman bandwagon.
The NRA didn't shut down research; Congress banned them from conducting advocacy research. You really need to get over your fear of the NRA, it is starting to affect your judgment.
mikeysnot
(4,756 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)The fact that Democratic supporters of the RKBA support the verdict of empirical evidence, and the NRA supports the same evidence does not suggest that the Democrats support the NRA. In other words, the fact that........
(A) supports (C).......and
(B) supports (C) ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT suggest that (A) supports (B)
Looks like you flunked first semester high school logic!
villager
(26,001 posts)...that you and NRA are using "empirical evidence."
Looks like you flunked first semester high school English! (That unit on "definitions...."
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)It gives me a chance to lay out my "NRA/right wing" reading list"!
Liberal criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi -- who informed Jimmy Carter that there was no convincing evidence that gun restriction had accomplished anything:
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437115817&sr=1-1&keywords=james+wright+under+the+gun
Award winning liberal criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck and civil right attorney Don Kates with an excellent, and not-to-technical overview of the gun restriction/gun rights debate:
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Gary-Kleck/dp/1573928836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437115861&sr=1-1&keywords=kates+kleck+armed
Again, Dr. Kleck - the reigning expert on gun violence with a more dense read -- chocked full of that dreaded empirical evidence that you (hypocritically) despise:
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Gary-Kleck/dp/1573928836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437115861&sr=1-1&keywords=kates+kleck+armed
Assorted liberal skeptics on the subject of "gun control":
http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/dp/0884270343/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437115954&sr=1-1&keywords=the+liberal+skeptics+speak+out
Civil rights author James Cobb Jr.: This nonviolent stuff'l get you killed: How guns made the civil rights movement possible Not aware of the political leanings of Mr. Cobb......but it would be very surprising if he adhered to right wing political philosophy.
http://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/0465033105/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437116003&sr=1-1&keywords=this+nonviolent+stuff%27ll+get+you+killed+how+guns+made+the+civil+rights+movement+possible
You just keep tossing out your slimy invective, villager. We'll continue to speak truth to your bigotry.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)The Controllers never fail to display their ugly bigotry when the chips are down.
Response to villager (Reply #85)
pablo_marmol This message was self-deleted by its author.
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)If her assailant did not have a gun at that point, what would have been her best defensive move?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)is about 300 million too many, everyone gets that, and isolated incidents are not proof of anything.
The Dixie Swastika going down will not be the only legacy of the Charleston massacre, that is why the NRA-lovers are running scared, trotting out the same tired, debunked myths.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)HRC is the one talking gun control, not Bernie.
Shamash
(597 posts)Just so we can all quote Fred the next time something bad happens. Because as Fred says:
rock
(13,218 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)Isolated incidents are things like mass shootings, the absolute rarest type of crime committed with a firearm. On the other hand, self-defense with a firearm happens several hundred times each day according to the CDC.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)suppressing the latest CDC report that supports the gun rights activists views? Hmmm?
rock
(13,218 posts)Since I don't know what you're talking about.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The Washington Post. And subsequently on CNN. The story was consistent across outlets, so perhaps you should apologize for the baseless attack on "gun lovers"?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Now the gun lovers are using vile Breitbat as a source!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/06/cnn-lynne-russell_n_7739120.html
Shamash
(597 posts)Also available at People magazine, NBC, CNN, New York Times, Daily Mail(UK), and Daily Kos, among others.
Here's another useful one for the first two commenters:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Mine do just that every day...(at least my SD ones)
Safety first, being an easy willing victim should never be considered a progressive value.
packman
(16,296 posts)So, get a gun to protect yourself from someone who has a gun. Seems like this has a common thread that if addressed could stop that statement in its tracks. Then again, that's what the NRA folks seem to say - if only those victims were armed.
ileus
(15,396 posts)You can take that risk....as for me and my family we won't.
Safety first.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
ileus
(15,396 posts)Of course I have several that are only for hunting and target shooting, those were designed for sporting purposes.
