Selene Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Followup is always of, someone dies or is wounded.You, me? Because someone armed is suspicious of us.You are not seriously stating that "because someone is armed" that "always" "someone dies or is wounded?" Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 All good news but the fact is I trust local citizens with guns much more than any local or federal police or any local political types. There is a pattern demonstrating they cannot be trusted.I think it's the fact that cops etc. face lesser consequences as a result of shooting someone than a civilian. If you shoot someone in self defense, as a civilian, it can destroy your life, if you shoot someone recklessly, as a cop, you just have to have enough friends to make sure people think it was in self-defense, and then you're off the hook.Although carrying a weapon, and using it in self-defense should be legal, the followup to such events should be very thorough; equally so for police and civilians. That's what I think, anyway.Two local cops committed murder and got away with it - slap on the wrist. One killed who he thought was his wife's lover - turned out to be his brother who had borrowed his car. The other one was a cop who killed her boyfriend and did the old claim of abuse. I personally know a neighbor - they were both always drunk and arguing - finally the arguing was settled.Another local cop discharged a handgun next to his son's head outside in town during an argument. Nothing happened of course.Local cops and local political officials have been involved in theft, sexual assaults, attempted murders, drug dealing, fraud, arson, covering up for criminal relatives, and on and on. The state of Missouri shows virtually no interest in cleaning up its dirty cops and political officials. They generally only face justice when they lose their jobs during elections or when federal proscecutors get involved. The local news media does exactly zero reporting on local corruption until after the arrests.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Followup is always of, someone dies or is wounded.You, me? Because someone armed is suspicious of us.You are not seriously stating that "because someone is armed" that "always" "someone dies or is wounded?" Are you?I can guarantee there are more guns than people in this part of Missouri and I feel very safe compared to any city I have ever lived in - even before the local dirty cops were more or less cleaned up.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Followup is always of, someone dies or is wounded.You, me? Because someone armed is suspicious of us.You are not seriously stating that "because someone is armed" that "always" "someone dies or is wounded?" Are you?I can guarantee there are more guns than people in this part of Missouri and I feel very safe compared to any city I have ever lived in - even before the local dirty cops were more or less cleaned up.DennisFine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Your creed seems to be, armaments exist not to be used, ever. Only to carry, in case of need.I do not buy it.As in plays a pistol on a table in Act 1 must be used by curtain. Krupp and co. knew it well, if you build it , it will kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Followup is always of, someone dies or is wounded.You, me? Because someone armed is suspicious of us.You are not seriously stating that "because someone is armed" that "always" "someone dies or is wounded?" Are you?I can guarantee there are more guns than people in this part of Missouri and I feel very safe compared to any city I have ever lived in - even before the local dirty cops were more or less cleaned up.DennisFine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence .Toronto is the only Canadian City I've been too. I wasn't there long enough to have any impression concerning crime and corruption. It was there about 7-8 years ago to look at an industrial process in a factory - equipment made in the US but not sanitary enough to run in the US any more. My only impression was that Toronto reminded me of East coast US cities - except more run down and behind the times - much like East Coast cities compared to Midwest cities.I am glad you feel safe in Toronto - I did notice your large percentage of South and East Asian immigrants.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Your creed seems to be, armaments exist not to be used, ever. Only to carry, in case of need.I do not buy it.As in plays a pistol on a table in Act 1 must be used by curtain.Krupp and co. knew it well, if you build it , it will kill.It seems you have a very strange and alien view of firearms. Alien from a Midwest cultural point of view anyway.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Your creed seems to be, armaments exist not to be used, ever. Only to carry, in case of need.I do not buy it.As in plays a pistol on a table in Act 1 must be used by curtain.Krupp and co. knew it well, if you build it , it will kill.It seems you have a very strange and alien view of firearms. Alien from a Midwest cultural point of view anyway.DennisTo me it seems yours is an alien viewl..From a cosmopoitan cultural point of view anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Your creed seems to be, armaments exist not to be used, ever. Only to carry, in case of need.I do not buy it.As in plays a pistol on a table in Act 1 must be used by curtain.Krupp and co. knew it well, if you build it , it will kill.It seems you have a very strange and alien view of firearms. Alien from a Midwest cultural point of view anyway.DennisTo me it seems yours is an alien viewl..From a cosmopoitan cultural point of view anywayI've lived about 1/3 of my life in cities, 1/3 in small towns, and 1/3 in rural areas. There is without question a differentcultural point of view regarding guns in cities than there is in small towns and rural areas. The police also act verydifferently concerning guns as well. There is a sliding scale of crime - generally the more urban you go the higher the crime rate. There are of course pockets of exceptions. The least crime areas in the US are very rural, low population density, everyone is armed, and there is virtually nocultural diversity.The highest crime areas are those most affected by government involvement in people's lives - decaying urban areas.