Idiots

[Jason]

Here's an astute observation about your person: You're a mindless fuckwit.

Prove it.

You prove it every time you post.

I know when I'm outgunned. I cede the throne of fuckwittery my good sir. You have vanquished me.

[Seth]

2nd Amendment in Action: Armed Driver Stops Attempted Mass Shooting
69
Getty Images
Getty Images

by AWR Hawkins9 Dec 20150
In light of the Democrat-sponsored gun control following the San Bernardino attack, it is crucial to remember the important role armed citizens play in keeping themselves and others safe.

Perhaps no example illustrates this better than that of the Uber driver who pulled his handgun and stopped an attempted mass shooting in Chicago on April 17.

The driver had a concealed carry permit, so he was carrying his gun legally. And the fact that he had the gun with him prevented injury to innocents at the very least, and perhaps saved numerous lives on top of that.

Breitbart News reported that the driver was sitting in his car on Milwaukee Avenue, watching people shuffle back and forth in front of the car just before midnight. As he watched, a gunman raised a weapon and began to fire, so the driver then sprang into action.

According to the Chicago Tribune, 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd,” and the Uber driver fired back. He fired a total of “six shots at Custodio,” striking him three times and wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.” The attempted mass shooting was over and the the only injuries were to Custodio.

Numerous similar examples exist—examples largely overlooked by a Democratic Party fixated on making it harder for citizens to get the guns they need for self-defense.

For instance, just one month before the armed Uber driver saved the day in Chicago, a concealed permit holder saved adults and children when a gunman opened fire in a Philadelphia barber shop. Bretibart News reported that the concealed permit holder was walking past the barber shop on March 22 when he heard the sounds of gunfire inside. Instead of running away, the concealed permit holder ran inside and shot the would-be mass shooter in the chest, fatally wounding him.

According to NBC Philadelphia, police said the 40-year-old suspect who opened fire in the barer shop was randomly shooting at “customers and barbers” before the concealed permit holder intervened.

Earlier this year, Breitbart News posted a list of example of armed citizens using guns to defend their lives and the lives of others. The examples were drawn from events that occurred between November 30, 2014, and January 13, 2015.

Nov. 30—A Washington state mother shot an alleged home invader to save her children.

Dec. 8—A veteran confined to walker used a gun to stop a home invasion.

Dec. 9—An Antioch, California, homeowner opened fire on two home invaders.

Dec. 19—A 14-year-old shot and killed an intruder to save his grandparents.

Dec. 20—A man used a handgun in self-defense when confronted by an armed robber outside an Ohio mall. He killed the would-be robber, ending the attack.

Dec. 26—A Good Samaritan witnessed a domestic attack, pulled a pistol, and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.

Dec. 27—A home invader put a gun to a woman’s neck in Memphis. The invader was shot and killed by the homeowner.

Dec. 28—A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, resident shot an intruder who broke through the glass door of her apartment.

Dec. 29—A home invader was shot and killed after a pregnant woman helped fight him off.

Dec. 30—A pastor shot a man who attacked him inside a church.

Dec. 30—A Texas fireworks stand owner used a gun to shoot and stop armed robbers.

Jan. 9—Four armed robbers stormed a women’s gun store in Shawnee, Kansas, and the co-owner’s life was spared when her husband intervened by opening fire on the suspects.

Jan. 10—A California homeowner survived an initial attack by a home invader, retrieved a gun, and held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.

Jan. 11—A man put a gun to a Papa John’s Pizza delivery woman’s head; she pulled her own gun and shot him in the face.

Jan. 12—An armed robber in a Milwaukee barber shop was shot and killed by a patron with a concealed carry license and a handgun.

Jan. 13—An armed Taco Bell robber ordered a would-be victim to drop his pants, but the victim pulled his gun instead and shot the robber dead.

These real accounts of armed citizens using guns defensively are literally a fraction of the similar stories that could be listed. So it stands to reason that the war on the Second Amendment is a war on the ability of such citizens to continue to defend their lives and the lives of others.

[Blind groper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/2 ... 54554.html

The plural of anecdote is not data.

There are numerous cases each year also when an unarmed person stops an armed offender. There were those young Americans in Europe who jumped a terrorist. We had an Indian guy here in NZ recently who was held up by a criminal with a gun, and he whacked him with a golf club. It even happens in the USA, as shown in the reference above. Heroism does not require a gun!

[Seth]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/2 ... 54554.html

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Actually, it is.

There are numerous cases each year also when an unarmed person stops an armed offender.

So what? There are numerous cases each year of armed persons doing so as well. I'm sure every unarmed person would prefer to be armed when facing an armed offender, even if they don't end up needing their firearm.

There were those young Americans in Europe who jumped a terrorist. We had an Indian guy here in NZ recently who was held up by a criminal with a gun, and he whacked him with a golf club. It even happens in the USA, as shown in the reference above. Heroism does not require a gun!

Indeed. You run what you brung in such situations. However, their survival is substantially enhanced when the law-abiding citizen acting heroically to stop an armed criminal is him or herself armed. Only a fool brings a golf club to a gunfight if he's got a gun.

[Blind groper]

You still do not understand numbers, do you, Seth?

In my country where hand guns are not permitted, the murder rate is one fifth of that in the USA per capita. Doing away with guns makes us all much, much safer.

[Seth]

You still do not understand numbers, do you, Seth?

I understand numbers just fine, like the 2.5 million times a year that guns protect US citizens and the verified 10 times the number of "gun murders" that are prevented by armed citizens and all the lives that are not destroyed because of lawfully-carried firearms, something you don't give a flying fuck about.

In my country where hand guns are not permitted, the murder rate is one fifth of that in the USA per capita. Doing away with guns makes us all much, much safer.

Demonstrably it does not because despite the addition of tens of millions guns in private hands in the US, violent crime continues to decline.

[Blind groper]

Seth, Seth, Seth

How about you go back to primary school and study arithmetic?

3.5 million DGU's per year. Laugh!

That is one American in every 100 every year using a gun to defend themselves against some terrible outcome.

Translate that to my country, and that is 45,000 people every year who did not have a gun to defend themselves. We must have a terrible murder rate! Oh, that's right. It is one fifth of that of the USA with all those guns. Instead of 45,000 acts of violence against people with no guns, we get 30 to 60 murders in total. Hey, something wrong with the old Seth logic there!

On declining crime rates, that is an international phenomenon. It is happening throughout Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia, where guns are not an issue. Since it is not related to guns internationally, the decline is not related to guns in the USA. But the fact that murder and violent crime per capita in the USA is four times as high is definitely related to the fact that you have five times as many guns per capita.

[Seth]

Seth, Seth, Seth

How about you go back to primary school and study arithmetic?

How about you shove your head back up your ass?

3.5 million DGU's per year. Laugh!

No, 2.5 million.

That is one American in every 100 every year using a gun to defend themselves against some terrible outcome.

Indeed.

Translate that to my country, and that is 45,000 people every year who did not have a gun to defend themselves.

Well, there's your problem right there, Sparky, you can't "translate" US DGU statistics to your country, it's a false equivalency.

We must have a terrible murder rate!

One again, numbnutz, murder is not the only category of violent crime that guns are useful for thwarting. Only you mendaciously try to suggest this, and you're still wrong.

Oh, that's right. It is one fifth of that of the USA with all those guns. Instead of 45,000 acts of violence against people with no guns, we get 30 to 60 murders in total. Hey, something wrong with the old Seth logic there!

Not really. That you choose to argue dishonestly by mixing "acts of violence" and "murders" interchangeably and deliberately and mendaciously misquote every single statistic you've ever cited doesn't mean your arguments are correct. They aren't. They are outright, bald-faced, biased and deliberate lies.

On declining crime rates, that is an international phenomenon.

Not really, particularly in places like the UK and OZ, where violent crime rates have been going up.

It is happening throughout Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia, where guns are not an issue. Since it is not related to guns internationally, the decline is not related to guns in the USA.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. However, what you are too stupid to see is that you are admitting again that an increase in the number of guns in the US HAS NOT lead to an increase in violent crime, gun-related or otherwise, which puts paid to your silly argument.

But the fact that murder and violent crime per capita in the USA is four times as high is definitely related to the fact that you have five times as many guns per capita.

You really can't make up your mind or make a rational argument, can you? In the sentence immediately above this one you deny that the decline in crime is unrelated to the number of guns, and then you flip-flop and say that the number of guns is "definitely related" to the amount of crime.

Are you really this incredibly stupid, or are you just pretending to be?

[Tero]

Based on this training video, I'm going to recommend Hillary restrict those with an IQ <105 to have "learner" permits, giving you only .22 rifles and pistols.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3m6wM834s08
Same for alcoholics and convicted drunk drivers.

[Jason]

How about shooting contests to decide who is allowed to keep guns off the range? It would allow people to engage in shooting sport at the ranges - they could still own all the guns they want - they could shoot for practice or sport any time at the range - they would be charged storage fees for their guns limiting the number the own naturally - and only the most qualified in safe use and skilled operation would be allowed to keep their guns at home or use them to hunt or whatever and who those people are would be decided by qualified judges presiding over a free and open competition. The right to bear arms is not infringed - it would just have to be qualified by an overriding amendment to your constitution.

[Seth]

How about shooting contests to decide who is allowed to keep guns off the range? It would allow people to engage in shooting sport at the ranges - they could still own all the guns they want - they could shoot for practice or sport any time at the range - they would be charged storage fees for their guns limiting the number the own naturally - and only the most qualified in safe use and skilled operation would be allowed to keep their guns at home or use them to hunt or whatever and who those people are would be decided by qualified judges presiding over a free and open competition. The right to bear arms is not infringed - it would just have to be qualified by an overriding amendment to your constitution.

And there's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening.

At least half the households in the US have a gun in them (and more every day), and it takes minimum 2/3rds of the states to ratify an amendment. Ain't gonna happen.

[Tero]

Circumstances

Mark David Chapman, who had a history of severe emotional problems, traveled from his home in Hawaii to New York City to kill John Lennon. Chapman had been a Beatles fan in his youth and was described by a former classmate as a "Jesus freak."

How Firearm(s) Acquired

Chapman purchased the gun legally in Hawaii. Because he had no criminal record and had never been committed to a mental institution, he was issued a permit. At the time of the shooting, Hawaii had some of the most stringent gun regulations in the nation.

Where'd They Get Their Guns?
list of the idiots
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wguncont.htm

Columbine shooters
How Firearm(s) Acquired

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

[Seth]

Circumstances

Mark David Chapman, who had a history of severe emotional problems, traveled from his home in Hawaii to New York City to kill John Lennon. Chapman had been a Beatles fan in his youth and was described by a former classmate as a "Jesus freak."

How Firearm(s) Acquired

Chapman purchased the gun legally in Hawaii. Because he had no criminal record and had never been committed to a mental institution, he was issued a permit. At the time of the shooting, Hawaii had some of the most stringent gun regulations in the nation.

Where'd They Get Their Guns?
list of the idiots
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wguncont.htm

Columbine shooters
How Firearm(s) Acquired

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

So, you have just proven that background checks cannot and do not prevent such tragedies, so why would we need more of them? It's not the guns, it's the people who possess them who are of concern.

Now I know that you will say that for this reason everyone must be denied possession of firearms, but that's just rank stupidity and bias talking, not reason or facts, because the total number of guns used in crimes constitutes less than 0.0004 percent of all guns in the US, so gun bans are not a rational solution to that infinitesimal misuse of guns by nut cases, criminals and terrorists.

[Tero]

We'll register all guns. In addition you make a 1000 refundable deposit on each gun. No interest on the deposit. Lost gun: big fine, or lose the deposit if we can't find you.

[Seth]

We'll register all guns.

How do you plan to do that? Nobody knows how many guns there are in the US, nor does anybody know who has them. On purpose. To prevent precisely what you're suggesting.

In addition you make a 1000 refundable deposit on each gun. No interest on the deposit. Lost gun: big fine, or lose the deposit if we can't find you.

I dare you to go to Kentucky and start demanding people register their guns and pay your a $1000 deposit. You won't live long enough to hand them the registration form.

You still don't get it, we, the People of the United States simply will not permit you to do any such thing, and we will view any attempts to do so as treason against the United States and the Constitution and we will use our arms to neutralize you or anyone else who attempts it, if that becomes necessary because political pressure has failed.

That's why we have them. That's what they are for. That's what we will use them for.

So you can call for any sort of asinine system of gun control you like, but you will be entirely unable to implement it without getting a LOT of people killed, mostly government agents who are sent out to do the work. Pretty quickly government agents will simply refuse to make the attempt because they don't want to die for your idiotic paranoid notions. And since you are too cowardly to go out and try and do it yourself, your plan will simply fade away and we will keep our guns.

That's the ultimate reality, because when you say "we" who you mean are liberal twits who don't have any guns with which to enforce their will nor the balls to even try themselves to do so, and thus your "we" is doomed to fail.