The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 4481 - 4500 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:46pm PT
Happy Easter Unhinged.

jghedge

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 05:43pm PT
"An armed society is a polite society"

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

Gee, then Texas must be some sort of crime-free paradise, right?


Fears Rise as Second Texas Prosecutor Slain

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578394410802879712.html


KAUFMAN, Texas—The shooting deaths of a state district attorney and his wife over the weekend led authorities Sunday to consider any possible link to the death of another prosecutor who was gunned down earlier this year.

Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife, Cynthia Woodward McLelland, were found shot dead on Saturday at their home near Forney, Texas, in a semirural county east of Dallas, according to law-enforcement officials.

The discovery of the deaths stunned residents in this close-knit community, which is still reeling from the murder of Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse on Jan. 31, and has some state prosecutors worried about their own safety.

Mr. McLelland, 63 years old, and Mrs. McLelland, 65, had five children, including a son who is a Dallas police officer, according to a biography on the Kaufman County District Attorney's Office website.

Laura Murrey, president emeritus of the Kaufman Quilt Guild, said Cynthia McLelland had told other guild members during a recent group retreat to a quilting museum that she was afraid that she and her husband could be in danger following Mr. Hasse's killing. "She did have concerns and told us so. I do know that she carried a gun," she said. "She told the ladies at our retreat that she was uncomfortable with the situation."



Yup, sounds like all those guns are making everyone feel reeeeeal safe.



jghedge

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 06:05pm PT
Nice observation from DailyKos:

"A gun will not protect you from bullets." Indeed, it seems gun anarchy is as stupid and insane a solution to criminals having guns as arming yourself with vials of smallpox would be if criminals had biological weapons."
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 31, 2013 - 06:24pm PT
So, what's the story? Did the DA and his wife need more training? More guns? More armed guards?

Sad.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Mar 31, 2013 - 06:31pm PT
I've got level IV trauma plates in my armor system.

Stops a .30-06 at 20'.



If Joe experienced a home invasion and got ass-raped do you think he would feel like a Christian Scientist with acute appendicitis?
I suspect that, at the very least, he might lean a bit to the right (difficult while walking bow legged,..)
Besides, trolling him is fun.
Bet he uses 3 of the next 5 posts!
jghedge

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:05pm PT
"I've got level IV trauma plates in my armor system."

Doubtfull you'd be wearing them when needed

Unless, of course, you enjoy wearing body armor as much as you do being ass-raped

"Ass-raped", hahahaha

The male-inadquacy issues weighing in a little heavy tonight?
jghedge

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:29pm PT
"So, what's the story? Did the DA and his wife need more training? More guns? More armed guards?"

He just got sloppy, is all - always follow Army Room Clearing Procedure when at home

http://www.military.com/video/forces/army-training/how-to-clear-a-room/662909212001/


Or, surrender your constitutional freedoms to Obama. Your call.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
you ought be on Doomsday Preppers
jghedge

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:39pm PT
Actually Gun Nut Mania would make for a good reality show these days, wouldn't it

Production insurance might be a tad steep though...

jghedge

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 08:04pm PT

Guns Are Keeping Everyone Safe, Happy And Free!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/us/second-prosecutor-shot-to-death-in-texas-county.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


KAUFMAN, Tex. — After the daylight assassination of his deputy two months ago, Mike McLelland, the district attorney in largely rural Kaufman County, responded with a flash of angry bravado, denigrating the perpetrators as “scum” and vowing to hunt them down.

A former Army officer who served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Mr. McLelland carried a gun and refused to be intimidated, according to a friend and the local news media, even as his wife expressed unease, worrying that her husband, too, could be in danger.

“I hope that the people that did this are watching, because we’re very confident that we’re going to find you,” he said at a news conference hours after his deputy was killed. “We’re going to pull you out of whatever hole you’re in. We’re going to bring you back and let the people of Kaufman County prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.”

