Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#477 Jan 23 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The overall homicide rate in Norway is .6, while it's 4.8 in the US. So in the US, 77% of all homicides are committed via firearm, while in Norway only 6.6% are. But put another way, the ratio of homicides committed with something other than a firearm is much higher in Norway than in the US, right? That strongly suggests that when guns aren't available, people still try to commit crimes (and murders). They just use other tools to do so.


Are you intentionally omitting the fact that simplicity plays a major factor? Ever heard of the saying "keeping the innocent innocent" (or something similar)? The more effort a person has to do to commit a crime, the less likely a person will commit a crime.
#478 Jan 23 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, not to pick on the obvious, but Gbaji was the nimrod who brought Norway into the equation by pointing out a single incident and drawing comparisons between Norway and the US. Now that that went tits up for him, he's saying "They're different countries! Stop comparing them!!" Smiley: laugh
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The overall homicide rate in Norway is .6, while it's 4.8 in the US. So in the US, 77% of all homicides are committed via firearm, while in Norway only 6.6% are. But put another way, the ratio of homicides committed with something other than a firearm is much higher in Norway than in the US, right? That strongly suggests that when guns aren't available, people still try to commit crimes (and murders). They just use other tools to do so.
Are you intentionally omitting the fact that simplicity plays a major factor? Ever heard of the saying "keeping the innocent innocent" (or something similar)? The more effort a person has to do to commit a crime, the less likely a person will commit a crime.

This is also ignoring the fact that, while folks have always tried to find ways to assist their fellow man in shuffling off his mortal coil, they are doing it much less frequently in Norway without firearms.

It's like saying people have always robbed banks. Sure, but if the police have Crown Victorias and the bank robbers have Appaloosas, the bank robbers are going to be a **** of a lot less successful even if they do still give it a go now and then (and even sometimes succeed).

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#479 Jan 23 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Why not allow someone the chance to intervene? Why not give those people the best chance possible of successfully intervening?


Time and time again that rambo thinking ends up getting the would-be hero either wounded or killed. We have pointed this out to you but you keep ignoring it.


Um... Because you're wrong? Do you have any source showing that armed civilians intervening in a shooting increases the number of fatalities? At all? Repeating a false assumption doesn't make it true.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 4:16pm by gbaji


You seriously want me to dig through the forum to pull up links that you have seen before and will just say "those don't count because they don't align with my views on the subject"?

It should also be noted that when the person who decided they wanted to be the hero dies they increase the number of fatalities in a shooting. I know counting is hard and all with someone that has such a tremendous intellect such as yours but on the bright side you can use your fingers for that.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#480 Jan 23 2013 at 8:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh, and just to get the ball rolling: You've yet to provide any proof of a civilian running half a mile to get a gun and preventing killings in a school.


Nothing I provide for you will be considered "proof" by you. I could link this article, if you want:

Quote:
Assistant Principal Joel Myrick heard the first shot and saw Woodham with a gun. Myrick had a .45 in his pickup truck parked a quarter-mile away, off school property. You see, federal law said he couldn’t bring that gun onto school property.


Or this article

Quote:
This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.


Or this article

Quote:
In the case of Pearl High School, the assistant principal Joel Myrick, hearing shots in the building, ran to his vehicle parked off of school property to fetch his pistol. (it was about 1/4 mile away because you can't have guns on school property).


Or this one. Admittedly, the same site, so whatever.

Quote:
Assistant Principal Joel Myrick ran a quarter of a mile to his vehicle and returned with his .45 pistol.


Or this article

Quote:
An assistant principal ran over a quarter of a mile to retrieve a gun from his car and then ran back.



Obviously, I have no idea if those writing the articles were just making this up, or repeating something they heard, or what. But I didn't invent this, and the need to have this happen certainly seems to be supported by the restrictions of the law itself. What more do you want?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#481 Jan 23 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Also, not to pick on the obvious, but Gbaji was the nimrod who brought Norway into the equation by pointing out a single incident and drawing comparisons between Norway and the US.


Um... The point of the comparison was simply to show that even a nation like Norway, with strict gun control and relatively little crime, can still suffer mass shootings. That was it. Any other comparison was made by you, not me.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#482 Jan 23 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... The point of the comparison was simply to show that even a nation like Norway, with strict gun control and relatively little crime, can still suffer mass shootings.

Which is meaningless without the context of how often it does so. So if you mean "I meant to say something completely meaningless" then congratulations, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#483 Jan 23 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
What more do you want?
I like that you cited the same story over and over again, but there's one massive problem. You said civilian. I asked for civilian. You gave me a US Army Reserves commander. What more do I want? I want you to read your own **** stories you cite as proof of what you claim. You said he saw it, when every story on the guy states he didn't act until he heard shots. You said it was a bolt action, when a little google search would show otherwise. You keep stating civilian when the guy CLEARLY isn't. What do I consider proof? "Things that can be proven," and you have yet to do so. I could also point out that it's basically speculation that he stopped Luke with the gun, since the story states Luke crashed the car when he saw Joel in front of him, but as usual I'll make it easy on you and just allow that little detail because, like I said, it's speculation and he could have just as easily freaked from the gun as he could have from the body itself. But you know, not really proof. *Edit* I also find it somewhat suspicious that all the searches I've done on the story from 1997 don't mention the distance Myrick ran, yet it suddenly comes up in 2000, and in 2004, and 2010, 2012. I mean, I don't see anywhere that says he didn't but you'd think in four pages of searching there'd be one mention of it the year it actually happened.

