You guys and your guns...

[mistermack]

Check your premises.

"The US did the same."

The US invasion of Afghanistan in response to Al Qaeta, a terrorist group based in Afghanistan and harbored by the Afghan government, attacked the United States -- is "the same" as the Soviet Union, unprovoked, invading Afghanistan and annexing it.

You illustrate my point beautifully. It's ALWAYS ok when the US does it, and bad when anybody else does it.
You're fed the bullshit, and you obediently gobble it up.

I really couldn't ask for a better illustration of my point, than the one you just gave.

[mistermack]

If you have evidence that poeple DON'T flip, I'd like to see it.

People who legally obtain firearms typically don't. Especially when it comes to carry permits:

""What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) "

Seems pretty solid to me.

But it's not. Just look at the George Zimmerman case.
He's a permit-holder. He killed an innocent kid. And yet, he was very nearly not even charged. It's only the outrage because of the race issue, and the obvious innocence of his victim, that got him charged.
If his victim had been older, or had any kind of record, Zimmerman would have got away with murder, and that is probably happening day-in day-out. Because a permit holder will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Those five known instances are likely just the tip of a very large iceberg.

In any case, to extrapolate that figure to "more permits mean less crime" is totally moronic. More permits means less discrimination, leading to more unstable people getting permits. Whoever wrote that in the LA Times is a moron.

So your argument is that because you have stupid friends, I shouldn't have guns?

Yes. If nobody was ever stupid, then there's no valid objection to guns. ( but no valid need for them either )
But if you are claiming that my friends are the only stupid people in the world, then I can easily provide proof to the contrary.

[Wumbologist]

But it's not. Just look at the George Zimmerman case.
He's a permit-holder. He killed an innocent kid. And yet, he was very nearly not even charged. It's only the outrage because of the race issue, and the obvious innocence of his victim, that got him charged.
If his victim had been older, or had any kind of record, Zimmerman would have got away with murder, and that is probably happening day-in day-out. Because a permit holder will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Those five known instances are likely just the tip of a very large iceberg.

In any case, to extrapolate that figure to "more permits mean less crime" is totally moronic. More permits means less discrimination, leading to more unstable people getting permits. Whoever wrote that in the LA Times is a moron.

Tell you what. You can show me proof that there is a Zimmerman "happening day-in day-out", we'll talk about that. Until then, this post is built around unsubstantiated flights of fancy and has no bearing on the real world.

[mistermack]

Tell you what. You can show me proof that there is a Zimmerman "happening day-in day-out", we'll talk about that. Until then, this post is built around unsubstantiated flights of fancy and has no bearing on the real world.

I can't. Just as YOU can't show me proof that there were only five instances of homicides by permit holders.
I'm merely pointing out what bollocks that figure is.

[Seth]

I like guns. I also like shooting guns, but not at people or animals.

That's fine if it stays like that. But it doesn't.

I'm sure George Zimmerman would have said much the same, the day before he killed that kid.

And evidently you think, based on whatever came out of your ass, that Zimmerman "liked" shooting Martin. That's asinine indeed. He's said he regrets deeply that he was forced to take Martin's life, but at the same time Martin didn't give him a choice, it was either shoot Martin to make him stop bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete and killing him or it was take the risk of being permanently injured or killed.

One of the most important questions I asked myself before I decided to become a cop was whether or not I could take someone's life if it was absolutely necessary to do so. I mulled it over for months after facing an armed suspect down with a pistol as a security guard at an apartment complex when I was 19. In the end I decided that yes, if it was absolutely necessary to shoot someone to save a life I could do so and live with myself. That doesn't mean I would "like" to shoot someone. I've successfully avoided having to shoot anyone for 58 years and I sincerely hope I'll never have to do so, but I WILL do so if my luck turns bad and I'm forced, like George Zimmerman, to defend my life or someone else's life, or the liberty of my nation, and I will do so without hesitation.

But I imagine that I will be very sad that I was forced into that ugly situation by someone who didn't care enough about my life or his own to refrain from jeopardizing mine.

[Wumbologist]

I can't. Just as YOU can't show me proof that there were only five instances of homicides by permit holders.
I'm merely pointing out what bollocks that figure is.

You're making a positive claim that these things are happening, the burden of proof is on you. Your logic here equates to "Prove that god DOESN'T exist!". Par for the course I suppose.

If this is the kind of anti-logic I'm supposed to work around I've got nothing more to say here.

[mistermack]

I like guns. I also like shooting guns, but not at people or animals.

That's fine if it stays like that. But it doesn't.

I'm sure George Zimmerman would have said much the same, the day before he killed that kid.

And evidently you think, based on whatever came out of your ass, that Zimmerman "liked" shooting Martin. That's asinine indeed. He's said he regrets deeply that he was forced to take Martin's life, but at the same time Martin didn't give him a choice, it was either shoot Martin to make him stop bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete and killing him or it was take the risk of being permanently injured or killed.

One of the most important questions I asked myself before I decided to become a cop was whether or not I could take someone's life if it was absolutely necessary to do so. I mulled it over for months after facing an armed suspect down with a pistol as a security guard at an apartment complex when I was 19. In the end I decided that yes, if it was absolutely necessary to shoot someone to save a life I could do so and live with myself. That doesn't mean I would "like" to shoot someone. I've successfully avoided having to shoot anyone for 58 years and I sincerely hope I'll never have to do so, but I WILL do so if my luck turns bad and I'm forced, like George Zimmerman, to defend my life or someone else's life, or the liberty of my nation, and I will do so without hesitation.

But I imagine that I will be very sad that I was forced into that ugly situation by someone who didn't care enough about my life or his own to refrain from jeopardizing mine.

Seth, I'm sure you won't ever shoot someone. You can just cover them with bullshit within a split second, so they can't see.

[pErvinalia]

@Seth... Interesting assessment that you think Zimmerman was "forced" to kill that kid. Did the kid force Zimmerman to chase him down?

[Seth]

If you have evidence that poeple DON'T flip, I'd like to see it.

People who legally obtain firearms typically don't. Especially when it comes to carry permits:

""What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) "

Seems pretty solid to me.

But it's not. Just look at the George Zimmerman case.
He's a permit-holder. He killed an innocent kid.

That does not appear to be the case given the evidence we have so far, which makes Martin anything but an "innocent kid." In fact, Zimmerman's attorneys have filed for a court hearing to review the available evidence under the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida with the intent to have the charges against him dismissed entirely. If the preponderance of the evidence at that hearing shows that Zimmerman was attacked and was justified in shooting Martin, the charges MUST be dismissed and he will be immune from both criminal AND civil liability.

And yet, he was very nearly not even charged.

That was likely because the police investigated and substantiated his story of being attacked and forced to shoot.

It's only the outrage because of the race issue, and the obvious innocence of his victim, that got him charged.

"Obvious innocence?" WTF are you talking about? What's "obviously innocent" about a 17 year old youth who sucker-punches and jumps on someone from behind and then bashes his head on the ground while shouting "You're going to die?" You've simply decided that Martin could not possibly have attacked Zimmerman because of your own ill-informed biases and bigotry and you're falsely insisting that Martin didn't do anything when the evidence before us strongly suggests the opposite. You have no idea what happened in reality, you've just edited the news coverage to suit your agenda, that's all.

If his victim had been older, or had any kind of record, Zimmerman would have got away with murder, and that is probably happening day-in day-out. Because a permit holder will always get the benefit of the doubt.

Good, they should get the benefit of the doubt because they are statistically far, far less likely to be engaged in criminality than even your Joe Average citizen.

Those five known instances are likely just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Prove it.

In any case, to extrapolate that figure to "more permits mean less crime" is totally moronic. More permits means less discrimination, leading to more unstable people getting permits. Whoever wrote that in the LA Times is a moron.

Prove it.

So your argument is that because you have stupid friends, I shouldn't have guns?

Yes. If nobody was ever stupid, then there's no valid objection to guns. ( but no valid need for them either )
But if you are claiming that my friends are the only stupid people in the world, then I can easily provide proof to the contrary.

Oh, you're friends are not the only stupid people in the world, I can think of at least one of their friends who is abysmally stupid.

[mistermack]

I can't. Just as YOU can't show me proof that there were only five instances of homicides by permit holders.
I'm merely pointing out what bollocks that figure is.

You're making a positive claim that these things are happening, the burden of proof is on you. Your logic here equates to "Prove that god DOESN'T exist!". Par for the course I suppose.

If this is the kind of anti-logic I'm supposed to work around I've got nothing more to say here.

No, YOU made a claim about the five instances. I've pointed out the meaningless of that figure, by making a similar meaningless claim.
I don't need to prove it. My purpose was to show the weakness in your claimed figure, which I did.

[Seth]

@Seth... Interesting assessment that you think Zimmerman was "forced" to kill that kid. Did the kid force Zimmerman to chase him down?

The evidence before us suggests that he didn't "chase him down" and shoot him, it suggests that he was keeping Martin under surveillance as a suspicious person in Zimmerman's private, gated community while Zimmerman contacted the police and gave them directions to the scene, and that it was Martin who turned around and jumped Zimmerman from behind near Zimmerman's truck and began beating his head on the concrete in a manner that caused Zimmerman to reasonably fear for his life, which justified Zimmerman's use of deadly physical force against Martin.

So far as we know from news reports, Zimmerman did NOTHING illegal, and it was Martin who assaulted Zimmerman.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, you're friends are not the only stupid people in the world, I can think of at least one of their friends who is abysmally stupid.

lol. from the same sook who reported me earlier for personal attack.

[Seth]

I like guns. I also like shooting guns, but not at people or animals.

That's fine if it stays like that. But it doesn't.

I'm sure George Zimmerman would have said much the same, the day before he killed that kid.

And evidently you think, based on whatever came out of your ass, that Zimmerman "liked" shooting Martin. That's asinine indeed. He's said he regrets deeply that he was forced to take Martin's life, but at the same time Martin didn't give him a choice, it was either shoot Martin to make him stop bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete and killing him or it was take the risk of being permanently injured or killed.

One of the most important questions I asked myself before I decided to become a cop was whether or not I could take someone's life if it was absolutely necessary to do so. I mulled it over for months after facing an armed suspect down with a pistol as a security guard at an apartment complex when I was 19. In the end I decided that yes, if it was absolutely necessary to shoot someone to save a life I could do so and live with myself. That doesn't mean I would "like" to shoot someone. I've successfully avoided having to shoot anyone for 58 years and I sincerely hope I'll never have to do so, but I WILL do so if my luck turns bad and I'm forced, like George Zimmerman, to defend my life or someone else's life, or the liberty of my nation, and I will do so without hesitation.

But I imagine that I will be very sad that I was forced into that ugly situation by someone who didn't care enough about my life or his own to refrain from jeopardizing mine.

Seth, I'm sure you won't ever shoot someone. You can just cover them with bullshit within a split second, so they can't see.

Whatever works. I'd much rather use non-lethal force, and have on several occasions simply by drawing and displaying my firearm, which was sufficient disincentive to the crook to make him run away or stand and be arrested. That's how approximately 60 percent of defensive gun uses go...no shots fired at all, just the threat of deadly force thwarts the crime.

[mistermack]

Oh, you're friends are not the only stupid people in the world, I can think of at least one of their friends who is abysmally stupid.

I've not seen much evidence of that. You can bullshit, I wll admit that.

[Seth]

Oh, you're friends are not the only stupid people in the world, I can think of at least one of their friends who is abysmally stupid.

lol. from the same sook who reported me earlier for personal attack.

Indeed. That's because what I just wrote is not a personal attack, it's a vague reference to stupidity in his friends. The good news is that here at Ratz I'm allowed to write such things, whereas at RatSkep I'd be instantly sanctioned.

So get used to it, you're next.