Liberal Forum

Skans » 26 Jan 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 11:45 am

@Huey , you're not going to concede to me that gun control "worked" in Australia and therefore gun confiscation saves lives, are you?  Come on, man, I'm not wearing a cup, kick me in the nut!!!

You still got people getting shot.  Just not with semi automatics. 

Huey » 26 Jan 2024, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 11:48 am

You still got people getting shot.  Just not with semi automatics.

Semi-autos with full capacity magazines are to deter those events from happening where the real mass shootings take place. Things like:

• The East St. Louis Massacre
• The Missouri Mormon War
• The Missouri Executive Order 44 calling for the extermination of all Mormons and the Haun's Mill Masacre
• Murders, looting and mayhem occurring from the BLM/George Floyd riots
• Forced internment of Japanese Citizens
• Columbine Mine Massacre - 1927 Where miners killed with machine guns by the Colorado Rangers and the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company during a coal mine strike.
• Rosewood Masacre - 1923 where The entire population of Blacks in Rosewood Florida, about 350, were forced from their homes and never returned
• Battle of Blair Mountain - Private army and US Troops slaughtered union organizers and workers - 1921.
• Ocoee Masacre - 56 Blacks of Ocoee, Florida were obliterated during the 1920 election. 
• Waco Seige - ATF and FBI slaughtered 86 people
• Ruby Ridge Masacre - Weaver family slaughtered by FBI agents
• Harry Bekwith Incident - Where Harry Bekwith used machine guns to stop an armed gang of gun thieves.
• The Hamas attack on Israeli citizens
• German murder of Jews and others all across Europe

These are the real mass killings.  The types of things that AR-15's and the like are in the hands of ordinary citizens to fight and prevent.  Because, we all know that you cannot rely on Government to protect us.  And, sometimes, they are the ones outright trying to slaughter us. 

Now, look at what is happening at the US Border - millions of criminals are flooding into our country.  The U.S. Government is not protecting us, but ASSISTING criminals to invade our nation.  So, putting up with some crazy committing one-off killings of a couple of people - I'll take that any day over the scenarios I referenced above.  THERE IS NO F-ING COMPARISON!!!
WANGO Z TANGO
MOTHER ****!!!  
 

The purpose of anti-gun legislation is mostly to prevent the spree killings such as Pulse nightclub in Orlando or Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas. The reason that these gun laws do not prevent these is simple... you can't honestly tell someone's mindset. Paddock was by all intents and purposes.. just a recluse. He had no overt political beliefs nor was he religious. There was zero indication that he was about to do this.

impartialobserver » 26 Jan 2024, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:20 pm

The purpose of anti-gun legislation is mostly to prevent the spree killings such as Pulse nightclub in Orlando or Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas. The reason that these gun laws do not prevent these is simple... you can't honestly tell someone's mindset. Paddock was by all intents and purposes.. just a recluse. He had no overt political beliefs nor was he religious. There was zero indication that he was about to do this.

Many of us have tried to make that point for years.  It wasn't until recently the media, and posters across various forums, stopped immediately implying it was a white guy who leaned right who did a particular shooting. 

And much of the legislation they come up with would do nothing to prevent some of these shootings.  The latest shooting was done by a guy with a shot gun and a hand gun.  And the left starts talking about "AR" style weapons bans.  

impartialobserver » 26 Jan 2024, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:20 pm

The purpose of anti-gun legislation is mostly to prevent the spree killings such as Pulse nightclub in Orlando or Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas. The reason that these gun laws do not prevent these is simple... you can't honestly tell someone's mindset. Paddock was by all intents and purposes.. just a recluse. He had no overt political beliefs nor was he religious. There was zero indication that he was about to do this.

Gun banners are reactionary, short sighted and at their core people who don't want you to have that which they are unwilling to have themselves.  This is really what gun bans come down to.  There is a segment of adults who hate guns, for whatever reason, and won't own one.  But, they don't stop there.  Their self-righteousness and indignation toward those who do have guns is the real problem.  It's not about killing sprees or social justice.  Its about YOU not being allowed to have something THEY don't have.
 

Skans » 26 Jan 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:36 pm

Gun banners are reactionary, short sighted and at their core people who don't want you to have that which they are unwilling to have themselves.  This is really what gun bans come down to.  There is a segment of adults who hate guns, for whatever reason, and won't own one.  But, they don't stop there.  Their self-righteousness and indignation toward those who do have guns is the real problem.  It's not about killing sprees or social justice.  Its about YOU not being allowed to have something THEY don't have.

I agree on the first part.. it is always a reaction to the next mass shooting. It is what we in the world of analysis call recency bias.. We place undue importance on the recent data and forget the bigger picture. Second, they focus on the most extreme of cases only. I do not own one but do not care in the least if you have 3, 31, or 4569 guns as long as you purchase them legally. However, been thinking that the time to own one might be in the near future. Neighborhood is very quiet and mundane but it is older and out in the suburbs and so a prime candidate for crime once the home values drop. 

impartialobserver » 26 Jan 2024, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:20 pm

Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas.

This guy is a real anomaly.  In fact, his profile could somewhat resemble your own.

• Atheist
• Postal worker (well, that could be the problem)
• Excellent math skills
• Worked for the IRS
• Auditor of Defense Contractors
• Corporate internal auditor (Lockheed Martin)
• Substantial real estate holdings
• Worth at least $2M
• Gambler, but rather successful at it
• Married/divorced a couple of times, but was living with a girlfriend.
• Methodical, could have some level of OCD, possibly depression
• Came from a lower-class family.  Father was a bank robber, but he didn't grow up knowing his father or what he did.

This was not just some off-the-cuff act.  He planned this event out in some detail.  So, there doesn't seem to be one event that caused him to want to randomly kill people.  What would cause him to plot and plan to do something like this?  I don't know.  No one knows.  It's hard to even speculate what it might have been.

Skans » 26 Jan 2024, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:48 pm

This guy is a real anomaly.  In fact, his profile could somewhat resemble your own.

• Atheist
• Postal worker (well, that could be the problem)
• Excellent math skills
• Worked for the IRS
• Auditor of Defense Contractors
• Corporate internal auditor (Lockheed Martin)
• Substantial real estate holdings
• Worth at least $2M
• Gambler, but rather successful at it
• Married/divorced a couple of times, but had a girlfriend.
• Methodical, could have some level of OCD, possibly depression
• Came from a lower-class family.  Father was a bank robber, but he didn't grow up knowing his father or what he did.

He had a house in Reno.. I drove by that house a dozen or so times. My wife had a coworker/friend that lived maybe 100 feet from him. They recalled talking to him on a few occasions. Mostly complaining about how the waste management company regularly failed to pick up the trash. 

impartialobserver » 26 Jan 2024, 1:52 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:52 pm

He had a house in Reno.. I drove by that house a dozen or so times. My wife had a coworker/friend that lived maybe 100 feet from him. They recalled talking to him on a few occasions. Mostly complaining about how the waste management company regularly failed to pick up the trash.

I meet and talk to a lot of people.  I am really good at quickly knowing when someone has a mental problem. Perhaps you are too.  No one picked up on a thing "dangerous" about this guy.  Not his family, girlfriend, or people he interacted with.   He was not a recluse. 

I mean, the waste management company routinely not picking up my trash would piss me off.  But, I'd do what he did - maybe talk to my neighbors and call up the company to complain.  Pretty normal, right?  It's not like he was pacing back and forth screaming for hours about his garbage problem.

You've got to wonder what he'd say if you had the chance to ask him "Why did you do it"?  I think the answer you'd get still would not be satisfying, probably something like "Seemed like a fun thing to do - you know, bucket list item that had to be checked off before I die".
 
 

Skans » 26 Jan 2024, 2:06 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 2:06 pm

I meet and talk to a lot of people.  I am really good at quickly knowing when someone has a mental problem. Perhaps you are too.  No one picked up on a thing "dangerous" about this guy.  Not his family, girlfriend, or people he interacted with.   He was not a recluse. 

I mean, the waste management company routinely not picking up my trash would piss me off.  But, I'd do what he did - maybe talk to my neighbors and call up the company to complain.  Pretty normal, right?  It's not like he was pacing back and forth screaming for hours about his garbage problem.

You've got to wonder what he'd say if you had the chance to ask him "Why did you do it"?  I think the answer you'd get still would not be satisfying, probably something like "Seemed like a fun thing to do - you know, bucket list item that had to be checked off before I die".

That was my point. He seemed ever so average. No overt political or religious beliefs. Their conversations about the waste management were not all that contentious or passionate. From what they told me, he was pretty lackadaisical about it. Shrug the shoulders and grumble about it but move on. 

I bring him up because no gun law would have prevented his carnage. There were zero red flags. Some will point out that he had started to lose when gambling. However, he had a similar dry spell about two years prior to this. 

impartialobserver » 26 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm

That was my point. He seemed ever so average. No overt political or religious beliefs. Their conversations about the waste management were not all that contentious or passionate. From what they told me, he was pretty lackadaisical about it. Shrug the shoulders and grumble about it but move on. 

I bring him up because no gun law would have prevented his carnage. There were zero red flags. Some will point out that he had started to lose when gambling. However, he had a similar dry spell about two years prior to this.

I don't myself understand the mindset of a gambler (or a mass murderer), but they don't tend to be "shoot 'em all up when I lose" type of people. 

I tend to agree, there is nothing that could have stopped this guy.   He found a soft target.   Soft targets are everywhere, and even more vulnerable to things that are "not guns".  Timothy McVeigh figured that out.
 
 

Skans » 25 Jan 2024, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 9:52 am

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  First, in your scenario it is not a given that the man with a knife would have killed the woman and/or her children.  Perhaps he was just looking for cash, jewelry or a TV to pawn and get his fix of Fentanyl.  In that case, the woman could have likely gotten rid of him easily by giving him some stuff or money and letting him go on his way.  Then, she could have called the cops, had the guy arrested.

But, even if the man did kill all 3 innocent lives, that doesn't compare to all of the lives that have been murdered in mass shootings.  If we made it far more difficult for people to get guns, then these mass shootings would hardly ever take place.  Look at countries like Australia that have done this - they no longer have mass shootings in their country.  It worked.
 
 

Come get my guns you criminal loving cocksucker.

Huey » 25 Jan 2024, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:37 am

Here is the scenario,

A woman is home with her three children.  The husband is at work.  An intruder attempts to kick in the front door and has a knife.  The women and children hide in the closet.  When the intruder fails to kick in the door he drives his car thru the dining room wall and then searches the house. He finds the family in the closet.  The woman shoots the guy in the arm and the family lives. 

The man is a convicted felon who is also out on bond for a gun charge.

In the world of the anti gunnuters left the women and three children are dead because the woman would not have had the firearm.

  Why does the attacker only get shot in the arm?
And only once?
My wife has been taught to make a mess of them.
 

Huey » 26 Jan 2024, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 11:48 am

You still got people getting shot.  Just not with semi automatics. 

Stop letting violent criminals go free.

Huey » 26 Jan 2024, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 10:20 am

You make me laugh.

I answered you yesterday.  Your turn.  Then we move on.  If your next post is not the either or answer I will go with what I posted as your answer and will move on.  If you want to discuss your survey which does not apply to the OP go start a thread.  But don't bother inviting me.  Once I say it was only CA data from CA professors I ignored it.

Once I say it was only CA data from CA professors I ignored it. 

Dumbest **** Alive,

It's not about California....it's about your innumeracy.

Huey » 25 Jan 2024, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:37 am

Here is the scenario,

A woman is home with her three children.  The husband is at work.  An intruder attempts to kick in the front door and has a knife.  The women and children hide in the closet.  When the intruder fails to kick in the door he drives his car thru the dining room wall and then searches the house. He finds the family in the closet.  The woman shoots the guy in the arm and the family lives. 

The man is a convicted felon who is also out on bond for a gun charge.

In the world of the anti gunnuters left the women and three children are dead because the woman would not have had the firearm.

That's retarded. Double barrel shotty pull both barrels. 

PhiloBeddo » 25 Jan 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 11:20 am

Shooting rioting *** would be as much fun as a Prairie Dog hunt.

  Too bad you're too feeble to operate a gun,tough guy.
 

murdock » 26 Jan 2024, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 6:41 pm

Come get my guns you criminal loving cocksucker.

Follow the thread, numbnuts, and pay attention!  I am an 2nd Amendment supporter who believes that all American Citizens should be able to own semi-autos, machine guns, magazines of any capacity, suppressors, pallets of ammo and whatever other gun related stuff they want to own without registration or special authorization.

HOWEVER, I know that the Leftists on this forum are incapable of debating gun topics, so I decided to take the gun-banner's side. I wanted to see where it would go.   
 
 

Squatchman » 26 Jan 2024, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 9:35 pm

  Why does the attacker only get shot in the arm?
And only once?
My wife has been taught to make a mess of them.

Apparently it was all she needed.

R.Suave » 26 Jan 2024, 10:04 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 10:04 pm

Dumbest **** Alive,

It's not about California....it's about your innumeracy.

You should read your own article.  It was only in CA.

We studied 18 million adults living in California.

That is from your article.