Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than 3 people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

12,566 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    “Facts” according to gun grabbers:

    “On June 7, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts said a good guy with a gun “has never” stopped a bad guy with a gun.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/07/Moms-Demand-Fo under-A-Good-Guy-With-A-Gun-Has-Never-Stopped-A-Bad-Guy-With-A-Gu n

    “NEVER.”

    With “facts” like these, it’s easy to see why she wants to found an organization that utterly destroys the right to keep and bear arms. But, will people like Mark vocally oppose her actions, because her premise is wrong?

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      http://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=246ebdf1-b8b0-417e-be98 -d04b9b331602

      Money quote starts a bit after 7:40. Needless to say, the CNN interviewers do not call her out on her flagrant and egregious lie.

      Furthermore citing a defensive pepper-spray usage to stop a potential mass shooting does not refute the possibility of DGUs from doing the same, but it is noteworthy how quickly she is able to attribute the stopping of this potential mass shooting to use of pepper spray, but not only doesn’t attribute to any DGUs the same credit, she even denies any DGUs have ever existed at all. Willful blindness and an obvious double standard.

      Hmm, where have we seen double standards before here on this board?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “”Facts” according to gun grabbers::

      Ad hominem again. Facts stand or fall on their own merit. The source is irrelevant.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        You mean, like when the facts come from Breitbart?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Breitbart appears to be one of the most fact-free political sites in existence. Then again, a broken clock is right twice a day.

          The fact remains that you cannot dismiss because you think the site is “liberal” any more than I can dismiss because the site is full of science-hating, willfully ignorant, douchebags reporting on the latest “we hate Obama” meme.

  2. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    In addition, the Breitbart piece lists 3 indictments where it was an armed guard, not a “good guy with a gun” acting. This is quite deceitful when you realize what was being stated, that a regular citizen acted. They are bending the truth and ignoring CCW. And then they list the 4th which is preposterous.

    The whole thing is a pack of lies AND it’s from Breitbart, one of the most venomous, lying, cheating, disrespectful, ignorant cites on the web. There is no comparison between them and politifact.

    I’m ready for my apology.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I;m guessing if these guys were going for soft targets they failed.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      First, Breitbart themselves mentioned it, so you have no basis to challenge their honesty based on something they themselves reported. So shove it.

      Second, it was the Moms Demand Action (Based On Lies) who claimed that there has NEVER been a case in which a non-LEO stopped a shooting. It’s her claim that Breitbart is responding to. (In particular, not any claim of mine.)

      Third, I furnished the link where the lady made her claim. In the very post just above, in fact.

      “http://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=246ebdf1-b8b0-417e-be9 8 -d04b9b331602

      Money quote starts a bit after 7:40. ”

      So, after watching this clip yourself, you might want to reconsider “The whole thing is a pack of lies AND it’s from Breitbart, one of the most venomous, lying, cheating, disrespectful, ignorant cites on the web.”

      Speaking of reconsidering.

  3. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    “Hmm, a guy shows up to a posted GFZ shopping mall in order to start shooting people at random. Yeah, that sure blows a hole in my argument that shooters are attracted to GFZs all right. (rolls eyes)”

    Oh, that’s your argument now? Just that? That does seem a bit reduced from what you have previously claimed. But I’m glad that you’ve changed your tune. Does that mean you’ve conceded that Gun Free Zones [federal law], which you confuse with opt out laws [state law], allow CCW? That because of this fact, civilians can defend themselves and others in Gun Free Zones? That those who claim otherwise are scoundrels of the highest order? And you’ve conceded that opt out laws have no force of law to disarm anyone? And that people do carry in these businesses as well? And that because of this fact, civilians can defend themselves?

    Glad to hear it.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      No wonder he tries not to respond to you, fucking retarded shit like this. YOU claiming he’s changing his argument ≠ him changing his argument. You misstating his argument ≠ him changing his argument… There are others, but I don’t mean to get too complicated for you, which appears to happen quickly.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Good of you to join. Why are you trying to explain his positions on these arguments? Seems kinda strange when he seems completely able to do so for himself, but hasn’t yet.

        But since you’re here and responding, why not take a chance to respond to the points I made?

        Gun Free Zones have an exception allowing for CCW holders. Do you acknowledge this?

        Opt out signs carry no force of law heavier than no shoe no shirt signs. Do you acknowledge this?

        • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Do you acknowledge that if you enter a property while violating the conditions to do so, that you are trespassing?
          Do you acknowledge that trespassing is a violation of the law?
          Do you acknowledge that “law abiding” means “doesn’t break the law”?

          Unless one of those is wrong, no LAW ABIDING gun owners will be found on those premises. How is that different from a GFZ?

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Are we just going to keep asking each other questions? Is that how you communicate or something? I guess I’ll lead by example:

            “Do you acknowledge that if you enter a property while violating the conditions to do so, that you are trespassing?”

            No. It varies by state. Furthermore, opt out statutes are state laws and only the following states have them:

            Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

            Weird that so many are pro gun states, huh? Also worth noting that a sign is not even required. The owner of a business can tell you to leave for whatever reason within the law.

            ” How is that different from a GFZ?”

            Because they allow for some forms of CCW as is evidenced in the text of the law which I have linked quite a few times recently.
            Because opt out laws are state laws and not federal law like GFZ.
            Because the penalties are different.

            Like Missouri for example:

            “shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.”

            http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000107.htm

            See, in Missouri you would find law abiding gun owners in those areas, because, as the law says, it isn’t a criminal act.

            Now, you were about to answer: Gun Free Zones have an exception allowing for CCW holders. Do you acknowledge this?

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              “Are we just going to keep asking each other questions? Is that how you communicate or something? I guess I’ll lead by example:”

              Don’t pat yourself on the back, you just finally took the heat off yourself by NOT doing what you always do, which is asking questions in response to other questions. You got caught at it, now you’re trying to make like a con whose community service is voluntary.

              “No. It varies by state. Furthermore, opt out statutes are state laws and only the following states have them:”

              Do you (either) think there’s a place where ‘trespassing’ isn’t illegal, or a place where it’s not trespassing to be on a property without the owner’s consent?

              “Weird that so many are pro gun states, huh? Also worth noting that a sign is not even required. The owner of a business can tell you to leave for whatever reason within the law.”

              There are a lot of pro-gun states. That happens.
              And that’s somewhat true, they CAN tell you to leave, posted or not… But that doesn’t get registered as a GFZ, nor do most property owners have x-ray vision to detect CCWs.

              ” How is that different from a GFZ?”

              “Because they allow for some forms of CCW as is evidenced in the text of the law which I have linked quite a few times recently.”

              The last time I saw the text, it was making reference to law enforcement officials being a loophole, NOT allowing the citizenry at large concealed carry.

              “Because opt out laws are state laws and not federal law like GFZ.”

              So in other words, you’re going to limit the definition of a gun free zone NOT to places guns aren’t allowed, but to places making use of a federal law. You don’t find that dishonest at all, I’m sure.

              “Because the penalties are different.”

              But they still exist. Which means they’re found in a lawbook.

              Like Missouri for example:

              “shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.”

              http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000107.htm

              See, in Missouri you would find law abiding gun owners in those areas, because, as the law says, it isn’t a criminal act.”

              sure, except for how in reality it is, because they have a law covering it, inclusive of punishments. If the police can come and stop you, it must be illegal… PLUS normal gun owners know better than to give their money to places who don’t like them, so you’re less likely to see them there even if it’s just “suggested”, the way you seem to think it is. Tell me though: If they’re subject to removal, because that’s what happens by law, how are they still going to be there? Illegally? Welp, so much for the ‘law abiding gun owners’ bit again.

              “Now, you were about to answer: Gun Free Zones have an exception allowing for CCW holders. Do you acknowledge this?”

              Your lack of precognition is a superpower.
              No. If it’s a gun free zone, by DEFINITION, it has no guns in it, unless someone happens to be breaking the law. You can choose one or the other. Your choice. 1) It’s a gun free zone 2) people may carry guns in this place. Of course, government says it is exempt from that law, in itself, and the police are of course not barred from carrying a firearm, (on duty OR off, weirdly enough), but hey, more cognitive dissonance!

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                “Don’t pat yourself on the back, you just finally took the heat off yourself by NOT doing what you always do”

                Um. You didn’t answer any of my questions and just asked a bunch of your own. I called you out for it and here you are complaining like a bitch.

                “Do you (either) think there’s a place where ‘trespassing’ isn’t illegal, or a place where it’s not trespassing to be on a property without the owner’s consent?”

                Do you know that we are talking about gun free signs? And not trespassing in general? Trespassing only comes into effect once the person refuses to leave the premises. Even considering that, your question makes no sense.

                “There are a lot of pro-gun states. That happens.
                And that’s somewhat true, they CAN tell you to leave, posted or not… But that doesn’t get registered as a GFZ, nor do most property owners have x-ray vision to detect CCWs.”

                It happens that most all the states that allow for opt-out signs are pro gun states? What sense does that make? And no, it’s completely true, they can tell you to leave posted or not. Opt out signs are not Gun Free Zones, which is a federal law. I already went over this but I guess everything needs to be repeated to you. The Gun Free Zone Act is federal law. Opt out laws are State laws. Did you get it this time? And the fact that people can’t easily detect CCW only speaks to the fact that there is more CCW happening in these areas.

                “The last time I saw the text, it was making reference to law enforcement officials being a loophole, NOT allowing the citizenry at large concealed carry.”

                And when was the last time you saw the text? Because I posted in it a half dozen times. Maybe go read it again? Why are you trying to debate my point when you are saying you haven’t read the text?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

                Read the exceptions:

                (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

                “So in other words, you’re going to limit the definition of a gun free zone NOT to places guns aren’t allowed, but to places making use of a federal law. You don’t find that dishonest at all, I’m sure.”

                No, I am trying to establish clarity where you guys confuse things and make any discussion impossible because the basic facts are all blurred. Saying GFZ, with capital letters, in the English language, means capital G, capital F, capital Z. That is a capitalized acronym. Much like the Gun Free Zones that are part of federal law. If you want to talk about areas that are gun free, and you want to call them gun free zones, go for it. I mean you are definitely creating confusion, but at least you are distinguishing between federal gun free zones and state gun free zones.

                “But they still exist. Which means they’re found in a lawbook.”

                No. I just showed you MO law which has no penalties. The penalties come after a person refuses to leave.

                “Tell me though: If they’re subject to removal, because that’s what happens by law, how are they still going to be there? Illegally? Welp, so much for the ‘law abiding gun owners’ bit again.”

                They can leave themselves once asked by the owners. But if they refuse to, they break the law and are trespassing. I don’t know what you need explained to you here. Is it that hard to understand?

                • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  Exactly who do you think posts no guns allowed signs on the outside of businesses? That might be the owners, do you think?
                  So when you say that the owners have to ask them to leave, the owners have already asked them to leave, in a written notice.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Exactly who do you think posts no guns allowed signs on the outside of businesses?”

                    Mayor McCheese.

                    “So when you say that the owners have to ask them to leave, the owners have already asked them to leave, in a written notice.”

                    The notice is do not enter. If they are being asked to leave they have already entered.

                    For future reference:

                    http://www.gemplers.com/images/items/63094PLL-lrg.jpg

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    That’s your response? Haha. Really?

                    Nothing about how Gun Free Zones (federal law) has an exception for CCW holders?

                    Nothing about how opt out signs often carry no weight of law and are largely irrelevant because anyone, with or without an opt out sign, can tell you to leave for having a firearm?

                    Weird.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Bingo.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          So you do agree that federal GFZ law has built in exceptions for CCW?

          And that not all States have opt out statutes? And that many who do, like Missouri, make it a non-crime if you are carrying in these zones?

          Great!

          How about the facts regarding Mr. Barker? Did you get all that? Need further explanation?

  4. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    The Bundy-Loyalists, killing innocent people, because…. freedumb!

    NOTE: Not a Gun-Free-Zone!!!!

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/jerad-amanda-miller-l as-vegas-shooting-cliven-bundy-anti-government

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Several ironic things that should be of interest to gun fetishists.

      1) Not a gun-free zone
      2) Cops were armed. It didn’t help
      3) CCW in Walmart, didn’t get off a shot, got nailed instead
      4) Not a gun-free zone
      5) Mr Miller was a felon (with a gun)
      6) Not a gun-free zone

      A timely but sad reminder of what ABC said would happen.

      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      If only there had been a good guy (or three) in a gun free zone!

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        1) Nobody claims non-GFZs are 100% safe. That would be a straw man.
        2) Anecdotal cases do not prove anything, except possibly that there are always exceptions to otherwise well-established rules.
        3) Unwise of the CCW to confront 2 shooters, but then again 2 shooters are very rare, and he probably didn’t know there was another shooter.
        4) Also, CCW was last innocent killed, instead of possibly 20 others. (Which no one knows or can know.) I don’t know what their plans were and you don’t either. Could this have become another mass killing? Maybe, maybe not.
        5) Innocent death toll kept to 3, so this wasn’t a “mass shooting” according to the FBI’s definition.
        6) Cops who were first killed were conspicuous and therefore identifiable targets. As opposed to CCW holders who criminals can’t necessarily identify. Speaking of which
        7) The video from 20/20 that you posted is deceptive for this very reason. The shooter in that video knew where Joey was sitting, and that he was armed. So he just came in and shot the “ccw” holder, as if he had been wearing a hot pink “SHOOT ME!!” sign, which is extremely misleading with respect to actual CCW. The video represents reality as much as the cars that some network rigged with explosives, and then crashed, showing how they blew up. Then again, we are used to such deceptions and it’s our civic duty to point them out to the deceivers, such as yourself, who create or spread the deceptions. Of course, coming from you, we don’t really expect much else of anything other than dishonesty or deceptions. Sigh.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          “Also, CCW was last innocent killed, instead of possibly 20 others. (Which no one knows or can know.) I don’t know what their plans were and you don’t either. Could this have become another mass killing? Maybe, maybe not.”

          What does this point even mean? You offer absolutely nothing to conjecture. The entire thing is just maybe and who knows. Take yourself more seriously.

          Funny that you mention the possibility of it being a possible mass shooting, so you’re exploiting the mass shooting angle here for your “maybe, who knows” theory, but in another of your points you try and minimize the event because it didn’t qualify as a mass shooting. Your brain probably didn’t pick up on all that but that’s OK, I’m here to point out your subconscious hypocrisies.

          “Innocent death toll kept to 3, so this wasn’t a “mass shooting” according to the FBI’s definition.”

          Who said anything about a mass shooting? And why are you trying to use this definition to minimize the event in the most arbitrary way? And finally, these types of statistics, all those cases with less than 3 deaths, would be used by Mr. Barker…

          And strongly supported by you. Oh, the h word, how it hurts.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “1) Nobody claims non-GFZs are 100% safe.”

          That’s the nirvana fallacy. That is not the point. The point that has been belabored over and over is that all these shootings happened in gun-free-zones which is a total lie and becoming more of a lie with each passing day of shootings.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            It is a response to the fact that you posted it wasn’t a GFZ three times, out of a total of six items. (By way of comparison, I posted seven distinct rebuttals with no repetition.) Saying that shootings only happen in GFZs is both a lie and a straw man. I have never claimed that, and no one else has either. What I have claimed is that a significant fraction of shootings in the US happen in GFZs, enough to change the entire national statistic of firearms homicides/100,000/yr, and that the overwhelming majority of *mass shootings* occur in GFZs. I have no interest in responding to your straw men other than to call them out.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              For some reason you think someone is using the word “all”. What I have pointed out is yet another non-gun-free zone where a shooting took place.

              Now, On January 9, 2013 at 10:19 am Bruce claimed

              “Of the 68 mass killings, only one happened in a place where armed citizens were allowed”

              Which is completely wrong as shown multiple times both past and present.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                I have since then claimed that *two* mass shootings were in non-GFZs. So why are you pointing out a post I (1) made more than a year ago, and (2) corrected, other than because you are a troll?

                http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/study-all-two-multiple-p ublic-shootings-1950-took-place-where-guns-were-banned

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Because there are way more than one or two.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Cite them.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I did cite them.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You presented a list, and I showed that either the list was wrong, if it author was misrepresenting it as a true and complete list of mass shootings in and out of GFZs, or else *you* misrepresented it as a true and complete list of mass shootings, in and out of GFZs. Got anything else?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Nope, that is your straw man.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.

                      Not a soft target.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Soldiers are prohibited from carrying guns at military bases, as surprising at that may seem. At the church in Aurora, there was one (1) victim, making it not a mass shooting, and then the shooter was killed by a CCW. The Miami shooting in 1982 was before FL went to shall-issue, and indeed Miami was so strict in its gun control that groups sued Miami specifically to comply with laws restricting locales from having stricter gun control laws than the state allowed. http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=51286 and the person who shot the mass killer was criticized by law enforcement, but not prosecuted. At the time, only people politically connected to government officials would ever be issued carry permits in Miami.

                      Of course if you think that non-mass-shootings are mass shootings, or if you want to present the straw man that “not soft targets” aren’t nevertheless GFZs, go right ahead, but doing so doesn’t disprove my case. By by your straw definition, nowhere in America is a “soft target” because police and FBI can go anywhere, and they are armed. But that is not what I mean by GFZ. And you know this. But you proceed with your straw men anyway. Because you are a _______ .

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Soldiers are prohibited from carrying guns at military bases, as surprising at that may seem.”

                      Armed guards are not prohibited from carrying guns. It was not a soft target. Remember the NRA slogan, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. They were there…

                      “At the church in Aurora, there was one (1) victim, making it not a mass shooting, and then the shooter was killed by a CCW.”

                      Then why did Davi Barker list it above? Don’t claim double standards on me unless you are willing to do the same with the author.

                      “The Miami shooting in 1982 was before FL went to shall-issue, and indeed Miami was so strict in its gun control that groups sued Miami specifically to comply with laws restricting locales from having stricter gun control laws than the state allowed. ”

                      So the shooter picked Florida because of the laws there. Riiiiight… the

                      “nowhere in America is a “soft target” because police and FBI can go anywhere, and they are armed.”

                      Which deflates the “gun free zone” argument even more.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “[me]Soldiers are prohibited from carrying guns at military bases, as surprising at that may seem.”

                      [Mark]“Armed guards are not prohibited from carrying guns. It was not a soft target. Remember the NRA slogan, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. They were there…”

                      Straw man. My claim doesn’t pertain to hard vs. soft targets, it pertains to whether the people commonly at a place are freely allowed to carry concealed weapons there or not. Most of the people on military bases are soldiers, and they are prohibited from carrying guns (by executive order, by Clinton).

                      “[me]At the church in Aurora, there was one (1) victim, making it not a mass shooting, and then the shooter was killed by a CCW.”

                      “[Mark]Then why did Davi Barker list it above? Don’t claim double standards on me unless you are willing to do the same with the author.”

                      Davi’s claim is that “shootings stopped by armed citizens have x fatalities while shootings stopped by police have y fatalities”. My claim is that all but two *mass* shootings were at places where CCW wasn’t allowed. They are distinct claims, although I can see how you might confuse them if it you wanted to mislead others.

                      “[me]The Miami shooting in 1982 was before FL went to shall-issue, and indeed Miami was so strict in its gun control that groups sued Miami specifically to comply with laws restricting locales from having stricter gun control laws than the state allowed. ”

                      [Mark]“So the shooter picked Florida because of the laws there. Riiiiight… the”

                      Another straw man, I’m not saying he picked the place for that reason, I’m saying it was a mass shooting in such a location. And it *just so happens* that they are overwhelmingly in such places. (Because, as in the CO Church, when CCW is allowed, somebody’s likely to be carrying, and can often stop the murders before the victim count passes 4.)

                      [me]“nowhere in America is a “soft target” because police and FBI can go anywhere, and they are armed.”

                      [Mark]“Which deflates the “gun free zone” argument even more.”

                      … to a troll, who intentionally misrepresents what the argument even is.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      As we have seen with Santa Barbara the relaxing of laws about CCW which open up new places for the bold defenders of ‘Murica to work their good deeds we see that the GFZ is just a straw man that gun fetishists use to hide behind the problem gunz create.

                      You can slice it any way you want (as Lott has) but the overwhelming evidence is that GFZ plays little to no part in the shootings. BTW, lot posted that figure of his (he only listed one) in April, well before Santa Barbara.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Sure, make a platitude attacks after your individual straw men have been exposed and your points rebutted individually. Accuse me of holding a double standard when Davi and I are attempting to answer different questions, and also misrepresent my position as the compliment of one of yours (“No place has ever been attacked solely because guns were banned there.”) Then, just back off and call the GFZ thing a general straw man. Yeah, riiiight.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      GFZ plays little to no part in the shootings. BTW, Lott posted that figure of his (he only listed one) in April, well before Santa Barbara.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Davi’s claim is that “shootings stopped by armed citizens have x fatalities while shootings stopped by police have y fatalities”.”

                      Wrong. Did you read his conclusions? You either did not or are lying. Which is it?

                      “The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

                      The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33″

                      Notice the words “mass shooting”. Then notice you are an idiot.

                      “Another straw man, I’m not saying he picked the place for that reason, I’m saying it was a mass shooting in such a location. And it *just so happens* that they are overwhelmingly in such places. (Because, as in the CO Church, when CCW is allowed, somebody’s likely to be carrying, and can often stop the murders before the victim count passes 4.)”

                      Look at how scared you are of stating your position. So you’re not saying the shooter chose the place for it’s gun free zone. You’re just pointing out it *just so happens* shootings happen in these areas. Is that really what you’re going to argue? That you aren’t trying to go one step further?

                      Bruce, have some fucking balls mate. Really, come on.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark writes “GFZ plays little to no part in the shootings.” Given how small a fraction GFZs are of the area of the United States, and how many mass shootings happen there, your statement fails the laugh test. It’s like claiming that “gender plays little to no part in the shootings” even though all (IIRC) the shooters are male, or that “psychotropic medications play little to no part in the shootings” even though a major fraction of shooters were on them. I don’t know the exact fraction, but I’d guess that between 1 and 10% of America’s area is GFZs, yet by far most mass shootings happen in them. If there were truly no connection between them, i.e. that the mass shootings happened irrespective of GFZ status, then the fraction of mass shootings in GFZs should be about the same as the area fraction of GFZs in America. But they aren’t. There are far more shootings in GFZs than their area represents, so there is some role that they must play, whatever it is.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark writes “GFZ plays little to no part in the shootings.” Given how small a fraction GFZs are of the area of the United States”

                      What a dumbassed thing to say. GFZ are only where people are which is but a small fraction of the area of the United States.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      There are a lot of places where people are, that aren’t GFZs. The six or seven other nearby Colorado theaters that weren’t the Cinemark, for example. People were there, too. There are lots of malls, churches, stores, and of course outdoor locations, where CCWs are welcome to be, and there are lots of people there. Your response is idiotic.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ” There are far more shootings in GFZs than their area represents, so there is some role that they must play, whatever it is.”

                      Yea, whatever it is. So….what is it? What role do they play?

                      Psst. I heard gun free zones are not as gun free as you would like to imply and that it’s a misnomer used by idiots like you to try and throw shit in the air to distract from any meaningful conversation about reducing gun deaths and injuries. Did you hear anything about that?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Cite them.”

                    I’ve cited mine, you cite yours.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Oh, wait, you did your list was “John Lott sez”.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      The guy with the gun came from down the street; it was a soft target. (I.e., you are lying.) Not that “soft target” is my position. As said elsewhere, this was in Miami, FL, before it became shall issue, and Miami was so gun-unfriendly that groups had to sue the locale to comply with statewide preemptions.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Coming down the street makes it a soft target. What the hell are you talking about.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I can answer that, but before I do, what is your basis for calling the machine shop “not a soft target”?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey Bruce, you dumb sheep fucker, how are ya?

                      “And it *just so happens* that they are overwhelmingly in such places. ”

                      Yes, you are right. That is exactly spot on. Since when has your argument devolved to that? Because that is exactly what Mark and I have been saying the whole time. Glad you’re on the same page.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      When did gun-free zones first appear?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Loooong time ago. You can look back to the early 1800s which started the first conceal carry bans.

                      “Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma.”

                      “For all the talk of the “Wild West,” the policymakers of 1880 Tombstone—and many other Western towns—were ardent supporters of gun control. When people now compare things to the “shootout at the OK Corral,” they mean vigilante violence by gunfire. But this is exactly what the Tombstone town council had been trying to avoid.
                      In late 1880, as regional violence ratcheted up, Tombstone strengthened its existing ban on concealed weapons to outlaw the carrying of any deadly weapons within the town limits. The Earps (who were Republicans) and Doc Holliday maintained that they were acting as law officers—not citizen vigilantes—when they shot their opponents. That is to say, they were sworn officers whose jobs included enforcement of Tombstone’s gun laws.

                      In many towns, you would have to check your weapons in when you entered and received a token for when you want to reclaim it as you leave.

                      In all of US history, there has never been less gun control than there is today.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “What I have claimed is that a significant fraction of shootings in the US happen in GFZs, enough to change the entire national statistic of firearms homicides/100,000/yr, and that the overwhelming majority of *mass shootings* occur in GFZs.”

              The number of shootings in the US in GFZ is a tiny fraction of the total shootings.

              The number of mass shooting victims per year is a small fraction of the total number of shooting victims per year. Going off an MJ estimate, 151 in 2012 with 30k gun deaths.

              Please stop misrepresenting the truth. Thanks in advance. Also, have you ever defined GFZ? Because you capitalizing it would infer that you are talking about the Gun Free Zones in federal law. In which case you would be severely wrong. Guessing that’s not what you meant since you have trouble expressing yourself correctly.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “2) Anecdotal cases do not prove anything, except possibly that there are always exceptions to otherwise well-established rules.”

        I’ll remind you of this when you cite someone with a gun in a non-GFZ takes out a shooter.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, whatsoever, statistically. People taking out shooters in non-GFZs happens enough to alter the statistics. You can’t argue against statistical truths using anecdotal cases, and in particular you can’t cite a case where a CCW-holder was murdered in a non-GFZ (as part of a non-mass-shooting) to refute the point that a vast majority of *mass* shootings occur in GFZs.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            How about this, do you think if the locations were not gun free, the majority of mass shooters would have chosen other locations?

            “Perhaps Polifact can offer a reason why so many mass shootings are in GFZs, which make it unlikely at least, and illegal at worst, for them to be stopped by armed citizens.”

            Oh yea. While we wait for Politifact to respond to you, how about you offer a reason? Do you not have one in mind?

            Or will you respond with your second sadly reduced argument, “that shooters are attracted to GFZs”.

            C’mon, don’t be such a vague little girlyman. Put some heart into it. Make a claim as to how much of a shooter’s decision-making on location is based on whether it will have gun restrictions. That’s what you want to make a claim about, so do it. Don’t hide behind vague sentences like that. Makes you look weak, Brucey.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          He made the tactical error of identifying himself and paid with his life. Cast: one person killed. Other people have made the tactical error of banning guns from, e.g. their theaters, and the price was 20+ killed. Let’s see who learns from the lessons and alters their behavior, such as CCWs deciding to not intervene or to act suddenly instead of politely, vs. those who seek to increase the area of GFZs so as to enable future mass killings.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            “He made the tactical error of identifying himself and paid with his life.”

            Identifying himself? Like saying excuse me hello, my name is Bruce, nice to meet you?

            Or identifying himself as in, he took our his gun and tried to stop the gunman, like you claim conceal carriers are supposed to do?

            Yea, what a huge tactical error on his part. Also known as conceal carry is not always the answer, and in some cases, like this one and the Arroyo court house shooting, the victims often end up being those trying to be heroics when the situation wasn’t right for it.

            “those who seek to increase the area of GFZs so as to enable future mass killings.”

            Enable future mass killings? I though you didn’t know the role between mass killings and GFZ? But here you seem pretty confident. So your claim is that gun free zones enable mass killings. Alright. Got anything to back it up? Nope? Oh. Well then I guess you’re at the same place as you were a year ago. Except now you know that there are MAJOR exceptions to gun free zones, which you desperately are trying to ignore. You don’t really have shit for facts do you? Like at all.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, whatsoever, statistically.”

          Ah, changing the tune again. Evidence added with other evidence (which has been shown to you over and over) does statistically matter.

          Labeling it anecdotal doesn’t change statistics which are pointing toward the GFZ thing being mostly a straw man.

          But thanks, for the info. Next time you show me something like this I will be sure to label it anecdotal.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “4) Also, CCW was last innocent killed”

        My point exactly. And they’ll be the first one killed too.

  5. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gunfire-reported-portland-area -high-school-24072749

    And another school shooting. I guess we should get used to this being a weekly or bi-weekly event? Weird that the shooter didn’t use another weapon. Why did he pick a gun? That’s so crazy and unlikely. I just have no idea. Because easy access to guns is not a problem. No sir.

    But hey, 4 or more were not killed, so I guess Bruce can keep this out of his gun free zone theory.

    “During the evacuation of the school, authorities found another student with a gun and he was taken into custody. That weapon and arrest were not related to the shooting, Anderson said.”

    Which is why we have gun free zones. So that such behavior is discouraged, and when it happens, is punishable.

    “”I thank God that she’s safe,” said Johnson, who has three younger children. “I don’t want to send my kids to school anymore.””

    Don’t worry. Pro gunners are on your side. Right guys? You want to make her feel like she can send her kids to school again. Right?

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Babs, you continue to belabor the same point, guns are dangerous and you would like to limit their availability so you would feel safer. But you refuse to acknowledge that this would entail your infringing upon the desires of many people who feel safer having guns and being in a society where guns are available. Since freedom here in the USA normally is taken to mean the absence of governmental coercion, you are advocating an anti-freedom stance. Admit it and people can have a rational discussion with you. I can understand your feelings, but the “cure” you advocate seems far worse than the disease to me. Yes availability of weapons means that some innocents will be killed. But the unavailability of weapons has consequences far more dire. I think that you collectivists make disingenuous arguments rather than the truth that you want a disarmed populace so that government can instill socialism with little resistance. The best way to promote freedom is to promote the availability of weapons. I do not like that fact, but it is so.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “Babs, you continue to belabor the same point, guns are dangerous and you would like to limit their availability so you would feel safer. But you refuse to acknowledge that this would entail your infringing upon the desires of many people who feel safer having guns and being in a society where guns are available.”

        I have asked on numerous occasion who gets to decide. You label these people as normal. It can’t always be the person wanting the gun. Criminals in prison don’t get to decide that. Who do you propose decides and what grounds constitute granting / denying ownership? Saying the individual gets to decide on their own is a cop out.

  6. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    Mark, I guess you do not understand how an anarchist thinks. I see denying the individual the decision about weapon’s ownership or anything else by government as inappropriate. You are essentially stipulating that in some “necessary” circumstances weapons must be denied to certain people. I am saying that government should not exist. Then all decisions would at least be free from the worst coercer today. You collectivists think government has the “right” to incarcerate individuals and thus have total control over them. I disagree. Freedom and law are antithetical. We should be working towards a society with no “law” as we define it today. So in answer to your question, the individual decides and it is not a cop out to think so. It is the only answer consistent with freedom. Most people in this venue are not anarchists but minarchists. Essentially they are anarchists without balls. If your position is that anarchy is impractical right now, I may agree. That does not change the fact that we should be aiming for it. Every time folks accept another restriction on gun ownership they hurt the eventual possibility of freedom developing. That is why I support the 2nd amendment even though it is imperfect. It is the best we have got for defense of liberty.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      ” I am saying that government should not exist. ”

      And I am saying that is not possible. It has never happened. Anarchists have only been around in societies that have governments. There have been absolutely zero examples of total anarchy and there is a good reason for it: it makes no sense and is not in the interest of the people.

      Briefly, try and explain how you envision the US if we could eliminate government and turn into into your anarchist system. What would the US look like? How would 300+ million people co-exist?

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        In other words, you’re ignorant of it ever happening, and as such think it can’t. Imagine sitting there in 1968 saying “Show me ONE example of man setting foot on the moon? It’s never happened, and that’s because it’s impossible!”
        …Except Zomia. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/fl/Zomia-A-Regio n-Resisting-Modern-Statehood.htm

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Zomia is anything but an anarchy. What a stupid example.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Your assertion is noted, and dismissed, as being without evidence or merit.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              You can find the evidence yourself if you choose to look.

              https://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/cseas/Academics/Conferences/Hjorl eifur%20Jonsson%202010.pdf

              “In 2010, the Journal of Global History published a special issue, “Zomia and Beyond”,[11] in this issue, contemporary historians of Southeast Asian history respond to Scott’s arguments. For example, although Southeast Asian expert Victor Lieberman[12] agrees that the highland people crafted their own social worlds in response to the political and natural environments that they encountered, he also finds Scott’s documentation to be very weak, especially its lack of Burmese-language sources, saying that not only does this undermine several of Scott’s key arguments, but it brings some of his other theories about Zomia into question.

              Furthermore, Lieberman argues that Scott is overestimating the importance of manpower as a determinant in military success. While the bulk of Scott’s argument lies on the efforts of lowland states to dominate the highlands, Lieberman shows the importance of maritime commerce as an equally contributing factor.

              Lieberman also says that examples not included in Scott’s analysis need to be taken into consideration. Scott firmly believes that the culture shaped as a defensive mechanism, as a reaction to surrounding political and social environments. Lieberman, however, argues that the highland peoples of Borneo/Kalimantan had virtually the same cultural characteristics as the Zomians, such as the proliferation of local languages and swidden cultivation, which were all developed without a lowland predatory state.[13]

              More recently, Scott’s claims have been questioned by Tom Brass (2012), ‘Scott’s “Zomia,” or a Populist Post-modern History of Nowhere’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42:1, 123-33. Brass maintains that it is incorrect to characterize upland Southeast Asia as ‘state-repelling’ ‘zones of refuge/asylum’ to which people voluntarily migrate. This is, he argues, an idealization consistent with the ‘new’ populist postmodernism, but not supported by ethnographic evidence. The latter suggests that populations neither choose to migrate to upland areas (but go because they are forced off valley land), nor – once there – are they beyond the reach of the lowland State. Consequently, they are anything but empowered and safe in such contexts.”

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_%28geography%29

              Apology accepted.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Wow, you’re accepting imaginary speech now, too? May as well, if you’re that direly in need of some approval.

                The article you posted was 20 pages long. Given the time-span between when you were posting things, you didn’t even come CLOSE to reading it. You just did a word-search to find what you thought you needed. In your own words, can you tell me WHY the Burmese language was necessary to make his case?

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  20 pages long? Not even close.

                  “In 2010, the Journal of Global History published a special issue, “Zomia and Beyond”,[11] in this issue, contemporary historians of Southeast Asian history respond to Scott’s arguments. For example, although Southeast Asian expert Victor Lieberman[12] agrees that the highland people crafted their own social worlds in response to the political and natural environments that they encountered, he also finds Scott’s documentation to be very weak, especially its lack of Burmese-language sources, saying that not only does this undermine several of Scott’s key arguments, but it brings some of his other theories about Zomia into question.”

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “Your assertion is noted, and dismissed, as being without evidence or merit.”

              You mean other than the evidence in the link that you provided which contradicts your claims?

              Haha. Good one.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Clearly you’re not familiar with “his assertion”… That being “Zomia is anything but an anarchy. What a stupid example.”

                …Which is, as often we find, an assertion made without evidence, which, as per the rules, we can likewise dismiss without evidence.

                As to ‘my own link’ debunking me, boy are YOU cherry picking… “criticisms of” sections are a thing which you’re clearly unfamiliar with: They’re intellectually honest.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “As to ‘my own link’ debunking me, boy are YOU cherry picking… “criticisms of” sections are a thing which you’re clearly unfamiliar with: They’re intellectually honest.”

                  Well if they’re honest, what’s the problem? You seem confused again.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    The problem is that YOU aren’t.
                    No confusion here, despite your best efforts.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Like I said, you are confused. The link which you gave has a criticism section which counters everything you are claiming. And you are saying this criticism section is honest. So what does that leave you with? Just you, sitting there, awfully confused about what’s going on.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Noting that there are criticisms of a thing doesn’t imply that those criticisms are factual, accurate, correct, or anything more.
                      Unless you want me to point to global warming again and point out that there are “criticisms of” the AGW model, and you’ll jump right on the critics’ bandwagon?

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          “Some anthropologists point out that although many Zomian communities see the state as an oppressor, they still use the state as a source of goods, services, protection. ”

          Hey, that kinda sounds like you guys!

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Unlike you guys, who insist that once we’ve had our money taken, we shouldn’t make any attempt to get any use out of it?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Indeed. They are takers just like Bundy. It’s amazing how many facets of civilization have to be ignored in order for “Anarchy” to actually pretend to work.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            What’s that? It’s the sound of someone who still never showed the expenditure of a single dollar of public money on the land Bundy was homesteading.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Why do you think the BLM is there in the first place?

              “For Rob Mrowka, an ecologist and senior scientist with Nevada’s Center for Biological Diversity, the agency that sued in federal court to remove Bundy from the federal land in order to protect the land and the tortoise, said he was disappointed to see the government give in to “an armed anarchist group,” instead of protecting the endangered tortoise and rare plants and allowing fire-damaged vegetation to regrow.”

              http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/15/blm-battle-at-bundy-ranch/

              Shooting off your mouth like this makes you look like a dunce.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Oh please, the tortoise was an excuse, and we’ve well-established that. I don’t think there IS a “why”. the BLM just increases the scarcity of usable land, and should go away completely. The tortoise was cohabitating with those cattle for longer than the BLM existed, and they were killing them in the preserve, so they could hardly be making a convincing case for their survival through THAT.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  The turtle is not the only reason. From here on if you continue to raise this excuse you need to document that the BLM has done nothing on that land and that Bundy is not over grazing land he never paid to use. (Theft)

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    The turtle is the reason YOU brought up, and you can’t shift the burden of proof to someone you demand prove a negative. YOU claim he’s leeching: YOU prove your claim.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “tortoise AND rare plants and allowing fire-damaged vegetation to regrow”

                      Why do you persist in acting like a dumbass?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Please produce the deed where Bundy owns that land. If he uses it but doesn’t own it he’s a thief.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““tortoise AND rare plants and allowing fire-damaged vegetation to regrow”

                      Yeah, the desert has NO IDEA how to recover from fire. Herp derp. It needs GUBMINT to do it right.