The government would frown on civilians having devices designed to kill I would think. But for personal protection that's a whole different story.
villager
(26,001 posts)Got it.
ileus
(15,396 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)Go out with your gun, kill a moose - a deer - whatever - which detracts from the things that are nature and should belong to us all. I love that crap on those Alaskan shows that show socially handicapped people who want to live "off the grid" complain that the moose, caribou, salmon, bear are not as numerous as in previous years. Grab that gun and shot some wildlife , make yourself feel like a pioneer man, after all - those animals belong to you and, by God, you got the right to kill them.
ileus
(15,396 posts)deer per year to keep the shop in deer chili. Some years are better than others, sometimes we'll manage 1 or 2 other times 3 we don't really need four so my limit is 3 max. Here lately we've been concentrating on coyotes because they're decimating the deer population. If we could ever get a handle on those then I'd feel more comfortable harvesting more deer like back in the 90's when 6 or 7 would be "normal".
Of course couple the deer with a few turkey and an occasional small critter here and there and we manage to keep a freezer full of wild game all year around. I did run into some luck earlier this week when I managed to pull 3 channel cats while bass fishing with a rapala (rainbow trout) so the grill will be fired up tonight.
Look at me going on and on about hunting and fishing on the self defense forum...sorry.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Somehow, I'm doubting it.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I have my lifetime hunting and fishing in WV, but in Virginia my home state I buy the Hunting and Fishing yearly...how nuts is that.
Good news is I still hunt and fish a bunch in WV.
The good news is with Va hunting I can decide if I want to add a muzzle loader or archery tag to my permit. I decide based on what I see in the field behind my house all summer long.
villager
(26,001 posts)...from a distance, yes?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Archery equipment is our favorite way....followed by Black powder.
With 35 years of archery experience I've found it best to keep shots within the 25 yard range, and that's pretty easy in the woods and "edge" hunting you normally encounter in our area.
With the modern inline muzzle loaders I still try and stress 125 yard and in distances for best results.
villager
(26,001 posts)Guns have never had that purpose, we're averring now, in this thread?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hunting is with a purpose, it may be for population control (groundhogs, coyotes, crows) or it may be for meat.
Killing is without purpose....
Thus hunting firearms aren't designed to kill but to harvest/take game. Just like self defense firearms are for protecting/saving lives, but still may end up mortally wounding an attacker if used properly.
Self defense isn't killing, just like hunting isn't killing.
villager
(26,001 posts)That must be interesting.
Shamash
(597 posts)Don't make idiotic quibbles about "killing" vs. "hunting" unless you survive solely off of photosynthesis.
villager
(26,001 posts)Like "killing," for instance, which, evidently, your all-Gandhian hunting practices seem not to do, the death of the hunted object notwithstanding...
Shamash
(597 posts)If you are going to whinge about "killing", then you presumably do not eat anything that was once alive. If on the other hand, you are able to accept the death of something else as the price of your continued existence, then you really ought to STFU about how awful hunting is.
But don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself by comparing my eeeevil hunting practices to the easy painless death of being chased down and torn open while still alive that is what normally happens when a predator nabs an herbivore.
villager
(26,001 posts)...and your guns allow you to feed, as it were, that image of yourself.
I am not per se against the killing of animals, though I rarely eat them myself. And hunting is, generally, a more honorable way to get one's meat than buying it in a supermarket.
I just wanted to strip away the illusion that somehow killing isn't killing, and that guns aren't built for that specific purpose.
Shamash
(597 posts)The "purpose" of alcohol is to make you uncoordinated, stupid and emotional. But that does not justify banning "high-capacity" cases of 24 cans or "assault kegs".
As you implied with your statement on hunting, it is the use to which an individual puts the item that makes the difference. I have yet to see any gun control advocate make a sensible argument as to why person A should be penalized for the conduct of completely unrelated person B, which is what most gun control is. If B is a bad person, then bureaucratic hoops that B cannot manage (like background checks) are all well and good, but telling 999 gun owners who have done no wrong that they are "part of the problem" because of 1 person who has done wrong is the antithesis of liberal thinking.
