IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California
For you anti-gun goobs, eat this!

"Also monday at a press conference in Colorado Springs, pastor Brady Boyd of the New Life Church said the security guard who shot the gunman was purposely stationed in the lobby of the church after hearing about the earlier shooting.

When the shots were fired "she rushed toward the attacker and took him down in the hallway," he said.

The attacker never got more than 50 feet inside the building.

"She probably saved over 100 lives," Boyd said.

He described her as a highly trained volunteer member of the church with a law enforcement background whose role was to provide security.He said she was not wearing a uniform and is licensed to carry a gun."


And likewise, if there had been "guns allowed" in that mall in Omaha, or had there been any CCWs in the mall carrying at the time, who knows how many might have been saved..and who knows if that loser would have ended his life himself!

But yet some of you will still falsely think that "more guns on the streets and in public make things more dangerous."  To you I say "more ignorant and wreckless people on the streets and in public makes things more dangerous."
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6882|The Land of Scott Walker
She deserves a medal and represents perfectly how those who have CCWs function lawfully to protect lives.  There were thousands of people inside that church and she "took him down in the hallway".  She must be a damn good shot if the guy was wearing a vest as they describe.
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6968|The lunar module

IRONCHEF wrote:

But yet some of you will still falsely think that "more guns on the streets and in public make things more dangerous."  To you I say "more ignorant and wreckless people on the streets and in public makes things more dangerous."
Ugh... quite the social darwinist, aren't you?
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

apollo_fi wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

But yet some of you will still falsely think that "more guns on the streets and in public make things more dangerous."  To you I say "more ignorant and wreckless people on the streets and in public makes things more dangerous."
Ugh... quite the social darwinist, aren't you?
Am I wrong?  Or did I touch a nerve?
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6968|The lunar module

IRONCHEF wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

But yet some of you will still falsely think that "more guns on the streets and in public make things more dangerous."  To you I say "more ignorant and wreckless people on the streets and in public makes things more dangerous."
Ugh... quite the social darwinist, aren't you?
Am I wrong?  Or did I touch a nerve?
I just cannot see how arming the ignorant & reckless masses would help. Except in the darwinist sense, when they start demonstrating the ignorant and reckless behaviour while armed.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6882|The Land of Scott Walker
Your assumption is that those armed are ignorant and reckless.  Go interview those who hold a concealed carry permit, they are the picture of responsible citizens, just like the lady who took out the gunman.  She wasn't ignorant of how and when to use her weapon and she wasn't reckless either.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California
I think he confused my post thinking that both quotations were talking about the same people.  They weren't.

apollo, to clarify,
The anti-gun lobby falsely assumes that putting more guns on the streets (in the hands of legal conceal carry permit holders) contributes to the gun violence.  It is actually the opposite, and while I don't have the citations, there are plenty.

The ignorant and wreckless people I'm mentioning are the anti-gun lobby and they are dangerous to society because they seek to suppress legal gun ownership and therefore self-defense/protection while at the same time encouraging criminals to rob and kill with their illegally obtained and carried firearms.

edit: and to add a point made by stingray, those given conceal carry permits (like that church lady mentioned above), are for the most part some well trained, defense minded people who are quite careful about the use of lethal force.  I don't even have my CCW (california resident), but I've read Massad Ayoob (In the Greatest Extreme) and studied countless articles on the proper, lawful use of lethal force so as to be a wise and careful concealed weapon carrier some day...not the reckless, fight provoking cowboy some imagine CCW carriers can be.  Stingray was right in that CCW carriers are a higher standard of gun owners with one thing on their mind...protect themselves and loved ones - properly.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-12-10 10:33:36)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

IRONCHEF wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

But yet some of you will still falsely think that "more guns on the streets and in public make things more dangerous."  To you I say "more ignorant and wreckless people on the streets and in public makes things more dangerous."
Ugh... quite the social darwinist, aren't you?
Am I wrong?  Or did I touch a nerve?
School shooting in the US since 96:-
Bethel High School shooting - Bethel, Alaska, United States; February 19, 1997
Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
Parker Middle School Shooting - Edinboro, Pennsylvania; April 24, 1998
Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
Columbine High School massacre - near Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
Santana High School shooting - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
Granite Hills High School shooting - El Cajon, California; March 22, 2001
Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings - Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States; April 24, 2003
Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
Campbell County High School shooting - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
Pine Middle School shooting - Reno, Nevada, United States; March 14, 2006
Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
Delaware State University shooting - Dover, Delaware, United States; September 21, 2007
SuccessTech Academy shooting - Cleveland, Ohio, United States; October 10, 2007

Also other massacres
Wedgwood Baptist Church massacre
Wendy's massacre
Wichita Massacre
Wakefield massacre
Xerox murders
Lockheed Martin shooting
Living Church of God Massacre
Goleta Postal massacre
Capitol Hill massacre
Trolley Square shooting
Homecoming Massacre
Westroads Mall massacre
The end


All mass shootings in the UK since 96 (when guns were banned):




The end.

Compair and contrast the lots of guns vs. few guns situations.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California
Ya lost me.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ya lost me.
More guns -> more people who go crazy will have access to guns -> more massacres.
less guns -> less people with access to guns when they go nuts -> less massacres.
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6773|Oregon

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ya lost me.
XD
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6968|The lunar module
OK Ironchef, thanks for the clarification.

I do agree with the anti-gun lobby, though. Armed defense is something that's best left to professionals, IMO.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

PureFodder wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ya lost me.
More guns -> more people who go crazy will have access to guns -> more massacres.
less guns -> less people with access to guns when they go nuts -> less massacres.
As said above, that notion is exactly the opposite..when referring to legal gun ownership and legal conceal carry permit holders.  The crime statistics for legal gun carriers committing crimes with their guns is almost nothing.  You'd be hard up to find a specific instance even on the Brady forums.

However, as explained and illustrated above and in pretty much every citation you threw up, the less legal gun ownership and less legal gun carrying going on, the MORE the criminals kill and go unstopped. 

To name a few instances where criminal gunmen might have been stopped:

1) Columbine
2) Virginia Tech
3) Omaha mall shooting
etc, etc.

People really are heroic more than not.  If there were legally concealed weapons on ordinary citizens more often, not only would criminals think twice about slaughtering innocents, they'd meet with more disappointment as they engage their crowds of victims.  I wish I had the citation, but I recently read one at calguns.net where a teacher who leaves his gun in his car and parks off campus because there's no concealed carry on the campus where he works (he is an administrator on that campus) had a shootout.  he ran off campus, to his car, got his gun, ran back to campus and killed the gunman.  Done.  hero.   MORE GUNS = MORE PEACE.

For more examples, review the COLD WAR where two equally armed nations failed to attack each other despite the hatred between each other. 

Truly, God created men and Sam Colt made them equal.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6882|The Land of Scott Walker
Shall I take down the server, Purefodder, by posting thousands of examples where law abiding citizens defended their own lives or that of others with their legally owned weapons?  The end.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Truly, God created men and Sam Colt made them equal.
QFT

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-10 11:21:33)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

IRONCHEF wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ya lost me.
More guns -> more people who go crazy will have access to guns -> more massacres.
less guns -> less people with access to guns when they go nuts -> less massacres.
As said above, that notion is exactly the opposite..when referring to legal gun ownership and legal conceal carry permit holders.  The crime statistics for legal gun carriers committing crimes with their guns is almost nothing.  You'd be hard up to find a specific instance even on the Brady forums.

However, as explained and illustrated above and in pretty much every citation you threw up, the less legal gun ownership and less legal gun carrying going on, the MORE the criminals kill and go unstopped. 

To name a few instances where criminal gunmen might have been stopped:

1) Columbine
2) Virginia Tech
3) Omaha mall shooting
etc, etc.

People really are heroic more than not.  If there were legally concealed weapons on ordinary citizens more often, not only would criminals think twice about slaughtering innocents, they'd meet with more disappointment as they engage their crowds of victims.  I wish I had the citation, but I recently read one at calguns.net where a teacher who leaves his gun in his car and parks off campus because there's no concealed carry on the campus where he works (he is an administrator on that campus) had a shootout.  he ran off campus, to his car, got his gun, ran back to campus and killed the gunman.  Done.  hero.   MORE GUNS = MORE PEACE.

For more examples, review the COLD WAR where two equally armed nations failed to attack each other despite the hatred between each other. 

Truly, God created men and Sam Colt made them equal.
Yet if the person who was doing the massacre didn't have the gun in the first place, there would be no massacre to defend against.

Less people die that way.

Even the stats page (filled with some statistical evidence that would make a pharmaceuticals ad maker proud) quite clearly states that the vast majority of guns used by criminals to commit murder and other crimes were stolen off legal gun owners. No legal owners -> almost unbelievable drop in the number of weapons in the hands of criminals, it wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen as both the main supply and the main reason for illegal gun ownership disappears.

Simply put, legal gun owners are the cause of Americas high gun crime rates.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

PureFodder wrote:

Yet if the person who was doing the massacre didn't have the gun in the first place, there would be no massacre to defend against.

Less people die that way.

Even the stats page (filled with some statistical evidence that would make a pharmaceuticals ad maker proud) quite clearly states that the vast majority of guns used by criminals to commit murder and other crimes were stolen off legal gun owners. No legal owners -> almost unbelievable drop in the number of weapons in the hands of criminals, it wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen as both the main supply and the main reason for illegal gun ownership disappears.