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Maybe so but not relevant.Ayn Rand said it, not me.Arms are only to kill, and citizens (contrary to Constitution) must not bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Maybe so but not relevant.Ayn Rand said it, not me.Arms are only to kill, and citizens (contrary to Constitution) must not bear arms.Sadly Rand's simplistic central planner's view on this issue [and Peikoff's] render theiropinion on the matter of no interest to me. I would not live in such a central planner'speople's paradise. Rand is gone an Peikoff is old - time to rethink issues neither hadany understanding of.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Um, personal weapons kill, or do not?Central plans????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I am glad you feel safe in Toronto - I did notice your large percentage of South and East Asian immigrants.DennisIndeed yes I notice it also. I live and work w/ Punjabis, Sri Lankans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Banladesjis,and a few Burmese to name a few. Are you familiar w/named cultures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I am glad you feel safe in Toronto - I did notice your large percentage of South and East Asian immigrants.DennisIndeed yes I notice it also. I live and work w/ Punjabis, Sri Lankans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Banladesjis,and a few Burmese to name a few. Are you familiar w/named cultures?I have known some Pakistanis, one Indonesian, and several people from assorted parts of India. I've known many more Thais, Koreans, and Chinese than other East Asians.Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence .So do you think the shooting in the Eaton Centre the other day would have happened if we had less gun control laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 This argument applies to the two general premises of politics. Man is ultimately good, or man is ultimately bad. Do you try to make it so nobody has a gun, in order to prevent the bad men, or do you allow everyone to have a gun if they want, so that the good men can do what they need to do to keep themselves and others safe?I think it is always best to side with enabling the good men, rather than restricting the bad.I don't understand the question as to how gun control is a form of central planning. Of course it's central planning. Unless you're going to reverse the invention of the gun, you will always have an imbalance of power when you restrict certain people from having guns (people who haven't been selected by the government). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence .So do you think the shooting in the Eaton Centre the other day would have happened if we had less gun control laws?Fine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence .So do you think the shooting in the Eaton Centre the other day would have happened if we had less gun control laws?????Of course it would, many times more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennislmay Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence .So do you think the shooting in the Eaton Centre the other day would have happened if we had less gun control laws?Fine. I feel safe in Toronto and always felt safe in every Canadian city I ever lived in, and nobody can carry by law., and our cops are as dirty as yours. And nobody I know died lately, by accident or intent, instantly and efficiently fore someone elses self defence .So do you think the shooting in the Eaton Centre the other day would have happened if we had less gun control laws?????Of course it would, many times more.http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/04/toronto-eaton-centre-suspect-christopher-husbands-was-on-house-arrest-at-time-of-shooting/"Police say the man who died, 24-year-old Ahmed Hassan, is believed to have gang ties, although it’s not yet known if Saturday’s rampage was gang-related.Hassan was shot several times in what police called a targeted attack, and not a random act of violence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 It really isn't about Ayn Rand and gun "controll," but you (and I) and it.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 In related news, Canadian Psyco was arrested in a Berlin internet cafe. I wonder if Xray is a Berliner? Maybe our keeneyed friend nabbed a murderer?Scarboro seems a bad place to be raised in. Look at Paul Bernardo and now Icepick Boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 And in Victoria, B.C. ,a lawfully owned firearm was lawfully returned by police to its lawful owner, after lawful application. (Police seized it after owner was detained for mental assessment)Owner later killed two people w/ rifle.It was available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 And in Victoria, B.C. ,a lawfully owned firearm was lawfully returned by police to its lawful owner, after lawful application. (Police seized it after owner was detained for mental assessment)Owner later killed two people w/ rifle.It was available.Therefore . . .--Brantwe need a conclusion, if not more facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Brant, you know my conclusions. More firearms existent and available, lawfully or not, = more corpses and wounded.Deliberately or accidentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Brant, you know my conclusions. More firearms existent and available, lawfully or not, = more corpses and wounded.Deliberately or accidentally.Good guys or bad guys? Available to whom? Are there racial and/or ethnic group statistical breakdowns? Why isn't your rule applicable to traffic fatalities (automobiles) in the U.S.? How did you verify your rule? In college (1964) a guy tried to kidnap and rape me. I cut him with a knife. Call him wounded. Call me not raped. My sister didn't approve. My brother-in-law poured me a double whisky. First time I had had a drink. I liked it.--Brant.357 gravitas, get behind me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Automobiles are not intended as murder weapons, and a firearm does not know if a user is bad or not. You evade my very simple point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now