The NRA must be pleased today.

[Joe Steel]

The NRA must be pleased today. All their hard work putting is paying off. Every miscreant can have a gun.


A 7-year-old boy who loved playing outdoors and riding on the back of his daddy’s Harley died Saturday morning after a Liberty County couple opened fire on him and three other alleged trespassers, Liberty County Sheriff’s Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.

“He was just a little country boy … who liked to kick off his shoes,” said Joseph Breland, a neighbor and close family friend.

Donald Coffey Jr., his father and friends were on their way back from joy riding near a levee and swimming in the Trinity River around 9 p.m. Thursday when homeowners Gale and Sheila Muhs fired at them with a 12-gauge shotgun, police say.

Boy dies after Liberty County shooting (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6414373.html)

[Mr. P]

The NRA must be pleased today. All their hard work putting is paying off. Every miscreant can have a gun.

The NRA does not support nor condone shooting kids nor anyone else, slow Joe. Ya need a valid angle here least ya come off as your typical idiotic self.

[Jeff]

The NRA must be pleased today. All their hard work putting is paying off. Every miscreant can have a gun.

What the hell does the NRA have to do with this?

[Agnapostate]

The NRA, as with the Brady Institute, is content to cherrypick empirical data to support ideological extremism (though they're at least not like GoA, which ignores empirical evidence altogether), but it's not especially helpful to attack in ways such as this rather than through the utilization of empirical evidence.

[Jeff]

The NRA doesn't advocate murder,and this was a 12 gauge shot gun,used in hunting, So all hunters should give it up cause some loon shot some people?

Maybe we shouldn't have air planes either , I heard somewhere they can be used to kill people

[Mr. P]

The NRA, as with the Brady Institute, is content to cherrypick empirical data to support ideological extremism (though they're at least not like GoA, which ignores empirical evidence altogether), but it's not especially helpful to attack in ways such as this rather than through the utilization of empirical evidence.

What ideological extremism does the NRA support, the 2nd amendment?

[Joe Steel]

The NRA does not support nor condone shooting kids nor anyone else, slow Joe. Ya need a valid angle here least ya come off as your typical idiotic self.

Try again, dumbass.

The NRA has been pushing the "castle doctrine" from coast to coast. Anyone can kill anyone for any reason as long he can dream-up some element of threat. The article says the gunmen were shooting at "trespassers." That's enough of a threat for the NRA.

Get it, dumbass?

[Joe Steel]

The NRA, as with the Brady Institute, is content to cherrypick empirical data to support ideological extremism (though they're at least not like GoA, which ignores empirical evidence altogether), but it's not especially helpful to attack in ways such as this rather than through the utilization of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is wasted on ideological extremists. The gun cult loves guns. Facts don't matter.

[Agnapostate]

What ideological extremism does the NRA support, the 2nd amendment?

The NRA and the similarly-minded ignore empirical evidence in favor of preconceived ideological conclusions. For instance, they ignore the fact that the increased availability of firearms probably causes a slight increase in crimes, instead claiming the opposite. They also shout to anyone that will listen that concealed carry laws have a similar impact of reducing crime, despite their decidedly mixed record.

[Mr. P]

Try again, dumbass.

The NRA has been pushing the "castle doctrine" from coast to coast. Anyone can kill anyone for any reason as long he can dream-up some element of threat. The article says the gunmen were shooting at "trespassers." That's enough of a threat for the NRA.

Get it, dumbass?

:laugh2: You idiot...the Dental association promotes good dental hygiene to keep yer teeth..DOES that mean they promote biting people? Geeezzzzzz, yer slower that I thought.

[Mr. P]

The NRA and the similarly-minded ignore empirical evidence in favor of preconceived ideological conclusions. For instance, they ignore the fact that the increased availability of firearms probably causes a slight increase in crimes, instead claiming the opposite. They also shout to anyone that will listen that concealed carry laws have a similar impact of reducing crime, despite their decidedly mixed record.