And to correct you, yes I am a predator, as are you. We are with rare exception, the alpha predator on this planet, capable of driving lesser species into extinction. Just because we lack fangs or claws makes us no less predators. We evolved intelligence, which is far more deadly. We killed the megafauna of the North American continent thousands of years before the bow was invented, doing it in hunting packs with stone-tipped spears.
villager
(26,001 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 12, 2015, 07:25 PM - Edit history (2)
..."role," nor do our current diets serve any particular ecological, or balancing, function.
We are psychotic, collectively speaking, but not "predators" in a classical ecological sense. Who knows what it will take to get re-balanced?
But that's not the topic in this sub-thread. It was the absurd assertion that guns aren't made for the specific purpose of killing.
There's no gradation, as there is with alcohol. Use of alcohol for its intended purpose does not result in automatic drunkenness. And yes, people do other things with guns -- wave them around, carry them into their local KMarts to feel like, well, bad-ass predators, or whatever, but that is not why guns are made, nor is that their primary, essential purpose.
Which is to kill.
Shamash
(597 posts)Why is it that only 3/1000 of 1% of those guns are used to murder anyone? It seems the other 99.997% of them are not being used for your "essential purpose". Are you suggesting that we should use them for this essential purpose? I kind of doubt it, so I repeat: Which is more important, what something is "designed for", or how it is actually used?
GPS was designed for the military, to help us be more efficient at killing the enemy. The first programmable computers were built for military purposes. Microwave ovens are derivative of radar, which when invented was a classified military technology. The internet was originally a military project.
So by all means step up and demand that the original intent of a technology be the guiding factor for whether civilians should be allowed to have it.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that alcohol use does not result in drunkeness. Rather, it is not whether you are affected but how much you are affected. People don't say "Man, I love the taste of Jack Daniels, I just wish they made a version without all that nasty alcohol in it." People drink alcoholic beverages because of the alcohol.
On the other hand, I can shoot all day with a real gun and real bullets and not kill anyone. Not even a little bit.
villager
(26,001 posts)Like this exchange between us.
Guns can't be applied for other purposes.
You can remain in denial about the fundamental nature/purpose of a gun. Heck, most cars spend most of their time parked -- but that's not what they were designed for.
Same thing applies to guns.
Shamash
(597 posts)Why does it matter what it was designed for?
As designed, guns were horribly inefficient killing machines. It is only after 500+ years of technological refinement that they have reached their present level.
Since the aforementioned 99.99+ percent of guns are not killing anyone and some large but unknown percentage are not killing anything, they most obviously can be applied for other purposes. An obvious example is Olympic competition. You have an assertion, not an argument, and it is trivial to show that assertion to be flawed.
villager
(26,001 posts)Perhaps because you're uncomfortable with the starkness of an honest definition.
Guns were quite efficient, especially at a distance -- relative to anything else available (though lots of fodder with swords used to yield results, as well). They have become more efficient, as the routine slaughter in America testifies.
And again, most cars remain parked, not driven, for most of their lives. Most guns might sit there for most of theirs. But that is not their fundamental purpose, nor why they were made.
Shamash
(597 posts)I'm not the commenter who first made the hunting/killing distinction. That was someone else. I'm just the one pointing out your double-standard when it comes to the killing necessary for sustaining your life.
The question is not whether or not guns are good at killing things or whether or not alcohol is good at getting you drunk or sports cars are designed to break the speed limit. The question is "why should it matter?" Isn't it a liberal principle to judge people as individuals rather than stereotypes? By their actions rather than their possessions? Isn't "guilt by association" against everything we believe in? Is it that difficult a question to answer?
Spoken with clueless irony by someone who has never been up to their elbows in the entrails of something they had just shot. The next time you eat meat, make it something whose life you personally took rather than looking the other way while some proxy did it for you. Then come back and we can talk about honesty.
villager
(26,001 posts)You were more than willing to butt in on the conversation I was having in this sub-thread, though. Hence my subsequent replies to you.
Glad your up-to-the-elbows entrail rendering still leaves you time to fling insults over the internet, however!
Shamash
(597 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Which means, really, that anything other than the ignore list is a waste of time with you.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)is a part of the conservation process to avoid having deer die of disease and starvation.