On Saturday evening, the authorities found Mr. McLelland, 63, and his wife, Cynthia, 65, shot to death inside their home in Forney, Tex., in Kaufman County. The killings galvanized law enforcement officials and frightened and bewildered local residents, many of them still shaken by the shooting of the deputy, Mark E. Hasse, 57, on Jan. 31. That case remains unsolved.

In the shooting of Mr. Hasse, the authorities said, one or two gunmen got out of a gray or silver sedan, opened fire and fled. Witnesses told investigators that the killer or killers appeared to have had their faces covered and wore black clothing and tactical-style vests. No arrests have been made, and investigators from nine agencies had been searching for leads.

Mr. McLelland told The Associated Press less than two weeks ago that he carried a gun at all times since Mr. Hasse’s killing, even when he walked his dog. He said he had urged his employees to remain alert. “The people in my line of work are going to have to get better at it, because they’re going to need it more in the future,” he said in the interview with The A.P.

In Forney, a town of 15,000 about 20 miles from downtown Dallas that is known as the antiques capital of Texas, many residents were on edge. Amid the greenery of Mr. McLelland’s neighborhood, one man who lived a block from the prosecutor’s house said he had known Mr. McLelland well, but did not want to talk to a reporter out of fear for his safety.

The prosecutors “were always involved in dangerous cases,” said Ms. Ratcliff, the McLellands’ friend. “That’s just part of everyday business for them.”

Now, she said, the question everyone seems to be asking is, “Who’s next?”



Hahahahaha - the whole fuking state is going to turn into Mogadishu







pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Mar 31, 2013 - 08:54pm PT
Credit: pyro
this for warnerr
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:53pm PT
Wow... we're still here and still repeating the same old arguments. Truly "entrenched positions."

How about a bit of perspective?...

There are about 100,000 gun-caused murders each year around the world. About 9,000 of them are in the USA. Taking suicides (about 60% of all gun-related deaths in the USA) and gang-related homicides out of the (higher when considering all homicides) totals (no proposed gun laws will stop these two vectors of gun-related deaths), and the USA "preventable" homicides figures are in the low thousands. That assumes, of course, that a serious crack-down on gangs could accomplish something.

By contrast, if you want to get all worked up about something that is truly preventable and the prevention of which would have a HUGE effect, let's talk about smoking and second-hand-smoke (SHS).

World-wide, tobacco kills more than 5,000,000 people annually. Of that figure, SHS is responsible for about 600,000 deaths (six times the death by gun world-wide, and more than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined). Of those totals about 31% of the deaths attributable to smoking are children. (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tobacco/en/);

But let's focus on the USA.

45,000,000 (yes, those are millions) people smoke in the USA, and over 126,000,000 are regularly exposed to SHS. (http://www.cdc.gov/datastatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html);

Of those numbers, about 42,000 people (including children) in the USA die from SHS every year, about 900 of whom are infants. If anything, most researchers believe that these figures are significantly underestimated.

It's easy to find tons of research on this subject, and the utterly preventable, TRULY senseless death-toll is simply astounding, particularly when one realizes that people dying from SHS is a particular outrage. Just being around smokers is deadly! And the estimated annual cost to the US economy in health care and lost productivity amounts to more than $6 billion (a figure that is rising quickly).

Nowhere is smoking (or drinking alcohol, for that matter) given any positive protection in the Constitution. And just the thought that people would even want to spend their lives addicted to inhaling the smoke from a burning weed, and thereby causing their own deaths and the deaths of those around them, is mind-boggling! What a truly senseless and downright STUPID waste of life (and productivity)!

Yet the baleful results of just this ONE vice make gun-related death in this country pale in comparison.

You want to froth at the mouth about a bunch of needless suffering and death, they why don't you turn your attention to some REAL killers?!? And, again, these are killers that enjoy NO explicit Constitutional protection.

You don't like guns? Tough. In the USA they are Constitutionally protected. You can bicker all you want about what "regulations" can or cannot be implemented. But that's a LAME debate in the face of the many other causes of needless and downright stupid carnage in this country that enjoy ZERO Constitutional protection.

You want to get serous about stopping this carnage, then make ALL smoking illegal in this country. That would save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, including about 42,000 people that never intended nor wanted to smoke. They are FORCED to inhale the SHS that OTHER PEOPLE pollute the air with. And, many of those dying are children, and 900 of them are INFANTS!

Put some real and legitimate "concern" where your mouth is, and turn your attention to legislating against a TRULY senseless killer: tobacco. Until you are ALL prepared to stop smoking yourselves and legislate against it, all your hand-wringing about gun control is lame, transparently inconsistent, and futile. And while you're at it, take a look at alcohol-related death in this country.

Those of you most rabid to legislate against and "control" guns in this country, let me ask you one little question: Have you EVER, even ONCE, driven drunk? If so, then, simply: shut up. And do ANY of you smoke? If so, then, simply: shut up. YOU have nothing to say about "reducing the carnage!"

The rest of you can START by legislating against carnage-causing vices that are not Constitutionally-protected. See how far you get with that, and THEN you can start talking about "controlling" guns in this country (because you still HAVE a Constitutional hurdle to get over on that front, however you want to interpret it).

Of course, we tried legislating against alcohol. Probably have the same result with tobacco if we tried it. Result? MORE alcohol, and the gangs and black market to go along with them. "War on drugs?" Same exact result. Seeing any pattern here?

But, you know, if it can save even one life....

So, have it it. Just, please, be consistent if you really care so much. Go after the REAL and utterly senseless killers first. Then you can tangle with the Constitution regarding guns.
coz

Gym climber
Belmont
Apr 1, 2013 - 07:16am PT
Somebody get Joe a girlfriend.

Ya it's fun to troll him but its just kinda of sad if u know the guy.

He really is kind, generous and humble in person.
jghedge

climber
Apr 1, 2013 - 08:31am PT
"See how far you get with that, and THEN you can start talking about "controlling" guns in this country (because you still HAVE a Constitutional hurdle to get over on that front, however you want to interpret it)."

Agreed - no gun control is going to get through Congress because, unfortunately, the gun lobby has the constitution on their side.

The better strategy might be to let the country devolve into Wild-West anarchy, as is already starting to occur in Texas. Then once we get the congressional 3/4 majority we need (as demographics indicates is also happening), then we have a clear path, as well as the already existing societal imperative, to repeal the 2nd amendment.

And in the meantime, try not to become famous for shooting guns off in your own house...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 1, 2013 - 09:00am PT
By contrast, if you want to get all worked up about something that is truly preventable and the prevention of which would have a HUGE effect, let's talk about smoking and second-hand-smoke (SHS).

Okay, let's... smoking in restaurants and bars and within 200 ft(?) of building entrances is illegal, at least in progressive states like CA and UT. Also, if someone lights a cig and starts smoking in your vicinity, you can move pretty easily... if someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting, it is a little more serious. I have never felt that my life was in immediate danger when someone lit up a cig on the street. It is a silly comparison... like the rest of the straw man army amassed here.

Parents who smoke around kids and expose them to SHS should be severely punished.

You don't like guns? Tough. In the USA they are Constitutionally protected.

Not exactly. The right to keep and bare them is protected. Doesn't say ANYTHING about waiting periods, computerized background checks linked to psychiatric/medical evaluations, limiting the number of guns one can purchase in a year, safe storage requirements, stiff penalties for straw purchasers or corrupt gun shops, high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, or unlimited firepower. Surely you don't think "Arms" in the constitution means Howitzers or bazookas or nukes or the like. Surely there has to be a limit. Surely we can establish that limit, with some naturally thinking it is too soft and others thinking it is too hard.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 1, 2013 - 10:49am PT
It is a silly comparison... like the rest of the straw man army amassed here.

Just providing you with some demonstrable facts for comparison and perspective. If that's "silly," then I guess that comparable facts are right out the window for the anti-gun-nuts.

We're 1/3 of a BILLION people! A few thousand preventable gun deaths is literally nothing to get your panties in a bunch about. And if you DO want to get all worked up about the very few children killed by guns, then for consistency's sake you've GOT to do far, far better than your dismissive "parents should be severely punished" line!

Where's your THREAD about the thousands of kids killed by SHS every year? Where's your level of outrage about this, since it causes more than an order of magnitude more child/infant deaths every year than guns do?

"Silly?" Ruhhheeellly? Well, I guess it's now clear that the gun-killed kids are really just fodder for your non-fact-contemplating arguments, because you single guns out for special condemnation rather than going after the MANY other things that really ARE preventable, that are in NO way Constitutionally-protected, and that kill a LOT more kids every year than guns do.

Not exactly. The right to keep and bare them is protected. Doesn't say ANYTHING about waiting periods, computerized background checks linked to psychiatric/medical evaluations, limiting the number of guns one can purchase in a year, safe storage requirements, stiff penalties for straw purchasers or corrupt gun shops, high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, or unlimited firepower.

Correct. None of those things is explicitly mentioned in the Amendment that instead just sweeping says, "...shall not be infringed." Last I read my Websters, "infringed" would neatly capture all of the restrictions you listed.

By contrast, NO aspect of smoking or alcohol consumption (that's right, not one teensy little bit) is "mentioned" in the Constitution. So, by your logic, smoking and drinking should be ENTIRELY illegal. Not-mentioned = not-explicitly-allowed. And not-explicitly-allowed = should-not-be-allowed (since they are dangerous and all). So, buying a gun without a universal background check is "dangerous" and should not be allowed. By the same logic, buying a cigarette AT ALL is "dangerous," not even mentioned by the Constitution, and should not be allowed.

Or, perhaps something that COULD get through Congress, right? What we might get to fly are "clip sizes" for packs of cigarettes, since "the weapon" and "the ammo" are one and the same thing. Imagine this....

"I'd like a pack of Marlboroughs please."

"Certainly sir. We'll just need you to fill out this affidavit that you have no children in the house, and that will be run through the database for a few days, and we'll get back to you. Oh, and will you want the five-pack or the ten-pack? You know that twenties are illegal now. And it's hard to keep tens in stock, so let me know now how many you might be wanting."

"Oh, okay, in that case, sign me up for ten of the ten-packs please."

"Sorry, sir. No can do. There's a limit on the ten-packs. You can only purchase five ten-packs at any one time; and, of course, your total purchases are tracked, so don't try to initiate purchases at multiple stores. Would you like five of the ten-packs? I can run that through with your affidavit."

"Wow, uhh, well, in that case, let's get twenty of the five-packs in the works."

"Sorry sir. The five packs are limited to ten. There's really a fifty total limit, regardless of clip size. The feds are really trying to limit the sheer quantity of the ammo in circulation. And fifty at a time really should be sufficient for anybody that doesn't have nefarious purposes in mind. So, the only question is convenience, you know: how many packs you want to have to contain your fifty."

"Uhhhh....."

Surely you don't think "Arms" in the constitution means Howitzers or bazookas or nukes or the like. Surely there has to be a limit. Surely we can establish that limit, with some naturally thinking it is too soft and others thinking it is too hard.

Lol, and you are the one calling all arguments resisting infringement "silly." This straw man is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Don't conflate qualitative with quantitative differences.

The whole point of my post was PERSPECTIVE. The supposed driving motivation behind all this anti-gun sentiment is something like "protecting the innocent, particularly kids." The fact that you don't FEEL in danger around a smoker is lame on the face of it (and actually ignorant). Statistically speaking, you ARE in danger... far more danger than being around someone responsibly owning (and even carrying) a gun.

Look, people gonna die. People gonna kill other people. You might eliminate guns entirely and eliminate gun-deaths entirely, and it would be a tiny, TINY, in fact utterly insignificant "triumph." And meanwhile, the real killers would continue to cause far more death and mayhem than your "triumph" prevented. Personally I'd much rather be shot dead than die a slow, creeping, horrible death from lung cancer. INFANTS dying from this crap, and all because their parents insist on satisfying a STUPID, pointless, expensive, and filthy vice.

So if you REALLY want to stop the carnage, as you claim, then START by going after the things that are in NO way Constitutionally protected and that kill FAR more innocents (including kids) every year than guns do. Once I see some proportionate outrage about these vices that kill, I'll believe in your "protect the innocent" motivation. Meanwhile, it all just smacks of visceral, touchy-feely-based, knee-jerk reactionism.

Too much ink (bytes of storage), debate, and political machinations are expended on what is REALLY a nationally insignificant issue. Even a complete "win" by the anti-gun-nuts would accomplish virtually nothing to "stop the carnage" because they are barking up the wrong tree if they really want to stop (or even reduce) a significant amount of carnage. Perspective is right out the window in this debate. "Gun control" is literally not worth all the attention paid to it. No more bytes of storage should be spent on this subject by anybody. It's the ATTENTION paid that really is silly!

Sorry, I should not have gotten sucked in (again). Outty.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 1, 2013 - 10:59am PT
Well MadB,, you should have posted sooner! Well said really...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 1, 2013 - 10:59am PT
Where's your THREAD about the thousands of kids killed by SHS every year? Where's your level of outrage about this, since it causes more than an order of magnitude more child/infant deaths every year than guns do?

YOU are silly. NOBODY will EVER pull out a cigarette and immediately threaten my life or the life of anyone I am with. EVER. Comparing cigs to guns is absolutely 100% fuking silly.

I don't want to stop people from dying... in fact, it would be nice to see the population decline by several billion. I do want to stop people from being murdered. Big difference... consult your dictionary.

"Silly?" Ruhhheeellly?

Yep, 100% absolutely fuking silly.

Correct. None of those things is explicitly mentioned in the Amendment that instead just sweeping says, "...shall not be infringed." Last I read my Websters, "infringed" would neatly capture all of the restrictions you listed.

NONE of those things infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. They may make it slightly more inconvenient to PURCHASE them, but then... our founding fathers knew what they were doing and did NOT include the "right to purchase and acquire Arms" did they?

Statistically speaking, you ARE in danger... far more danger than being around someone responsibly owning (and even carrying) a gun.

In case you haven't noticed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States




blah blah blah blah blah... more loads of sh#t.

By your logic, why not just keep a pack of cigarettes by the nightstand to protect you from intruders? Just smoke them out.

I don't like cigarettes. If fact I hate them with a passion. I pounded on both my brother and my sister for smoking when they were younger. If you want to work for stricter legislation on cigarettes I will gladly join.

But comparing them to guns is absurd.
jghedge

climber
Apr 1, 2013 - 11:10am PT
"MANY other things that really ARE preventable, that are in NO way Constitutionally-protected, and that kill a LOT more kids every year than guns do."

Like what?

And yes, there are things that kill more people than guns do. But those things aren't used as murder weapons. More people are murdered by guns than by anything else. Homicide per capita in the US is 4.8 per 100,000. Take gun murders away, and it's 1.6.

"We're 1/3 of a BILLION people! A few thousand preventable gun deaths is literally nothing to get your panties in a bunch about."

Then neither was Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. After all, those were only 3,000 "preventable" deaths each.


Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 1, 2013 - 11:55am PT
Yesterday NEWS FLASH: approx 589,447,365 guns werent used in crimes nor shot anyone. STELLAR record gun owners of America.
Messages 4481 - 4500 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews