rickjump1 0 #76 November 8, 2009 Quote How long did you live in the USA? Did you speak like you do now while you were here? I bet you get a warm welcome at US boogies.If there were a tornado coming and it was just minutes away, I would leave you outside, because you would probably be offended to share shelter with anyone like me. Nah, I bet you would give her shelter.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bullin82 0 #77 November 8, 2009 I would have to say your right rick. seems no matter how much people hate and loath us soldiers were always here to help out when its needed, no questions asked. but what do i know im unedumakated aint that right John Kerry??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #78 November 8, 2009 Quote The bigger questions is, if the military doesn't trust its well trained members to carry fire arms, why should we trust university students to carry on campus? You clearly don't understand the military. The military is not supposed to be used inside the US... So, why would they be armed everyday? Now, how about you answer the question I asked instead of trying to deflect it? How about you tell us how many people with a permit to carry have gone on a shooting spree?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #79 November 8, 2009 Quote There was, and apparently he killed 12 people. Now care to tell everyone if him having it was LEGAL? If he had a permit to carry it? If it was ok for him to carry it on post? If going on a killing spree was allowed?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #80 November 9, 2009 QuoteQuote There was, and apparently he killed 12 people. Now care to tell everyone if him having it was LEGAL? If he had a permit to carry it? If it was ok for him to carry it on post? If going on a killing spree was allowed? I fail to see what that has to do with anything. The dead are still dead, and their families are still grieving, whether the looney had a legal or illegal gun.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #81 November 9, 2009 >How about you tell us how many people with a permit to carry have gone on >a shooting spree? The recent ones (past year or so): Jiverly Wong, killed 13, injured 4 William Kitzmiller, shot 1 cop before being shot himself during a gunfight Richard Poplawski, killed 3 cops, injures 1 Michael McClendon, kills 11 Frank Garcia, kills 3, injures 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #82 November 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote There was, and apparently he killed 12 people. Now care to tell everyone if him having it was LEGAL? If he had a permit to carry it? If it was ok for him to carry it on post? If going on a killing spree was allowed? I fail to see what that has to do with anything. The dead are still dead, and their families are still grieving, whether the looney had a legal or illegal gun. You are correct.... and furthermore this incident is and act of Terrorism, not "violence" like Obama said in his statement. I am so mad that he won't call it for what it really is. This has been our 2nd 9-11 terrorist attack and Obama wants to make it sound like it's just an adult version of the Columbine shooting. It was fueled by radical Islam. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #83 November 9, 2009 you knew the guy that well!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #84 November 9, 2009 QuoteI fail to see what that has to do with anything. The dead are still dead, and their families are still grieving, whether the looney had a legal or illegal gun. That's because you dislike firearms and don't think people should be allowed them. A purely emotional outburst form you."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #85 November 9, 2009 QuoteThe recent ones (past year or so): Wrong. Wong had a "permit to buy", NOT a permit to carry. and in the same mth: QuoteWong, it's important to remember, is just the highest-profile recent gun murderer – the Philadelphia Daily News reports that 53 people have been killed in mass shootings in just the past month. Now complete the data and list ALL the shootings and give us a RATE of CHL to no CHL. And while you are at it... give us the rate of shootings at schools versus Gun shows."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #86 November 9, 2009 QuoteWhat a nice glorification. The most of "them" do this to have a job, to get paid even w/o having a chance on employment market. This shows you have no clue what you are talking about... Of course you never have let that stop you before. I guess you know more about why people serve than those that have served?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #87 November 9, 2009 >You are correct.... and furthermore this incident is and act of Terrorism, >not "violence" like Obama said in his statement. Terrorism is a political act intended to accomplish a political objective through violence and the fear it produces. What was the political objective here? >It was fueled by radical Islam. And Jiverly Wong's massacre was fueled by a gun nut who wanted to kill the President. Does that mean we need to be talking about cracking down on gun nut terrorism? Perhaps we could go after their training camps/shooting ranges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #88 November 9, 2009 QuoteExcept that the theory provides that if everybody is armed, a shooter would not be able to do too much damage. One would think that if you believed in that theory, having many highly trained armed people around, would make a base even more secure. And it would. But you are STILL ignoring that that it is an issue of ownership, responsibility, and mission. The US troop has almost no mission need for a weapon inside the US. But when there is a need, they ARE armed. I have carried a loaded M4 inside the US a few times... Each time I was guarding someone or something. Simple fact is when there is a need, they are armed. When there is no need, they are not allowed to carry the Govt owned weapons around. I had a military DL, I even had my own Humvee (assigned to me, my name on the window..ect)... I could not just take it for joy ride or take it off roading for fun. I COULD take it off roading when it was approved by my chain of command, SAME WITH FIREARMS. If I wanted, I could get my chain of command to allow me to check out my weapon and take it to the range, or any other MISSION oriented need. Guys that were assigned tanks were not allowed to go cruzing to the local Wendy's in it either."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #89 November 9, 2009 >Now complete the data and list ALL the shootings and give us a RATE of >CHL to no CHL. I'll let you do that if you care to. Until you do I'll use your numbers. Let's assume that the 53 mass shooting victims you posted (including the Wong shootings, or 40 without) are representative. That's 480 killings total over 12 months. CCW killings are 31 in the same time frame. So 6.4% of the time, murder victims were killed by CCW holders. Once you do that, we can compare your number to the number of CCW holders in the population. States vary on CCW holders, from .17% (New Mexico) to 7.45% (South Dakota.) Average is 2.5% state by state. So 6.4% of the deaths were perpetrated by CCW holders, and CCW holders make up 2.5% of the population in shall-issue states. Which means that CCW holders are over twice as likely to kill people in shooting sprees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #90 November 9, 2009 Wow, made up math!!!!! Wanna do the math on how AAD's cause hook turn deaths? Either do your home work, or don't make up stuff. Plus you ignore that he didn't have a CHL, only a permit to BUY. FAIL! How about some numbers from TX? In 2006, there were 258,162 active CHLs, but only 140 total convictions. Overall - The general population over age 21 is over 7 times as likely to commit any offense listed by DPS as are CHLs Assault - The general population over age 21 is over 8 times as likely to commit an assault as are CHLs Burglary - The general population over age 21 is over 38 times as likely to commit a burglary as are CHLs Prohibited Weapons - The general population over age 21 is over 21 times as likely to be convicted of possessing prohibited weapons as are CHLs Robbery - The general population over age 21 is over 63 times as likely to commit a robbery as are CHLs"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #91 November 9, 2009 >Wanna do the math on how AAD's cause hook turn deaths? ?? No one claims that guns cause shootings and no one claims that AAD's cause hook turn deaths. However, if people who use AAD's are more than twice as likely (on a percentage basis) to die from a no-pull, it would definitely be worth trying to figure out why that is the case. >Either do your home work, or don't make up stuff. I did. Everything there is supportable. If you would like to refute it, you might want to do some of your own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #92 November 9, 2009 QuoteI did. Everything there is supportable. If you would like to refute it, you might want to do some of your own. I did, you ignored it. I even included my source. You made up stuff."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 November 9, 2009 Quote I did. Everything there is supportable. If you would like to refute it, you might want to do some of your own. I didn't see any citations for your examples from the last year, just one counter claim that one of them was bullshit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #94 November 9, 2009 Bill, normally I can at least respect your contributions as logical, well thought out, and defensible even if I disagree. But for this one, you're out in la la land. You really need to brush up on the difference between a concealed carry permit (called CHL, CWP, CHP, CCW, and others) and a simple permit to purchase (officially deemed "not prohibited" from buying a firearm). By the way, a permit to purchase requirement at the local/county level is a joke, because most Sheriffs will just run a person through NCIC and a pending crimes check, which is about the same thing any firearms retailer will do. If you really want to run with just the numbers in this thread, then 0% of shooters had concealed carry permits, and the rest of your numbers are pointless.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #95 November 9, 2009 Quote Except that the theory provides that if everybody is armed, a shooter would not be able to do too much damage. One would think that if you believed in that theory, having many highly trained armed people around, would make a base even more secure. I'm sure it would have been much safer had any of the military personnel actually been armed.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #96 November 10, 2009 QuoteWow, made up math!!!!! On the whole I'd trust Bill's math over yours any day.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 November 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteWow, made up math!!!!! On the whole I'd trust Bill's math over yours any day. Calculations are only as good as the data they're based on. In this case, Bill's data is wrong.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #98 November 10, 2009 > In this case, Bill's data is wrong. So post data you consider to be correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #99 November 10, 2009 QuoteTerrorism is a political act intended to accomplish a political objective through violence and the fear it produces. What was the political objective here?Quote What ,Bill, was the political objective on 9-11? I mean, I know Cheney and company had declared their desire to take over the middle east , but was the political agenda of the 9-11 hijakers if you suscribe to the government version? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #100 November 10, 2009 >What ,Bill, was the political objective on 9-11? From Bin Laden himself: "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,991 #100 November 10, 2009 >What ,Bill, was the political objective on 9-11? From Bin Laden himself: "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