Shamash
(597 posts)By all means show your lack of conviction in your beliefs and do so.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Bye.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you were saying?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)There are too many of them, and a lot of them were starving for lack of food.
Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Prey should be harried to terrified exhaustion and then mauled to death as nature intended.
villager
(26,001 posts)...with their guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And the people you're flailing around to disarm have no intention bothering you despite your insults and ignorance directed towards them.
villager
(26,001 posts)Haven't caught up on the ecological news of that last couple centuries, then?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You might find it thrilling to think you're important enough to merit the animus of gun owners but the fact is, you do not. You could move among them while they're armed for an entire lifetime and none of them would pay you a second thought as they went about their lives.
Wild predators would not be as accommodating.
villager
(26,001 posts)is that really the prism through which you shape your environmental views?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Obviously no. But neither is the wolf "bad" if he takes you down - if you happen to be available. Why? You're just another meal opportunity.
The point is that humans "know" better - at least they should...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You may not want to admit humans have self-control -- even those who own guns -- while animal predators will kill on impulse but it's still a fact. It's not a matter of good or bad for animals -- they're animals. None of those facts preclude sound environmental policy.
villager
(26,001 posts)That would explain your obsession with "impulses," however.
So humans with guns never kill on impulse, but those bad, messy wolves and bears always do?
So you would "manage" an environment to have fewer natural predators, and more humans with guns in it?
You do realize that's how deer populations exploded in the first place, right?
Speaking of, you know, "self control" and such.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Again -- bears and wolves are not bad. They are not capable of being bad. They are only capable of being bears and wolves.
Figure that part out before trying to tell me what the rest of my argument might be.
villager
(26,001 posts)Men with guns (and it has been almost exclusively men) have done vastly more damage to ecosystems 'round the world, than the bears and wolves (and etc.) who actually belong there.
JonGeb
(9 posts)Those listed predator animals have been extirpated from their historical range, the prey flourish though.
White tail deer exceed their historical populations in many states. We are filling the niche that those predators used to occupy. Actually we don't, they are still growing in population.
Shamash
(597 posts)Or perhaps at the world's largest shooting competition (Switzerland)? Oh look, a country where children engage in competitive shooting and the firearm murder rate is a tenth of ours.
I mean, if guns are designed to kill, the casualty figures between these two events should have been appalling. I guess I wasn't following the news closely enough on those days. Since you obviously were, perhaps you can tell me how many spectators were killed with the real bullets fired by the hundreds of competitors at the last Olympics.
Or you know, you could refrain from doubling down on the stupid and just admit that it is what is done with something that is more important than what it was designed to do.
ileus
(15,396 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)Olympics Competitive shooting and you wonder how many spectators were killed? Your arms must be dislocated from that stretch.
Shamash
(597 posts)None of my guns have ever killed anyone and few of them have ever killed anything. So I guess according to Villager I'm not using them correctly?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that is a high school student firing the Swiss issue assault rifle. The army puts a tab on the selector switch so she doesn't accidentally hit the full auto switch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenfest
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I fail to see the moral virtue in allowing them to proceed unopposed in the commission of their crimes.
villager
(26,001 posts)I fail to see the moral virtue in allowing theme to proceed nearly unopposed in obtaining firearms.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That means a woman who elects to carry has a 6% chance of being on equal terms with an attacker. In the remaining 94% of potential attackers she would hold the advantage.
villager
(26,001 posts)I suspect -- a "quick draw" mentality aside -- that mostly won't turn out well.
Another question: Why guns instead of pepper spray, for example?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I swear the duty-to-raped misogyny of the Controllers is reaching critical mass.
villager
(26,001 posts)Why not pepper spray? Specifically?
How many women will get a chance to "draw down" on their attackers? What about rape where the victim knows her attacker? (Meaning it's not one of your fantasized about "quick draw" situations).
Can you be honest enough to admit that introducing guns into most of these situations won't end well? As statistic show, again and again?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)especially if raining, back wind, indoors, or if the attacker is on some drugs. The pain could also cause them to be more violent.
However, pepper spray can be lethal to coke heads and anyone with asthma.
villager
(26,001 posts)Your worries about it being "lethal" are kind of hilarious, under the circumstances.
Really, George.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So pepper spray will always end better than using a gun?
Hint -- cops would never rely on exclusively using pepper spray.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If you're implying I'm a racist you can shove that. You obviously don't even have the backbone to explicitly say it.
You'll have to look long and hard for any post from me praising the police. You'll find none. I have been very critical of the police. They are heavy handed and out of control.
Which is why I do not relegate my safety to the police unlike, ironically, gun grabbers such as yourself.
My point was a strictly technical one. The fact is pepper spray is a fantasy. No one in a life-or-death situation would trust their life to pepper spray.
Keep your trolling, race-baiting crap to yourself.
villager
(26,001 posts)...rather than sticking to arguments.
And of course you always -- always -- use names like "Controller" and "Grabber."
You are incapable of an actual "discussion" on this discussion board, on this subject, which, sadly, is almost always the case with the perfervid worship of Lord God Gun.
But I am glad to hear you have your vigilante thing going.
And yes, please keep your crap to yourself.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...implied without evidence bad things about your interlocutors.
You are in no position to point fingers.
villager
(26,001 posts)You are in no position to point fingers, on this topic.
But cool use of big words though!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)However, there just might come a time when I would take your words to heart-
and that time would come only after the NRA and SAF quit beating you lot like rented mules...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It doesn't matter to Controllers and Grabbers if their proposals infringe upon the right to self-defense. It doesn't matter to Controllers and Grabbers if their laws don't curb violent crime but only disarm good people.
The observed behavior is good people who own guns are to be slandered and vilified as murderers, child killers and sexual deviants.
You yourself describe women as "waving" guns around so as to portray them as careless and incompetent. You insist a woman not be allowed to have a gun if confronted by a rapist because guns. You may deny it but you're effectively telling a woman who chooses to defend herself that she has to rely on what YOU think is best for her, not what she knows to be best and if that results in her being raped then you expect her to just accept it.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Until then no apologies.
Oh wait. Here you are still --
Killing a rapist/home invader/violent criminal is not vigilantism. The police don't stop crime. This is, yet again, the duty-to-be-raped misogyny rearing its ugly head.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)"a waved gun in a panic situation" implies that women can not take care of themselves, that is sexist.
Historically, including the "old west", women carried pistols concealed more than men. Even in the "civilized" parts of the country. Hand muffs women that women wore in the 19th century often had built in holsters for small pistols.
Either way, it is for the informed decision for the individual to make, not someone who knows nothing about the issue who makes decision for others for political reasons.
villager
(26,001 posts)That good guys always win in a "quick draw" situation.
It's a fantasy of movies, and a fantasy of gun ownership.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and the good guys win most of the time.
Telcontar
(660 posts)Poor hysterical women flailing around with a gun fashion accessory they have no idea what to do with.
Pathetic. My wife and daughters know all about proper stance, breathing techniques, and trigger squeeze. Pity the fool trying to take advantage of them.
And pity you, for you know not what you spew.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Citing unlinked, dubious statistics doesn't abrogate a fundamental right. Offering weak alternatives such as pepper spray is not a substitute. The right exists.
beevul
(12,194 posts)By all means, keep the guns out of their hands.
But do it in a way that leaves the rest of us who aren't killing raping or the like, the hell alone.
firearms are designed to propel a projectile down a hollow tube, where that projectile goes is controlled by the human interacting with it.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)She had a handgun to protect herself, and it worked.
A handgun, not a military style automatic weapon.
I have always supported citizens exercising that right.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Its unfortunate that Ms Russell had to use her gun to save her life.
But it's fortunate that she was able to have the gun in the first place.
There's a lesson to be learned here if you are open minded enough to listen.
randys1
(16,286 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)folks were not legally defending themselves - using their firearms to fend off the vile & lawless?
Why do you want women to be defenseless against rapists? Or am I putting words in your mouth?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)In other words you've got nothing. As usual.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)They defended themselves against an armed assault.
Would you rather they were defenseless?
And so what if the NRA asks the same question?! Is the question irrelevant because the NRA also raises the point? (I'm not a member btw).
bowens43
(16,064 posts)if the ' jackass with a big, silver semi-automatic weapon' didnt have a gun he would not have been able to use it to threaten. We need an immediate TOTAL BAN on most guns and ALL ammunition.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)I mean, it's not like thousands of people and tons of drugs cross into the US every year from Mexico and that could just as easily be guns.
Ditto for seafreight containers full of illegal immigrants from Pacific ports.
And that trivial matter of 300 million guns already in circulation.
And that pesky gun-loving Obama saying that he thinks gun ownership is an individual right.
And a party platform backing him up.
And 40+ State Constitutions that agree.
And the 30% of Democrats who are gun owners who would probably vote against it.
And a Supreme Court whose current ruling makes your idea illegal.
But I'm sure you've thought this out thoroughly and can explain how to overcome these miniscule speedbumps on the way to gun-free paradise. I really hope so anyway, because right now your plan sounds like:
• impotent whining
• a miracle occurs
• Utopia!
I'm all ears.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)his specialty is drive by posts.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Is a horrible source, not trustworthy.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or this one?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gunman-killed-trying-rob-ex-reporters-lynne-russell-chuck-de-n385416
The only place that says it didn't happen is, well, I'll let you judge.
http://nodisinfo.com/hoax-lynn-russell-shooting-incident/
True, Breitbart sucks, but there is the whole genetic fallacy thing.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I would love to have some one from this group put together something to get this senseless killings stopped.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 01:28 AM - Edit history (2)
but the truth is, it is impossible. He was arrested with various illegal drugs that are banned everywhere, like LSD and meth. Controlled drugs like Xanex. No matter where you are on this planet, if you can get any of them illegally, you can get a gun.
He didn't even need a gun. Look up Happy Land night club in NYC. 75 innocent lives taken without a shot fired.
As much as some in the party disagree, former Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble was right. But then, who disagree are not security professionals are they?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341 Yes, there were a few legal Kenyan CCW holders that resisted and saved lives.
Sure, if it were not for a paperwork snafu, the gun sale would not be approved. Like I said, he could have just gone to his drug connection, or use another weapon. Strict gun control laws did not disarm the gangsters who machine gunned nursery school teacher. Sabrina Moss on a London street, bullets that were intended for a rival gang member. Strict gun control did not prevent terrorists from buying machine guns in a Brussels train station to shoot up a deli and Charlie Hebdo. Australia can't even stop biker gangs from making their own machine guns in basements, and doing 100 drive bys in Sydney. Fortunately, they are lousy shots.
I wish I could disarm all of the Roofs, not to mention all of the gangsters, terrorists, and others, but I can't.
Evil simply exists and will manifest itself in Roof, Manson, ISIL, the Klan. We can come up with all of the easy answers we want. We can ban all private guns like British Virgin Islands, Columbia, Venezuela, Jamaica, and pretty much Mexico and Brazil, and get nothing in return just like they did. Easy answers are not solutions.
Edit to add
http://www.academia.edu/4177004/Multicide_is_there_a_connection_between_mass_murder_and_terrorism
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4170/the-only-commonality-is-mass-killing#
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Besides whining and snarking online of course.
As you said "it's not complicated", so what are your doing in the real world?
With your strongly held beliefs and a morally superior vision of a gun free America, we're sure you must be a leader in making all of your gun control dreams come true, right?
So tell us about the 2nd amendment repeal petitions you have circulating, or how many gun control groups you actively participate in? Have you been having regular meetings with your state legislators to get concealed carry repealed? How soon do you expect to have a repeal bill introduced?
Or is this where you use the "vile NRA" again, as your excuse for being totally feckless and irrelevant to the actual gun issue?
You wouldn't be just another of those keyboard commandos, all mouth and no action, right?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)That's why they're so full of sound and fury on the pages of DU and elsewhere-scraping and reposting anti-gun items they find on the internet, and constantly banging on about how awful guns, gun owners, and/or the NRA are. All their energies go into it
Organize beyond clicking "like" on a Facebook page? Writing a check?
