Shooter was Coddled OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!

Random Ramblings
21

Furnishedowner,

"How about somebody saying, “You have a point there.”

That’s what we’ve been waiting for you to do… being that our argument FAVORS the LAW-ABIDING gun owners… YOUR argument FAVORS the CRIMINALS as it makes it HARDER for LAW-ABIDING gun owners WHO DON’T GIVE their guns to CRIMINALS to protect themselves MILLIONS of times per year.

BTW, we’ve ALREADY agreed with you on harsher sentences for the CRIMINALS IF they actually carry the term out, and all the luxuries taken away to make it REAL time… Where have you agreed with US on OUR points??? Even though the STATES ALREADY have on average 6 years (20% MORE than you suggested) tacked on to crime committed with guns, it is NOT a deterrent BECAUSE just as we’ve seen in this situation, the CRIMINAL who was SUPPOSED to be serving DECADES, got out in a FRACTION of the time…


“It would amaze me if someone even agreed that, YES, there is too much gun violence.”

You need someone to AGREE with this??? :rolleyes OF COURSE there is too much gun violence… but what you don’t understand is that there would be MUCH MORE if LAW-ABIDING gun owners were not able to DEFEND THEMSELVES to the tune of MILLIONS OF TIMES per year when they are the MOST vulnerable.

I would respectfully submit that those LAW-ABIDING gun owners who used their gun in SELF-DEFENSE and are ALIVE TODAY because of it would have just as strong a disagreement with your “solution” as we do…

“If someone agreed that YES, maybe it is a stretch to be armed to the teeth nowadays in order to prevent your own genocide.”

I don’t get your reasoning… you want the people on the high seas to be “armed to the teeth” to kill the pirates and sink the boats, but then what do you expect the LAW-ABIDING gun owners to do here??? I said it before and you didn’t respond, what difference does it make if someone who LEGALLY owns guns owns 1 or a 100???

“This is just deflection, trying to change the subject. Also PosOutlook, Hoosier, sellnbama do this all the time. Must drive their spouses and families nuts.”

The deflection is all on your part FO… we ANSWER the questions furthering the dialogue… you go past “deflecting” to outright AVOIDING it… and your ONLY answer is MORE government…


“RIDICULOUS postings. We need some fresh blood on this site, or should I just get off?”

We agree that your position in your posts on this IS ridiculous and is the OPPOSITE of what the FOUNDERS of the country instituted with the second amendment right to guns…

I can only IMAGINE their faces if they were alive today to see the bastardization and selfishness of what they gave their blood and treasure for… :rolleyes

22
How about somebody saying, "You have a point there." It would amaze me if someone even agreed that, YES, there is too much gun violence. If someone agreed that YES, maybe it is a stretch to be armed to the teeth nowadays in order to prevent your own genocide.

I agree 100%! You have a point there. Yes, there is too much gun violence and if you REALLY wanted to decrease it, you would be for PUNISHING CRIMINALS (instead of coddling them). The problem is that you’re not serious about doing anything that will fix the problem, you just want to further the socialist agenda of taking guns away from honest, law-abiding citizens.

We need some fresh blood on this site, or should I just get off?

Don’t leave FO - I’m still hoping that if you’re here long enough, some common sense will finally sink in!!!

BTW, still waiting for your comment on the outing of the global warming scam!!!

23

I side with Propertymanager on this one. His main point is NOT gun control. Its about PUNISHING CRIMINALS. What good is more regulation if you can’t enforce the current regulation? Prisons need to be more like the one in “Cool Hand Luke”. We need more chain gangs cleaning up our highways and grafitti laden buildings, bridges etc… There plenty of backbreaking work out there to be done… Even if you just keep making them dig a hole and fill it back in until they “Got they’re mind right”… Like in the “Cool Hand Luke”.

24

How are you going to tell criminals to not illegally carry thier guns? Maybe if you tell them nicely!

25
How are you going to tell criminals to not illegally carry thier guns? Maybe if you tell them nicely!

You can’t use logic when dealing with socialists.

26

“How are you going to tell criminals to not illegally carry thier guns? Maybe if you tell them nicely!”

Maybe another way of saying it is how is adding Furnishedowners additional burdens beyond background checks (i.e. - licensing, permits, TAXATION, etc.) to LAW-ABIDING gun owners going to tell CRIMINALS not to illegally carry their guns (whether illegally purchased or stolen)?

I maintain that although Furnishedower SAYS she does not want to disarm, being that she can’t define what “fewer” guns means, nor can she provide a reason why a LAW-ABIDING gun owner should not be able to own 1 or a 100 guns, and the fact that she keeps looking to other countries that have banned guns as her model, leads me to believe what she REALLY would prefer is disarming. However, now that the Supreme Court has got in the way of that, the only way the government could get the guns is through Martial Law, but they would have to know where the guns were for that… hence, licensing and registration… and of course, they can’t miss ANOTHER opportunity to extract MORE money through TAXATION… of course, the CRIMINAL is subject to NONE of this BECAUSE they don’t follow the rules…

Socialists openly promote this, and I think we’ve fairly established that although she does not want to admit it, that is where her sympathies lie…

I would have more respect for FO’s POV if she actually came out and said what we all see, which is that she would prefer disarming… at least she could then defend her position from an open POV rather than jump through so many nonsensical hoops…

What is comes down to is that she thinks that REMOVING the guns, will cause less gun deaths, NOT addressing the criminals or the underlying causes for suicide… As we can see in the EU, one of her favorite examples, they have LESS guns but FOUR TIMES the amount of suicide, so REMOVING guns from LAW-ABIDING gun owners DOES NOT address that problem, it just changes the method…

27

No, if we jailed all the people who legally own guns and just take them away forcefully that will mean a safer America. Pretty soon I should start getting pulled over for having a NRA sticker on my car.

28

Yes, that would be a safer America for criminals. In the end, it’s all about protecting THEIR rights…

29

Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

30

FO and her socialist buddies aren’t going to like that video! I can see them now, all standing around with their fingers in their ears so they don’t have to hear the truth! LOL!

31

John,
Good video,I love the part where the govt provides amo for target practice.They surely can afford it with all the savings from low crime.Brilliant,simply brilliant.

32

That video titled “Why Switzerland Has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World” is totally bogus. It is a perfect example about media slanting something to suit their political view.

The video should have been titled “Swiss Armed Preparedness Continues”. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIME.

First of all, DOES Switzerland have the lowest crime rate in the world? I’m sure it’s low, but is it the lowest? Anybody check?

The title has NOTHING to do with the video itself. I lived in Switzerland for more than a year and have visited several times. I speak Schwiezer Deutsch, I have Swiss friends. Once I even tagged along on a military maneuver with the National Guard there, very congenial, ended in a WeinStube in Tessin. It was not exactly a high level of military training, more of a social happening.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT CRIME IS NOT LOW BECAUSE THE SWISS SHOOT CRIMINALS WITH THEIR HOME WEAPONRY. That is the bogus slant on that video title.

In the homes that I stayed in, there was the Swiss military rifle in the hall closet, just sitting there, but I saw no ammunition. The Swiss men go on weekend maneuvers and occasional summer training much like our National Guard. My understanding at that time was that their bullets were at the armory, where they would go first. That may be different now, or a personal choice; I don’t know.

Crime is not low because they are shooting criminals!

Crime is low (if it is) because the Swiss are civilized, highly educated, homogenous. They have a large foreign worker population (I was one) and they are highly regulated. The country is rich, the police are well funded and manned.

Switzerland, in the heart of Europe, encountered war for centuries in surrounding countries. So the Swiss decided to have a well-armed populace and to always be ready to deter homeland invasion. This served them well when Hitler started his land-grab in Europe. The cost to take Switzerland would have just been too great. Switzerland stayed free and neutral during World War II.

Will this policy continue to serve the Swiss well in this century? With armed invasion unlikely over the Swiss Borders? With terrorist warfare more than marching armies? I don’t know.

But don’t believe that Swiss guns keep their crime rate low. Please don’t believe everything you see on YouTube. In fact, don’t believe MOST of what is there. Have some healthy scepticism or you are a sheep.

Furnishedowner

33

And yet again, you miss the point. Guns in the home don’t reduce crime because all the criminals get themselves shot and killed. Guns in the home reduce crime because the criminals know that the possibility of getting shot exists, and so they don’t enter the home in the first place.

A very large percentage of criminals are lazy cowards. If they know there is a chance of getting themselves hurt, they will go elsewhere and look for an easier target.

34
Crime is not low because they are shooting criminals!

FO - YOU ARE SOOOOOOOO CLUELESS! Just as in the United States, it isn’t that law abiding citizens are shooting criminals that lowers the violent crime rate. What lowers the violent crime rate is that criminals know that a lot of honest citizens are armed! Almost to a person, criminals are stupid, cowardly people! I deal with this scum in conjunction with my lower income rentals all the time (not the tenants but the neighborhood scum). They are big and fierce when they’re dealing with an unarmed, weak person that looks like a victim, but they certainly aren’t going to risk their lives attacking a citizen that might be armed.

This served them well when Hitler started his land-grab in Europe. The cost to take Switzerland would have just been too great. Switzerland stayed free and neutral during World War II.

Be careful FO, you’re about to make some sense. What you just said is that a well-armed citizenry is a deterrent to governments as well as people. YOU’RE RIGHT! A well armed citizenry DOES keep governments at bay - in our case here in the US - IT KEEPS OUR GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING OUR RIGHTS AWAY!

35

I am still waiting to hear how Furnishedowner justifies having people “armed to the teeth”, as she puts it, on the high seas to protect themselves from pirates with guns, and sinking their boats in the process, but doesn’t want to apply the same principle (i.e. - deterrence from CRIMINALS by people being armed) to us???

Maybe she can clear this point up for us… we’ll see…

36

You guys just don’t get it. You hear what you want to hear.

The Swiss have low crime because they are a rich country with few “have nots”. They do not have a large, ignorant, poverty-stricken underclass. Like we do. Their police are well-manned, well-funded and totally in control. I am trying to recollect, but I can’t even think of a slum there.

PM, don’t even liken the people you deal with to the Swiss. It is like oil and water. Crime is low there because there are WAY FEWER CRIMINALS, not because your average Swiss has an Army rifle in the closet. So, YOU ARE WRONG, PM and tatertot, having arms is not what causes the low crime rate. You need to travel more, please. You have a very myopic view.

And PosOutlook, you wear me out with harping on one stupid point. If there are pirates and hijackers they should be stopped. We have sky marshalls and airport checkpoints to deter hijacking of our public transport.

We should also have armed escorts and satellite monitoring to prevent the hijacking of our commerce by sea. The US Navy was sent in to stop the pirates at Tripoli, huge ransoms were being paid then and piracy just increased. We need international agreements to get other countries on board so that stupidity can stop. Let’s put the Navy to some good use; we have the world’s largest so why not.

I have NEVER said that you shouldn’t have a gun at home to deter criminals from breaking in! I have never said that good citizens couldn’t have guns. Don’t give me motives that I don’t have.

I hope I’ve cleared that up for you.

About that video–the Swiss guy talking about how he is armed to protect himself from WWII type genocide, the point brought home to him by the crying Jewish lady in the Holocaust Museum. Maybe that lady was crying because the Swiss TURNED BACK hundreds (thousands ?) of German Jewish refugees at their border. Those refugees were shipped to camps and died. I wonder why he didn’t talk about that?! That was something to cry about.

Furnishedowner

37

Furnished,

Are you seriously comparing a tiny country with CLOSED borders that has a population 1/3rd the size of New York City with the USA?

Switzerland is a country whose most notable contribution to civilization is to make sure that the finances of dictators, oligarchs and drug lords remain secret so they can expand their “businesses”.

They have few “have nots” because the “have nots” they exploit live OUTSIDE of their country. Here in the USA we treat our “have nots” much better than they treat theirs.

How much gun violence internationally do you think Switzerland has indirectly contributed to?

But hey, who cares?, as long as it’s not in my backyard.

JP

38
They do not have a large, ignorant, poverty-stricken underclass.

The ONLY reason that we have a large, ignorant, poverty-stricken underclass is that you SOCIALISTS caused it with all your social welfare programs. What’s sad is that you’re not honest enough to admit it.

Their police are well-manned, well-funded and totally in control.

Believe it or not, here in the US, we DON’T WANT the police to be totally in control. We want to live in a FREE country, not a police state!

I have NEVER said that you shouldn't have a gun at home to deter criminals from breaking in!

How about carrying guns in public to deter crime there also?

I have never said that good citizens couldn't have guns.

No, what you said is that you want to punish good citizens with taxes, registration, etc, instead of punishing the criminals! BRILLIANT! I guess that’s some of that Big Thinking you were talking about in the other thread.

39

Furnishedowner,

“And PosOutlook, you wear me out with harping on one stupid point. If there are pirates and hijackers they should be stopped. We have sky marshalls and airport checkpoints to deter hijacking of our public transport.”

You wear US out just trying to get an answer from you, and when you finally answer it, it is a non-answer… You say it’s harping, but how can you say that when you don’t answer the question? YOU said the pirates should be KILLED and their BOATS sunk. YOU said that the victims should be “armed to the teeth”…

NOW, its… “they should be stopped”… and “International agreements”… quite a different tack than KILLING them and SINKING THEIR BOATS by people who are “armed to the teeth”, wouldn’t you agree?..

“We should also have armed escorts and satellite monitoring to prevent the hijacking of our commerce by sea.”

And who PAYS for this? Let me guess… the government, right?

“The US Navy was sent in to stop the pirates at Tripoli, huge ransoms were being paid then and piracy just increased. We need international agreements to get other countries on board so that stupidity can stop. Let’s put the Navy to some good use; we have the world’s largest so why not.”

So you think pirates (i.e. - CRIMINALS) are going to respect any international agreements? They are ALREADY breaking the law… what difference do more laws make? Our Navy is PAID for by AMERICAN taxpayer money and serve to defend and protect the USA, NOT to protect other countries good and services being transported on the seas… do you even realize how many ships cross the seas on an on-going basis?

“I have NEVER said that you shouldn’t have a gun at home to deter criminals from breaking in!”

No, YOU have said that you want guns REMOVED… under the ill-advised concept that somehow removing guns from LAW-ABIDING citizens through gun buy-back programs somehow stops CRIMINALS from getting them on the black-market, or STEALING them…

“I have never said that good citizens couldn’t have guns.”

Yes you have… YOU said that you don’t see why people have to own alot of guns… Well, they can only shoot ONE at a time, so what does it make a difference to you if they own 1 or 100, if they have passed a background check? In addition, you want to INCREASE the burden on LAW-ABIDING gun owners through registration, TAXATION, permits, fees, etc…

"Don’t give me motives that I don’t have. "

Noone is… we are using YOUR WORDS and applying YOUR concepts… Do we really have to go back and QUOTE you on all this?

“I hope I’ve cleared that up for you.”

No, you haven’t… because you never ANSWERED the question… just tip-toed around it…

Why is OK for people at sea to be “armed to the teeth” out in the open, as a deterrent to the pirates, but not OK for people to be “armed to the teeth” as a deterrent for the CRIMINALS they encounter out in the open, or in their house, or in their business, or on the street?

When you actually ANSWER the question, and you inconsistency on this, THEN you will have gone a long way to clearing it up…

40

PosOutlook,
The inconsistency is with your comprehension of the written word. Maybe you have a “re-set” button?

Furnishedowner