I disagree..there is a great deal of evidence to support these conclusions. It's not just the NRA either.
It's all over the net.

[Joe Steel]

:laugh2: You idiot...the Dental association promotes good dental hygiene to keep yer teeth..DOES that mean they promote biting people? Geeezzzzzz, yer slower that I thought.

Are you trying to convince us you're stupid? Do you know anything of the "castle doctrine?"

[Joe Steel]

The NRA and the similarly-minded ignore empirical evidence in favor of preconceived ideological conclusions. For instance, they ignore the fact that the increased availability of firearms probably causes a slight increase in crimes, instead claiming the opposite. They also shout to anyone that will listen that concealed carry laws have a similar impact of reducing crime, despite their decidedly mixed record.

Concealed gun laws promote gun proliferation and more guns leads to more crime.

[Mr. P]

Are you trying to convince us you're stupid? Do you know anything of the "castle doctrine?"

Sure I know about the castle doctrine...maybe you don't. It's not a "kill" at will doctrine. Perhaps you should review it..state by state.

[Jeff]

Concealed gun laws promote gun proliferation and more guns leads to more crime.

LMAO, there is or at least was at one time a town in GA that it was against law not to own a gun, guess what they had the lowest crime rate in the state.:poke:

[Agnapostate]

I disagree..there is a great deal of evidence to support these conclusions. It's not just the NRA either.
It's all over the net.

A significant empirical literature contradicts that assertion. The problem is that most individuals who claim that a greater prevalence of firearms decrease crimes rely on either the selective incorporation of raw data (crime went down as gun prevalence went up, and they either view this as causative or anti-correlational, typically the former), or discredited analyses (such as those of Lott), to draw their conclusions. Unfortunately for them, reliable empirical evidence disagrees. For instance, we could consider Duggan's More Guns, More Crime (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322833), which seeks to isolate the gun effect. Consider the abstract:


This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one‐third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.

You'll have to find opposing empirical evidence that indicates the inaccuracy of Duggan's work if you want to sustain a sound analysis.

[Mr. P]

LMAO, there is or at least was at one time a town in GA that it was against law not to own a gun, guess what they had the lowest crime rate in the state.:poke:

Still is a law as far as I know Jeff..Kennesew, Ga.

Written in 2007....


"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Oh..that "substantial drop in crime" was 38% first yr.

[Missileman]

As the population has increased and the number of vehicles on the road has increased, the number of DUIs has increased also. The obvious correlation between the number of drivers and number of DUIs makes it patently clear that the sensible solution to DUIs is to outlaw motor vehicles. :rolleyes:

[theHawk]

As the population has increased and the number of vehicles on the road has increased, the number of DUIs has increased also. The obvious correlation between the number of drivers and number of DUIs makes it patently clear that the sensible solution to DUIs is to outlaw motor vehicles. :rolleyes:


Yes, but driving isn't a constitutional right being practiced mainly by non-liberals. Therefore liberals aren't trying to take it away.

Liberals don't care about actual loss of life, they just use cherry picked examples of loss of life to attack freedoms their politcial opponents live by.

[sgtdmski]

Concealed gun laws promote gun proliferation and more guns leads to more crime.

Really??? Prove it. Washington DC until the Supreme Court decision in Heller had the strictest gun laws. Basically if you lived in DC you could not own a gun. So tell me, with these laws, why was DC the murder capital for so long? Year in and year out the District had 500+ murders more than 90% with guns.

More guns lead to more crime. But wait a minute, in DC the opposite was true. It was illegal to own a gun, yet there were more murders with a gun. Damn, that one city alone proves that your theory is wrong. Hell all it took was one city. Wow, better come up with a better theory.

You sound like all the little boys at the Brady campaign, crying that concealed carry would lead to the wild west in Texas and Florida. Well we are still waiting for that to happen, but it hasn't what has it been now, over a decade closing in on two.

Any more bright theories? Thus far they have all been wrong.

dmk

[Jeff]

Still is a law as far as I know Jeff..Kennesew, Ga.

Written in 2007....



Oh..that "substantial drop in crime" was 38% first yr.

I wasn't sure if it was still a law there Mr. P, so I didn't want to open mouth and insert foot as I do so well, lol But Yes I was still living in NJ when I heard of this, Thanks for the Info!

[Agnapostate]

No desire to address the empirical literature, I see. So be it! :beer:

[Mr. P]

No desire to address the empirical literature, I see. So be it! :beer:

As I said it all over the net.

Edit: Start with tge town in post #17

[Agnapostate]

As I said it all over the net.

Edit: Start with tge town in post #17

You've said nothing except that it exists. You've said nothing more, and you certainly haven't tried to specifically control the gun factor and other elements. From what you've said, this town could merely a regional anomaly, if that.

[Mr. P]

You've said nothing except that it exists. You've said nothing more, and you certainly haven't tried to specifically control the gun factor and other elements. From what you've said, this town could merely a regional anomaly, if that.

Whatcha want, me to hold yer hand an google for ya? Forget it..start with Miami, DC, Just facts, Kennesew, Ga....there are more towns that have had the very same experience.

[emmett]

LMAO, there is or at least was at one time a town in GA that it was against law not to own a gun, guess what they had the lowest crime rate in the state.:poke:



You would be referring to Kennesaw where burglery went down 87% in one single year. Not one single murder......NONE! The year after it became law.

Not only are these things true but Kennesaw experienced a sharp decline in gun related violence. The anti-gunners don't even like to talk about Kennesaw, Georgia.

Look it up for yourself Joe...I don't do people's research for them.

[emmett]

You gotta love the naive nature of anti-gunners. I have personally carried a gun on my person for 30... that's thirty years. Haven't murdered anyone yet.

Now for Agnopostate........one question. What would you do?


A burgler has broken into your home. You are awaken by the sounds. You now hear footsteps coming down the hall. You quietly creep to your door (without a gun cause you don't own one or believe they have a place in society).

The steps get closer. You peek through the crack in your door. The assailant has a gun and is only a few feet away. What do you do? Well.....you could call the police, but then even you must realize that would be a bit redundent since you won't be around long enough to greet them. You could run. That's it! Run! Run...run...run...Its your home but you could run. Oh never mind...there is no door in your bedroom that leads outside and besides it is a bit cowardly to leave your six year old asleep in the bed while there is a gun wielding lunatic creeping around the corridors of your home.

What do you do man?

You know what I do. I raise my P95 that is kept loaded in my nightstand at all times to torso level and fire without question. Threat eliminated.

You people with the gun fears kill me. I say again as I have a thousand times. The last thing that goes through the mind of an unarmed innocent person just before they are slaughtered in their home is, "I wish I had a gun."

Now....spin that with your fancy vocabulary ace! Anticipation is killing me!

[Agnapostate]

Whatcha want, me to hold yer hand an google for ya? Forget it..start with Miami, DC, Just facts, Kennesew, Ga....there are more towns that have had the very same experience.

After having researched the matter to some degree, I encountered the alleged burglary rate deckine in Kennesaw mentioned in McDowall et al.'s General Deterrence Through Civilian Gun Ownership: An Evaluation of the Quasi-Experimental Evidence (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119342450/abstract). Gary Kleck's study of the matter of burglary crimes is addressed therein.


There is a curious discrepancy between the number of burglaries reported by Kennesaw's mayor in interviews cited by Kleck (1988) and Schmidt (1987a) and the number of burglaries reported by Kennesaw's police department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's police department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. The mayor claimed to Schmidt, for example, that there were 55 residential burglaries in 1981, before he law was passed. This is greater than the total number of all burglaries -- residential and otherwise -- reported by the police department to the UCR. Given the mayor's spirited advocacy of the ordinance and the apparent differences in the figures he provided in separate interviews cited by Schmidt and by Kleck, we believe the UCR counts are the more accurate of the two.

Honestly, fluctuation in Kennesaw burglary patterns are apparently so severe that it's rather difficult to form a sustainable and entirely accurate empirical analysis, as can be seen from this graph.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/kennesawburglaries.png

I don't happen to observe any especially significant change in burglary rates.

Moreover, I honestly don't see why one can't favor the Second Amendment and oppose excessively restrictive firearms bans while also consulting the empirical literature.

[Agnapostate]

You gotta love the naive nature of anti-gunners.

"Anti-gunner"? Where did I advocate a gun ban or any similarly restrictive measure?

[Mr. P]

After having researched the matter to some degree, I encountered the alleged burglary rate deckine in Kennesaw mentioned in McDowall et al.'s General Deterrence Through Civilian Gun Ownership: An Evaluation of the Quasi-Experimental Evidence (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119342450/abstract). Gary Kleck's study of the matter of burglary crimes is addressed therein.



Honestly, fluctuation in Kennesaw burglary patterns are apparently so severe that it's rather difficult to form a sustainable and entirely accurate empirical analysis, as can be seen from this graph.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/kennesawburglaries.png

I don't happen to observe any especially significant change in burglary rates.

Moreover, I honestly don't see why one can't favor the Second Amendment and oppose excessively restrictive firearms bans while also consulting the empirical literature.

Since the thread is focused on gun crime and not burglary lets not go there..yet.

As far as the bolded...I agree..so what's yer beef?

[emmett]

In 1986 there were 12 new apartment complexes opened along barrett Pkwy and US 41/ representing a dramatic increase in population. Thus a slight increase in burglery. One has to look on both sides of the fence.

The point of the thread was that the NRA must be happy about what happened today. I'm sure it is not as the post was merely a rhetorical offering by Slow Joe Steel whose strongest argument was to refer to P as a dumbass. This in itself, since P is one of the most enlightened individuals I have ever known when it comes to Constitutional debate lends to itself...what it is...rhetorical crap.

The NRA simply stands up for gun ownership and strongly supprts the 2nd Amendment for citizens of the US.

Agno... your arguments are just too complicated for me. I must admit having not the ability to read one of your posts without getting sleepy. Too must doubletalk. Have you ever thought of dumbing it down for guys like me.

Question again. A burgler is in your house........blah blah// You never answered the question! What would you do? Point blank...do you believe in a person's right to defend themselves or not!

[Agnapostate]

Since the thread is focused on gun crime and not burglary lets not go there..yet.

The burglary issue was the focus of several posters' remarks. Perhaps you'd care to address Cook and Ludwig?


As far as the bolded...I agree..so what's yer beef?

It seems you have an unwarranted hostility to empirical evidence.


Agno... your arguments are just too complicated for me. I must admit having not the ability to read one of your posts without getting sleepy. Too must doubletalk. Have you ever thought of dumbing it down for guys like me.

Question again. A burgler is in your house........blah blah// You never answered the question! What would you do? Point blank...do you believe in a person's right to defend themselves or not!

of course.

[crin63]

Joe Stupid it is Liberals, like gabby (gabosuarus) who want to see little kids shot so there will be enough outrage to try and ban all guns. No responsible gun owner condones shooting little kids, only Liberals do.

[Joe Steel]

Sure I know about the castle doctrine...maybe you don't. It's not a "kill" at will doctrine. Perhaps you should review it..state by state.

Maybe you should. It's a free-fire doctrine: shoot anyone at anytime for any reason as long as you can contrive some threat.

[Joe Steel]

LMAO, there is or at least was at one time a town in GA that it was against law not to own a gun, guess what they had the lowest crime rate in the state.:poke:

So? The US has the highest per capita gun possession and gun death rates in the industrialized world.

[darin]

Are you trying to convince us you're stupid? Do you know anything of the "castle doctrine?"

Dude - are you unintentionally posting with your head up your ass, or do you get your rocks off acting like a fool?

Do a modicum of research before forming an opinion.

[Joe Steel]

Dude - are you unintentionally posting with your head up your ass, or do you get your rocks off acting like a fool?

Do a modicum of research before forming an opinion.

Well, dud, I've done plenty of research. I know enough about the issue to support my opinion. Maybe you should take your own advice.

[Jeff]

I think he is posting just to see how many he can get a rise from, no one is that foolish

[Little-Acorn]

I think he is posting just to see how many he can get a rise from, no one is that foolish

I was wondering if ANYONE would notice that. Kudoes to Jeff, finally!

Silliest part of this thread, hasn't been the exaggerations and fibs of little joesteal, they are as common as flies buzzing around food at a picnic. It's the silly attempts by others to tell littlejoe the truth. You guys must have a lot of time on your hands.... :lame2:

[Insein]

I was wondering if ANYONE would notice that. Kudoes to Jeff, finally!

Silliest part of this thread, hasn't been the exaggerations and fibs of little joesteal, they are as common as flies buzzing around food at a picnic. It's the silly attempts by others to tell littlejoe the truth. You guys must have a lot of time on your hands.... :lame2:

Stated the same thing in another thread. No one is this stupid on purpose. He's just a rabble-rouser.

[Joe Steel]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/05/08/PH2009050802904.jpg


Police said resident Sheila Muhs, 45, fired once with a 12-gauge shotgun, then handed it to her husband, Gayle Muhs, also 45. DeFoor said Sheila Muhs called 911 and told the dispatcher, "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."

Texas couple accused of shooting man, 2 kids (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050801913.html)

This what the "castle doctrine" is all-about.

[Little-Acorn]

Relax. Little joesteal is just obeying the dicta of his mentor from a few generations back, who sad that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it.

[Trigg]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/05/08/PH2009050802904.jpg



.


Looks like those two fell out of the ugly tree and landed in the homely bush. YIKES

[Missileman]

I still don't get the liberal's propensity to think a burglar or would be rapist has an expectation of safety during the commission of their crimes. The only thing I can figure is that they must have lots of relatives in the home invasion industry.

[emmett]

Their mug shots are on here because they were arrested. Joe, you aren't really that ignorant are you to think that self defense laws allow or are meant to by any movement, NRA, or any other, suggest that it be legal to shoot a defenseless person do you? NRA members do not subscribe to any such philosophy. On the contrary, we believe these people hurt our cause to justify self defense and work against our logical and legal efforts.

Every time I see a story like this I cringe because I know guys like you will take this and stretch it, spin it and finaggle it into something it isn't.

[Silver]

AHHHH...Its the beauty of living in this United States...a FREE COUNTRY...

If you don't like the Constitution we live under....GET THE FUCK OUT !

[Kathianne]

Stated the same thing in another thread. No one is this stupid on purpose. He's just a rabble-rouser.

otherwise known as a troll. But he IS OUR pet troll. ;)

[Joe Steel]

Their mug shots are on here because they were arrested. Joe, you aren't really that ignorant are you to think that self defense laws allow or are meant to by any movement, NRA, or any other, suggest that it be legal to shoot a defenseless person do you?

The laws are written to be ambivalent toward the target's capacity for defense. They merely require the shooter to be "reasonably certain" force is necessary. That leaves a good deal of room for abuse.



NRA members do not subscribe to any such philosophy. On the contrary, we believe these people hurt our cause to justify self defense and work against our logical and legal efforts.

Every time I see a story like this I cringe because I know guys like you will take this and stretch it, spin it and finaggle it into something it isn't.

The NRA pushed through a concealed gun law in my state regardless of the opposition of the citizens. We had referendum and voted-down concealed guns. Nevertheless, the NRA told the General Assembly it wanted a concealed gun law. Now we have one. A few years later, the NRA said they wanted a "castle doctrine" law and we have one of those, too. In my opinion, the NRA is no different than any other organized crime organization. They want what they want without any regard to the harm it does.

[Jeff]

The laws are written to be ambivalent toward the target's capacity for defense. They merely require the shooter to be "reasonably certain" force is necessary. That leaves a good deal of room for abuse.




The NRA pushed through a concealed gun law in my state regardless of the opposition of the citizens. We had referendum and voted-down concealed guns. Nevertheless, the NRA told the General Assembly it wanted a concealed gun law. Now we have one. A few years later, the NRA said they wanted a "castle doctrine" law and we have one of those, too. In my opinion, the NRA is no different than any other organized crime organization. They want what they want without any regard to the harm it does.

Joe lets try this one more time

Guns don't kill people , people kill people

enough said!

[emmett]

The laws are written to be ambivalent toward the target's capacity for defense. They merely require the shooter to be "reasonably certain" force is necessary. That leaves a good deal of room for abuse.

You know what Joe, you are right about that. There is a good deal of room for abuse. We have a court system however and people are charged with breaking the law every day. Such as in the case at the root of this thread. Also, a gun isn't necessary when breaking the law. What if a citizen who runs out of gas is attacked by a homeowner with a flashlight having mistaken them for a prowler. Shouldn't flashlights then be outlawed. It has happened you know?




The NRA pushed through a concealed gun law in my state regardless of the opposition of the citizens. We had referendum and voted-down concealed guns. Nevertheless, the NRA told the General Assembly it wanted a concealed gun law. Now we have one. A few years later, the NRA said they wanted a "castle doctrine" law and we have one of those, too. In my opinion, the NRA is no different than any other organized crime organization. They want what they want without any regard to the harm it does.

Ah....Joe. Your lawmakers voted on it.

[Mr. P]

Some stuff ole slow Joe fails to understand...or admit.

This is why these folks will face murder charges, Joe.


Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
* The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
* The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

[Joe Steel]

Ah....Joe. Your lawmakers voted on it.

Against the manifest wishes of the People. They voted against concealed guns and the NRA told the General Assembly to ignore the vote.

That's the point. The NRA is pushing its own agenda.

[avatar4321]

Against the manifest wishes of the People. They voted against concealed guns and the NRA told the General Assembly to ignore the vote.

That's the point. The NRA is pushing its own agenda.

Do you expect them to push someone elses agenda?

[Jeff]

The laws are written to be ambivalent toward the target's capacity for defense. They merely require the shooter to be "reasonably certain" force is necessary. That leaves a good deal of room for abuse.




The NRA pushed through a concealed gun law in my state regardless of the opposition of the citizens. We had referendum and voted-down concealed guns. Nevertheless, the NRA told the General Assembly it wanted a concealed gun law. Now we have one. A few years later, the NRA said they wanted a "castle doctrine" law and we have one of those, too. In my opinion, the NRA is no different than any other organized crime organization. They want what they want without any regard to the harm it does.

HMMM guess if the people in your state don't want to carry a gun they could probably just not buy one, or did the NRA make them buy one to, I would say if they got it threw in your state it was cause there were more for the law than against it

[Nukeman]

HMMM guess if the people in your state don't want to carry a gun they could probably just not buy one, or did the NRA make them buy one to, I would say if they got it threw in your state it was cause there were more for the law than against it
Now..Now... Don't confuselittleJoe with ..........facts......... He might blow a gasket or two..........

[Joe Steel]

HMMM guess if the people in your state don't want to carry a gun they could probably just not buy one...

Try again, dumbass.

Gun-carriers are the problem. Their guns are threats to those who don't want more guns on the street.


... or did the NRA make them buy one to, I would say if they got it threw in your state it was cause there were more for the law than against it

You'd say wrong then. We voted AGAINST concealed guns. It didn't make any difference. The vermin in the General Assembly take their orders from the NRA not from the People.

[jimnyc]

I wish someone with a gun would shut Joe up with a few slugs to his miniature brain.

Don't worry, Joe, not a threat, just "rhetorical convenience", dumbass! :coffee:

[Jeff]

Try again, dumbass.

Gun-carriers are the problem. Their guns are threats to those who don't want more guns on the street.



You'd say wrong then. We voted AGAINST concealed guns. It didn't make any difference. The vermin in the General Assembly take their orders from the NRA not from the People.

So let me see if I have this right DUMBASS, if a person goes about getting a gun and a carry permit legally they are a threat, hmmm I guess the way you want it is all the law abiding Americans shouldn't have a gun,but the criminals that can get one 10 times easier, it is ok cause they didn't do it legal and you don't know about it, LMAO, you really are a ass wipe Joe.

And by the way Joe, I have been threw St. Louis, Missouri many times and maybe in town there they voted against it, but Joe I hardly believe the state of Missouri voted against it,hell most I met there had guns, so Joe blow this shit up someone else's ass, cause you are full of shit.

And one more time Joe simply arithmetic, if most people in your state didn't want guns, DON'T BUY THEM, then ya only have to deal with a couple that did want them.

[emmett]

Joe...... are you really as anti-gun as you come off? I have a hard time understanding how someone really believes they should have no responsible right to defend themselves.

[Joe Steel]

So let me see if I have this right DUMBASS, if a person goes about getting a gun and a carry permit legally they are a threat...

Simply put, dumbass, yes.

No matter how careful a gunman can and wants to be, he's no more than human. Humans make mistakes; when guns are involved, mistakes are deadly.

[Joe Steel]

Joe...... are you really as anti-gun as you come off? I have a hard time understanding how someone really believes they should have no responsible right to defend themselves.

I never said anything about not having a right to defend yourself against threats. I'm saying you have no right to threaten me.

[Monkeybone]

Simply put, dumbass, yes.

No matter how careful a gunman can and wants to be, he's no more than human. Humans make mistakes; when guns are involved, mistakes are deadly.

so are knives...and cars...and medicine....and bikes....and walking....and flying....am i forgetting anything else?

[Monkeybone]

I never said anything about not having a right to defend yourself against threats. I'm saying you have no right to threaten me.

so you just want to define the right more? as in rules to how you can defend yourself?

[Joe Steel]

so you just want to define the right more? as in rules to how you can defend yourself?

Avoid conflict.

Avoid threats.

Relieve the social conditions which cause crime.

Establish better security.

[MtnBiker]

What social condition would you have relieved to prevent Ted Bundy?

[Monkeybone]

Avoid conflict. well duh. people that go out and look for conflict and a reason to use their gun are not defending themselves.


Avoid threats. again, like the conflict. but how are you to avoid them when they are coming to you even when you have tqken every precaution to avoid them?


Relieve the social conditions which cause crime. that might help...and it might not. some people are just nuts and do bad things.


Establish better security. what is better than having a gun? apparently (not is all cases) locked doors and windows aren't enough.

[Joe Steel]

What social condition would you have relieved to prevent Ted Bundy?

I don't know.

[Jeff]

Simply put, dumbass, yes.

No matter how careful a gunman can and wants to be, he's no more than human. Humans make mistakes; when guns are involved, mistakes are deadly.

Joe you are even a bigger ass than I gave ya credit for, no matter how careful the pilot can be he is only human and makes mistakes ,when airplanes fall from the sky it is deadly, ok so airplanes are now outlawed according to this idiots philosophy.

You have got to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever seen post

And yes I still don't believe anyone is that stupid, so again I think you post this trash just to get a rise , what a deal, hey are you kin to moderate democrat?

[avatar4321]

Against the manifest wishes of the People. They voted against concealed guns and the NRA told the General Assembly to ignore the vote.

That's the point. The NRA is pushing its own agenda.

Id still like to know whose agenda they should be pushing.

[emmett]

Avoid conflict.

Avoid threats.

Relieve the social conditions which cause crime.

Establish better security.


And when a gun toting lunatic breaks into your home do what?



I know you won't answer the question but i figured I'd try to see if you had two sides to you.

[Little-Acorn]

Yet another thread dedicated to explaining the truth to little joesteal, as if he gave two hoots and wanted anything more than for people to pay attention to him.

"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"