So, get to it. Find a story with a civilian that ran half a mile and stopped a shooting like you said there were cases of. Multiple. You'd think this would be easy.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 10:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#484 Jan 23 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
why would you need a civilian Lolgaxe? Everyone knows each school comes equipped with a retired Green Beret teaching Freshman English.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#485 Jan 23 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Oh yeah, I know he's going to quickly spin to "Okay, maybe it wasn't a civilian but that certainly doesn't mean the lunch lady on the first floor won't stop a genocide on the third floor with her ma duece," but it's the principle. He's been going on and ON AND ON about how a single civilian is more than enough. It's tiresome.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#486 Jan 24 2013 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... The point of the comparison was simply to show that even a nation like Norway, with strict gun control and relatively little crime, can still suffer mass shootings.

Which is meaningless without the context of how often it does so.


It's meaningful within the context of idiots shouting about how we must pass strict gun control in order to prevent mass shootings. Which was the exact context in which I made the comment. Since you've already acknowledged that strict gun control doesn't ensure a nation free of mass shootings, I'll consider my point made and won. Let's move on, ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#487 Jan 24 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
It's meaningful within the context of idiots shouting about how we must pass strict gun control in order to prevent mass shootings. Which was the exact context in which I made the comment. Since you've already acknowledged that strict gun control doesn't ensure a nation free of mass shootings, I'll consider my point made and won. Let's move on, ok?

Good point. Good thing all of the other laws we pass to create an ordered society all work perfectly. That law against murder we passed? Man, I'm glad we did that, now the murder rate is 0! Similarly, those laws against drunk driving, bam, no alcohol related car accidents. I just can't get over how STUPID people are thinking that stricter gun control might lead to there never, ever, again being a gun related death when you have clear evidence it's not the case! Those idiots!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#488 Jan 24 2013 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
No no no no no, Smash. What gbaji says is that if the secretary is allowed to carry her .17 that she'll for certain stop someone from killing everyone on the other side of the school. Sure, some of those kids are as good as dead, but sure as shootin' not all of them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#489 Jan 24 2013 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Well they would have all been saved if you'd just arm every faculty member. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#490 Jan 24 2013 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What more do you want?
I like that you cited the same story over and over again, but there's one massive problem.


In your head, perhaps. You asked me to provide sources that in this particular case, the assistant principle had to run a quarter mile to get to his gun. I provided multiple sources. Again. What more do you want?

Quote:
You said civilian. I asked for civilian. You gave me a US Army Reserves commander.


Now you're going to quibble over what is meant by civilian? As a member of the US Army Reserves, does this guy have any more legal right to carry a weapon in a school zone than any one else? No? Civilian in the context means anyone who is not an on duty law enforcement officer acting within his legal jurisdiction and therefore allowed to legally carry a firearm under the LEO exception in the statute in question.

We're talking about a change in the law. The law currently prohibits him from carrying a weapon while on campus. Whatever we want to call him, that's the relevant point. Way to miss the forest for one really stupid tree though.

Quote:
What more do I want? I want you to read your own **** stories you cite as proof of what you claim. You said he saw it, when every story on the guy states he didn't act until he heard shots.


WTF difference does that make? Really? That's what you're going to argue about? Who cares if he saw or heard the shooting start. At some point he became aware of a shooting, decided to intervene, but because his weapon had to be kept in his car 1000 feet off school grounds, he had to run "a quarter mile" to get to it, then run back, and then confront the shooter. You're arguing over irrelevant details. The important ones are that the law made it take longer for him to confront the shooter with his own weapon.

Quote:
You said it was a bolt action, when a little google search would show otherwise


Why does this matter for the point I'm making? WTF is wrong with you? You've lost the argument so you've chosen to try to make it about every **** thing except the actual point of contention. I don't recall any part of my argument hinging on what kind of weapon the shooter was using.

Quote:
You keep stating civilian when the guy CLEARLY isn't.


The law treats him as someone not authorized to carry a weapon in a school zone. When not on duty, he is a civilian. WTF? Did stupid just jump in your brain today?


Edited, Jan 24th 2013 12:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#491 Jan 24 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I just can't get over how STUPID people are thinking that stricter gun control might lead to there never, ever, again being a gun related death when you have clear evidence it's not the case! Those idiots!


And yet, several posters on this forum are supporting the actions proposed by those stupid idiots, aren't they? So it is kinda relevant to point out how stupid the core argument is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#492 Jan 24 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
In your head, perhaps. You asked me to provide sources that in this particular case, the assistant principle had to run a quarter mile to get to his gun.
lolgaxe wrote:
You've yet to provide any proof of a civilian running half a mile to get a gun and preventing killings in a school.
Or are you going to argue now that somehow I wrote what I didn't want and you just happen to know better? Go on.
gbaji wrote:
As a member of the US Army Reserves, does this guy have any more legal right to carry a weapon around than any one else? No?
No but he clearly has more training which I've been pointing out that you've been ignoring like the happy little shitstain that you are, but again cry and change your argument when it suits you. Like no one saw that coming. Smiley: laugh Better than manning up and saying you made a mistake, or even better finding actual proof. But then again, considering how often you tend to say:
gbaji wrote:
You're arguing over irrelevant details.
- every time a pesky "detail" completely annihilates your argument it really is no surprise at all. You can't just say "here's proof that what I'm saying is correct!" and then cry that the details don't match up and call those irrelevant..
gbaji wrote:
Who cares if he saw or heard the shooting start
You did when you brought it up as proof of your stance, and by your stance I mean the party line.
gbaji wrote:
Why does this matter for the point I'm making?
Again, an amusing massive error on your behalf that you stated as a fact to bolster your claims. You're falsifying information to "get your point across," and I'm simply correcting you time and again, and you're crying over it. It really is that simple.
gbaji wrote:
Did stupid just jump in your brain today?
Every time you post. Smiley: smile

So you're going to cry, or you going to get to it and find proof of what you claim?

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 3:21pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#493 Jan 24 2013 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
You said civilian. I asked for civilian. You gave me a US Army Reserves commander.


Now you're going to quibble over what is meant by civilian? As a member of the US Army Reserves, does this guy have any more legal right to carry a weapon in a school zone than any one else? No? Civilian in the context means anyone who is not an on duty law enforcement officer acting within his legal jurisdiction and therefore allowed to legally carry a firearm under the LEO exception in the statute in question.

We're talking about a change in the law. The law currently prohibits him from carrying a weapon while on campus. Whatever we want to call him, that's the relevant point. Way to miss the forest for one really stupid tree though.


I could see whole point carrying more weight if you could point to someone who didn't have police/military/etc training. I'm assuming you can here; and there's gotta be a better example. I mean, your average secretary (yes, I used that one for simplicity sake) doesn't receive firearms training from the government.

And beaten to it, but still too stubborn to delete my post... Smiley: glare

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 12:21pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#494 Jan 24 2013 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Since you've already acknowledged that strict gun control doesn't ensure a nation free of mass shootings, I'll consider my point made and won. Let's move on, ok?

Since you're frantic to stop talking about the success of nations with strict gun control, I'll consider your point made as well Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#495 Jan 24 2013 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
#496 Jan 24 2013 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I could see whole point carrying more weight if you could point to someone who didn't have police/military/etc training.


Why? Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training. They're excluded from carrying their weapons (while off duty) in these areas, just like anyone else. So why exclude them? Several people made snarky remarks about how a faculty member at a school isn't going to be qualified to deal with a shooter even if armed, complete with jokes about Rambo, yet now we discount the guy who was reserve army because... why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative?

Quote:
I'm assuming you can here; and there's gotta be a better example. I mean, your average secretary (yes, I used that one for simplicity sake) doesn't receive firearms training from the government.


Your average secretary isn't likely to have a concealed weapons permit. The law prevents those who do from being able to carry them in school zones, even those who are off duty police, and members of our military. It's a bit ridiculous to insist that allowing them to do so would just hand guns to untrained folks in our schools while simultaneously insisting that those who do have training somehow don't count when looking at cases where civilians have intervened in shootings. If we excluded everyone who has received any sort of training from the discussion, we're excluding a large portion of the very group we're talking about.

Quote:
And beaten to it, but still too stubborn to delete my post... Smiley: glare


Your post was far more to the point though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#497 Jan 24 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts


quote from article wrote:
“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” Mr. Jones told CBS Los Angeles. “The message we’re sending is …


Seems to have been done to project a militant image.

Well, that's great. We should all be able to live in a police state.
#498 Jan 24 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because it doesn't fit the narrative?
Because it is the complete opposite of what you claimed as fact.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#499 Jan 24 2013 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts


Depends on who the "officials" are who would have access to them in an emergency. If it's just a lock box that only police have the key to, then it's not going to have much effect. If select (but not publicized) people on campus have the key, then it will work.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#500 Jan 24 2013 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because it doesn't fit the narrative?
Because it is the complete opposite of what you claimed as fact.


When off duty a member of the military (and the police for that matter) is a civilian legally. Certainly, he's treated as such in the context of the gun free zones we're talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#501 Jan 24 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
When off duty a member of the military (and the police for that matter) is a civilian legally.
Wow, one statement wrong in two ways. You're only considered "civilian" off duty if you're E4 or below, and even if you want to try to suggest an E4 was commander his training doesn't disappear when he is off duty.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)