                      “Why do you persist in acting like a dumbass?”

                      Can’t hardly answer why I’m being accused of what you do, regularly.

                      “Please produce the deed where Bundy owns that land. If he uses it but doesn’t own it he’s a thief.”

                      lol. asserting that he needs a piece of paper from government to own a thing, and that use of something that YOU say is public would make the user a thief. Better not ride a bus!

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. “Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a ‘land grab,’ are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.””

                      Oh look, even YOUR source admits his family homesteaded the land.

                      Continue? Ok, yes you may.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877″

                      His ranch is not a part of the land his cattle is grazing. If it were his land there would be no issue.

                      Are you not able to read?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Cite a source to back up your claim that the land he was grazing on is not part of any such homesteading.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I’ve done enough homework for you. Find where he owns that land or STFU.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      No, you’re doing homework for YOU. Either back up your claim, or STFU.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I see no evidence he owns the land. I’m not going to prove a negative, you are going to prove a positive, otherwise he doesn’t own the land and is trespassing and is a thief.

                      Go for it, you made the claim it’s his land. Prove it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “If Bundy “owns the land then where is the deed? Where are the records he paid property taxes? It’s not his land. Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.”

                      http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-cla im-to-federal-land-and-grazing/

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      You’re actually asking ME to prove a negative. If the land is homesteaded, there’s no paperwork, because there was no government there when it got homesteaded, and he’s the original owner. If YOUR claim is correct, there IS documentation of when the state or federal government purchased the land FROM the users thereof.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You’re actually asking ME to prove a negative. If the land is homesteaded, there’s no paperwork, because there was no government there when it got homesteaded, and he’s the original owner.”

                      Prove it. That is a positive. Prove he owns it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

                      Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn’t start grazing on that land until 1954.

                      The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.”

                      We’ve been over this before but you seem to like to stir up trouble.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/22/1293756/-Cliven-Bundy-s- ancestral-rights-are-every-bit-as-authentic-as-the-gondolas-at-Th e-Venetian#

                      Where’s your proof?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You have yet to provide one single piece of data that suggests Bundy is anything but a thief and a trespasser.

                      To make matters worse, he’s surrounded by ammosexuals who break the law and get away with it because of their precious gunz.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Homesteading
                      Over 80% of the Nevada area is owned by the federal government, as homesteads of maximum 640 acres (2.6 km2) in the arid state were generally too little land for a viable farm. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze cattle on the adjacent public land, which is useless without access to water. The Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909, the establishment of a state dry-farming experiment station, and private promotional efforts stimulated dry farming within a fifty-mile radius of Wells, Nevada, but a combination of low precipitation, short summers, abundant jackrabbits, mediocre soil, and the faulty judgment of the settlers themselves virtually ended the ill-favored experiment after 1916.[21]”

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nevada

                      Actual Bundy Ranch

                      http://www.metabunk.org/sk/bundymapwithranchkeyed.jpg

                      “The dispute at the “Bundy Ranch” arose because Cliven Bundy had been grazing his cattle on 158,000 acres of public land without a permit. The history of the dispute is explained here by Alan O’Neill, former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.”

                      http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/06/rancher-land-dispute- bully-not-hero/

                      Now, where is the proof he owns the land he is illegally grazing cattle on.

                      Bundy is a thief and a trespasser.

                      Show me otherwise or STFU.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “rove it. That is a positive. Prove he owns it.”
                      The ranch are the only ones who have ever tended that land, or made use of it in the slightest, in over a century. That IS homesteading. That IS ownership. As I’ve shown you repeatedly, if you left your car on the side of the road for a month, or your home untended for 6 months, whoever lays claim to it and maintains it has a legal claim to ownership.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      ” Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

                      Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn’t start grazing on that land until 1954.

                      The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.

                      On a substantive basis, it really wouldn’t matter if Bundy weren’t a fraud—even if his family had lived on his ranch since 1877, it wouldn’t change the fact that his cattle are grazing on Federal, not private, land and that he should play by the same rules as everybody else. But he is a fraud, and somehow that makes his story an even more fitting symbol for what America’s far right has become. ”

                      He owns 160 acres, not the land he is grazing cattle on. That is NOT his land. He is a thief.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/22/1293756/-Cliven-Bundy-s- ancestral-rights-are-every-bit-as-authentic-as-the-gondolas-at-Th e-Venetian#

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      ” That IS ownership.”

                      In addition, he is not even claiming he owns the land his cattle are grazing on. He claims it belongs to Nevada, in which case he’s stealing from Nevada.

                      You have yet to prove he owns the land. There should be a deed and records to the effect. Bundy was born in 1946. His parents BOUGHT the 160 acres.

                      http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/res/Education_in_BLM/homestead_act/le gacy/BLM_s_Role.html

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to “threatened.”

                    March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government’s efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. “Among the conservation measures required,” according to the Post’s coverage, “are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land.””

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Babs, an anarchist society here would have a lot in common with our society of today. Certain aspects of the culture would be more emphasized such as individual accountability. The ultimate coercion of government would be gone, but people would still cooperate for mutual advantage. Human nature won’t change, just the system which gives power to the ruling elite at everyone else’s expense will have been gutted. Read Smith’s Pallas or The Probability Broach to get a better idea of what an anarchist society could look like.
        You say that anarchism can’t exist. I ask why? What does government do that individuals cooperating can’t do, usually cheaper and better? Do you think people have some psychological need to be ruled? Even if that is true of some people, it would not preclude anarchy for you could go to areas under someone’s control voluntarily. I know you will never agree, but why should your concept or anyone else’s have control over my life? I reject all claims of ownership on me. You collectivists try to enslave the rest of us to your vision of the future which I do not share. How dare you advocate using government thugs to enforce your concepts upon me or others?!You know that is BS, the Soviet concept of freedom is not what we are talking about here, but you and Mark use an alternative definition of freedom to cloud the waters. It has gotten old.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          “You say that anarchism can’t exist. I ask why? ”

          I’ve answered it a dozen times. Because groups of people look for organization, leaders naturally form and with that comes power. Couple that with the fact that we have a finite amount of natural resources, it would never work. Unless you think you can just brainwash everyone somehow into believing in your philosophy, whoever is strongest, be it physically or with arms, will take control.

          “Do you think people have some psychological need to be ruled?”

          Sure, I think many people like to know that certain things in their life are taken care of others, even if that means giving those people power. Leaders wouldn’t be able to lead unless people let them do so. What is for certain is that people have the psychological desire to make/take power however they can. Ironically, your society sounds more like a socialist society than a capitalist society, yet you are intent on having socialist ideas as your enemy. Doesn’t make much sense. You should look up libertarian socialism. Sounds like that’s what you’re into.

          “but why should your concept or anyone else’s have control over my life?”

          Because you choose to live in a society where we have these things. America has never been the system that you want, yet for some reason, you act like you’re being wronged. People don’t have as much control over your life as you lead on, like you said, you’re off the grid for the most part. It sounds like it’s the US government you are against as there are many countries you could move to where the governments would let you do whatever you wanted, practically.

          • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

            I agree that anarchism can not exist. Anarchism is different from tribes or communities with no central government that are of a networked nature. Think many native American societies, hunter gatherer cultures, and others that were network of interlocking families and clans. But that is not what most people mean by anarchy.

            Evolution selects for stupidity and authoritarianism. By stupid I do not mean mentally deficient, but unwilling or unable to learn from any source other than authority, at least after sexual maturity

            In the book 1984, the interrogator says to Winston smith:
            “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

            In 2009 I was motivated to write a 6600 word essay that I called orwells boot. I was quite pleased, when I did a search about a year later, on the two words orwells boot, that my article was on the first page of google. It is now number 1, after paid links, on all search engines, usually under the name factotum666. Just enter the two words orwells boot.

            You may enjoy the read. Be sure to follow the link to xfoolnature.org

            I attempt to show the underlying reasons for the problems that we have and the situations that you do not like. To Wit, why so many people are so obedient to authority, and so resistant to learning new stuff that does not come from authority. I think that I make a convincing argument that nature has made us that way. There are exceptions, but like societies that have no religion, they are few and far between. Like those societies, they are also remarkably free of crime and peaceful.

            So the question now becomes not “what is right”, or “what do I like”, but “how do we change things?” since it will require much more than simply educating people.

            While working on my book / project I have concluded that the problem is not government or religion. It is hierarchy. Hierarchy came out of agriculture and property ownership. Property ownership is not, of itself, bad. We need to change our cultures from being hierarchies to being networks. Hierarchies almost always focus, amplify, and create stupid, bad psychopathy, and obedience. Networks are, by their nature, hostile environments for all of these pathologies. Create networks.

            I am very open to constructive criticism. I can be contacted at dpaladin at ix dot netcom dot com. But you will have to prove that you are human. If you fail to get a response, please try again.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Babs, thank you for your response. Voluntary organization is not what I am against. You only see my ideal society as socialist because of your innate biases. It would also have probably the vast majority of folks practicing rugged individualism. I agree with you that it is human nature to try to accrete power. Anarchy is an intentional attempt to fight this negative aspect of human nature with another aspect of human nature, rationality. Henry David Thoreau pointed out that freedom will not exist until men are ready for it. I attempt to help educate men towards the day when they become rational enough to live free.
            Yes I am opposed to our government or any government. Having been born and raised in this culture I think I have the “right” to promote improvements. Also other governments don’t leave you alone more than our government necessarily, especially as an alien coming there to live. That is why I think Wendy McElroy is making an error in going to Chili to live. If the monetary crisis hits worse the expats may find themselves targets of the Yankee hatred seen throughout the world. You did not answer my question, what does government do that individuals can’t do usually cheaper and better? Government is an agency of coercion. I think people are intelligent enough to live without being coerced . You seemingly do not. Collectivists essentially are promoting the old concept of “the white man’s burden” except that they consider almost everyone too stupid to live their own lives without government coercing them into doing the “right” thing. Though I do agree that most people worldwide are pretty stupid, I reject the concept that we need a government to “take care” of us.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “Mark, I guess you do not understand how an anarchist thinks.”

      I’m realizing they don’t think.

      “I see denying the individual the decision about weapon’s ownership or anything else by government as inappropriate.”

      You keep bringing government into the issue. Please separate the entity doing the enforcement with the enforceability. Based on your response that “normal people” should have guns I asked on what basis. Who are these normal people? Are they people in prison? Are they non-US citizens? Are they terrorists? Are they everybody? If so, please refrain from calling them “normal”.

      “You are essentially stipulating that in some “necessary” circumstances weapons must be denied to certain people.”

      Is it necessary to keep guns from people in prison?

      “I am saying that government should not exist.”

      That’s wonderful, I didn’t ask that.

      “Then all decisions would at least be free from the worst coercer today.”

      Decisions by whom? Should suicidal people be deciding they need a gun? Should homicidal people be deciding they need a gun?

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Mark, insulting me by saying anarchists don’t think is asinine. You are advocating governmental control of who can have weapons. so it is relevant that I think government should not exist. If it did not then decisions about weapons would be made by the individuals involved. I guess as a collectivist that you can’t imagine a society where individuals make their own decisions. You ask if homicidal or suicidal folks should be deciding if they should have a gun. “Should” implies that others have control over the individual. Others decide if you are suicidal or homicidal. Ultimately you are signing over everyone’s freedom so you can feel secure. As Franklin pointed out, those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

  7. 2014 New wholesale cheap Islanders jerseys

  8. pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

    Hmm. Not that anyone HERE would echo these claims without reading up on them, right?

    http://bearingarms.com/bogus-school-shooting-data-released-everyt ownmoms-demand-result-firings/

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Good to know that this is a reliable site because it has liberal roots. Thanks for the clarification Bruce.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Only a troll would knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent what I wrote, Mark The Troll.

        Yes, that means you.

        Needless to say, you accused me of ad hominem when referring to a news site as liberal, and of course it can’t be an ad hominem unless being liberal was bad.

        Meanwhile, in the STFU department, here’s a quote from your buddy Babs The Troll: “Hey Bruce, you dumb sheep fucker, how are ya?” Either call him out for his ad hominem, or admit your glaring double standard, once again, with respect to me vs. him. Not only can’t you have it both ways, you can’t have it either way. You are troll and repeatedly prove it.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Needless to say, you accused me of ad hominem when referring to a news site as liberal, and of course it can’t be an ad hominem unless being liberal was bad.”

          Then I expect you’ll never mention liberal again since the context you used it in makes it a key part of dismissing the web sites content, otherwise why mention it? We can all see the source and know their political affiliation. Pointing it out then becomes just noise.

          Is liberal bad? For a liberal, no, for an ammosexual gun fetishist or non liberal yes. Which are you? I’m guessing you are going to tell me you are liberal now.

          It’s fun watching you go through mental gymnastics trying to justify your fallacies.

          Anxiously awaiting the next gem you pull out if the dog turd bag.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            I have never used the fact that a site is liberal as a “key” part in dismissing it.

            Here is what I said: “Not surprisingly the liberal blogger you quote doesn’t understand that the FBI defines mass murder this way, and if you take out 1-3 of the victims, that, while still murder, it no longer is classed as a “mass murder” by them. Maybe he should take it up with the FBI, and not with the author of this website, Davi Barker. Then again, cluelessness, coupled with a certain amount of sanctimony, is a calling card of liberals. As you well know, Mark.”

            So, the key part in dismissing the blogger is that he criticizes the exclusion of 1-3 deaths, when it is the FBI itself that defines “mass public shootings” in exactly this way. I.e. he is getting mad at a definition, that the one he criticizes is using correctly. That alone is worth dismissing the blogger. The fact that he is that clueless, and also a liberal, is incidental, and in particular, is not “key” to my argument, as you erroneously claim.

            Could you please stop misrepresenting my words and my positions?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “Could you please stop misrepresenting my words and my positions?”

              You have a point, you are doing a good job of misrepresenting on your own. Then again, if you don’t want to be called out for using words that indicate you dismissing evidence (in part) because of the writers political affiliation I suggest you quit mentioning it. Ad Hominem weakens your argument.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                State how I am misrepresenting my own position.

                Furthermore, please indicate how ad hominems might weaken my own argument, but comments like “sheep fucker” don’t weaken Bab’s. (Which you haven’t mentioned, exposing your own double standard, once again.)

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “State how I am misrepresenting my own position.”

                  You seem to think ad hominems mean nothing. They are a logical fallacy and therefore undermine your position. If a liberal says the sky is blue is he wrong because he is liberal? You can’t represent your position using Ad Hominem and expect it to work.

                  “Furthermore, please indicate how ad hominems might weaken my own argument, but comments like “sheep fucker” don’t weaken Bab’s. (Which you haven’t mentioned, exposing your own double standard, once again.)”

                  Oh, they do weaken his position and it makes me cringe when I see it. You are welcome to call him out on it if you think he is using that to support his arguments to counter yours. But that is YOUR job, not mine.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    “You seem to think ad hominems mean nothing.”

                    At worst, that is an error on my part, not a misrepresentation of my own position.

                    “They are a logical fallacy and therefore undermine your position. If a liberal says the sky is blue is he wrong because he is liberal? You can’t represent your position using Ad Hominem and expect it to work.”

                    I don’t base my arguments on: “he is a liberal, therefore he must be wrong.” I cite other reasons as the basis of my argument. In the case at issue, the blogger calls someone out for disregarding cases with 1-3 deaths, as if that were some sort of fatal shortfall to the argument. Except that he was talking about “mass shootings” which the FBI *defines* as 4 or more killed, other than the shooter(s). So the blogger (1) missed something truly basic about what he was criticizing, namely, the definition of a term, and (2) attempted to make much hay over this error. The latter is responsible for my accusation of sanctimony, arising from false high-mindedness. To these I might add: (3) you cited the blogger as if doing so would strike a devastating blow in favor of your own position, apparently missing (1) and (2) yourself.

                    Nothing in the above hinges on whether the blogger was, or wasn’t, a liberal. (That was just icing.) Therefore, you are incorrect in asserting that I have used the “He is an x, therefore, he is wrong” type of logical fallacy. I.e. you are using a straw man, claiming my position is something other than it is.

                    It is both ironic and telling that, in response to my demand that you cease misrepresenting my position, you again misrepresent my position.

                    The fact that you see no responsibility in calling out Babs’s flagrant ad hominems is proof of a double standard on your part: you hold me to a higher standard than you hold Babs.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      ” (That was just icing.) ”

                      And it ad hominem.

                      Is “The ‘misogynist’ Bruce says women are inferior” icing? NOTE: This is just an example. I am not claiming you exhibit that characteristic.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Again, “misogynist” is derogatory so use of the term would be ad hominem, but, therefore, calling someone a “liberal” would only be derogatory (and therefore ad hominem) only if being a liberal were bad. Calling someone “tall” is not derogatory and therefore not ad hominem; it’s merely descriptive. Why do you argue as if “liberal” is not descriptive, but derogatory?

                      Meanwhile, you still haven’t answered whether ammosexual is ad hominem. I would submit that making suppositions on how other people obtain sexual gratification is almost certainly intended to be derogatory. (To say nothing of how ironic it is that someone calling another a “sheep fucker” makes you cringe, yet you freely imply that other people fuck cartridges – and that saying so is sufficiently acceptable that you do so.)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “calling someone a “liberal” would only be derogatory (and therefore ad hominem) only if being a liberal were bad”

                      Is being liberal always good? Check the context of your use.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      After all, “misogynist” is just me using “icing”.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s safe to infer that Mark believes that being called a liberal is derogatory. That he is one anyways is self-evident.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s safe to say that Bruce thinks “liberal” is a negative epithet based on the context it was used in, otherwise why mention it?

                      Not sure how you can get me confused with Bruce.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  ” In the case at issue, the blogger calls someone out for disregarding cases with 1-3 deaths, as if that were some sort of fatal shortfall to the argument. Except that he was talking about “mass shootings” which the FBI *defines* as 4 or more killed, other than the shooter(s).”

                  Are you still going on about this? There is a shortfall in Davi’s argument because he uses incidents that were not mass shootings to draw false conclusions about mass shootings. All your numbered points and you don’t understand the basics of what you are talking about. Let me explain it again for you:

                  Davi has mass shootings as well as non-mass shootings in his list of 20 some cases. Based on these 20 some cases, he tries to draw a conclusion on mass shootings. Not only does he not understand representation, and how his 20 shootings are not representative enough to say what he claims in his conclusions, but he draws conclusions about mass shootings based on selectively picked shootings with casualties ranging from 1-10+.

                  Now do you get it? Or do you prefer talking about fallacies ad nauseam?

                  Oh, and me calling you a sheep fucker has nothing to do with Mark. It has to do with me calling you a sheep fucker. But sure, go ahead, attack him for it. You don’t have much else.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    “Now do you get it? Or do you prefer talking about fallacies ad nauseam?”
                    blah blah blah, YOU KEEP COMMITTING THEM. :P

                    You’re tired of it? So are we.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, your policies lead practically assuredly to eventual confiscation. You are not stupid so you need to either admit that that is your eventual goal or change your modus operendi. All bureaucracies grow or die. dYou advocate giving more power to government bureaus. They will not stop there.

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        He’ll never admit that as his end goal, it’s a pretty common socialist trick. Baby steps.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Aaah, yea, well you’re a liar too. Better? It’s really good that you “know” what I want. Remember calling me on that one? Do you get to say what my “end goal” is?

          I have stated my case and that is that there should be universal background checks. Nothing more and nothing less. Any conjectures on your part are just that. Quit assigning your delusions to me.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            “Do you get to say what my “end goal” is?”
            Well ONE of us should, and it’s clear you’re not willing to.

            “I have stated my case and that is that there should be universal background checks. Nothing more and nothing less.”

            Bullshit. You’ve asked repeatedly which of us thinks we get to decide who has, or can get, a gun.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        That’s the slippery slope fallacy. You’ve been lied to.

  9. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Shot by an asshole who should have never had a gun.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/domestic-violence_n_5474 177.html

    Hooray for his participation in the well regulated militia.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Yeah, I see we’re back to “anecdotal evidence”…

      Guess only the cops should be dealing with this stuff, right?

      http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/07/woman-says-she-called-911-for-a n-ambulan

      Tell you what: I’ll match you 2 for 1, EVERY time you do this.

      http://rt.com/usa/164000-police-shoot-mentally-ill-teen/

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        You ought to look up the definition for “anecdotal evidence” so you don’t look like a dumbass.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          If he is able to do that 2 for 1 for every single case you can possibly cite, it’s no longer anecdotal, it’s statistical. Oh, and by the way, you would then lose.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          You really should take your own advice… *I* know what it means…

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Mark, you asked if an abusive boyfriend should be permitted to have a gun. The very question shows that you do not comprehend what freedom really is all about. There should be no government entity with the power to make the decision as to what any individual is “permitted” to do. In a free society one might ask if you as an individual would sell a gun to any particular person. Note that the decisions are by individuals concerning their own actions not some damned bureaucrat deciding that everyone should toe the same line.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “Mark, you asked if an abusive boyfriend should be permitted to have a gun. The very question shows that you do not comprehend what freedom really is all about.”

            Understood. A person with a proven record of violence and abuse should be allowed to have a gun because freedom. Never mind the freedom of the victim.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              She’s allowed to have a gun, too. she’s also allowed to use common sense and leave the dude before it gets to that point. Encouraged, even.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Doesn’t matter. Hope she’s lucky and the SOB doesn’t kill her with her own gun.

                “The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health reports that intimate assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to end in death. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, most women are victimized by the same offender, as in this case. This has to stop.”

                http://aattp.org/florida-ammosexual-arrested-with-assault-rifle-o n-his-way-to-murder-ex-girlfriend-her-child-and-her-boyfriend-vid eo/

                • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  Despite how gleefully you anticipate in your head some thuggish boyfriend ripping a gun out of his girlfriend’s hands and shooting her with it, that actually happens in a single digit percentage of cases. Maybe you don’t understand how difficult it is to rest control of a weapon away from its possessor, but New in doing so discovered that they become a really huge, almost entirely unmissable target.

                  Do you think that simply being female means that when somebody comes up and tries to snatch their gun away, they allow it to happen? Why would we ever let women be police officers or military members if that were the case?
                  The Liberals were the ones who believed in women and empowering them.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Maybe you don’t understand how difficult it is to rest control of a weapon away from its possessor,”

                    Maybe you don’t understand that this is a straw man.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Yeah, because killing her with her own gun is so easy if you can’t or don’t take it from her. Know many abusive boyfriend hypnotists, then?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “A woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own gunsacquired them “primarily for protection against crime,” the results of a California analysis show that “purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner homicide.”

              A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females
              living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home. Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.”

              http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                The VPC is a viciously anti-gun bunch. Citing them is about as sensible as citing the KKK on matters of race relations.

                “A woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own gunsacquired them “primarily for protection against crime,” the results of a California analysis show that “purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner homicide.”

                Of course purchase alone is not sufficient, but we can’t expect California to study this, nor mention it.

                “A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females
                living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.”

                This statement fails to control for reverse causation. Studies show that people with insulin medication are far more likely to die from complications of diabetes (“negating” the protective benefit of such medications), and people who purchase diet soft drinks are far more likely to be obese (“negating” the proposition that they help people lose weight). Except that the negations fail, because a selected group of people possess insulin or buy diet soft drinks.

                “Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.”

                Once again this citation fails to control for reverse causation. Maybe, just maybe, those women who purchased guns have either decided to enter the criminal lifestyle, which is a life-shortening decision, or have identified a very specific, very deadly threat against themselves personally, which the gun might help against, but which it also might not, but which in any case poses no threat to other women who don’t decide they really, really, need to buy a gun. Especially when non-threatened women are successfully dissuaded from doing so by the (fallacious) argument given above.

                Only a fool would fail to see the obvious invalidity of the claims made by the VPC when they are pointed out, but only a sinister and malicious gun-grabbing agitator would knowingly cite from that particular den of vipers when they should otherwise know better, Mark. If they were here with non-nefarious purposes, that is.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “The VPC is a viciously anti-gun bunch. Citing them is about as sensible as citing the KKK on matters of race relations.”

                Says the buy who then follows by citing Brietbart. Truly amazing. You just can’t help yourself with the ad hominem. Let me help you, your follow on piece by Brietbart is about as sensible as citing Pol Pot on matters of human rights.

                “Of course purchase alone is not sufficient, but we can’t expect California to study this, nor mention it.”

                Drat! Went to the gun store and forgot to buy bullets again! These women are clearly wasting their money. They’d be better off drawing a picture of a gun to protect them. Did you have a point here…no, I didn’t think so…they bought it to take the place of a dildo.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  “[me]The VPC is a viciously anti-gun bunch. Citing them is about as sensible as citing the KKK on matters of race relations.”

                  “Says the buy who then follows by citing Brietbart. Truly amazing. You just can’t help yourself with the ad hominem. Let me help you, your follow on piece by Brietbart is about as sensible as citing Pol Pot on matters of human rights.”

                  First, I have discredited the VPC here many times in the past. Second, I specifically refuted the points you posted, so you can’t accuse me of merely attacking the messenger. Third, Breitbart cited their own sources, specifically, a Fox News article which quotes people. http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/25373283/spartanburg-waffle-hous e-shooting-video-released-sparks-new-debate You have to claim they are fabricating quotes and attributions from whole cloth in order to successfully attack my point that the surviving family members of an *armed robber* are calling for stricter rules pertaining to CCW and laws pertaining to lawful use of deadly force.

                  So, unlike me, your attack of “it’s ad hominem” and “Breitbart, therefore, wrong” both fall woefully short of any sort of measure of refutation. In order for you to successfully parrot me as a defense, you have to cite logical failures in my sources that directly pertain to the points I am making from the posted story, which, of course, you have utterly failed to do.

                  “[me]Of course purchase alone is not sufficient, but we can’t expect California to study this, nor mention it.”

                  “Drat! Went to the gun store and forgot to buy bullets again! These women are clearly wasting their money. They’d be better off drawing a picture of a gun to protect them. Did you have a point here…no, I didn’t think so…they bought it to take the place of a dildo. ”

                  It is easy for you to blame the victim and smear the deceased, in a despicable display of your depravity, without so much as touching upon my point that merely buying a gun, as if it were a talisman against evil, would be sufficient, yet, California didn’t attempt to do so, nor did they attempt to address the reverse causation point that I raise in your citations of the (deeply flawed) VPC talking points, which also apply against their claims.

                  Of course, you also have nothing to say about the reverse causation flaws in your own citations either, because, well, you have nothing to say about them. It’s not even clear you know what reverse causation is. (Or, if you did, why you would cite “studies” that are dripping in it.)

                  Medals cause people to win races, because a study of those wearing medals has found that such people are much more likely to have won races beforehand statistically significantly more often than those not wearing medals. They even win races more often in the future, too! Quick!! Call the VPC!!

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “First, I have discredited the VPC here many times in the past.”

                    Discrediting something that VPC presented is not the same as discrediting everything. I’ve discredited Breitbart too. So there.

                    BTW, they did do a comparison of women with and without guns. You just chose to ignore the latter.

                    You really don’t understand ad hominem.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      … and I’ve done comparisons of people with and without insulin, and people with and without diet sodas, and with and without medals. Such a comparison does nothing to address the serious flaw of reverse causation. If umbrellas really kept you dry, then people carrying umbrellas should have dry shoes, compared to people not carrying umbrellas. Yet, (“astonishingly!”) the opposite is true at a statistically significant level. Therefore, we can safely conclude that carrying umbrellas does not actually cause people to be drier than people not carrying umbrellas. In fact, I didn’t carry an umbrella at any point today, and my feet stayed completely dry, which can’t be said of those folks in the rainstorm today. Refute that, if you can. (Hint: use reverse causation.)

                      As for VPC, they are like MAIG in posting fraudulent studies. Do you have to eat the whole apple to know that it is rotten? I don’t, but I have shown you the worms in many bites now.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh noes indeed! You COMPLETELY forgot to address any point whatsoever in any of the Breitbart pieces I have posted, including today’s post that the surviving family members of an ARMED ROBBER shot to death by a CCW holder are pressing for the tightening of CCW and self-defense laws.

                      If, indeed, Breitbart should be discounted because they fell victim to a hoax, then practically no media outlet can be trusted. Even the Grey Whore, the New York Times, has fallen victim to hoaxes, let alone all the major news outlets. Dan “Fake but Accurate” Rather, for example? (Regarding a forged document that made claims about GW Bush’s National Guard service, and which was an obvious forgery, as opposed to a rumor. Say, is there some bulletproof way to tell if a rumor is true? Like, calling someone who would know, and having them hang up on you, and then writing that it “wasn’t denied” by said person? Is that legit, or not?)

                      Oh, and I forgot last time to mention:

                      You really don’t understand reverse causation at all.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You really don’t understand reverse causation at all.”

                      Oh, I’ve cited correlation does not prove causation on numerous occasions, like more homicides happening in cities or high crime areas being under democratic control.

                      You have continued to ignore the rest if the article.

                      “According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2010 there were only 278 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens. Of these, only 34 involved women killing men. Of those, only 23 involved firearms, with 16 of the 23 involving handguns. While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenarios of lethal gun use in America in 2010, the most recent final data available, are suicide (19,392), homicide (11,078), or fatal unintentional injury (606).”

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      The fact you cite “correlation does not prove causation” does not prove that you understand reverse causation at all. Furthermore, the fact that you cite “studies” that are rife with reverse causation problems tends to indicate that you don’t. (Or, you do, but you post them anyway, if and only if you are a troll.)

                      As for the FBI, they too have their own standards. Here’s a quote from the FBI: “Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.”

                      Got that? If A COURT determines that someone fired lawfully in self-defense, that doesn’t necessarily make it justifiable homicide as far as the FBI is concerned. (Because “Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses.” So, if a rapist does not complete a rape, because he’s been shot to death by the intended victim, there was no rape, and therefore, it wouldn’t be justifiable homicide.)

                      http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/06/justified-homicide-in-califo nia-not.html

                      “Gary Kleck shows that between 5.6 and 13% of reported homicides are justifiable homicides by citizens who are not police.

                      The rarest, but most serious form of self-defense with a gun is a defensive killing. The FBI does not publish statistics on self-defense killings per se, but it did start publishing counts of civilian justifiable homicides gathered through their Supplementary Homicides Reports program in their 1991 issue. For a variety of reasons, the FBI counts of civilian justifiable homicides represent only a minority of all civilian legal defensive homicides.
                      I have not found any work that refutes these findings. Those who cling to the Progressive Elite model simply state the FBI numbers as fact.

                      In 2010, the UCR reported 278 justifiable homicides which are only 1.9 percent of the total criminal homicides (14,748) reported.”

                      That’s a factor of 5-10 different. Not that you care.

                      Say, by any chance do you “cling to the Progressive Elite model”? Because, after all, you simply state the FBI numbers as fact. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/two-models-of-modern-murder. html

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      So… you “understand” reverse causation, but you use it wrongly knowingly.
                      Gotcha.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Bingo. But he’s not a troll, because “he’s here to learn.”

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      BTW, they did do a comparison of women with and without guns. You just chose to ignore the latter.

                      And when you have no point just fall back on attacking your opponent. Ad hominem.

                      You really don’t understand ad hominem.

                      So all these reverse causation cases, more guns, less violence? Wasn’t that the whole point? They buy guns to ward off an attack and then…. Yea, tell those women to get a gun for their self defense because nobody is going to lift a finger to help them otherwise, their boyfriends have rights you know…

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      … and I did a comparison of people carrying umbrellas vs. people not carrying umbrellas, which I’ve already mentioned. Lo and behold, the ones carrying umbrellas got *more wet*. So, so much for “more umbrellas, less getting soaked,” right? I mean, these women wanted to stay dry, so they bought them, but when they carry them, they get *more wet* then when they don’t carry them. That just blows the whole argument for buying umbrellas out of the water (so to speak), doesn’t it?

                      You really don’t understand reverse causation. So you go back to hypocritically attacking me for using ad hominems (in addition to my substantive arguments), when you also post non-substantive, and/or off-topic attacks against Breitbart. You haven’t even acknowledged that they were nailed by a hoax in the case you cited. Your implication seems to be that they were wrong because they are pathological liars, not because they were duped, and therefore “Breitbart, therefore, wrong.”

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Mark, the freedom to defend one’s self is far more important to me than the trivial number of abused spouses who get shot. Life is not safe. But letting government “protect” you is tantamount to selling yourself into slavery. You may wish to be enslaved. I do not.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “Mark, the freedom to defend one’s self is far more important to me than the trivial number of abused spouses who get shot. Life is not safe. But letting government “protect” you is tantamount to selling yourself into slavery. You may wish to be enslaved. I do not.”

                “—The murder count for 1995 totaled 21,597″
                “Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends”

                http://fathersforlife.org/fv/fbi_spousal_murder_stats.htm

                You call 5600 deaths “trivial”. I call many of them preventable.

                I wish for women to not be enslaved by an abusive husband who is further enabled by a gun.

                I have not in any way been enslaved the 3 times I went to a FFL and bought a rifle. I’m glad they check on whether a scumbag is buying a gun. The process was easy and reasonable, and… I have the guns… surprise! So please tell me how I am hindered in defending myself.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  And what precisely did you tell them about all the things you had done, but not been caught at, yet? I mean, you seem to believe there’s a significant portion of people looking for guns who have evil intent… Yet buy them through FFLs, anyways. I can only see one way you’d come by that view honestly: personal experience. It certainly isn’t shown by any statistic.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “And what precisely did you tell them about all the things you had done, but not been caught at, yet?”

                    The fallacy of the loaded question. When did you stop beating your wife?

                    “I mean, you seem to believe there’s a significant portion of people looking for guns who have evil intent… Yet buy them through FFLs, anyways. ”

                    Some do. They are stupid on at least two counts. Baboohka has mentioned it on several occasions.

                    “I can only see one way you’d come by that view honestly: personal experience. It certainly isn’t shown by any statistic.”

                    Evidently you haven’t been paying attention.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark, 20 plus thousand murders (how many with guns?) is trivial out of a population of over 350 million. Guns protect us from more government encroachment. That is worth some risk.
                  sorry about the previous comment. The computer sent it unexpectedly before I could clean up typos, etc. But I think you can get the gist of it. My old hands do not type well any more. Too many years using a manual typewriter I guess. Also too many years of manual labor finishing concrete. Getting old sucks.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Mark, 20 plus thousand murders (how many with guns?) is trivial out of a population of over 350 million.”

                    Seems trivial until it’s one of your friends. Karen’s smiling face is no longer among us because an abusive ex husband and gun nut shot her to death, along with his daughter and mother-in-law. It was wonderful finding this out on Facebook.

                    “Guns protect us from more government encroachment. That is worth some risk.”

                    When, where, how much? Are you suggesting pointing a gun at a LEO?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      How magical is that LEO uniform? If they violently break the law, for example coming into your house and start hitting your family, do you think you’d point a gun at one then?
                      Would you point a gun at anyone ELSE at that point?

                      If your answers are different, you need to understand your reasons why.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “How magical is that LEO uniform? ”

                      Magic 8
                      Charisma 17
                      Manna 13
                      Charm 3
                      Intelligence 8
                      Health 11

                      What on earth are you asking? If you desire to point a gun at a LEO to defend freedom, be my guest.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      The litmus test of belief in freedom is the willingness to extend freedom to those we do not like. I am sorry for your loss of Karen, but even were it one of my kids who was killed by a gun, it would not change the rationality of freedom. At some point it will likely become necessary to fight back against government intrusion. If the freedom loving portion of the population is largely disarmed there will be little recourse but to be a slave or die. I prefer having a reasonable option to fight back. Read John Ross’s book Unintended Consequences to see one way such a “revolution” could occur.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “Mark, the freedom to defend one’s self is far more important”

                And your idealistic view of freedom turns a blind eye toward reality. We have a structural problem that drives people toward the need for a gun. If you really want to be free the underlying problems have to be solved first. In the mean time, I’d rather not let an abusive person have a gun to use on their victims.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  and I’d rather all my bills got paid by a magical sky-daddy, but then I come back to accepting the world the way it is, and go back to work to feed my family.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Reality, not every country let’s just anyone have a gun, Some are quite successful and enjoy a similar level of freedom. You just don’t get to shoot your girlfriend because she wants to leave you.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      And I never have, nor would.
                      You still haven’t demonstrated one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons.

  10. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Another Bundy defender. I guess this is what you guys call “normal”.

    http://aattp.org/we-told-you-so-blm-shooter-is-an-anti-government -conspiracy-whack-job-with-pending-weapons-charge/

    And these two in Las Vegas were too extreme even for the Bundy ammosexuals.

    http://www.startribune.com/nation/262333211.html

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Is “ammosexual” ad hominem, or not? How does the suggestion of your imagined sexual preferences of others advance the pursuit of logical debate?

      (Or, are you a troll and/or a hypocrite?)

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          You didn’t answer my question.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Why do you need him to tell you if it’s an ad hominem or not? Makes no sense.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Oh, he’s trying to decide if I’m a hypocrite. Ammosexual is a term of endearment, just like liberal describes nothing but goodness and light.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                That has already been decided in the affirmative. Fortunately, thanks to your lessons in sarcasm, it can likewise be decided again.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Naw, anmmosexual is a term describing lovely gun owners just like liberal is a term describing people who think with their head instead of their ass.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  How deftly indeed you cross the line from sarcasm to mendacity.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    hahahahaha

                    Deftly indeed? Mendacity?

                    Bruce, you’re killing me. Hey, you gonna attack Mark again for what I said to you?

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark, a spouse abuser who shoots his or her spouse is making his own individual decision. Why should that potential abuse be the determinant preventing weapon’s access? What about the majority who did not shoot anyone? This is just what I mean about government controlling weapon’s access. It can and will assume that anyone it finds “threatening” does not deserve a weapon. Frankly government does not give a damn if a guy shoots his old lady. They fear his fighting back against the police state we live in. I repeat, the potential risk of universal weapon’s access is way outweighed by the potential to defend our individual liberty from government oppression.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Mark, a spouse abuser who shoots his or her spouse is making his own individual decision. Why should that potential abuse be the determinant preventing weapon’s access?”

                    Because somebody ends up dead. When he shoots the girlfriend/spouse he is deciding her fate as well. Her right to live outweighs his right to get a gun and kill her. He should have made the individual decision to not beat her up and say if she leaves he’ll kill her. He’s made his choice, now he has to live with it.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark, do you dodge the idea of individual decision making because of your collectivist philosophy or intentionally as a debating technique?
                      One person’s abuse of guns, like your example of spousal abuse, has no bearing on the concept of ready access to weapons. Many men, and some women, threaten their spouse and nothing ever comes of it. But you have said that such men should be disarmed so they have a smaller potential to abuse. essentially you are promoting thought as a crime. I would prefer that the millions of people who threaten their spouse at one time or another have access to weapons so as to defend themselves and their families from thugs. Will some people abuse weapons? Sure. Some folks will die from gun accidents too. I hate that and do not own a gun myself partially for fear of such an outcome. But that is my freedom to choose. You collectivists believe in governmental coercion. I do not.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark, do you dodge the idea of individual decision making because of your collectivist philosophy or intentionally as a debating technique?”

                      Any individual can make the decision to abuse their rights. There should be consequences to making bad decisions. Does a husband have a right to beat up their wife and threaten to kill them if they ask for a divorce? If he does so, that should be at a severe cost to him. Why is he free to obtain a gun with the stated intent of killing her and not free to remain free after doing so?

                      I think you’d agree we both want to stop this guy. I want one less life ruined than you because you seem to value your freedom more than this woman’s.

                      And to answer your question, that is a false dichotomy. I have addressed individual decision making and I have no need to use that straw man of yours as a “debating technique”

                      “One person’s abuse of guns, like your example of spousal abuse, has no bearing on the concept of ready access to weapons.”

                      If it were one person affecting many other peoples ready access then you might have a point. The truth is it is NOT one person, nor does this affect ready access in any significant manner to the vast majority of individuals. I have had ready access to three weapons and there was less complication than even getting a drivers license renewed. This ready access thing is a straw man.

                      “Many men, and some women, threaten their spouse and nothing ever comes of it. But you have said that such men should be disarmed so they have a smaller potential to abuse.”

                      There should be consequences for threatening someone.

                      “essentially you are promoting thought as a crime.”

                      A threat is more than a thought. Actions have taken place, intentions have been communicated, fear has been employed.

                      “I would prefer that the millions of people who threaten their spouse at one time or another have access to weapons so as to defend themselves and their families from thugs.’

                      They should have “thought” about that before they threatened. Simple as that, if you value your freedom to choose then choose wisely. Screw up and pay the consequences.

                      “Will some people abuse weapons? Sure.”

                      And those with strong indicators for abuse should have barriers against abuse. It’s pretty clear where abuse comes from.

                      “Some folks will die from gun accidents too. I hate that and do not own a gun myself partially for fear of such an outcome.”

                      There should be liability for gun accidents just like there is liability for automobiles.

                      “But that is my freedom to choose. You collectivists believe in governmental coercion. I do not.”

                      I believe that some entity should make an assessment as to whether an individual is capable of exercising their second amendment right. That includes, proving you are a citizen, proving you have no record of abuse of your right, and proving you are not a member of a foreign terrorist group. Those records are easy to obtain. People who abuse their liberty deserve none.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Your core misunderstanding, as always, is that rights can’t be abused. If you’re hurting someone, you’re not invoking a “right” to do so: You’re committing a wrong.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Ever the pedant…
                      Husbands second amendmenting their exes to death.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      If you think “pedant” is an insult, you have problems.
                      If you think someone “exercised a right” someone to death, you still don’t understand what rights are.
                      “Officer! That man over there owned a gun at me!”
                      If you think the second amendment has a mystical phrase, known only to the true believers, wherein what it REALLY means is “The right to murder folks”, then and ONLY then, would someone be “second amendmented to death”. Let’s humor you and say you DON’T mean that, and that you’re just confused.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Furthermore, Fritz asked if I was a socialist.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          You are not asking if anyone is ammosexual, you are throwing the term around.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            ” For a liberal, no, for an ammosexual gun fetishist or non liberal yes. Which are you? I’m guessing you are going to tell me you are liberal now.”

            What should I call someone who ties their very existence and purpose in living to guns? “Patriot”? “Gun obsessed”? “Dickless”?

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              First, your question is a false dilemma. (Either someone is a liberal or an ammosexual, “which are you?”)

              Second, accusations of obsession or of lacking a dick are also ad hominem. (Girls lack dicks; do you consider them inferior for that reason?) For someone who seems so sensitive to ad hominems, you sure use them a lot.

              “What should I call someone who ties their very existence and purpose in living to guns?”

              Before you call anyone anything, you should first check your mind reader to determine whether or not anyone actually ties their existence and purpose for living to guns, as you claim. Ad hominems might be bad for winning an argument, but claiming that you can read the thoughts of others makes you look insane.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              It’s funny because you’re tying your purpose to guns via trying so fervently to ban… I mean regulate them.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Neither. Quit telling me what I think. Remember that one?

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  I didn’t realize I wasn’t allowed to tell you what you SAY now, either. You’ve made it clear you’re in favor of denying guns to people.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Changing the tune I see. Typical of someone backed into a corner. Let’s hope you don’t bully your way out with a penis compensator … I mean gun.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, I see, “ban” and “deny” are a different tune?
                      You’re hallucinating that corner…

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Gosh, that seems to be a common trend, the people that your sort would love to use to vilify other causes are found to have been turned away by those causes.

      I wonder who still remembers?

      “McVeigh and Nichols find the militiamen too inactive for their taste. (Michigan Militia spokesmen will later claim that they ejected Nichols and his brother James from their group for their “hyperbolic language”; after the bombing, militia leader Norm Olson will say, “These people were told to leave because of that type of talk of destruction and harm and terrorism.”)”
      http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_domestic_t errorism_tmln&haitian_elite_2021_organizations=haitian_elite_2021 _michigan_militia

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, you are the one advocating making laws controlling folks, not me. To be more accurate, I am trying to keep the ability to make my own decisions rather than have government make them for me. So I am not deciding anything for you by insisting upon my own freedom except that I will not willingly allow you or others to coerce me. Other free men feel the same as I which tears you socialist types all to hell.

  11. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “There are at least 11,986 convicted stalkers living in the United States right now who can walk into a store, pass a background check and legally purchase a firearm, according to a report released Wednesday by the Center for American Progress.

    Between 2001 and 2012, more women were shot to death in the U.S. by an intimate partner than the total number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. But while U.S. federal law prohibits persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from purchasing a gun, the law has so many gaps and loopholes that tens of thousands of known domestic abusers can still either legally buy a gun or are never properly reported into the background check system.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/guns-domestic-abuse_n_55 06643.html

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Be sure to slather this with icing Bruce.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Are you against abused women being able to own a gun for self-defense?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        It’s perfectly legal for a woman to own a gun. The chances of it being effective rather than her own murder weapon are extremely small but I’m not against it. I an against her abusive boyfriend having one. Are you in favor of the abusive boyfriend having one?

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          He doesn’t need one, he can beat her to death with his bare hands. That’s why she needs one. If they BOTH have one, she’s got an even chance, which is better than she has if neither of them do. And your stats are wrong. “The chances of it being effective rather than her own murder weapon are extremely small but I’m not against it.”
          …Right, because generally BEING WOMEN changes… what?

          http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-4a-women-shouldnt-have-guns-b ecause-men-will-only-take-them-away-use-against-them

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            I didn’t ask you if he could beat her to death. I asked if you think he should be allowed to have a gun. Should the abusive boyfriend be allowed a gun now that he’s proven he is willing to cause her harm.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              That’s the only thing you’re capable of debating, isn’t it? Permission…

              You want to stop him? Guess you could shoot him. Does he deserve it?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                See above, I’m capable of debating your question dodging too.

                Apology accepted.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  I don’t know what delusional apology you imagined, but it’s pretty hypocritical to accuse me of question-dodging while you do the same thing.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                And if you want to hand a gun to a wife abuser (after purchase of course) and then hear about the outcome the next day I hope it makes freedom swell within your heart.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  Why would I do that? Do you buy cars, and just give alcoholics the keys? You don’t need a law to make you smarter. It can’t.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Why wouldn’t you do that?

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    I’m deeply disturbed by that question.
                    You truly don’t seem to find any reason not to do a thing, if there isn’t a law prohibiting it. Wow.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      How do you propose to deal with those who commit immoral acts?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Immoral? Like disrespecting parents? Let the parents deal with it.
                      Point me at something with a victim, and the answer is always clear: Let the victim or their representative impose the punishment. No victim? No punishment. If you can show that someone owning a gun somehow harms you, by all means, go for it. Til then, stick to worrying about real crimes.

  12. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Good thing we have that well regulated militia to defend us. Boots on the ground boys, time to defend ‘Murica.

  13. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    How many more guns will it take to realize more guns means more gun violence?


    Home • Most Popular on AATTP • 310 Million Guns in America: Highest Gun Violence in the Developed World. Coincidence? Hell No.
    310 Million Guns in America: Highest Gun Violence in the Developed World. Coincidence? Hell No.

    Posted by: Steven Kotch in Most Popular on AATTP, The Gun Control Debate, Videos June 18, 2014
    Repost This Article

    The good people over at Face the Facts USA have produced a video that is putting cold, hard numbers on the very established fact that America has an alarming amount of guns. The clip covers growth in handgun, rifles, and shotgun ownership over recent years, and the obvious relationship this trend has with our abnormally high number of gun mortalities.

    The data is also indicative of a culture that celebrates guns, where if you own a gun, chances are pretty good that you aren’t just storing it away for when it’s needed, but are in to guns; three times as good, in fact. That’s right, about 74% of households that own guns own multiple guns. It’s no wonder that gun supporters have become so violently (pun intended) opposed to gun regulation in any way shape or form. Guns are a part of their very identity.”

    http://aattp.org/310-million-guns-in-america-highest-gun-violence -in-the-developed-world-coincidence-hell-no/

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Yeah, it’s about their identity, surely it can have nothing to do with the WELL established history that says registration is just the excuse before confiscation. Sit on a polygraph and tell me you don’t want gun confiscation. You’ll fail.
      After confiscation? What then?
      Anything they want. Why not? What the fuck are YOU gonna do about it?
      Oh nothing, just get REAL MAD, and vote even harder, I guess.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I recall you objecting over me telling you what you thought. Hypocrite much?

        Your registration=confiscation formula is today’s slippery slope fallacy. The fear mongers lay it in extremely thick with this one.

        http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          “Your registration=confiscation formula is today’s slippery slope fallacy. The fear mongers lay it in extremely thick with this one.”

          It is no more a slippery slope fallacy than is your argument that, because there were 10,000 firearms homicides last year, and the year before that, and before that, that there will be thousands and thousands and thousands more in years future. Instead, you seem to exhibit the fear that, based on past results, the future appears to hold good chance for more fatalities, which you seek to reduce (although I think your methods are misguided) just as we have a fear that registration will lead to confiscation, just as it has in the past. Which we seek to prevent, by preventing registration, the only sure method to prevent confiscations.

          Note that background checks *don’t* have the demonstrated ability to significantly reduce criminal firearms homicides, at least so significantly that the effect can’t be debated, whereas broad confiscations have *never* been undertaken without registration, i.e. the prevention of registration has had a 100% success rate at preventing confiscations, while background checks maybe have a few percent effect, and maybe they don’t, and maybe they even increase it, depending on the data and the interpretation of it. But they certainly don’t reduce criminal firearms homicides by 100%.

          Which certainly leads us to wonder what your side will be planning after universal background checks fail (if you ever manage to obtain them) but criminal firearms homicides don’t drop 100% afterwards. It is not a slippery slope argument to engage in such speculation; instead, it represents a fear of the future that we reasonably have.

          Plus, in any case, there are enough people out there calling for bans of various firearms and accessories, purchase limitations, expensive licenses and mandatory trainings, and even outright confiscations, that we don’t have to speculate about your side’s intentions, and then be accused of engaging in slippery slope fallacies when we do. There are plenty of people calling for confiscations right now, and indeed, in at least three states (CA, NY, CT) confiscations are either spelled out in law, or presently ongoing.

          So, officially, you can shove your accusations of slippery slope fallacies on our part, in this case.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, are you comparing background checks, which stop 100+ thousand criminal firearm purchases every year, to your fighting registration because of your paranoid theories of the future?

            So we should let those guns flow into criminal hands and the black market every year because what? Because you want to safeguard against a prediction that has no evidence of coming true?

            “Which certainly leads us to wonder what your side will be planning after universal background checks fail (if you ever manage to obtain them) but criminal firearms homicides don’t drop 100% afterwards”

            Why do they have to drop 100%?

            “It is not a slippery slope argument to engage in such speculation; instead, it represents a fear of the future that we reasonably have.”

            What do you mean? It is an ABSOLUTELY text book slippery slope argument. Just because you idiots fear something means nothing in terms of being justified. Reasonable fear? Haha – please. What we should reasonably fear is the fact that 30k people are dying every year and we have shootings every week. See these things are for certain, so fearing them is reasonable. You are talking about bullshit conspiracy theories that have not come to pass since the passing of background checks at the end of ’93.

            What are the forces of evil inside your paranoid brain waiting for? 20 years of background checks and nothing close to the bullshit theories you espouse. But I guess we should have just let criminals buy firearms legally during that time. Right? Then we would be sitting here, 20 years later, your prophecy not even close to reality and all those firearms in criminal hands or on the black market.

            Yea, Bruce, that sounds really really smart.

            “There are plenty of people calling for confiscations right now, and indeed, in at least three states (CA, NY, CT) confiscations are either spelled out in law, or presently ongoing.”

            Let’s see how you’re dishonest in those scenario. You like to talk about “broad confiscation” and the only evidence you have is small time confiscations of guns owned by people who aren’t legally allowed to own them. What guns are they looking to confiscate? Guns that are owned by criminals, mentally unstable, and guns that have been categorized as illegal to own. An absolute miniscule fraction of the firearms available to you out there. Sorry, some States don’t allow certain weapons. Boo hoo, how ever will they defend themselves?

            “The funds will go toward enforcing the California DOJ’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, which began in 2007. APPS cross-references various databases to check people who have legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 against individuals who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

            APPS also cross-references gun owners with individuals who have reported to the state DOJ as mentally ill. Doctors and hospitals are required to report to the state individuals who were found to be a danger to themselves or others, or who were certified for intensive treatment for a mental disorder.

            Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.”

            That does not come close to broad confiscations, you sheep lover. It has to do with enforcing the existing gun laws, which is exactly what you guys constantly ask for.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            ““Which certainly leads us to wonder what your side will be planning after universal background checks fail (if you ever manage to obtain them) but criminal firearms homicides don’t drop 100% afterwards”

            Why do they have to drop 100%?”

            It’s the Nirvana Fallacy again. Bruce doesn’t understand fallacies in general, he commits them continually and those he does try and analyze he gets wrong.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              It’s no nirvana fallacy at all, it’s a comparison with something real. Mass confiscations drop 100% when registration is prohibited. Maybe crime drops 1% with background checks, maybe it goes up by 1%. Comparing those two cases is not a case of the nirvana fallacy, especially when the case can be made that crime actually goes up when background checks are implemented.

              In any case, you dodge the question. What will you ask for next when background checks don’t deliver what you desire? You don’t have to answer that, people are already saying what they want next. And in some places it have already begun. (So, it isn’t a slippery slope fallacy either.)

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Yea, by all means, don’t answer to my points which absolutely destroyed your arguments. We’ll just pretend it never happened, ok?

                “especially when the case can be made that crime actually goes up when background checks are implemented.”

                Actually, the case can’t be made. But here, I’ll let you try. Any facts to back this up? Or is this a fact free zone? Haha. Wait, here are some equally interesting facts – sometimes when it rains, crime goes up. I swear, it’s highly correlated!

                The facts are that you are a liar, once again. Violent crime peaked in 92/93 then started steadily going down since then. I won’t be as dishonest as you and claim that it was background checks implemented in 94 because I know that there is more to crime rates than a single factor. You obviously still haven’t learned that lesson and proudly display your ignorance.

                “You don’t have to answer that, people are already saying what they want next. And in some places it have already begun.”

                I’m guessing you didn’t read my carefully written post, or you would see that the confiscations you mention are ENFORCING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS. Wait, what’s the line again? No more gun laws! Enforce the ones we already have! No, I mean, don’t enforce the ones we already have! Wait, crap. Oh, I got it – arm as many criminals and mentally ill as possible! Then when bad things happen, blame the laws! Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa – sooo smaaaaaaaaaaaart. And to wonder why you gun lovers don’t command more respect.

                Then Bruce comes in, like an idiot, I should add, and is bitching about people with criminal records and mental illness from having their guns taken away.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  ” Mass confiscations drop 100% when registration is prohibited.”

                  1. They can’t drop 100% if they aren’t even under way.
                  2. Registration is already prohibited in the US.
                  3. You’re an idiot.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    1) They ARE underway, CA, NY, and CT have all admitted confiscating guns. You denied this before and I posted links in mainstream media showing proof. Apparently you’re denying it AGAIN, which just goes further to show that Bruce is right to dismiss you utterly as a dishonest troll.

                    2) That’s a blatant fucking lie.

                    States that Require Registration of All Firearms
                    District of Columbia11
                    Hawaii12

                    States that Require Registration of Handguns
                    New York13

                    States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms
                    California14
                    Maryland15 (handguns and assault weapons)

                    States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles
                    California16 (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
                    Connecticut17 (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
                    Hawaii18 (assault pistols)
                    Maryland19 (assault pistols)
                    New Jersey20 (assault weapons)
                    New York21 (assault weapons)
                    Source: http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/

                    3) You’re the idiot. The bullshit you wrote about the AWB in ’93 has been destroyed half a dozen times in the history of THIS page alone. The crime rate was dropping before it was enacted, continued to drop AFTER it was repealed, and everyone who paid any attention agrees that not only would a second round of it not help, it would do EVEN LESS, since now not even the stamp on guns and magazines saying ‘for law enforcement only’ would deter anything… They’d just say ‘oh, I bought it as surplus after the last ban expired’.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. Why bother responding when you clearly didn’t read anything in the above posts?

                      I acknowledged in those posts that confiscations in those states are under way. Guess who they are confiscating guns from? People with criminal records, mentally unstable people, and people owning restricted weapons. Definitely not mass confiscations to disarm the poor law abiding citizen. But hey, it’s all the same when you’re trying to be dishonest or too stupid to know the difference. I think for you it’s the latter.

                      How crazy is that, enforcing the laws on the books that we already have? You don’t remember that line you guys use? You don’t remember bitching about all the people who aren’t prosecuted on gun charges when all the information is there for law enforcement to act? You don’t remember all the pro gunners bitching about mental health? And how those people need to be identified and disarmed before bad things can happen? Come on, keep up with your scapegoats, it’s not that hard. Oh, people are actually trying to disarm criminals and the mentally ill? Confiscations! Help! Oh the horror!

                      “Apparently you’re denying it AGAIN.”

                      Apparently you haven’t read anything I wrote. I did the opposite if you bothered reading either of my posts above. Which goes to further show how absolutely stupid you are and unashamed of proving it to us day after day.

                      2. “That’s a blatant fucking lie.”

                      You’re right, poorly worded. I meant a federal registry is banned in the US.
                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926

                      3. Never a good idea to start off with an insult and then demonstrate that you again didn’t read anything I wrote. If you had, you would see that I said the exact same thing as you. So what about what I said was “destroyed” dozens of times? I said:

                      ” Violent crime peaked in 92/93 then started steadily going down since then. I won’t be as dishonest as you and claim that it was background checks implemented in 94 because I know that there is more to crime rates than a single factor.”

                      Do yourself a favor. In order to not look so damn stupid all the time, how about reading the posts you are responding to? Think that might be a good idea?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Thanks for admitting that every single thing you said that I was replying to (and of course you said it, despite protestations that I didn’t read what you said) you later contradicted. The rest of your comment was sheerly to make yourself feel better, and thus I have no need to address.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “It is no more a slippery slope fallacy than is your argument that, because there were 10,000 firearms homicides last year, and the year before that, and before that, that there will be thousands and thousands and thousands more in years future.”

          30,000+ deaths every year at the end if a gun barrel. About to surpass the number of national deaths by automobile each year. 310,000 guns in America. All solid facts. If there is confiscation happening it sure doesn’t seem like it. One gun per capita. Laws keep getting more and more relaxed. In a nation with so many guns we sure have a problem proving that more guns means less gun violence.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Your extreme reaction is also telling.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Can’t rebut anything? Keep calling it extreme!

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            There was a rebuttal, you just can’t read.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              oh, yeah, “your extreme reaction is telling!”
              …Great rebuttal hiding in there.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Extreme reactions are telling. The rebuttal is in the lines above that. Your reaction to your reaction is priceless.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  “priceless” must be the thing you call stuff that really points out you doing dumb stuff.
                  Like making a second reply to a comment you already answered, well after the fact.
                  It’s extreme to point out a well-established historical precedent? Ok then. Guess we’re all extreme. What exactly is the value of the word “extreme” that makes you think it’s negative, then?

                  What’s actually happening is me reacting to your continued bobbleheading, but that would take too much self-awareness on your part to acknowledge, so go on convinced that it’s “me reacting to me”.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        “After confiscation? What then?
        Anything they want. Why not? What the fuck are YOU gonna do about it?”

        What do they want from you? For your disarmament theory to make sense, you need to have a reason for it, a motive. Yet none of you idiots ever give one. So why would they want to disarm people?

        What the hell could they possibly want from you? Is the government going to take away all guns then set up sweat shops and force everyone to work in them? Seriously, what the hell could they possibly want from you? Absolutely nothing.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          You know, if the government really wanted to confiscate your guns, a program where your friends and neighbors snitched on you for money / other government favors and a policy of publicly executing anyone found to have guns or enable gun owners would be much more effective than registration. Registration is a red herring. Universal background checks coupled with strong penalties for violators would cut down on the number of people with guns in their hands that shouldn’t have them. America has a terrible habit of ignoring those in need until they get to the point of desperation.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Yeah, except we know we’d all snitch on the shitheads who would ENFORCE the law. Remember that prank thing from a few years ago where people thought it was funny to “SWAT” celebrities by calling 911 pretending to be someone in that house, and claiming they were in danger?
            Same concept as when a SCOTUS member had one of his homes selected for reclaiming under eminent domain right after he voted for it.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Mark, it really pisses me off that folks like you make statements saying so and so “shouldn’t” be “allowed” to have a gun. Who in the hell are you to make such a decision?!

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Who are you to make that decision? You are deciding a person ready to commit murder should have a gun. Why to you get to decide that?

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Mark, this is another example of your using the Soviet style definition of freedom. I am not deciding anything. He is deciding along with anyone who wishes to sell to him. Your philosophy seems to assume control. Free men assume…freedom. It really comes back to priorities. I think individual liberty worth the risk of readily accessible weapons. Since you do not, you are an enemy of freedom. Your so called “freedom” to live in a society where weapons access is controlled by government is a disingenuous attempt to promote socialist style control thus destroying individual liberty.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  You can ignore the benefit of the whole all you want but we’ve seen where the liberty to not vaccinate has allowed a resurgence in diseases that have been nearly non existent for decades.

                  You drive on a common good. You communicate through a common good. You fly through a common good. You eat from a common good. You are safe by a common good. You are healthy through a common good.

                  • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    So you don’t think that more good people than bad people are going to get guns, if you just take your damn hands off the issue and allow the free-market to deal with it?
                    Right or wrong?

                    Because if there are more good people than that people, restricting gun purchases is hurting the law-abiding more than it’s hurting criminals…

                    If there are more bad people than good people, you certainly chose a bad lifestyle by living in a democracy, where the majority gets its way.

                    Is there another choice perhaps? Do you believe that the act of grabbing a gun makes somebody evil? Me, I didn’t picture you as the superstitious type, but magical powers, oooo…

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Because if there are more good people than that people, restricting gun purchases is hurting the law-abiding more than it’s hurting criminals…”

                      A shockingly stupid statement.

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      *than bad people. I thought I fixed that, it wasn’t even properly a typi, it was a dictation mistake that I THOUGHT I fixed, but must have shaken the phone. I’m sure that you were perfectly capable of deciphering the meaning therein if you had any desire to… But as is typical of trolls, you hose to focus on that, to the exclusion of all else.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Gee Mark, guess you were so keen on being my editor that you forgot you were also expected to address its content?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Because if there are more good people than (bad) people, restricting gun purchases is hurting the law-abiding more than it’s hurting criminals…”

                      A shockingly stupid statement.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Asserted with no evidence: Dismissed with twice as much.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark, most “common good” comes from individual decisions pertaining to perceived self interest, not government coercion. We call it the free market. Admittedly, the free market is severely limited by government throughout the world today, but to the extent that it exists and has existed come the benefits you call “common goods” and assume are created by beneficent government (a contradiction of terms). As Bruce told you, you seem to assume it to be better to have governmental chains on you rather than the responsibilities of freedom. I feel sorry for you.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “I am not deciding anything. ”

                Sure you are, you’ve decided to oppose any regulatory establishment for gun possession. If your not deciding anything, why oppose my desire to keep guns out of the hands of wife abusers? You are actively thinking of reasons to insure universal gun access. You did not choose to ignore it.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          What has any oppressive government wanted from its people? More of our money, and less fear that we’ll protest in any manner that MATTERS. Seriously, if government didn’t worry about us kicking them out, why WOULD they want to get rid of all of our guns, and keep upgrading their own armament?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            They sure have a funny way of showing they are against guns, 310,000,000 guns in this country, enough to allow one for every man woman and child. Oh the opression!

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Who are YOU calling ‘they’? It clearly isn’t the same people I refer to.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                They=the government. The government is doing a terrible job of confiscation. 310,000,000 guns in the U.S. Guns seem to be getting passed out like candy. Please tell me how confiscation works because this looks like the opposite.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              It is, of course, dishonest to call a specific legal exemption a “loophole,” as AATTP does in the URL, and which you also do. But, we’ve come to expect such dishonesty from your sort.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “It is, of course, dishonest to call a specific legal exemption a “loophole,” as AATTP does in the URL, and which you also do. But, we’ve come to expect such dishonesty from your sort.”

                That what a loophole is. A law that is circumvented due to legal ways of working around the intent of an existing law. Gun shows, and “private sales” provide a means to circumvent a law whose intent is to prevent felons, terrorists, mentally ill, non-citizens, etc from purchasing guns. If it were not so then there would be no such thing as “straw purchases”, which are also illegal and recently ruled to be a crime based on lies.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  I predict a 10 part response from Bruce debating what the definition of loophole really is. I’ll betcha 310 million firearms.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I’ll bet you 310 million guns it has to do with Hitler and democide in gun free zones where they confiscate straw men that live in a different culture but should not be denied guns even if they have threatened to kill their wives.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  “That what a loophole is. A law that is circumvented due to legal ways of working around the intent of an existing law. Gun shows, and “private sales” provide a means to circumvent a law whose intent is to prevent felons, terrorists, mentally ill, non-citizens, etc from purchasing guns. ”

                  No, that isn’t what a loophole is. And one definition will suffice. 1loop·hole noun \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
                  : an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

                  If the law is written “FFLs have to conduct background checks” then it isn’t a loophole that people who lack FFLs don’t have to. The non-FFLs aren’t “evading” the law, because the law doesn’t apply to them. Calling it a loophole is dishonest. (But, the law would never have been passed if it had been written to apply to everyone at once, therefore, the technique of writing the law partially, and then dishonestly claiming that the law contained a loophole is the sort of dishonest incrementalism that leads to reasonable fears of eventual registration and confiscation. Because that’s the M.O. of whom we’re dealing with.)

                  But, that’s what we expect from you and those on your side.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    It was a good try Bruce. Yea, boy, you sure proved your “reasonable fear” of confiscation. Remember the gun nut line that there is no point to gun control because there are so many guns out there, people will always find a way to get them? I guess you must not believe in that line, or only when it works in your favor. Too many guns for gun control to be effective, but not enough to make confiscation a joke. The gun lover conundrum.

                    Now, onto loopholes and how you got it wrong.

                    “If the law is written “FFLs have to conduct background checks” then it isn’t a loophole that people who lack FFLs don’t have to.”

                    Luckily, it isn’t written as simply as you would like to make it seem.

                    “Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce.”

                    By not conducting background checks, you have the possibility of selling a firearm to a restricted individual, knowingly or unknowingly.

                    So according to your definition, restricted individuals can buy a firearm through private sales and bypass the law which says it is illegal for them to have them. You never think critically enough and always go for the easy argument before thinking it through which is why you are in a perpetual state of being spanked.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              No gun either… Unless the officer this idiot talked to had an ankle-holster or something. This dude was an idiot with a mouth. Bit of advice I heard a decade ago? It’s not the noisy ones you have to worry about. The real psychos show up at your doorstep without a word.
              But hey, clearly when one of those is on your doorstep, you’ll have other ways to avoid being hurt, right? Maybe a suntan will make you bulletproof. You can try all sorts of things, I’m sure you have all the time in the world.

              Not everyone does.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              ” This dude was an idiot with a mouth.”

              Precisely, which is why he should never be issued a gun while in his state of idiocy.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            You’re in luck – they don’t want to get rid of all your guns. How does that change your theory? Any?

            So what, in your fantasy scenario they are going to take away all firearms and then raise taxes? Hahahaha. This is what I mean. You don’t have a motive which leaves your entire conspiracy theory without any basis.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              I’ll bet you 310 million guns they really aren’t that into gun confiscation.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                I’ll bet you 310 million guns that they’re just really bad at it, having little to no idea how the human psyche works, beyond how it gets them elected.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, I could debate whether more guns equals more gun violence, but I do not really care. What I care about is that having governmental controls over who can have weapons endangers free men’s liberty. If more violence is caused by more guns, so be it. It is a small price to pay for insuring our individual liberty.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “Mark, I could debate whether more guns equals more gun violence, but I do not really care. ”

        How many people have to die before you care? Let’s do a divide and conquer, half the US population? If guns saved or destroyed half the population would you care then?

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Mark, of course your example is absurd, but for the sake of argument, if gun access protected liberty while causing half of the population to die I would still be on the side of freedom.

  14. You’re so interesting! I don’t believe I’ve truly read through something like that before.
    So good to find someone with genuine thoughts on this subject.
    Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This web site is
    one thing that is needed on the web, someone with some originality!

  15. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    A little something for those who substitute a gun for their tiny dicks. UPDATE! Now 5!

    http://aattp.org/4-people-accidentally-shot-at-gun-shows-on-first -gun-appreciation-day/

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Did a Gun Control Cultist INTENTIONALLY Leave A Pistol In A Target Store for Children to Find?
      http://bearingarms.com/gun-control-cultist-intentionally-leave-pi stol-target-store-children-find/

      It wouldn’t surprise me if a gun control cultist intentionally loaded guns at the gun show in question. For example, this “accidental shooting” http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/2011/02/accidental-shooting- at-bloomington-gun.html is surprising because guns for sale must typically be both unloaded and also zip-tied open when on display. Yet, somehow, the gun in question was both locked and loaded. (Which does not in any way absolve the person who pulled the trigger in this case – who should face criminal negligence penalties.)

      Of course, injuring, or possibly even killing, gun show participants would just be icing to gun grabbers who sought to either ban gun shows completely, or at least limit guns or gun shows, as a result of “accidental” discharges that were enabled by their own nefarious and criminally depraved actions.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, you say no one would destroy two skyscrapers with boxcutters. The physical evidence indicates that the twin towers were dropped by an insider job with planted explosives. The “terrorist” taken over planes were a smoke screen to enable Bush and Co. to get laws like the Patriot Act passed thus solidifying governmental control of the people. This makes the availability of weapons ever more important as the government becomes ever more dictatorial.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        ” The physical evidence indicates that the twin towers were dropped by an insider job with planted explosives.”

        Um, no but thanks for playing!

  16. top elevenNo Gravatar says:

    Wow! In the end I got a webpage from where I know how to
    really obtain useful data concerning my study and knowledge.

  17. Woah! I’m really loving the template/theme of this blog.
    It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s very difficult to get that “perfect balance” between user friendliness and visual
    appearance. I must say you’ve done a great job with this.
    In addition, the blog loads extremely quick for me on Internet explorer.
    Excellent Blog!

  18. Wonderful blog! I found it while searching on Yahoo News.
    Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
    I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there!
    Thank you

  19. aNo Gravatar says:

    Just wish to say your article is as surprising. The clearness in your post is just nice and i could
    assume you are an expert on this subject.

    Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to
    keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please
    carry on the rewarding work.

  20. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    I have often said that “criminals and tyrants alike prefer disarmed victims.”

    The surviving family of a deceased armed robber is calling for stricter issuance of concealed carry permits, because a CCW holder took the life of their dearly departed *armed robber* – who, maybe, would still be alive today if it were more difficult to get a carry permit.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/26/Family-of-Arme d-Robber-Calls-for-Stricter-Gun-Laws

    The people in this news story might find some bedfellows here on this board, who also talk about the harms coming from the “easy availability of guns.”

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Hey Bruce, have I told you recently how stupid you are?

      If the police were there. Do you think they would have shot and killed them? The chances are much less likely that they would have. But see, vigilante justice doesn’t have any balls. It just goes for the kill right away. That’s why we have police officers – they try and bring in the bad guys alive. But this conceal carry holder? Nah, he just went straight for the kill.

      Or he could have just played it cool, complied, gotten on the ground, let them rob the stupid waffle house, and no one would have died. Use your weapon TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND OTHERS. Isn’t that what they say in conceal carry land? Or is it, use your weapon to defend waffle house cash drawers?

      No, people like him (and probably you since you glorify him) are murderous. He doesn’t comply, then uses his non-compliance to get them to come at him, then kills one. Yea, just look for the first opportunity to legally kill someone and then act like you defended yourself. This guy is a not a hero, he’s a murderer. What did he save? The cash drawer? Great fucking job buddy! Too bad you didn’t kill more.

      The remaining family members are right to say what they are saying. Anyone carrying a gun has got to be mentally ready to kill someone. That’s a whole lot of homicidal maniacs running around out there trying to play cops and robbers.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Babs The Troll writes “Hey Bruce, have I told you recently how stupid you are?”

        Coming from you, it’s a compliment.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Hey! haha! Bruce! That was really funny! Oh man! No, really. What’s next? Surely not responding to any of the material in my post, right? Wouldn’t wanna do that. Because then you’d have to actually answer to some facts. Facts you are very, very, very afraid of and have been hiding from every since you realized that things don’t seem to go your way when you want to debate.

          So yea, let’s eliminate prisons and just let conceal carriers kill all criminals right off the bat. Sound good?

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        You ceased to be amusing a long time ago, except for how desperate for Bruce’s attention you are.

        It’s really pathetic that you’ve placed yourself on the side of the armed robber here, and nobody’s even paying you for it.
        Or are Bloomberg’s pockets deep enough to pay for your basement apartment at mom’s place, as long as you keep making a fool of yourself, here?

        Kinda hope so. If you’re doing this for free, well… lol.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Should all armed robbers be executed?

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Dunno, let’s start with a few and see how it goes.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Thank you for making my point.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                So good to know that your point was in favor of allowing us to fire upon unknown intruders in our homes at night. For a while I was worried, but not anymore.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Wouldn’t it be nice if they didn’t have a gun? They can shoot back with those things.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    Gosh, while we’re wishing, I wish I didn’t have an intruder in my house, but once we’ve gotten to this point, it’s pretty clear that if there’s one there, I don’t get my say in a number of things… One of the things I DO get a say in, however, is whether I can use a gun to get him OUT.

  21. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Brietbart.com therefore wrong.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Sorry, you forgot to specifically refute the incorrect or illogical points, as I did for the VPC and for your citation from California. Therefore, you are engaging in nothing more (or less) than the Attacking The Messenger logical fallacy.

      Since such fallacies are so very, very important to you.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Just copying you Bruce. I’m using your bad apple fallacy now. You want it both ways.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Except that you *aren’t* copying me, because I gave specific, concrete reasons why the sources I am now attacking were wrong, pertaining to the specific citations you gave. You haven’t, you’re just saying “Breitbart, therefore, wrong” without challenging so much as a single piece of evidence they gave.

          I.e., you’re just trolling. As usual.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Quit using ad hominem and I’ll quit nailing you for it over and over and over again. BTW, attacking the messenger is the ad hominem attack.

        Repeat after me, I won’t use an ad hominem, I won’t use an ad hominem, I won’t use an ad hominem…

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Dear Hypocrite,

          If I attack the VPC *and their content* but you only attack Breitbart, but not their content (as it pertains to present cases), then who is guilty of ad hominem and who is not? If someone lies, and I identify the lie, and call them a liar, the latter is not ad hominem, it is instead an accurate label.

          Sort of like when someone trolls, and is called out on it, and is then accurately called a troll. That, too, isn’t ad hominem any more than calling a liar a liar is ad hominem.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            I know what you did…

            So you think ad hominem is ok of you follow it with some blah blah blah? I don’t think you can dilute an ad hominem. I’m going to keep nailing you on these as long as you keep doing them.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              You forgot to answer anything substantive in my post, or indeed in the entire thread.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                .. and you hypocritically pose an otherwise unsupported ad hominem against Breitbart, while I attack the substance of the VPC here, and MAIG in the past.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                It was answered, you chose to ignore it.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark, about these kids getting shot, it is easy to play on people’s emotions when kids are involved. Rationally this changes nothing in the debate. Yes guns being available means that there is a larger chance of their misuse. No argument. The question is does one believe in freedom (absence of coercion) or not. Weapons are the only chance people have to keep freedom in an ever more controlled society. I want weapons available. You wish them controlled. That ultimately means confiscation for all that the government does not approve. So your way automatically leads to a more coercive society. My way leads to the potential for freedom. Freedom involves risk. The nanny state screws us all out of our humanity. I far prefer the risk of a society where weapons are available.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Mark, about these kids getting shot, it is easy to play on people’s emotions when kids are involved. Rationally this changes nothing in the debate.”

                    Two adults were shot too. The issue isn’t the age of the people getting shot, it’s that 6 people are dead now.

                    “Yes guns being available means that there is a larger chance of their misuse. No argument. The question is does one believe in freedom (absence of coercion) or not.”

                    It is possible to have freedom without guns.

                    “Weapons are the only chance people have to keep freedom in an ever more controlled society.”

                    No it’s not. Guns are just another killing tool. One that both the controlled and the controllers have access to. Having them guarantees nothing.

                    “I want weapons available.”

                    I do to, just not for EVERYONE.

                    “You wish them controlled. That ultimately means confiscation for all that the government does not approve.”

                    No, it does not mean confiscation.

                    “So your way automatically leads to a more coercive society.”

                    What do we do about people who don’t play nice with guns?

                    “My way leads to the potential for freedom.”

                    Freedom for some, death for others.

                    “Freedom involves risk.”

                    I’d much rather risk your ability to get a gun based you your merits than to risk my life because any asshole can get a gun.

                    “The nanny state screws us all out of our humanity.”

                    I’m not advocating a nanny state, just a system where people who should not have a gun don’t get one. One where there impediments to unqualified ownership.

                    “I far prefer the risk of a society where weapons are available.”

                    I’m ok with the risk as long as those that are unqualified don’t easily get one.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                BTW, they did do a comparison of women with and without guns. You just chose to ignore the latter.

                Go back and read the article.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Oh, and please respond with a scurrilous remark, I miss those so much.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Fifteen Things You Probably Do Not Know about Psychopaths

      5. Control – Psychopaths want to control you – physically, emotionally, sexually, financially, and politically. Psychopaths want to control your soft drinks, your ability to defend yourself, your health care, and your life.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/fifteen_things_you_probabl y_do_not_know_about_psychopaths.html

      It’s quite possible that both the judge in this case, and also Mark, are psychopaths. If so, calling them so wouldn’t be ad hominem, it would merely be attaching an accurate and descriptive label to their condition.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        How does keeping a gun away from a spousal abuser or a terrorist affect how you defend yourself?

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Implying what? That you’d use the same forms of self-defense against both armed and unarmed assailants?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Does keeping a gun away from this spousal abuser or a terrorist keep you from defending yourself?

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              That depends on how the keeping-away is performed, and what a “terrorist” is. There have been FBI memos that define people who follow the Constitution as “domestic terrorists”, and there’s the No-Fly list, for which there is not only no Constitutional authorization for, but also no mechanism to get off of. So, there are clearly ways in which a broad ability to define who does, and who does not, get guns, could easily be written by a hostile government (such as the one we have) to write us out of it.

              Second, any method that depends on government permissions has numerous pitfalls. For one, oh, sorry, the computers are down, come back later. For another, sorry, the hard drive the names were on has crashed (re: Lois Lerner’s emails) and so, no, we can’t allow any purchases to go forwards until we process all 350 million Americans again. That, too, could easily ensnare us even as it is “intended” to only keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. Which I use advisedly because people like you are clear that, for example the recent court case in Colorado which held the Constitutionality of the recent guns law, is only a *step in the right direction*. Your words. If that’s just a step, I wonder what the whole journey is supposed to look like, and why we should take anything you say at face value – especially as you routinely accuse of us of using the slippery slope fallacy. Tell us, if that’s only a step, what’s the journey, and the destination?

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                HI

                “There have been FBI memos that define people who follow the Constitution as “domestic terrorists”,”

                Link one.

                Then you compare no fly lists to guns. Why? You don’t say. Ohhh, yea, since there are no fly lists, that must mean it would be easy (conjecture) for government to make to gun lists. Is that it? That’s your argument? Hahahaha – you dumb fuck. You honestly don’t even learn. You don’t. The level of your arguments has stayed the same, often sinking, but never rising. How is it that you are unable to learn?

                “Second, any method that depends on government permissions has numerous pitfalls.”

                You’re right. So who other than government should make those decisions? Patiently awaiting your reply. Wait, your argument is against computers being down? I’m pretty sure that any group deciding this would rely on computers. What are you, some fucking backwoods ludite? No, not even that, a wanna-be backwoods ludite, who lives in a city with all the amenities. Ah, whats that word again.

                “Tell us, if that’s only a step, what’s the journey, and the destination?”

                One, normal humans can’t read the future. Of course, that doesn’t count fucking idiots like yourself who base their entire theories on what their paranoid predictions of the future are. Two, what part of the Colorado laws do you contest? Three, boo-fucking-hoo. Really. Oh my god, I can’t have giant magazines, I’ll have to purchase more smaller ones. Oh no, I can’t buy this one weapon. What a travesty.

                You poor gun owners are such a persecuted breed. I do feel so, so sorry for you.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/ConstDefen derTerorsts.pdf
                  The page numbered “8″. Makes references to constitution? TERROR SUSPECT!

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    “Makes references to constitution? TERROR SUSPECT!”

                    Sure, if you’re unable to read. The short sentence says “defenders” of the constitution. Notice the quotations.

                    Here, I will show you a more updated description of what your link is portraying:

                    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092211

                    What they believe in. Many militia extremists view themselves as protecting the U.S. Constitution, other U.S. laws, or their own individual liberties. They believe that the Constitution grants citizens the power to take back the federal government by force or violence if they feel it’s necessary. They oppose gun control efforts and fear the widespread disarming of Americans by the federal government.

                    Militia extremists often subscribe to various conspiracy theories regarding government. One of their primary theories is that the United Nations—which they refer to as the New World Order, or NWO—has the right to use its military forces anywhere in the world (it doesn’t, of course). The extremists often train and prepare for what they foresee as an inevitable invasion of the U.S. by United Nations forces. Many militia extremists also wrongly believe that the federal government will relocate citizens to camps controlled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or force them to undergo vaccinations.

                    One important note: simply espousing anti-government rhetoric is not against the law. However, seeking to advance that ideology through force or violence is illegal, and that’s when the FBI and law enforcement become involved.

                    And here is a fun list of right wing terrorist attacks since 95, many perpetrators fitting the description above.

                    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-th e-right

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “Second, any method that depends on government permissions has numerous pitfalls.”

                Any method that depends on there being enough “good guys” to cancel out the “bad guys” has numerous pitfalls.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  1. Nirvana fallacy.
                  2. Among those pitfalls, however, is not the curtailment of freedom. (Which, however, I concede you don’t seem to give a shit about.) You seem to have different starting axioms which makes it difficult to communicate with. You would rather have the chains rest gently on your shoulders, or maybe even not so gently, rather than to be free. There’s nothing anyone can say to change this, other than, perhaps, give freedom a chance.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I’m glad you are finally admitting that there aren’t enough “good guys” to cancel out the “bad guys”.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “curtailment of freedom. (Which, however, I concede you don’t seem to give a shit about.)”

                    How is stopping a wife abuser from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?

                    How is stopping an illegal alien from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?

                    How is stopping a ex-con from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    And where is my freedom when I have to buy a gun to attempt to stop assholes from shooting me? Keep the guns away from the assholes, then the majority of us are free to live without having to purchase a weapon we do not want.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Any method that depends on “whatever” has numerous pitfalls.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “That depends on how the keeping-away is performed, and what a “terrorist” is.

              How about the spousal abuser.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Does keeping a gun away from an illegal alien affect your ability to defend yourself?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Does keeping a gun away from an ex-con affect your ability to defend yourself?

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Nice shotgun spam there.

                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:48 pm
                “I’m glad you are finally admitting that there aren’t enough “good guys” to cancel out the “bad guys”.”

                I made no such admission. But, your point fails anyway. There are plenty of good guys to cancel out the bad guys, when good guys = every noncriminal adult who wishes to carry guns, who far outnumbers bad guys except perhaps in the worst areas. However, if your own definition is that cops = good guys, then yes, I agree with you, there aren’t enough cops to cancel out the bad guys, and, as you say, thanks for admitting it.

                Reply
                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:52 pm
                “[me]curtailment of freedom. (Which, however, I concede you don’t seem to give a shit about.)”

                “How is stopping a wife abuser from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?”

                Asked and answered.

                “How is stopping an illegal alien from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?”

                Asked and answered.

                “How is stopping a ex-con from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?”

                Asked and answered.

                Reply
                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:54 pm
                “And where is my freedom when I have to buy a gun to attempt to stop assholes from shooting me? Keep the guns away from the assholes, then the majority of us are free to live without having to purchase a weapon we do not want.”

                You don’t have to buy a gun, ever. You just don’t understand freedom. Plus, that’s what the cops are for, right? Don’t come complaining to me that (1) the cops can’t protect you, while yet maintaining that (2) the cops are special and should have rights above and beyond the rest of the citizens, because we need them to protect us from the bad guys.

                Reply
                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:49 pm
                “Any method that depends on “whatever” has numerous pitfalls.”

                Good straw man there.

                Reply
                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:19 pm
                “[me]That depends on how the keeping-away is performed, and what a “terrorist” is.

                “How about the spousal abuser.”

                Asked and answered.

                Reply
                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:22 pm
                “Does keeping a gun away from an illegal alien affect your ability to defend yourself?”

                Asked and answered. Again and again. But thanks for making it a whole new post.

                Reply
                Mark says:
                June 27, 2014 at 9:23 pm
                “Does keeping a gun away from an ex-con affect your ability to defend yourself?”

                Asked and answered. Again and again. But thanks for making it a whole new post.

                Actually, not.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark says:
                  June 27, 2014 at 9:48 pm
                  “I’m glad you are finally admitting that there aren’t enough “good guys” to cancel out the “bad guys”.”

                  I made no such admission. But, your point fails anyway. There are plenty of good guys to cancel out the bad guys, when good guys = every noncriminal adult who wishes to carry guns, who far outnumbers bad guys except perhaps in the worst areas. ”

                  So, not a nirvana fallacy after all.

                  “However, if your own definition is that cops = good guys, then yes, I agree with you, there aren’t enough cops to cancel out the bad guys, and, as you say, thanks for admitting it.”

                  Straw man. I never said cops.

                  Mark “How is stopping a wife abuser from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?”

                  Bruce Asked and answered.

                  Asked and never answered.

                  Mark “How is stopping an illegal alien from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?”

                  Bruce Asked and answered.

                  Asked and never answered.

                  Mark “How is stopping a ex-con from getting a gun curtailing your freedom to defend yourself?”

                  Bruce Asked and answered.

                  Asked and never answered.

                  “And where is my freedom when I have to buy a gun to attempt to stop assholes from shooting me? Keep the guns away from the assholes, then the majority of us are free to live without having to purchase a weapon we do not want.”

                  “You don’t have to buy a gun, ever.”

                  Then never mention that women need to buy a gun to defend themselves.

                  “You just don’t understand freedom. “. You mean your warped sense of it….

                  “Plus, that’s what the cops are for, right? “. Cops are busy enough without having to deal with wife abusers, terrorists, illegal aliens, the mentally ill, and ex cons that are enabled by gun fetishists.

                  ““Any method that depends on “whatever” has numerous pitfalls.”

                  Good straw man there.”

                  Yep, that’s your straw man…see him Mr. “Numerous Pitfalls”

                  “[me]That depends on how the keeping-away is performed, and what a “terrorist” is.

                  Mark “How about the spousal abuser.”

                  Bruce Asked and answered.

                  Asked and never answered.

                  Mark “Does keeping a gun away from an illegal alien affect your ability to defend yourself?”

                  Bruce Asked and answered. Again and again. But thanks for making it a whole new post.

                  Asked and never answered.

                  Mark “Does keeping a gun away from an ex-con affect your ability to defend yourself?”

                  Bruce Asked and answered. Again and again. But thanks for making it a whole new post.

                  Asked and never answered.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    “[me]However, if your own definition is that cops = good guys, then yes, I agree with you, there aren’t enough cops to cancel out the bad guys, and, as you say, thanks for admitting it.”

                    “Straw man. I never said cops.”

                    It is astonishing how quickly you falsely attribute fallacies to me. I didn’t say that you did say cops, I wrote – and go ahead and read it again – “However, if your own definition is that cops = good guys,”

                    Do you see the IF there? That means I’m not attributing an argument to you that you did not make. Yet you leap to the opportunity to accuse me of doing so, so quickly that you leapt off a cliff.

                    Now either apologize for falsely accusing me of employing straw man, or admit that you are trolling.

                    As for the other asked and answereds, read my replies again, they are all covered there.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Yes Mark, keeping guns away from ex-cons does hinder my ability to defend myself in that it promotes the slippery slope argument that some folks should not be “allowed” access to weapons. I do not want government making such decisions. I would far rather a few shady characters got guns than government controlling who can have guns. You would rather give up my liberty for your security. Fuck that. Guns are here to stay. Your path leads to “good” guys not having guns while the thugs will continue to have them. This is better how?!

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “Yes Mark, keeping guns away from ex-cons does hinder my ability to defend myself in that it promotes the slippery slope argument that some folks should not be “allowed” access to weapons.”

                  You do realize that slippery slope is a FALLACY. Unless you are an ex-con it hinders you in no way. It is unconscionable to allow an ex-con, a violent boyfriend, a terrorist from a foreign country, and a mentally ill person to have a gun.

                  How does keeping a gun from an ex-con hinder your ability to defend yourself?

                  I think you should study some problem solving. You can leave the source of danger, you can not go places that are dangerous, you can borrow a weapon from a friend if you need, you can take out a loan in order to afford a gun, you can hire a security guard, you can study martial arts, you can change your identity, you can move to another city, you can invite a friend to stay with you that has a gun, you can buy a gun… if you are that scared you will be delayed in getting a gun get some NOW before it’s too late.

                  This hinder thing is total bullshit. A red herring if you will. Only an idiot would not be able to find some way of getting help. And in those rare occasions where someone has to WAIT to get a gun you have other factors to consider, did they have the means to even travel to a store, did they have proper ID… They are nothing but excuses for not taking personal responsibility for your safety.

                  I’m so sorry you have to prove you aren’t a bad guy.
                  I’m so sorry you have to prove you’re 18 to buy cigarettes and booze
                  I’m so sorry you have to take a test to get a drivers license
                  I’m so sorry you have to be qualified to hold a job
                  I’m so sorry you have to obey traffic laws
                  I’m so sorry you have to take off your shoes at airports
                  I’m so sorry you have to have good credit to get a loan
                  I’m so sorry you have to have an ID to vote
                  I’m so sorry you have to put a deposit on your apartment

                  Oh the horror of it! People can’t just trust me because “it’s me”.

                  Get over it already. You big babies. Wah…

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    You’re just SO SORRY. Period.

                    Don’t think we didn’t notice you interspersing required qualifications given by legitimate owners of a thing, and then government.

                    and hey, you just keep on keepin’ on: You’re feeding the gator, and as a reward it’ll eat you last.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      They all have one similar characteristic. You have to prove something. But thanks for noticing that each instance was different in one aspect. Those reading skills are really paying off.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      No, SOME of them are rightful, and SOME of them are abuses of power.
                      Maybe if you didn’t get a D in civics class you’d know that you DON’T have to prove you’re innocent in this country: They have to prove you’re guilty.
                      Shoes off at airports? No airline cares about that, that’s just government. Credit? Yeah, that’s because you are asking for something that’s THEIRS. Imagine the horror if people would only loan to folks they personally knew, for years?
                      You don’t see the difference? Not my problem. It’s there, nevertheless.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    “Shoes off at airports? No airline cares about that, that’s just government. ”

                    Before the TSA was formed, airlines and airports were responsible for hiring private companies to conduct the security screenings.

                    It is pretty funny that you would think airlines wouldn’t care about passenger security. Yea, those companies don’t care if people blow up their planes. It’s great for business! Idiot.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Before the TSA was formed, airlines and airports were responsible for hiring private companies to conduct the security screenings.”

                      Yeah, and NONE OF THEM MADE YOU TAKE YOUR SHOES OFF…

                      “It is pretty funny that you would think airlines wouldn’t care about passenger security. Yea, those companies don’t care if people blow up their planes. It’s great for business! Idiot.”

                      No, you fucking moron, they care, but they know the shoe thing is 100% useless. Since the TSA took over, how many terrorists have they caught? Still none? Oh good. Feel safer already. Since you need this shit constantly spelled out to you, government is still arming for the last war, same as it always has. Shit’s only a surprise once, and it only works when it’s a surprise. Maybe we should go back to whipping up new gizmos for trench warfare, with your philosophies.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Pyro!

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “but they know the shoe thing is 100% useless. ”

                      Really? So you haven’t heard of the shoe bomber? Or you have and are playing dumb? You’re right. No one ever tries to use their shoes to conceal explosives or bring in other weapons.

                      Wait, what’s this I’m hearing? And this happened yesterday? Please, tell me more. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-arrested-detroit-airport- knife-artfully-concealed-shoe-n149641

                      3. “A man going through security at the Detroit airport had a knife concealed in the lining of his shoe and was arrested, authorities said.”

                      Ah, gosh, when the planets align, it’s just beautiful, isn’t it?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      He was only going to defend himself from the guy sitting in 13B. Hiw dare anyone deny him his right to self defense!

                      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-arrested-detroit-airport- knife-artfully-concealed-shoe-n149641

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      OOOooo… A POCKETKNIFE. God forbid someone want to be able to open their ziptied suitcase when they claim it at their destination. Evidence that he was going to do anything awful with it? None.
                      but look on the bright side! I’ve seen reports in the past few days that they’re talking about banning TWEEZERS now. Anyone who can take over a plane with a set of tweezers deserves the damn thing.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Oooooooh…box cutters…

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Nobody would level two sky scrapers with box cutters…

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      And nobody did.

                      What, were you like 5 when that happened or something?

                      What’s funny is I can’t imagine you supporting the pilots having firearms, despite most of them being veterans, and it being the only method with a high likelihood of success in preventing a hijacking.

                      But go on supporting the same program that says “Your water bottle is too dangerous to take on the plane, because it might be a bomb, so please put it in the trash here beside me.”

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce, though I am at odds with most of Marks philosophy as stated here, calling him a psychopath is going too far. It is likely he honestly believes the world would be better off under collectivism. Many years ago we used to hypothesize that there was a “freedom gene” for it seems most folks either get it about freedom being the way or simply can’t understand no matter how well you state the obvious. I fear Mark falls in this latter group. That does not make him a psychopath. It does make him pitiful.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I am kookoo for Cocoa Puffs.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Collectivism and Capitalism can work together to improve things.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Mark, the slippery slope argument is not necessarily fallacious. Capitalism does not equal free enterprise despite what many deluded libertarians think. Collectivism plus capitalism give you such things as the world bank which comes into a poor country to “help” by promoting big ticket items like giant hydroelectric dams where people need wells drilled for villages and solar and wind generators for individual homes at relatively low cost. The end result is that the rich motherfuckers who control the world bank end up essentially owning the poor who can’t even afford the interest on the giant “loans” forced upon them. It is no wonder that these folks rail against “free enterprise” for they have been brainwashed into equating capitalism with the free market.
            The idea that once one accepts philosophically the “right” for government to control one group tends to promote acceptance down the line of controlling other groups is an observed fact. This is what I refer to as the slippery slope argument in the context we discuss here.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      If there only wasn’t a law stopping you, right? I can see you just STRAINING to make that money selling him anything he wants… After all, the only thing that keeps you from selling that dude a gun is the government, not anything like, say, common sense.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Do you want this guy to have a gun?

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          No, probably not, but then again, if he’s both already a sex offender and also has attacked a police car, then I suggest the police, including but not limited to those whose car he has attacked, take care of the problem, by a means other than releasing him into society and forcing all the rest of us to prove we aren’t him if we should ever decide to buy a gun in the future.

          Let me guess: you think he should be free to walk the streets and mingle among us, but the we should be forced to prove we aren’t him in every gun transaction forever in the future. Right?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “Let me guess: you think he should be free to walk the streets and mingle among us, but the we should be forced to prove we aren’t him in every gun transaction forever in the future. Right?”

            He should be in a place that can deal with his problems. If he is not in that place but has a history of mental illness he should not be sold a gun. I see no difference in you needing to prove you are not him, and a recent detainment I went through because I had the same name as a person who had a warrant out for his arrest. So yes, you have to identify yourself as a trustworthy person, just like you have to prove you are trustworthy driving a car or voting.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Why is he not in that place?
              Why is he not cured or rehabilitated if he’s let out?
              Where’s the constitutional right to drive a car?
              Hell, voting wasn’t considered a right for a long damn time unless you were a white man.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Let me guess, you are against anything that renders your likeness on media because the FBI can post an image that looks like you and you have to prove you are not the person in that image.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Did you just point at yourself?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Um, let me check, … No I did not point at myself. Is that good?

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Then did you mean me?

              You said “this guy” and didn’t reference anyone.

              Are we now REQUIRED to be psychic?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                You seem to be straining to prove you are a dumbass.

                This guy -> http://aattp.org/sex-offender-attacks-police-car-claims-to-be-fro m-planet-zoltron/

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  See? Wasn’t so hard, was it?
                  Now: Who exactly do you think is going to sell that dude a gun?
                  Do you think a guy like that can keep his mouth shut about chemtrails and the MIB for long enough to complete a firearms purchase?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Glad I could help your reading comprehension. Maybe your computer doesn’t allow you to scroll to the start if the thread where this same thing was stated.

                    In any case, why would anyone want this guy to have a gun except fir selfish reasons.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh don’t mistake your abuse of pronouns for MY problem… Guess I spoke too soon, guessing that you were improving.
                      As for “selfish reasons” So what? It’s selfish to not want to lose a fight, end up in the hospital, or die. But that doesn’t make those BAD motives.
                      I probably wouldn’t want YOU to have a gun because you seem to have trouble distinguishing between powers and rights, and giving you any semblance of power would get you in trouble.
                      And anyways, having already answered why I don’t think anyone with enough brains to have a gun in the first place would sell it to him.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Not sure why you are fixating on digging a deeper hole about your inability to read.

                      Defense isn’t the selfish reason. Wanting unhindered access to guns at the cost of needless lost lives is. I’m not advocating preventing you from defending yourself, that straw man is yours.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Deeper than what? I’m not in any hole… You just call it something else, and it “happens” to have the result that a law-abiding citizen would follow a law making it harder for them to defend themselves. You keep pushing that type of thing, I’ll just keep advocating ignoring the law. Any law which prevents me from defending myself is an invalid law.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Psychic or…….a minimal understanding of written English.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  Nice of you to chime in, but don’t worry, I already have faith that you have a minimal grasp of the language, in general.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Tell us again how you were confused and needed to be psychic in order to understand who Mark meant by “this guy” right before he posted a link about the person he was talking about.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      In your minimal grasp of the language, do you see a link somewhere between the beginning and the end of this?

                      “Mark says:
                      June 27, 2014 at 6:31 pm
                      Do you want this guy to have a gun?”

                      No.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Good, propose a way to stop him.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      You’re in the wrong conversation, run along.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “In your minimal grasp of the language, do you see a link somewhere between the beginning and the end of this?”

                      Yes, I do. It’s the post that started the thread. You know, the one you responded to? I can include numbers if that helps you understand the order in which the events took place.

                      (1)

                      MarkNo Gravatar says:
                      June 27, 2014 at 12:59 pm
                      If we could JUST get a gun in this guys hand. Freedom…

                      http://aattp.org/sex-offender-attacks-police-car-claims-to-be-fro m-planet-zoltron/

                      (2)

                      pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:
                      June 27, 2014 at 5:51 pm
                      If there only wasn’t a law stopping you, right? I can see you just STRAINING to make that money selling him anything he wants… After all, the only thing that keeps you from selling that dude a gun is the government, not anything like, say, common sense.

                      (3)

                      MarkNo Gravatar says:
                      June 27, 2014 at 6:31 pm
                      Do you want this guy to have a gun?

                      (4)

                      Pyronoob:

                      WHAT GUY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AGAIN. AM I SUPPOSED TO BE A PSYCHIC TO UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION?

                      Derp derp derp derp derp

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      In other words, no, between the beginning and the end of what I was commenting on, you did NOT see the thing you’re claiming.
                      See? Nice and concise.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      LOL – wait, you’re going to continue defending your position? You respond to Mark’s original post, showing you understand who he means by this guy, but then a day later you forget?

                      Do you need someone to restate every post they have previously stated in a thread in order for you to follow the conversation? That’s what it seems like.

                      You just don’t know when to shut up. What a clown you’ve turned out to be.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Do you need someone to restate every post they have previously stated in a thread in order for you to follow the conversation? That’s what it seems like.”

                      He just likes to play the master wordsmith only he manages to talk himself into a corner. Just like Bruce as a matter of fact…3 2 1…

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Sorry Babs, but you make a really shitty white-knight, trying to swoop in and save Mark. You’re just going to get him dirty with all the taint you regularly have going for you. Do I need to have the same thing reiterated? No. Do I insist that someone identify their pronouns ONCE? Yes. Oh, but do go on making argument after argument about BOTH how I shouldn’t “Assume” things, AND how I’m a clown for NOT assuming things. Good job with your double standard. Which one would YOU like to be held to? Both? Neither?

  22. DiannaNo Gravatar says:

    This blog was… how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I’ve found something that helped me.
    Thanks!

  23. sadadsNo Gravatar says:

    You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something which I think I would never understand.
    It seems too complex and extremely broad for me. I am looking forward for your next
    post, I will try to get the hang of it!

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, I can’t be sure the intent in your heart, but implementing the policies that you advocate would result in only those folks governments approves of owning weapons and only the type weapons that government approves. It is a virtual impossibility to have freedom without the power to defend that freedom. In the real world today that means guns. Given the technology of drones right now, even having weapons may not be enough. Read Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez for a fictional by scientifically accurate description of how drones could be used in the US. Our difference is in your assumption that government is not basically evil. I know better. Power is all government respects. Without weapons they will ignore or kill you. I prefer a fighting chance. If innocent people die because of the availability of weapons, that is sad. But if freedom dies because of the unavailability of weapons, all humanity loses perhaps for all time. That is the risk I will not accept.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Your ideology has gotten in the way of rational thinking.

        How do guns stop a government from bombing your home?

        How do the Japanese get along just fine without guns?

        You talk about your own absolute freedom to own a gun at the cost of other equally important freedoms.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Who says the Japanese get along just fine? Japan is a conquered population. They’ve been so for in excess of 400 years.

          http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Mark, the Japanese live in a hugely collectivist society and have been bred to conform for probably hundreds of generations. They certainly are not a free people.
          You accuse me of irrational thinking but never deal with how a disarmed populace can protect itself from governmental takeover. Yes governmental militaries can bomb the piss out of their people, look at Syria. So we common men need access to the same weapons that the military has, not disarming all people who are antigovernment which your policies lead to. If hundreds of millions of citizens may be armed legally with the same weaponry available to the average soldier, no military could force us into submission. They could nuke us out of existence, but the power elite want more slaves not a radioactive wasteland.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            ” So we common men need access to the same weapons that the military has”

            No we don’t.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              And you get to decide it for everyone?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                And you get to decide it for everyone?

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  “Access” is the null hypothesis, it’s not a decision. I’m not trying to decide for anyone else, and I’m not trying to take away their freedoms. Would I be a big meanie deciding for others that they must have access to food, too? Would that be oppressive of me? Because not even food is listed as a protected right in the constitution. Firearms are.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “”Access” is the null hypothesis, it’s not a decision”

                    Then where can I get atomic weapons?

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark, nukes may be available from governments. The USSR “lost” lots of backpack nukes during the switchover to Russia. Notice that only governments could afford to build nukes. Governments have now created conditions where nukes will likely be used. In a free society it is unlikely that any person or group would get enough money to build nukes. So we have government to thank for that danger.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Russia. The Ukraine. Israel. Will that be cash or check?
                      Oh, that’s right: Nobody with a sufficiently clear mind to make $40,000,000 would be irrational enough to blow it on a fucking bomb, unless they’re spending someone else’s money… The way governments do.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Mark, we obviously can’t fight off our own or other militaries without having adequate weaponry. You collectivists want common men to submit to government edicts. Free men do not. You wish to drag all of we free men down into your slavery which may be nirvana for you but hell for me. Anarchy allows you to live a voluntary collectivist lifestyle and me to live as a rugged individualist. But you can’t force your BS down my throat at the point of a gun under freedom. So you are against freedom rather than accepting a limited collectivism (like a commune). It is a form of power madness . Your intelligence should get you past this. You too can be free, just grow a pair. Sorry if that sounds mean, but it really is the solution. Stop trying to control everyone else and concentrate on protecting you and yours. Not with government but on your own. Real men ain’t collectivists!

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Six people dead and one in critical condition because gun fetishists don’t have the balls to say “this one… no he doesn’t get a gun”. Chicken shits.

      http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Police-Texas-man-shot-7-family-me mbers-execution-style-266618121.html

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        No Mark, the “chickenshits” are folks like you who tell us that “my freedom to not feel scared is being impinged upon by nasty people who think they should be able to defend themselves with weapons of their own choosing”. On a personal level, I hate and fear guns, but I am not stupid enough to stipulate that my biases should keep people from having the means to defend themselves. Your position is asinine in the extreme. I think you know this but are being disingenuous about your true agenda which is a collectivist controlled society.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Certain people… not all. You keep missing that point. You are OK with collateral damage, I’d prefer to minimize it at the cost of someone checking you out briefly.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Mark, Either my way or your way will have collateral damage. I prefer a free society and honestly think there will be lots less collateral damage under freedom. But even if that is incorrect, freedom is worth the cost.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Being captive to a threatening significant other is not freedom.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Mark, no being captive is not freedom. So why do you want us all to be captives of a government? One can walk away from a significant other. It is damned hard to avoid government. I have been trying all my adult life!

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Your notion of everyone having unfettered access to push-button death strikes me as anything BUT freedom.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Mark, the access to push button death is available because of government. You wish to make the problem worse by continuing the policy of submission to government edicts. We can’t put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. We can promote freedom by keeping ready access to weapons and opening access to military style weapons that are affordable by individuals. No, danger will not totally ago away. Life is dangerous. But one would be dependent upon yourself not some damned government. That is the essence of freedom and humanity instead of becoming social insectoids!

  24. gpenNo Gravatar says:

    It’s very easy to find out any topic on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this post at this site.

    Have a look at my web site: gpen

  25. WilliamWenNo Gravatar says:

    The exception was following on from the Oscars. Garner violetcolored, custommade Gucci gown has been a winner but this wasn what she was trying to find after husband Ben Affleck film won best picture. reveled in all people good pictures of your ex, she said.

    web site:

    http://www.ryanthomashairstudio.com/
    http://www.lederapage.com/
    http://www.rakutenbu.com/
    http://www.upbeatstudios.com/arh/
    http://www.yourmilitaryspace.com/
    http://www.yourmilitaryspace.com/felisibr%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83 %AA%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8-c-130.html
    http://www.yourmilitaryspace.com/anna-suibr%E3%82%A2%E3%83%8A%E3% 82%B9%E3%82%A4-c-163.html
    http://www.yourmilitaryspace.com/mary-quantbr%E3%83%9E%E3%83%AA%E 3%83%BC%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AF%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88-c-34.html
    http://www.yourmilitaryspace.com/il-bisontebr%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB-% E3%83%93%E3%82%BE%E3%83%B3%E3%83%86-c-70.html
    http://www.margaret-river-wa.com/
    http://www.margaret-river-wa.com/categories-7.html
    http://www.margaret-river-wa.com/categories-8.html
    http://www.margaret-river-wa.com/categories-4.html
    http://www.margaret-river-wa.com/categories-5.html
    http://www.margaret-river-wa.com/categories-6.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%82%A2%E3%82%A4%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3-c-12.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%83%83%E3%82%B8-c-10.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A5%E3%83%BC%E3%82 %BA-c-8.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%82%BB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB-c-7.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC-c-13.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%82%A2%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%82%A4%E3%82 %A6%E3%83%83%E3%83%89-c-11.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%83%A6%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%AA%E3%83%86%E3%82 %A3%E3%83%BC-c-9.html
    http://www.chergrepo.com/%E3%80%90%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3% 80%91%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%83%83%E3%82%BA-c-20. html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90coach%E3%80%91%E3%82 %B3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%81-c-16.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90balenciaga%E3%80%91% E3%83%90%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B7%E3%82%A2%E3%82%AC-c-4.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90bottegaveneta%E3%80% 91%E3%83%9C%E3%83%83%E3%83%86%E3%82%AC%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A7%E3%83%8D %E3%82%BF–c-5.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90celine-%E3%80%91%E3% 82%BB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%8C-c-12.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90chloe%E3%80%91%E3%82 %AF%E3%83%AD%E3%82%A8-c-51.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90ferragamo%E3%80%91%E 3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83%A9%E3%82%AC%E3%83%A2-c-24.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90gucci%E3%80%91%E3%82 %B0%E3%83%83%E3%83%81-c-86.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90loewe%E3%80%91%E3%83 %AD%E3%82%A8%E3%83%99-c-35.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90tory-burch%E3%80%91% E3%83%88%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC%E3%83%81-c-46.html
    http://www.changresidencepatong.com/%E3%80%90ysl%E3%80%91%E3%82%A 4%E3%83%B4%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B3%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3- c-62.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-128.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-29.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-55.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-103.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-137.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-153.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-83.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-115.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-161.html
    http://www.mylifeonloan.com/categories-182.html

  26. Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get
    a lot of spam remarks? If so how do you reduce it,
    any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately
    it’s driving me crazy so any help is very much appreciated.

  27. I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up!
    I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back later. Cheers

  28. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Harris County Precinct 4 Assistant Chief Deputy Mark Herman said three children and two adults died at the scene of the shooting at a home in the 700 block of Leaflet Lane. Another child died after being airlifted to Memorial Hermann Hospital, and the condition of an adult also flown to the hospital was not known.

    Herman said that authorities responded to a report of a shooting at about 6 p.m., where they found a woman and child who had both been shot in the head.”

    http://www.khou.com/news/crime/5-people-fatally-shot-in-north-Har ris-County-manhunt-underway-for-shooter-266516561.html

    It’s great that nobody took away this persons second amendment “rights” which is so much more important than their six victims rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    If only there had been more “good guys” with guns.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Implying that the right to have a gun is the same thing as the right to shoot someone. I have the right to buy gasoline, I guess that’s indistinguishable from the right to set houses on fire.
      Seriously, we went over this for months, and you have tried SO HARD not to understand the difference between those two things, it would have been easier to learn it, and move onto different arguments.

  29. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Case in point:

    “Data suggests that states with fewer measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers see more guns used in intimate partner murders: (For our methodology, see the bottom of this post.*)”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/domestic-violence-gun s-bills-texas-haskell-stay-murder

  30. Greetings! Very useful advice within this article!
    It is the little changes that will make the greatest changes.
    Thanks for sharing!

  31. Neat blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?
    A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really
    make my blog jump out. Please let me know where you
    got your design. Thanks

  32. I am really happy to read this web site posts which contains plenty of
    valuable data, thanks for providing these information.

  33. What’s in place awesome web page! Male. Lovely. Amazing. I’m going to take note of your blog site and go ahead and take feeds likewise? I am just glad to search out several helpful tips here in the actual submit, we end up needing acquire much more tactics with this reverence, thanks for discussing.

  34. It is not my first time to pay a quick visit this website,
    i am browsing this web page dailly and take nice information from here every day.

  35. For the reason that the admin of this website is working, no
    uncertainty very soon it will be famous, due to its quality contents.

  36. Home pageNo Gravatar says:

    If some one wants to be updated with newest technologies afterward he must be pay a quick visit this web site and be up to date every day.

    Here is my site; Home page

  37. Oh snap, thank you very much for posting this! It is gonna aid me when I am thinking about going to Movies Wilmington NC in Fort Wayne! I am from Syracuse, NY so I am not familiar with Wilmington. Next time I visit my family will be so much better! Very Extraordinary!

  38. MarylouNo Gravatar says:

    If some one wishes to be updated with latest technologies after that he must
    be visit this web site and be up to date everyday.

  39. embocaduraNo Gravatar says:

    I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your site.
    It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more
    enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme?
    Superb work!

  40. pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

    hmmm, a couple pages back we pointed out that finally allowing Chicagoans access to firearms would change something in the statistics. Now what was it again?
    Oh right.

    http://libertycrier.com/chicago-crime-rate-drops-concealed-carry- applications-surge/

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.