Simply put, legal gun owners are the cause of Americas high gun crime rates.
Ok, I think you're straying away from the point.  Take the DC stats.  After handguns were called illegal in DC, WHAT IMMEDIATELY HAPPENED WITH THE ROBBERY RATE?  That should end the debate.

Did you even look through that gun facts page?

And no, legal gun owners are not the cause of our high gun crime rates...  Even if you were talking about legal gun owners being the "source" of the gun crimes via stolen weapons, you're still wrong.  That 70% of gun crimes that used stolen guns is not all from burglars stealing guns from legal gun owners, that stat includes illegal sales of firearms on the streets which is a huge share of that 70%.  But since we're talking about WHICH group of gun owners (legal vs. illegal) do the killing, it's an easy landslide of probably 99% to 1% that goes to the illegal gun owners.

When a school, mall, or convenience store is shot up and people are killed, it is the legal gun owner who is legally carrying his gun who stops the bad guys...way more than cops who come way after it's over.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723
Illegal sales of firearms on the streets, the gun being sold originally comes from...... a legal gun owner or a fraudulent firearms transaction that wouldn't be possible if there were no shops selling guns to the public in the first place. Legal gun owners are the reason that so many criminals in the US have guns, they provide both the supply and the reason for having one in the first place.

The DC stat is fairly pointless as there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from taking a firearm from outside DC into DC making the law fairly idiotic.

The one point I will agree on is that the current situation regarding guns in America is stupid. The fact that so many people have guns means the illegal gun market is completely saturated with weapons. Increasing the number of legally owned guns wouldn't make any real difference as the criminals already have more than ample supply. Once you already have all the negative issues regarding criminal gun ownership then restricting the legal owners ability to defend themselves from the problem they've created doesn't make much sense.

BUT. The anti-gun groups are even more correct in that if you largely remove the guns in the first place you don;t have the problem to defend yourself against in the first place. It's better not to have a massacre in the first place than to stop it halfway through.
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7146|Charlie One Alpha

PureFodder wrote:

Illegal sales of firearms on the streets, the gun being sold originally comes from...... a legal gun owner or a fraudulent firearms transaction that wouldn't be possible if there were no shops selling guns to the public in the first place. Legal gun owners are the reason that so many criminals in the US have guns, they provide both the supply and the reason for having one in the first place.

The DC stat is fairly pointless as there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from taking a firearm from outside DC into DC making the law fairly idiotic.

The one point I will agree on is that the current situation regarding guns in America is stupid. The fact that so many people have guns means the illegal gun market is completely saturated with weapons. Increasing the number of legally owned guns wouldn't make any real difference as the criminals already have more than ample supply. Once you already have all the negative issues regarding criminal gun ownership then restricting the legal owners ability to defend themselves from the problem they've created doesn't make much sense.

BUT. The anti-gun groups are even more correct in that if you largely remove the guns in the first place you don;t have the problem to defend yourself against in the first place. It's better not to have a massacre in the first place than to stop it halfway through.
What I've been trying to say for ever.  QFT.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6882|The Land of Scott Walker

PureFodder wrote:

The anti-gun groups are even more correct in that if you largely remove the guns in the first place you don;t have the problem to defend yourself against in the first place.
Guns are the only weapons in existence, eh?
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

Stingray24 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The anti-gun groups are even more correct in that if you largely remove the guns in the first place you don;t have the problem to defend yourself against in the first place.
Guns are the only weapons in existence, eh?
Nope, but unless you advocate letting people own nukes, anthrax and Sarin gas, then you'll agree that some weapons are so effective at killing people that it's a good idea to prevent people from owning them.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7081
what about nail guns?
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7058|London, England

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

what about nail guns?
Ban them. Use a hammer you lazy mofo's. That goes for guns for killing people too.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-12-10 15:31:09)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7209|PNW

djphetal wrote:

Mitch wrote:

djphetal wrote:

god, these things are happening with such frighteningly increasing frequency. It's obviously contagious... one misguided kid becomes the hero for another...
Yeah, but lets keep restricting guns as much as possible that way innocent people dont have a way to defend themselves in cases like this.

(not a direct bash to you idk your views but im looking at you anti-gunners)
then let me counter quite directly.
So what, we just give the churchgoers guns? And teachers? And fellow students? And shoppers?
And pilots, and cooks, and moviegoers...
There is absolutely no way to justify your point. If guns were completely unrestricted, I'd bet maybe one or two of the victims from these and the mall shootings would have been carrying, and I would guarantee that in the same time span, there would be far more people dead by gunshot than those who saved themselves.
If you think differently, you're freakishly ignorant.
Because we all know that it would turn into an orgy of wanton murder. It's far better to just let the killer get away with however long of a killing spree he wants before he shoots himself in the face.

Wanna bet how many people could die in a crowd vs a man with a sword?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-10 15:32:58)

Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6882|The Land of Scott Walker
Good point . . . pun intended.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard