Tragedy in Tucson: Could it have been stopped?

To answer the title's question. Yes, it could have been prevented. The kid showed a lot of markers of psychosis, considering the information given.

Mental health sevices are in an abysmal state compared to the science and research that supports it. For myself I'm still astounded that things like ECT are still in common practice. It's poorly funded, and many of the counselors & therapists are undereducated, especially on the public level.

On the other hand, just like our right-of-center friends will say, I don't want a 'nanny-state' poking around in my private life either.
But this kid was pretty well in the open about having some real cognitive issues..

The challenge is not separating us as a society from the person who did this deed," Miller said. "He's one of us; we have to look at ourselves."

Bull sh - it.

Here we go again with the leftist agenda, painting a mass murderer as a "victim" and pointing the blame at everyone else.

Give this bastard his "right" to a speedy trial, and bury his ass asap.

He didn't "allegedly" kill anyone. They have dozens of eye witnesses. He isn't "allegedly" a murderer, he IS a murderer.

I wish both the leftist media and FOX would quit with the ridiculous PR bs crap "allegedly" part.

"Alleged" is a word which is used when the truth of an accusation is in doubt. Here, there is no doubt that they have the right guy, and there is no doubt that 6 counts of first degree murder and 14 counts of attempted first degree murder were committed by the same individual.

further, there is no doubt that we have dozens of witnesses, including two men and a woman who wrestled the weapon away

""The challenge is not separating us as a society from the person who did this deed," Miller said. "He's one of us; we have to look at ourselves."

Speak for yourself Miller.

Just over a year ago a professor in Huntsville, AL shot and killed several colleagues.
She had killed her brother several years before, but the case was not pursued, until recently.
Certainly the shooting in Huntsville could have been prevented had the police in MA done their job.

The guy is a human being. A very screwed up and deplorable human being who has committed a heinous act and as such is not part of our society any longer. Dehumanization is unnecessary. Societal ejection is mandatory. Murder is not how our society should operate, on any level.

"It was as if he was a complete stranger in her life. It seemed like a dysfunctional family. We just accepted them as being odd,” said the classmate, who spoke to the Herald on condition of anonymity.

Amy Bishop, he said, “wasn’t mean because she wasn’t someone you could get close to. She wasn’t an attractive girl, she didn’t have friends. She didn’t work at having friends. I think people probably, over time, learned to leave her alone.”

The Bishop household, he said, “was anything but a home . . . It was just a really dreary, dark place where there wasn’t a lot of love.”"
http:/www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232943&format&page=1&listingType=Loc
Compare this with descriptions of the Laughner family in Tucson.

I'm not saying there isn't a parallel. There absolutely is. What the problem was in both cases is that no one ever engaged him and discovered that he was really screwed up. If their delusional insanity was discovered before either of them killed, there would be 8 more people alive today.

delusional insanity

That's what SH and others here say about all those who have faith in God.
How does SH define 'delusional insanity'?

That's what SH and others here say about all those who have faith in God.
How does SH define 'delusional insanity'?

Sorry, I don't share your beliefs in the unseen and as such, the thought that you believe you're talking to a metaphysical creator makes me think you are crazy. That doesn't mean I think all people who are crazy are dangerous. Some crazy people are quite nice.

The psychopaths, those who lack empathy, are the problem. Religion, in some ways, stops some of them from being monsters. Others simply hide within religion and inflict horror from a seat of false authority, like the Pedo Pope, or the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, the fact that religion can empower these people, and enforce their will upon my country, my ethics, my law, and my schools is unacceptable.

I simply seek to take the bullets out of a gun so the children can't get at it. There's no need for a gun ban. You can have all the religion you want. Just keep it to yourself.

That's what SH and others here say about all those who have faith in God.
How does SH define 'delusional insanity'?

The answer is that SH and others here would have "all those who have faith in God," killed or labelled as unfit, etc, which we have seen in the past, for example the guy who recently had the issue where they wouldn't give him the position because he stated that he believed in God. Of course, all the leftists here immediately wanted him kicked out, etc.

There's your answer. They would either kill believers, or put them in assylums, whilst they release murderers on "good behavior" and they themselves support the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies each year.

Prime example of a psychopath right there. Thanks for stopping by QC.

The left in this country are the true fricken monsters.

How can you live with yourselves, you baby murderers?

The very woman you sleep with is a murderer, no less guilty than Loughner.

YOU are the ones who are insane, abortionists and their "right to choose" supporters. Anyone has a right to choose except the baby, of course. Butchers.

Prime example of a psychopath right there. Thanks for stopping by QC.

Actually, you must not know the definition of a psychopath, because abortionists and those who have abortions meet it much more closely than anyone.

"Also called: sociopath a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts"

When have I committed any violent act?

I am simply outraged at the blatant MURDER committed by the leftists such as yourself, which you monsters have blatantly demonstrated time and again, publicly, even on this website, nevermind how insane the statistics are considering abortion.

You have no conscience.

YOU, SH, and the demoncrats and other leftists you support, are the ones who are without conscience or guilt for your murders and your support for other's murders, and then YOU want to label ME as a psychopath?

You really are insane.

You might want to get checked out.

You might want to get checked out.

hey, I call it like I see it. Read the dictionary definition of "psychopath" and "sociopath".

the murdering of a baby and feeling no remorse or guilt, or by extension the wilful support, enabling, or apathy toward such acts, would qualify one for being a psychopath.

Look in the mirror, demoncrats.

You know, calling someone a baby killer is pretty much out of line. Especially when you're using the term to dehumanize someone. That's not healthy QC. Don't go all Loughner on us.

You know, calling someone a baby killer is pretty much out of line. Especially when you're using the term to dehumanize someone. That's not healthy QC. Don't go all Loughner on us.

You're ridiculous SH.

You know damn good and well I have absolutely nothing in common with that lunatic.

On the flip side, anyone who supports abortion certain does, because they, like loughner, support the indescriminant destruction of innocent lives, the only truly innocents on this planet.

Hey, I'm not "dehumanizing" anyone. In fact, the worst part of this tragedy is that they ARE a human, and they have no reservation about being a baby killer.

If they were a lion, a shark, or a tiger or whatever, and they killed a baby then, as tragic as that is, they'd just be having lunch. MOreover, we typically put down animals such as dogs if they've killed a human.

But they aren't animals. They're a human being who murders their own child as a matter of convenience.

I simply seek to take the bullets out of a gun so the children can't get at it.

How does this apply to Laughner in Tucson?

Maybe if access to, and fascination with, guns wasn't so prevalent here, there might be fewer of these kinds of massacres and reduced body counts. Rarely do you hear about these types of events in countries like England or Australia, where gun control is more tightly regulated and a gun culture as such doesn't exist. The US is still the wild, wild west in this regard.

@Rygg

It doesn't. He was 22 (?) and appeared to have bought it legally.

Being from AZ originally myself, guns are a total part of the culture. I owned several rifles myself, and gotta admit that plinking out in the desert was a favorite pastime.

I was originally against background checks, my attitude has changed much since then. I'd hope to think though, that if somebody had stepped forward earlier on and this one had been diagnosed psychotic, it may have at least impeded him getting access. (he may have as well stolen one, so I won't say prevent)

SH stiill had a point though. And it's safe to say you'll never get the guns that are out on the street off of them. So better safety education seems the only real option..

Anyone determined enough to get a gun, will find a way. Sadly

Could this have been prevented? Sure, but we wouldn't like the cures.

Just ask yourself this question: Would he have done it if Timothy McVeigh were still alive and being tortured on a cable channel?

Would child molesters molest if we publicly cut off their equipment without anesthetics and cauterized it with a torch?

Would rapist murderers commit that crime if the last one that was caught was locked in a room with victims family members armed with baseball bats?

Sure this sounds horrible but it would stop a lot of these things from happening. Like it or not, crime is low in countries where they actually punish people like this. China routinely kills gang members, we should too.

I know many of you would disagree with this but ask yourself one question honestly. If that 9 year old little girl was your daughter and you knew she would still be alive if we punished criminals like this would you be against it? If she was mine, hand me the baseball bat.

Something I want to add to my previous up there. I don't own guns anymore and I never will.
Being that I'm transgender, I'm a bigger target for violence than any other time in my life. It'd be easy enough to justify owning one.

However, I've had the misfortune of getting to witness death by violence, three times. I was not involved, just a witness to it. I attempted to provide first aid to one of these, and had him die in my arms before the medics arrived. I saw the fear in his eyes, and I watched those eyes lose life and go cold. (more)

They are the most terrible visions in my memory, and they haunt me to this very day. I'm in tears right now.
Justified, or not, there's no way my concience could bear the thought of ever being responsible for that action. I couldn't live with it.

So risks or not, no violence. Ever

I am talking about people like this guy that there is absolutely no doubt about, not beyond reasonable doubt. Too many innocent people have been convicted by the beyond reasonable doubt test.

We have no idea what cruel and unusual punishment really is. Is it more cruel and unusual to punish people horribly or torture them? Or is it more cruel and unusual to do what we do now and allow more people to become victims of these crimes?

I think our whole legal system is cruel and unusual because it does not deter crime, it executes and incarcerates innocent people, it doesn't punish people who are known to be guilty enough to deter others, it hides punishment instead of making it public, it allows people who are sure to be repeat offenders loose, it lets people like this guy sit in courts and jails for years when there is no doubt whatsoever about his guilt, and I could go on for many more paragraphs. Our legal system is an abomination.

Rarely do you hear about these types of events in countries like England or Australia,

"Art students Letisha and her cousin Charlene Ellis, 18, were shot dead in a hail of bullets fired from a sub-machine gun outside a hair salon in Birchfield Road, Aston, a week ago.

Charlene, who died from a bullet wound to the head, was struck three times and Letisha four times by bullets fired from a 9mm weapon.

Read more: http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154519/Second-New-Year-shooting-inquest-opens.html#ixzz1AmixzuqP
"
UK has a total ban on all legal firearm ownership.

In Australia,
"But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.

Read more: http:/www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz1AmjY3rXK

ryggesogn2, reading comprehension - I said rarely, not that it has never happened. There, the entire society has a different outlook on guns and probably 90% and more of the urban population have never seen a real gun except on TV and movies. Hell, most English police officers don't even carry guns.

We have no idea what cruel and unusual punishment really is. Is it more cruel and unusual to punish people horribly or torture them? Or is it more cruel and unusual to do what we do now and allow more people to become victims of these crimes?

...Our legal system is an abomination

Couldn't agree more.

Our criminal "justice" system is a sick, twisted joke.

The police and government do very little in the realm of "crime prevention," and mainly just clean up the mess after something like this happens.

Of course, when they try to prevent things like this, they are subsequently sued for "violating" someone's rights.

The Bill of Rights was intended to prevent corrupt government organisations from stealing your property and abusing citizens the way the British occupation did before and during the revolution. It was not intended to handcuff the government so that they can't even enforce the law, or protect honest citizens.

I'm going to divert from the religeous muck throwing and the question of the availability of weapons and address insanity in the US. I lived across the street from a woman in Boulder City Nevada who was certified insane and court mandeated to take her drugs. She was known to be violent. Her Daughter filed lawsuit after lawsuit to have her incarcerated. The insane woman lived in a house lined with tin foil (very typical). According to the police there was nothing they could do. She did try to run down a neighbor's son and, after going to court they still could not take her driver's license away. Her daughter finally solved that one by taking a hammer to the engine and puncturing all of the tires. The woman didn't stop there though. She then threw bricks at people walking by. She was let go because she was known to be insane. I moved and never did find out what the end of the story was but she was terifying and I don't think she could have been stopped from buying a gun.

Continued: There should be some sensible way for relatives or the justice system to protect us and others from the insane behavior of violently insane. As far as I know there is no way to do that. I have no idea how many people just run someone down or smash the face of someone with a brick just because they cannot be forced to take their medicine and reside in a safe place. Each of the truely certifible people we have seen in these high profile cases are able to drive vehicles, decline to take their meds (which many do), are allowed to purchase guns, and are allowed to assualt people and are then set back on the street. Without some mechanism for protecting people from mental health issues that can affect many we are forgoing the responsiblity of protection for the population.

How do we strike a sane balance on the issue of potentially treatable insanity? Or even non-treatable? The government owes us an answer.

I couldn't agree more.

I moved and never did find out what the end of the story was but she was terifying and I don't think she could have been stopped from buying a gun.

As soon as she was certified insane or committed a felony she'd be on the ATF no-buy list.

The problem is the people who never cause any trouble and use guns for their first offense. I have very little issue with the current gun control system in the US. I think they should take the regulatory power away from the states and follow the constitutional clauses explicitly overseen by the ATF. Technically, the ATF has the right to request a mental screening before you gain access to purchase. I think that is a good way to go.

ryggesogn2, reading comprehension - I said rarely, not that it has never happened. There, the entire society has a different outlook on guns and probably 90% and more of the urban population have never seen a real gun except on TV and movies. Hell, most English police officers don't even carry guns.

Nuts shooting people in public like this is rare in the USA, too. Millions of people are carrying concealed weapons and DO NOT use those weapons in an offensive manner.
As a matter of fact, at least one bystander at the Tucson Safeway admits to legally carrying a concealed weapon in his jacket, and was prepared to use it defense of others.
Loughner expected to be shot committing the act.

Looks like the common denominator between Loughner and Amy Bishop was an un-loving family. The new pre-crime unit will soon demand people rat out their friends who have a 'cold' family environment.

I found myself agreeing with you until your last line. You had to go get all tin foily.

The police and government do very little in the realm of "crime prevention," and mainly just clean up the mess after something like this happens.

The US Supreme Court has ruled police are NOT required to prevent a crime.
Their only legal obligation is to prosecute the perpetrators after a crime has been committed.
That is NOT how the US regulatory system works. They make up thousands of rules a tremendous expense, yet people like Madoff steal millions.

They are the most terrible visions in my memory, and they haunt me to this very day. I'm in tears right now.
Justified, or not, there's no way my concience could bear the thought of ever being responsible for that action. I couldn't live with it.

So risks or not, no violence. Ever

That's fine and I respect your decision.

Allow others to make theirs.

I'll make a descision. not only do guns cause crimes they are also a protection device. That is what they were first designed to do! people like that guy in the article turned around their use to one of commiting crimes.

Also i have a question is the congresswoman dead or not. I know that the judge is but is the congresswoman?

I'll make a descision. not only do guns cause crimes they are also a protection device.

Guns don't cause crimes. Guns make potential criminals more dangerous, not greater criminals.

We are a country that is heavily armed. We're the most armed country in the world by miles. Next most is Yemen. I don't think the problem is the availability of weapons, I think it's a societal problem. A secure and happy society will put down their guns. Americans have a major insecurity problem because of our sensationalized fear based press. They don't deliver facts, they deliver horrific murder stories and tales of kidnappings and scare the shit out of people. So naturally you'll try to empower yourself to protect what you love and buy guns if you're ignorant of what guns really are. Guns aren't power. They're a killing tool by design. Gun accidents happen because people don't recognize that first. People should be able to have them, but they should be educated about them first.

Americans have a major insecurity problem because of our sensationalized fear based press.

It is not the press. The insecurity problem is caused by the failure of govt to perform a primary role, security.
Rank and file police support and defend citizens rights to keep and bear arms because they know they can't be everywhere.
In AZ, a rancher was murdered on his property by Mexicans. The judge that was killed Sat. wanted to discuss border security with the Congressman.
When govt fails, citizens must fend for themselves.
The socialist state of VT has no state gun laws.
"God created men equal, Col. Colt made them equal..."

When govt fails, citizens must fend for themselves.

How many Mexican cartel agents and immigrants are you going to have to shoot in Chelmsford MA? How about in Washington state? You're a prime example of what the fear institutional press does to people. You immediately fear for your security when you hear of a story in the news that used to happen more often than it does now but you never heard about it, and you go out to walmart and arm yourself to the teeth like you're going to John Wayne a Mexican cartel agent in your drive way.

Truth is, you'd probably piss your pants and run, just like any other sane person would do. There's nothing wrong with a little fear, just don't let it entertain and overwhelm you so easily.

There's nothing wrong with a little fear,

Especially when it is the govt that is feared. It makes the sheeple teaser to manage.
That is the other reason for the 2nd amendment.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Jefferson

Especially when it is the govt that is feared. It makes the sheeple teaser to manage.

Bull. Government always fears the people. There is no monopoly on violence unless the people are broken in spirit. I'm not broken, are you?

That's fine and I respect your decision.

Allow others to make theirs.

Absolutely, MM.
Just because I feel that way, doesn't mean at all that there aren't boatloads of nutjobs out there, that have no issue at all with killing somebody for their own gain-satisfaction..

And I'd dare say that I take some kind of comfort knowing that there are 'good guys' out there that can deal with the experience, if it came to that.
Not like weapons will just suddenly vanish from public access, so I'm not niave..

The point really was, there is cosequence, there is weight to the aftermath of violence. I'm sure just ask anybody coming home from Iraq-Afghanistan that. But people get so desensitized with 'TV' portrails of what death and killing are like. It's a lot more real, and a lot harder to swallow than most think.

My choices over it are simply my own. Hopefully I become a better person for it..

Government always fears the people.

Not the present regime. They pass laws and regulations the people don't want and fail to enforce laws the people do want enforced.
Where is the fear? All I see is their contempt. I do see the current regime fears tea parties, a former AK governor, and a few people on the radio.

I have very little issue with the current gun control system in the US.

So you don't have issue with Arizona's gun laws:

* No permits required for weapons, concealed or otherwise.
* No restrictions on sales of large clips of ammo.
* Decision pending to allow guns on college campuses.

That's just insane.

Nuts shooting people in public like this is rare in the USA, too.

The number of times I hear about another school related masseacre in the US compared to other liberal democracies is a hundred to one - ok, perhaps slightly exagurated, but they do occur with alarming frequency.

Millions of people are carrying concealed weapons and DO NOT use those weapons in an offensive manner.

And that's the problem. Millions of ordinary citizens living in a liberal democracy should not be carrying arms, period.

Let me get this straight. A website puts bulls-eyes on candidates' names and uses the word "reload" in talking about removing them from office. A candidate's office is attacked and she expresses fear, then is shot. It's reasonable to wonder whether there's a connection, and whether the makers of the website have acted in a moral, responsible way. Whether the site and the attack are directly connected is not the issue: another person might misinterpret the "metaphor". Palin's strategy does not require an attack to be questionable. What's alarming is that her supporters immediately went into red-alert defensive mode, denying a connection - although the issue is still open. The gunman didn't know the candidate personally; he was responding to her as a symbol of something, just as the website portrays her as a symbol of something. Anyone who doesn't think this website and its strategy were despicable - yes, the offensive graphic has been taken down, why? - is clearly deeply confused.

I have very little issue with the current gun control system in the US.

So you don't have issue with Arizona's gun laws:

* No permits required for weapons, concealed or otherwise.
* No restrictions on sales of large clips of ammo.
* Decision pending to allow guns on college campuses.

That's just insane.

That's also contrary to where I said the Federal law should be invoked and not the individual State's laws.

Government always fears the people... I'm not broken, are you?

Not the present regime.

So you're saying you are broken.

Not the present regime. They pass laws and regulations the people don't want

They pass laws you and your friends don't want. You're a republican and likely hang around with republicans (given your distaste for liberals/progressives/etc.). You mainly watch Fox for your news coverage which is biased towards your side (not saying liberal media doesn't also have a liberal bias, but Fox most definitely has a conservative bias as well).

I'm not saying it’s stupid to disagree with the laws. No one ever has to agree with everything (free country). I'm saying that you likely hang out with like-minded people, so it must seem like EVERYONE hates these laws.

You see a square marjon, but the world is a cube.

(Please don't quotemine a democrat or group of democrats against a specific Obama law. There are people on both parties that agree with the opposing party and disagree with theirs. I actually prefer that because it shows that people are actually pondering the issues rather than towing the party line).

I'm not saying it’s stupid to disagree with the laws. No one ever has to agree with everything

That's why a Constitution is so important and why that Constitution needs to be interpreted in a manner in which it was intended.
An amendment process is available to keep the document current.

And that's the problem. Millions of ordinary citizens living in a liberal democracy should not be carrying arms, period.

Why not? It would be a very safe place.
Millions of ordinary citizens are armed every day in the USA and do walk up to people they disagree with and shoot them.
As I said earlier, an ARMED bystander was prepared to take out the shooter, but when the threat was neutralized, he took his hand OFF of the weapon in his jacket.

Why not? It would be a very safe place.

The statistics say otherwise.

Millions of ordinary citizens are armed every day in the USA and do walk up to people they disagree with and shoot them.

Agreed, but not everyone is civil.

As I said earlier, an ARMED bystander was prepared to take out the shooter

But he didn't. The police handled the situation, as they should. Beyond that, the presence of an armed civilian did nothing to prevent the problem, did it?

Soulman and others like him can't understand how anyone could walk around a campus or a city street with a firearm and not use it force others to do his bidding.
That says suggests Soulman and others can't understand how or why people control themselves and don't want to use force to control others.

But he didn't. The police handled the situation, as they should.

Did the police initially subdue the suspect or bystanders?

Soulman and others like him can't understand how anyone could walk around a campus or a city street with a firearm and not use it force others to do his bidding.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying. To me he's saying that the potential ability to enforce your will on others via use of guns is not worth the risk of having guns available to the populace.

That says suggests Soulman and others can't understand how or why people control themselves and don't want to use force to control others.

No, it's showing that they don't want to be subject to the use of force from others.

No, it's showing that they don't want to be subject to the use of force from others.

Depending upon where one lives in the USA, you may be surrounded by civilians carrying concealed weapons and they are NOT forcing anyone to do anything.
Or, maybe, soulman, like SH, prefers to be controlled by the state?

Soulman and others like him can't understand how anyone could walk around a campus or a city street with a firearm and not use it force others to do his bidding.
That says suggests Soulman and others can't understand how or why people control themselves and don't want to use force to control others.

It's more fear I'd think.

Hypothetical: everyone has guns. I can have a gun and you can have a gun. We pass each other on the street and we're the only ones on the street. You turn around and shoot me in the back. My having a gun did nothing to prevent you shooting me.

Living in the kind of world where you know everyone around you has the potential to kill you at pretty much any time if they wanted to is terrifying to a lot of people.

Living in the kind of world where you know everyone around you has the potential to kill you at pretty much any time if they wanted to is terrifying to a lot of people.

The only difference is they are afraid of that abstract terror and ignore the reality of the world, where anyone does have the potential to kill you, guns or no guns.

Again it's the illusion of security. Some people feel more secure with a gun ban. Some people feel more secure carrying a gun. Some people don't care about either because they already have an expectation of relative security regardless of the status of gun availability because criminals will be criminals, and there's nothing you can do about it. If someone wants to kill you and can, they'll kill you whether you or they have a gun.

So the logical goal is to simply encourage people to stop killing each other.

It's funny when you look at some of the more radical ends of the spectrum in regards to weapons.

Look at Marjon for example. It's very obvious that he's afraid of a lot of things, especially people he doesn't know. He needs a gun to feel secure. Now many people would say that's a problem, and it is, but not necessarily a problem that he has a gun if he isn't violent and is educated in the safe use and purpose of firearms. I don't fear people I don't know, and I don't feel the need to carry a gun. I also know that carrying a gun increases my chances of getting shot and killed as opposed to not carrying a gun, so I actually feel more secure when I don't have one. That doesn't mean I never carry a gun, or that I think no one should. If everyone was educated about violence and what actually comes of it, I think there'd be less of it overall.

I had to get a MA Class A permit just to carry my pistols to the local range.
I traded them in for an over-under to shoot skeet.
In high school most country kids had a .22 or shotgun, if pheasant season, in the car with them to hunt gophers on the way home.
It's not the weapon, its the individual.
SH and others here demonstrate once again their animosity towards individuals in favor of a collective.

You turn around and shoot me in the back. My having a gun did nothing to prevent you shooting me.

If he missed, you still have time to shoot back. Is that risk he his willing to take?
He could also stab you, or run you over with his car or .....

Living in the kind of world where you know everyone around you has the potential to kill you at pretty much any time if they wanted to is terrifying to a lot of people.

We live in that world everyday. People can kill you with their cars, set your house on fire, .....

I had to get a MA Class A permit just to carry my pistols to the local range.

Well that's a lie. Pistols only require a class B for target use only. You only need a class A to carry high capacity concealed handguns in MA. That's a blatant lie from you.

I traded them in for an over-under to shoot skeet.

Which requires a rifle permit. The exact same FDIC card you have.

In high school most country kids had a .22 or shotgun, if pheasant season, in the car with them to hunt gophers on the way home.

People still do that around here. Drive route 3.

It's not the weapon, its the individual.

Again, I still agree.

SH and others here demonstrate once again their animosity towards individuals in favor of a collective.

And so it is with Marjon, no facts, all noise simply because he doesn't like someone.

"A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes;"
"“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition"
A Glock 19 needs a class A.
I did not identify the pistols I owned.

Soulman and others like him can't understand how anyone could walk around a campus or a city street with a firearm and not use it force others to do his bidding.

No, what I can't understand is why the general population needs to be armed at all. Do we live in a military state, perpetually under Martial law?

That says suggests Soulman and others can't understand how or why people control themselves and don't want to use force to control others.

Why even be in the position where you need to keep control? Guns can be very seductive and empowering, making them all that much easier to use if someone pisses you off or even if you're just 'playing around'.

I've lived overseas for a fair few years and know how others feel about Ameircans and their perceived love of guns. They simply don't understand it, and I can't blame them.

I've lived overseas for a fair few years and know how others feel about Ameircans and their perceived love of guns. They simply don't understand it, and I can't blame them.

Those who are polite say so. The more directly speaking people call it societal immaturity.

A Glock 19 needs a class A.
I did not identify the pistols I owned.

A glock 19 sold in MA post 1990 comes with an optional 7 round magazine instead of the 12 or 16 round magazine that's standard. Unless you're using higher capacity, you only needed a class B, and for transport you don't need anything other than a class B if the weapon is secured outside of the range.

Enjoy that bit of fact. Too bad for you, there are other MA residents online, and we know the gun laws too. You went for a class A so you would have as little restriction as possible on what you could carry.

Truth is you'll never use a gun in public, or to hunt. You're jsut a gun nut, unlike the majority of actual gun owners.

If he missed, you still have time to shoot back. Is that risk he his willing to take?
He could also stab you, or run you over with his car or .....

It was a hypothetical situation to try to explain some peoples' fears... I even started the post with "Hypothetical:".

Speaking generally, people would have the same types of fears I'd imagine if everyone was carrying a knife.

People don't have those kinds of fears about cars because cars were not designed to be a weapon. It's the same reason people don't fear pens, but you could still easily stab someone with one.

Fear is based on how people interpret danger around them. To many, guns are perceived as dangerous and, thus, they are afraid of them.

To many, guns are perceived as dangerous and, thus, they are afraid of them.

Then stop trying to ban firearms. Train everyone how to handle a weapon safely at an early age.
Take people out to a range. Have them shot a melon with a hollow point.

You went for a class A so you would have as little restriction as possible on what you could carry.

Duh! After going through the hassle, why wouldn't anyone get the license to carry what is legal in VT or AZ or...?

Truth is you'll never use a gun in public, or to hunt.

I have hunted, many times. We had a real sweet, beat up .22 bolt action that was great for gophers. My first pheasant was with an old single shot .20 gauge. My first deer was from a tree stand with a .30-06. I qualified expert with a .45.
I kick myself for trading in my 3 screw Ruger .44 magnum Blackhawk. The .44 magnum Rossi lever action was fun to shoot.

I've lived overseas for a fair few years and know how others feel about Ameircans and their perceived love of guns. They simply don't understand it, and I can't blame them.

Those who are polite say so. The more directly speaking people call it societal immaturity.

They are jealous.
There is a very popular gun shop in Las Vegas where anyone, including Brits and Japanese can pay to shoot automatic weapons: AK-47, tommy guns, M-16, Uzi.... http:/www.thegunstorelasvegas.com/

No, what I can't understand is why the general population needs to be armed at all. Do we live in a military state, perpetually under Martial law?

Its because we do NOT what to live under martial law that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
Statists fear this as that is a major limitation to their implementation of state power.

Then stop trying to ban firearms

When did I personally try to do that? Stop asking me not to do things I'm not doing. I only gave a hypothetical as to why I believe fear of people in public having guns exists.

Guns can be very seductive and empowering, making them all that much easier to use if someone pisses you off

Not for responsible, mature people who practice self-restraint.

Why do you trust police to be armed? Especially after seeing how emotional they get after a high speed chase. Rodney King was beaten and others as well.

Then stop trying to ban firearms

When did I personally try to do that? Stop asking me not to do things I'm not doing. I only gave a hypothetical as to why I believe fear of people in public having guns exists.

You make the same, weak arguments as those who do want to ban firearms.

They are jealous.

Oh, absolutely! Yup, that's it - brilliant deducing there. What they are is incredulous.

Its because we do NOT what to live under martial law that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That's like f*cking for virginity! The parallels to the wild west are apt. Other societies have moved on.

Statists fear this as that is a major limitation to their implementation of state power.

Another whackjob comment. Honestly, how can you keep doling out this tripe?

You make the same, weak arguments as those who do want to ban firearms.

I'm attempting to explain the mindset of the fearful, so yeah, it makes sense that my hypothetical situation their arguments are similar.

You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that different people think in different ways. To you, it seems, understanding a position must equate to supporting that position. Any arguments that you don't support or understand are weak, regardless of reasoning.

Another whackjob comment. Honestly, how can you keep doling out this tripe?

History has demonstrated the first act of a tyrannical govt is to confiscate the weapons of a its 'citizens' so they can't fight back.

different people think in different ways

Sure they do. One of those ways is " there ought to be a law..." and some politician obliges and cities start banning firearms in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Is not the 'liberal' mindset to educate so people wont' fear? Then why won't the 'liberals' support firearms training and education in public schools?

History has demonstrated the first act of a tyrannical govt is to confiscate the weapons of a its 'citizens' so they can't fight back.

No, history has demonstrated that the first act of a tyrannical government is to remove the checks and balances that limit the power of singular leadership. Weapons are usually banned later so that those who would take up arms against such a government are easily identifiable. It turns owning weaponry into a capital offense. The US, by design, cannot succumb to this process easily.

Sure they do. One of those ways is " there ought to be a law..." and some politician obliges and cities start banning firearms in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Which is why I said the US is setup so that this cannot occur.

Is not the 'liberal' mindset to educate so people wont' fear? Then why won't the 'liberals' support firearms training and education in public schools?

Perhaps you should actually talk to some of them. I support it.

Is not the 'liberal' mindset to educate so people wont' fear? Then why won't the 'liberals' support firearms training and education in public schools?

I would say the liberal mindset would be to educate, not to educate so people won't fear (i.e. with an agenda).

Is not the 'liberal' mindset to educate so people wont' fear? Then why won't the 'liberals' support firearms training and education in public schools?

I would say the liberal mindset would be to educate, not to educate so people won't fear (i.e. with an agenda).

I would say that, like modern journalism, modern education (liberal or conservative) ALWAYS has a agenda. It's a ****ing mess...

I would say that, like modern journalism, modern education (liberal or conservative) ALWAYS has a agenda. It's a ****ing mess...

Well I agree that it's a mess, but I don't think education is as political on the whole as most people would have one believe.

We hear about the isolated incidents of distict X trying to institution creationism or ID, then we hear about district Y that has banned sex ed, then we heard about district Z that has very liberal sex ed and a LGBT club at the school and the result is, all the kids from all three districts come out just completely stupid.

We need to stop encouraging forced memorization and basic computational skills and progress into a school system where we teach children to think for themselves, like we used to have.

Ever wonder why we don't teach physics as the first science class as opposed to the last in highschool? Or how about why don't we teach calculus until after trig and geometry. Trig and geometry are far harder than calc

Basically we have the whole thing backwards. Many think kids are dumb or incapable of grasping concepts. Well, the evidence says the exact opposite. Kids are smarter than we are, they just don't know anything practical, or "in the real world". So let's teach them the concepts and make them apply them. Don't apply them for them and stifle the creativity of another generation.

The smartest men and women among us seem to all have one commonality...

Someone in their life encouraged them to ask questions and find the answers for themselves. Perhaps we need to inject this idealism back into the mainstream.

Which is why I said the US is setup so that this cannot occur.

Firearms were banned in many cities for quite some time. So it DID occur and cities like Chicago are still trying to do so.

Schools are considered gun free zones so how could they have firearms training on campus?

Firearms were banned in many cities for quite some time. So it DID occur and cities like Chicago are still trying to do so.

And it is overturned in court every time. Secondly, do you really think the citizens of Chicago are trying to revolt against Chicago? Why? Otherwise, bringing this up was rather ignorant of you and not supportive of your concept of the right to bear arms.

Schools are considered gun free zones so how could they have firearms training on campus?

They are drug free zones as well and that doesn't stop the DARE officer from having a trained dog show off his drug sniffing skills with real product.

Those who are polite say so. The more directly speaking people call it societal immaturity.

Let me just speak for all of america when I say, WHO CARES what the rest of the world thinks? If you actually lived here you might feel different.

why the general population needs to be armed at all. Do we live in a military state, perpetually under Martial law?

Isnt one of those strawman arguments? 'The only reason to own guns is if youre a fascist etc.'

If you consider the various scenarios involved in defending yourself in your home or place of business, the ONLY relatively secure way of doing so, whether an intruder is armed or not, is with a handgun. If you see any potential at all for you to be a victim, then you might want to consider getting a gun and learning how to use it.

Criminals need to know that crime is an extremely dangerous affair, and the best way for them to understand this is if they know they can expect to face a gun if they try it.

And it is overturned in court every time.

The DC gun ban was in effect for YEARS and was recently overturned.
'Every time'?
Only recently the SCOTUS affirmed the the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.

And it is overturned in court every time.

The DC gun ban went into effect in 1976.

Secondly, do you really think the citizens of Chicago are trying to revolt against Chicago?

'in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward."
http:/www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/2/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/

So, yes, the people of Chicago ARE in revolt against the Daley's inadequate police force.

So, yes, the people of Chicago ARE in revolt against the Daley's inadequate police force.

Not the question I asked.

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to make up more bullshit?

So, yes, the people of Chicago ARE in revolt against the Daley's inadequate police force.

Not the question I asked.

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to make up more bullshit?

Chicago IS the Daley dynasty.

Firearms were banned in many cities for quite some time. So it DID occur and cities like Chicago are still trying to do so.

And it is overturned in court every time. Secondly, do you really think the citizens of Chicago are trying to revolt against Chicago? Why? Otherwise, bringing this up was rather ignorant of you and not supportive of your concept of the right to bear arms.

So, yes, the people of Chicago ARE in revolt against the Daley's inadequate police force.

Not the question I asked.

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to make up more bullshit?

Chicago IS the Daley dynasty.

So BS then... (sorry for the formatting ladies and gents.)

Ryg: Firearms were banned in many cities for quite some time. So it DID occur and cities like Chicago are still trying to do so.

SH:And it is overturned in court every time. Secondly, do you really think the citizens of Chicago are trying to revolt against Chicago? Why?

The firearms ban was not overturned for 30+ years. So 'every time' it was challenged in court, it was NOT overturned.
Mayor Daley in Chicago wants to maintain and extend its ban on firearms. Why? He has govt funded, armed security (police). Chicago has a very high murder rate in spite of the fact firearms are illegal. Why?
The citizens of Chicago and IL see how local and state govts fail to protect them and are working to rescind the ban to protect themselves.
Does that mean the citizens of Chicago are revolting against Chicago? What do you mean by Chicago? The city govt? The mayor, the citizens. Be specific. What do you mean by 'revolt'? Citizens of C are trying to shut down the Daley machine.

The firearms ban was not overturned for 30+ years. So 'every time' it was challenged in court, it was NOT overturned.

Produce the cases that upheld the ban.

The firearms ban was not overturned for 30+ years. So 'every time' it was challenged in court, it was NOT overturned.

Produce the cases that upheld the ban.

http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html

from an Australian: about 80 gun related deaths every day in USA is insane. You guys have too many guns in circulation, they are far too easy to get. We (the rest of the western first world)that ban gun ownership except on farms do not have any sort of problems with gun related deaths. Yet so many Americans seem to believe that to own a gun is a fundamental right that if not allowed would result in some kind of chaos. You have chaos and carnage now on a daily basis. How many gun related deaths are prevented now as a direct result of being allowed to carry a gun or have one in your home? I wonder if that amount would go anywhere near cancelling out the 80 deaths per day versus the reduction a ban on gun ownership would produce?

Q

C:

YOU TRULY ARE A PSYCHOPATH OF THE TYPE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH WRONG IN THIS WORLD. I wish there was a hell, because any reasonable god would have a spot reserved just for you and your ilk.

The firearms ban was not overturned for 30+ years. So 'every time' it was challenged in court, it was NOT overturned.

Produce the cases that upheld the ban.

http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html

So the two lawsuits that were filed were taken up the chain to the US Supreme court and the ban was overturned thereafter.

Looks like the court system did exactly what it should.

from an Australian: about 80 gun related deaths every day in USA is insane.

As an independent-minded Aussie I'm sure you can appreciate this sentiment... Who cares what Aussies think about US gun ownership?

Let me point out some flaws in your statistic: it most likely includes criminals shot by cops; it includes gang violence which is more severe here than elsewhere; it is not a per capita number and so cannot be compared to that in other countries; you provide no source and so we cannot judge it's efficacy. -Oh I see it came from bogmire, so you are in error for repeating an unsubstantiated figure without questioning it.

Well, Otto. Let's compare it to a warzone just to make the opposite ridiculous assertion and see what comes out.

Pick a country that you perceive to be violent that we can review a good record for their shooting deaths and compare and contrast.

Ok so I got a little confused and forgot I was responding to bogmire in the first place. My comments still stand. WHO CARES what the rest of the world thinks about this issue? They've been swamped with varying amounts of propaganda and so can only think what they're supposed to think, just as we are.

Until the Veil is lifted on the One World Govt, we are still a sovereign nation with the right to decide these issues for ourselves (or think we do). Viva la 2nd amendment.

Until the Veil is lifted on the One World Govt, we are still a sovereign nation with the right to decide these issues for ourselves (or think we do). Viva la 2nd amendment.

See. Irrational fear is what drives the want for gun ownership. We need to stop being assholes to each other to get guns out of people's hands. They're a tool that's being abused. Just like knives in countries that have gun bans. ie: UK violent crime is usually at knifepoint if not gunpoint. If you remove the tools you increase the fear of those who have the irrational fears.

Pick a country that you perceive to be violent that we can review a good record for their shooting deaths and compare and contrast.

-And what ridiculous assertion might that be?

If you want to start comparing numbers, this might be a place to start:
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

-Although there is NO WAY to tell what these figures include or who assembled them, or why, without a lot of work. Like this article says, you can't tell whether they include cops shooting criminals or not; which changes them entirely.

Right, but I'm saying pick a society that you think is more similar to America in terms of violence in general and let's compare the shooting death statistics. Somewhere like Yemen work for you?

See. Irrational fear is what drives the want for gun ownership.

Well mr strawman I happen to disagree and I think my explanation for self protection in the home and place of business is irrefutable. Guns are good and necessary in this day and age, in this country. Keeping them out of the hands of the rare maniac may be impossible but the same is true with gasoline, construction vehicles, poison, etc.

Guns are well worth the problems they cause, which is in reality trivial. I'm glad we are a nation of armed citizens.

Right, but I'm saying pick a society that you think is more similar to America in terms of violence in general and let's compare the shooting death statistics. Somewhere like Yemen work for you?

Yemen has no gang or drug-related violence and they are a theocracy aren't they? Apples and oranges. No way to compare. Somewhere else perhaps?

Could try the eastern block but the records might be dicey.

Man shot in leg after row in Malmö staircase
http:/www.thelocal.se/31452/20110115/

Maybe if access to, and fascination with, guns wasn't so prevalent here, there might be fewer of these kinds of massacres and reduced body counts. Rarely do you hear about these types of events in countries like England or Australia, where gun control is more tightly regulated and a gun culture as such doesn't exist.

There are a lot of differences between the UK and US besides gun laws. Social services would be the obvious one, fewer poor desperate people means fewer criminals. Conservatives in the US just perpetuate that problem by telling people that being poor and desperate should be a crime in and of itself.

fewer poor desperate people means fewer criminals.

So that is why the crime rate in UK is so high? So many poor, desperate people?
"The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession. "
http:/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

"“Millions of people are trapped in a culture of poverty, benefit dependency ..."
"“Over the past ten years we have seen big increases in violence, in knife and gun crime in Britain, and now even burglary is on the increase again,” he said.

“Billions of pounds, endless initiatives and a decade of rhetoric later, and the reality is that the Government has let those people down comprehensively.”

“The Labour Party’s failure to transform the lives of those who live at the bottom of the deprivation league table must rank as one of their biggest failures in Government. Labour has forgotten how to help the poor.” "
http:/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6068804/Labour-has-divided-Britain-into-two-nations-in-poverty-and-crime-say-Tories.html
How are those social programs working?

Loughner family was not economically poor.

This is interesting. From an article in the new American re the shooting:
"...it has also focused attention on state laws for dealing with the mentally ill and the call from some quarters for involuntary commitment or at least treatment of people with mental disorders — whether or not they have committed a crime."

-This OUGHT to include the primary cause of many mental disorders- the mistreatment of children in the womb. No woman has the right to damage her childs brain by using drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. As we learn more about the origins of mental illness and crime, it becomes more obvious that much of it may be caused by willful neglect by women who are unfit to be mothers.

Technology will soon allow us to screen addicts and demand they become sober before they can conceive. And they can be remotely monitored with MEMS implants and telemetry to ensure that if they do slip up while pregnant, they can be held in a secure clinic until the child is born.
Cont-

NO child should have to suffer a lifetime of disability due to the reckless behaviors of their mothers. If successful, this sort of program might be the best way of minimizing the potential for tragedy like the one above.

Crime of all sorts will certainly drop. The average levels of intelligence will rise, and the general level of competence in the workplace will improve. This one factor-fetal abuse- could be the major reason why the US trails other more traditional societies in student performance and worker productivity.

Compulsivity, inability to concentrate or feel empathy, depression, anxiety, difficulties with cognition and communication, subliminal pain- all potentially caused by prenatal neurological damage- may well be the main cause of gun violence and crime in general here.

Guns are well worth the problems they cause, which is in reality trivial. I'm glad we are a nation of armed citizens.

That is the most demented thing I've ever heard.

QC:

YOU TRULY ARE A PSYCHOPATH OF THE TYPE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH WRONG IN THIS WORLD. I wish there was a hell, because any reasonable god would have a spot reserved just for you and your ilk.

Huh?

God is against me because I oppose abortion and want crime prevention and justice?

Did I miss something, or are you confusing me with SH?

Let's see what Jesus said about harming the little ones:

Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

We also find that the accidental injuring of a woman which caused her to lose her unborn child was punishable to any extent that the husband chose to put upon the person who caused the injury, up to and including death. Now this assumed she was married.

so an accidental abortion was punishable by death, i.e., "...life for life..."

This is how highly God values even an unborn baby.

Let's see what Jesus said about harming the little ones:
...snip...
This is how highly God values even an unborn baby.

Oooh, I love bible quotes! How about this one:

1 Samuel 15

15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

We also find that the accidental injuring of a woman which caused her to lose her unborn child was punishable to any extent that the husband chose to put upon the person who caused the injury, up to and including death. Now this assumed she was married.

Yeah because you were killing the male parent's potential progeny. But if he chose to abort what was the penalty?

That's right, there wasn't one. There are no sanctions against killing children. In fact children are supposed to be killed for offending their parents.

so an accidental abortion was punishable by death, i.e., "...life for life..."

This is how highly God values even an unborn baby.

No, this is how property was valued. Your wife and her unborn child were your property. If someone wasd damaging them you had a right to kill them. You're not classically trained in the Bible are you? You don't seem to have an understanding of the correct context.

Guns are well worth the problems they cause, which is in reality trivial. I'm glad we are a nation of armed citizens.

That is the most demented thing I've ever heard.

Truth hurts eh dick? Idealists with extreme cognitive disconnects often find reality unacceptable. Cars are well worth the problems they cause, which in reality are not trivial. But I'm still glad we are a nation of driving citizens. Learn to recognize propaganda dick- you have a gut full of it.

" A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25"Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him."" 1kings
-God is a believer in situational ethics. By the way this is not an abortion thread?

"A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25"Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him."" 1kings
-God is a believer in situational ethics.

By the way this is not an abortion thread? Although abortion could be a viable alternative to prevent defectives like the above from being born, if the propensity for this sort of behavior can be discerned and not otherwise fixed. Or these guys:
http
://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=11708211

-Obviously vital parts of their brains critically damaged or missing. What would we do with cars whose brakes cannot be fixed?

...no its just another excuse for right wing wankers to sprout crap like comparing car ownership to gun ownership. I mean....really.

...no its just another excuse for right wing wankers to sprout crap like comparing car ownership to gun ownership. I mean....really.

Ted Kennedy could kill with his car and get away with it.
Why? He is a Kennedy, he was Irish and is expected to drive drunk.
Cars are well worth the problems they cause?
To protect people's lives and property from criminals and the state, firearms are well worth any problems.
When firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms is not a cliche. These laws disarm the honest citizen leaving them defenseless. Which is why violent crime rises in cities that ban firearms.

...no its just another excuse for right wing wankers to sprout crap like comparing car ownership to gun ownership. I mean....really.

But an apt comparison nonetheless. Your antigun PR people have vilified it because it is a pretty good one.

Vehicles are used as weapons far more often than you'd like to believe:
http
://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-22/world/jerusalem.attack_1_israeli-police-palestinian-man-jerusalem-police?_s=PM:WORLD

-As well as all the misery and suffering from accidents. And yet we live with it because cars are a necessity. For many people, guns are also a necessity, as there is no other safe and secure way of protecting them in their home or place of business.

Per the previous link I posted to the Connecticut home invasion horror... Perhaps- just perhaps- if that gentleman had been a bit more aware of the need to protect his family, and had had a gun available, he could have had a chance to save them. Or they themselves.

More cars as weapons:
http
://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/car-drives-into-crowd-of
http
://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7207317
http
://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Teen-Drives-into-Crowd-After-Being-Asked-to-Leave-Police-85810322.html

Ted Kennedy could kill with his car and get away with it.

Yes, corruption in the system.

Why? He is a Kennedy, he was Irish and is expected to drive drunk.

Wow, kids, look! It's 19th century racism. Very rare, should have died out by now.

Cars are well worth the problems they cause?
To protect people's lives and property from criminals and the state, firearms are well worth any problems.
When firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have firearms is not a cliche. These laws disarm the honest citizen leaving them defenseless. Which is why violent crime rises in cities that ban firearms.

Usually the rise in crime preceeds the ban on firearms.

Usually the rise in crime preceeds the ban on firearms.

Since firearms have been banned or restricted in Boston and Chicago for decades, crime should be non-existent there.

Since firearms have been banned or restricted in Boston and Chicago for decades, crime should be non-existent there.

Firearms are not banned in Boston.

Are you referring to the statewide assault weapons ban?

Firearms are not banned in Boston.

Firearms are restricted in Boston. Obtaining a license in MA requires the approval of the local chief of police. Fortunately the chief of Chelmsford respects the 2nd amendment. Others, not so much.
http:/www.beantownbloggery.com/2007/07/getting-gun-license-in-boston.html

Obtaining a firearm anywhere in Massachusetts requires the review of your record by the assigned licensing officer. In Boston, that officer is the Chief. Are you new to this whole getting an FID card? If you don't like dealing with the Chief of your town you can apply to the State Police licensing officer. Or appeal either decision in court at no charge.

Your wife and her unborn child were your property. If someone wasd damaging them you had a right to kill them. You're not classically trained in the Bible are you? You don't seem to have an understanding of the correct context.

No they weren't. You cannot find anything in the Bible that supports that ridiculous claim.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I used to hang out with seminary students for several years, and even still have quite a lot of their teaching material.

You're completely ignorant, SH. Keep believing every lie the other atheists tell you, k...

I can show you at least two specific instances in the Bible where women were even given inheritance equal to the men, and moreover the law required a man to marry his relative's widow if she asked for this right and he wasn't already married.

I've already had this discussion with you before, I'm sure, but you don't want the truth, so you can remain ignorant.

Obtaining a firearm anywhere in Massachusetts requires the review of your record by the assigned licensing officer. In Boston, that officer is the Chief. Are you new to this whole getting an FID card? If you don't like dealing with the Chief of your town you can apply to the State Police licensing officer. Or appeal either decision in court at no charge.

The point was, firearms ownership in Boston IS restricted.
In AZ, VT, and many other states, the only 'restriction' is the completion of the ATF form and the federal background check.

That is the most demented thing I've ever heard.

Truth hurts eh dick?

What hurts is that there are idiots like you at large, probably armed to the teeth.

Idealists with extreme cognitive disconnects often find reality unacceptable.

Hilarious, you've just described yourself!

Cars are well worth the problems they cause, which in reality are not trivial. But I'm still glad we are a nation of driving citizens.

What's the difference between cars and guns? Let's see, one is designed to get people from A to B, and the other is to kill people (at A or B or anywhere in between). Yep, great comparison moron.

What's the difference between cars and guns? Let's see, one is designed to get people from A to B, and the other is to kill people (at A or B or anywhere in between). Yep, great comparison moron.

40,000+ die in car accidents each year. Sounds like a very poor design.

What's the difference between cars and guns? Let's see, one is designed to get people from A to B, and the other is to kill people (at A or B or anywhere in between). Yep, great comparison moron.

40,000+ die in car accidents each year. Sounds like a very poor design.

As is usual, you miss the essence of the argument.

"From KSDK: Two burglars found an armed and prepared woman in the home they targeted Wednesday afternoon. The woman immediately opened fire and the criminals fled. They were later apprehended by authorities."
"A robber entered The Lodge bar at Fort Apache early in the morning and robbed the bar. An employee armed with a gun followed to get a description of the car and the suspect opened fire. That’s when the employee fired back,"
"A woman known for carrying the notorious Taurus Judge had occasion to use it when two armed men attacked her. The woman was beginning work Thursday morning at a mobile home park office when the men accosted her. The attacker’s bullet grazed her, but she is confident the shotgun blast from her handgun struck the man."
http:/thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed
These firearms did what they were designed to do, defend their owners.

The comparison remains moronic.

"A New Hampshire lawmaker is grateful he had a firearm close by when he encountered an intruder in his home. The intruder turned out to be a witness for an area murder trial, and the lawmaker described him as “probably quite high on drugs.” The homeowner retrieved his handgun and held the intruder for police."
"A good Samaritan driving the streets of San Antonio’s west side observed a woman being mauled by a pit bull. The concealed carry permit holder immediately parked, jumped out and fired several shots at the dog, sending it running. The dog was later euthanized. Police hailed the heroic actions of the man, noting that the woman might have died if he hadn’t intervened."
"olice suspect a double-amputee was targeted by the armed robber because of his handicap. The intruder was armed with a rifle and broke in through a front window, firing at the wheelchair-bound homeowner. The homeowner responded by firing a single shot from a .22 pistol, fatally wounding the would-be robber."

I do think that we need a "beyond contestation" clause in our laws about murders with multiple, even dozens of eye-witnesses, such as this.

Why do we need a "jury" of 12 people who didn't even see the crime to determine the guilt or innocence of a person when we have 14 surviving victims and many, many other eye-witnesses, including 2 men and a woman who wrestled the weapon away from the suspect and restrained him till police arrive?

This guy should have already been sentenced...to death...since his guilt is beyond contestation.

Instead, what will likely happen is he'll end up in a life sentence or in a mental institution, and either way he'll be perpetually a death threat to whatever unlucky souls are assigned the task of dealing with his sorry ass.

Stop referring to our system as a justice system, it's a legal system. It enforces the letter of the law with no regard whatsoever for the intent of the law. Justice is an inadvertent byproduct of our legal system if at all. How can you get justice from a system that has a defense attorney trying to prove his client innocent even if he is guilty and a prosecutor trying to prove the defendant guilty even if he is innocent? No one is looking for the truth, they are looking to put notches on their gun.

The comparison remains moronic.

Not if your support for gun control is based upon safety.

The shooter showed all of the signs of being a paranoid Schizophrenic.

The fact that he shared the exact same whacktard conspiracy theories with American Republicans tells me something about the logic behind the American Republican movement.

What does it tell you?

No they weren't. You cannot find anything in the Bible that supports that ridiculous claim.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The entire Bible supports the stance that women are property, hence why they're always spoken of in terms of cattle.

As for killing insolent children, how about the shebear and Isaac, or the commandement to honor your mother and father, no prohibitions on child abuse, including molestation,

It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

The fact that he shared the exact same whacktard conspiracy theories with ....

ATHEISTS

tells me something about the logic behind the

atheist

movement.

What does it tell you?

The fact that he shared the exact same whacktard conspiracy theories with .... ATHEISTS
tells me something about the logic behind the
atheist movement.

What does it tell you?

What conspiracy theories do Atheists have, Marjon?

The fact that he shared the exact same whacktard conspiracy theories with .... ATHEISTS
tells me something about the logic behind the
atheist movement.

What does it tell you?

What conspiracy theories do Atheists have, Marjon?

You tell me. You are the atheist.
Maybe Vendi can explain his 'logic'.
After all, Loughner was apolitical and an atheist.

What many don't seem to understand about Tucson is that Tucson IS quite 'progressive'. I called it the Berkley of the SW. Dupnik's complaints are not with Pima county as much as it is with other counties that are more conservative.
Prior to Gifford, that Congressional seat was Kolbe's. A homosexual Republican.

You tell me. You are the atheist.

You're making the accusation, are you telling us that this is mere unfounded hate speech from you?

After all, Loughner was apolitical and an atheist.

Loughner is a psychopath. There's little esle involved here that can be seen as a driving factor. You cannot classify Loughner as an atheist if he was worshipping the Christian Devil.

The rest of your commentary is irrelevant and non-sequitor.

The rest of your commentary is irrelevant and non-sequitor.

It is as relevant as Vendicar's comments above.

The rest of your commentary is irrelevant and non-sequitor.

It is as relevant as Vendicar's comments above.

True, now answer the question. Is that simple hate speech comming from you or can you back up your assertions? It appears you're simply trying to demonize atheists.

The rest of your commentary is irrelevant and non-sequitor.

It is as relevant as Vendicar's comments above.

True, now answer the question. Is that simple hate speech comming from you or can you back up your assertions? It appears you're simply trying to demonize atheists.

If you believe Republicans/conservatives/tea parties contributed to the shooting given the fact the shooter is an apolitical atheist, then atheism must be considered a more relevant factor as Loughner WAS apolitical, didn't listen to Rush and was obsessed with Gifford before Palin was a VP candidate.
Where is Vedicar to defend his previous assertions and where is SH's condemnation of Vendicar's assertions?

If you believe Republicans/conservatives/tea parties contributed to the shooting given the fact the shooter is an apolitical atheist, then atheism must be considered a more relevant factor as Loughner WAS apolitical, didn't listen to Rush and was obsessed with Gifford before Palin was a VP candidate.

That was not "atheist" that you were using. Your obfuscation shows your intent. Hate speech.

So own up to it.