Go to actual political events or public meetings? These things take effort and money,
so they don't do them.
Here's a protip for any of them that might still be reading this:
Do you know the real reasons why you lot keep getting beaten like a rented mule by those you
despise? You have an overly inflated opinion of the popularity of your cause, and while
your opponents spend time and money for what they believe in *you* spend only
electrons and screen time...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)I just made some changes, added emphasis in some places and other improvements.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Come up with some valid solutions which may curb lots of gun violence. The mass shootings is a big concern and we are now finding the three day turn around on background checks was not sufficient in the case of Roof. We could tweak the Brady Bill to not have the turn around time to when sufficient investigations are completed. Now though should not be a big problem. I don't know what can be done on cities where guns are as popular as cell phones. Let's work together, we can accomplish results.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Until they got involved in the drug business, gangs didn't use guns. Even in the 1950 until the 1968 Gun Control Act, all they needed was a money order and a Sears catalog, they didn't use them other than the rare zip gun made in shop class. When they had issues, they would agree to meet in some secluded spot to battle it out with baseball bats, chains, and maybe a knife. What changed? The drug trade. Back then, it was about your block and being King Bad Ass on the block. Remote control doesn't make you King Bad Ass, which is why there will never be movies about USAF ICBM launch officers. There might be a movie about a Pararescueman.
Guns were for nerds in rifle club.
That changed when they switched to the drug business. They made shit loads of money, that needed to be protected.
End the drug war. Take away the money, take away the guns. That is why 80 percent of Chicago's murders are with guns while places like Wyoming and Vermont have much smaller percentage of gun murders, (Wyoming it is about half, even though most people own guns). The last murder in my city was with bare hands. The one before that was a stabbing, where some meth head was hallucinating and thought the victim was a deer from outer space, or at least that is what he told the cops.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)If you want to fuel crime, ban something. The ban will create a black market and a huge profit incentive. 
If you want to cut crime...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)- universal background checks
I've not heard much of anything in the way of reasons against them.
- Cancel the war on drugs
Why act surprised at the results while doing what it takes to maintain that black market?
- Start a national safety campaign
Like there could even be a reason not to.
- Address suicide
Nothing says "off yourself" like depression and hopelessness.
Kali
(55,004 posts)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Now there's a thought.
And while I'm certainly quite glad that Ms. Russell and her husband are alive, I can't help but think of all the people who die needlessly from guns every day. The toddlers who find one. The right-wing jerk who wants to start a "race war". And so on.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)being able to kill her with his bare hands. He could use a knife or other weapon.
How would you stop him from getting a gun? Criminals don't go to gun shops or gun shows even before NICS. He was on parole, so he would have not passed the background check if he did.
Most of the people killing each other with guns are drug dealers, who don't get the guns legally any more than they do the drugs.
Nothing would stop him from getting a gun. If UK and Australia can't stop drive bys with machine guns, what makes you think it would magically work here? More people die from drug overdoses than murder and suicides by firearms combined. Last year, Heroin overdoses outpaced gun murders. Last I checked, heroin has been illegal for 101 years.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Now there's a "thought".
DonP
(6,185 posts)instead of making up imaginary scenarios that make you feel good about your built in anti-gun owner prejudice
I think it's hilarious that every time someone actually uses a firearm to defend themselves the gun control folks come running out of the woodwork to make up a bunch of "what if" stories, desperately trying make up a different story so they don't have to accept the facts.
Never mind the "what if he couldn't get a gun", he was a career criminal, they always manage to get guns with no background checks.
While you're at it, celebrate the fact that gun violence is at the lowest level in 40 years, so we must be doing something right.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The solutions are simple. Folks like the NRA and their supporters making simple solutions complicated are merely pushing propaganda and should just be ignored.
We have all the ideas. We have all of the studies. We have all of the solutions.
Long past time to just do it. Gun control.
Just do it.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)There at least three other ways Roof could have acquired a firearm other than purchasing through a FFL. People that want firearms to commit illegal acts will find way to obtain them.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Doesn't mean I cannot correct his factual errors, even if he cannot see them. 
