Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[maiforpeace]

The man doth protest too much, methinks.

[mistermack]

Lance Thomas robbed four times by a total of eleven criminals. He shot six of them, killing five.

I wouldn't class Lance Thomas as a gun nut, he was driven to it. Shame he had to lose his shop in the end.
It's pretty obvious he would prefer there to be hardly and guns, and no need to be armed.

[FBM]

Lance Thomas robbed four times by a total of eleven criminals. He shot six of them, killing five.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkWgp2abM2w/youtube]

I wouldn't class Lance Thomas as a gun nut, he was driven to it. Shame he had to lose his shop in the end.
It's pretty obvious he would prefer there to be hardly and guns, and no need to be armed.

I kinda got the same impression. He set his shop up in a certain environment, then that environment changed. He changed along with it until it became ridiculous, then left. Not cowardly, not blood-thirsty, just doing what was required of him in the shifting circumstances.

[Tyrannical]

Lance Thomas robbed four times by a total of eleven criminals. He shot six of them, killing five.

I wouldn't class Lance Thomas as a gun nut, he was driven to it. Shame he had to lose his shop in the end.
It's pretty obvious he would prefer there to be hardly and guns, and no need to be armed.

No one, not even gun nuts want the need to be armed. Unfortunately, the elimination of Jim Crow makes it necessary in too many locations. While Whites do commit crime, there is no better definition of low crime in the US than areas with low numbers of Black/Hispanic.

Or as the racist though accurate cliche goes,
Know Blacks? Know Crime.
No Blacks? No Crime.

[Woodbutcher]

Lance Thomas robbed four times by a total of eleven criminals. He shot six of them, killing five.

I wouldn't class Lance Thomas as a gun nut, he was driven to it. Shame he had to lose his shop in the end.
It's pretty obvious he would prefer there to be hardly and guns, and no need to be armed.

No one, not even gun nuts want the need to be armed. Unfortunately, the elimination of Jim Crow makes it necessary in too many locations. While Whites do commit crime, there is no better definition of low crime in the US than areas with low numbers of Black/Hispanic.

Or as the racist though accurate cliche goes,
Know Blacks? Know Crime.
No Blacks? No Crime.

You can substitute any minority for blacks in that cliche. Even whites. Or blondes. Anyone that differs from the "norm" and is maligned for it.

[FBM]

It's the brown-eyed people wot's to blame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

[Tyrannical]

You can substitute any minority for blacks in that cliche. Even whites. Or blondes. Anyone that differs from the "norm" and is maligned for it.

No you can't, unless you have some evidence to offer.
In the worst crime neighborhoods, you can't even claim Blacks are a minority because they are the vast majority in those areas. Most of the crime and violence is Black on Black also. I'd be surprised if there were any high crime areas in the US that weren't caused by Blacks.

[FBM]

The White House? Congress? Wall Street?

[kiki5711]

The White House? Congress? Wall Street?

absolutely!!! and then they get more money, when they run out, causing a chain of events that really hurts the little guy, and they walk away scot free.

[FBM]

True that, kiki.


OK, we're on the verge of 1,000 posts again. Who wants to make the next thread?

[maiforpeace]

True that, kiki.


OK, we're on the verge of 1,000 posts again. Who wants to make the next thread?

Continued here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1198029