Shooter was Coddled OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!

Random Ramblings
41

Furnishedowner,

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

LOL… yeah, that’s the problem… :rolleyes :biglaugh :lol

I repeat…

[i][b]
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?..[/b][/i]

42

Groooaaan…PosOutlook, pleeeze! Why do you split hairs?

Here is again what I think, my opinion, about piracy and guns. I don’t think any of you would want it differently?

No piracy allowed. After hijackings several decades ago (remember the Cuban hijackings, anyone) international agreements were put in place between airlines and countries, none of whom wanted their airliners hijacked. After 9-11, more regulations.

Now we have airport security all around the world. It is required that there be security checkpoints for scheduled airlines to land at airports. This feat took INTERNATIONAL agreements. This is what our government is for, keeping the people safe. No country wants their buildings taken out by pirates at the controls. No country wants air piracy.

Now there is rampant piracy in several oceans. Because those are international and sovereign waters, with ships of many countries, INTERNATIONAL agreements are needed. Agreements to monitor and prevent and repel pirates.

Just like an air marshall or airport security guard can shoot and kill an air pirate, navies or armed guards should shoot to repel sea pirates. There needs to be signed agreements so countries know who is doing what. So that the Yemeni Coast Guard (if there is such an entity) isn’t mistakenly fired upon by a passing freighter who mistakes them for pirates. So that International incidents aren’t created. So that the oceans can be safe again.

I know several people who have given up their own little personal dream of sailing around the world in their sailboat. Because of pirates. Anyone who goes into pirate-infested waters had better be armed to the teeth. Or they may end up fish food.

jfpen,
I agree with your statements about the culpability Switzerland may have in financing questionable projects that did not impact them. I understand you.

I did not mean to compare Switzerland to the US. I responded to the title on the video, because it was completely bogus. I was responding to the idea that “An Armed Country has Low Crime”. Several people wanted to project that onto the United States. A totally false analogy. Just dead wrong. If more guns meant less crime, we should be crime-free long ago.

Furnishedowner

43
I was responding to the idea that "An Armed Country has Low Crime". Several people wanted to project that onto the United States. A totally false analogy. Just dead wrong. If more guns meant less crime, we should be crime-free long ago.

You still don’t quite get it. It is “A WELL ARMED LAW ABIDING CITIZENRY” that causes crime to drop - more specifically a well armed law abiding citizenry that CARRIES GUNS. The presence of guns in homes does certainly help, but when the criminal have to worry about every citizen they see on the street having a gun - that is the real deterrent. Furthermore, we can see that gun control is NOT effective in lowering crime - just look at the “MURDER CAPITAL OF THE UNITED STATES” (Washington D.C.). They have had an absolute ban on gun ownership for law abiding citizens FOR DECADES! The result, ONLY THE CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS and you get the “murder capital of the United States”.

Here in Ohio, criminals are STARTING to drop like flies at the hands of concealed carry holders. Columbus had 3 dead felons in one week recently - all killed by concealed carry holders (one by an elderly grandmother). As more and more people get their concealed carry licenses (and 2009 is going to be a banner year), violent criminals will begin to learn that committing violent crimes isn’t a good idea. If they have to worry about every grandmother carrying a gun - they’ve got a problem (one way or the other). Right now, about 1 in 50 law-abiding citizens in Ohio has a concealed carry license. When you’re at Walmart on any given day, there are probably several law-abiding citizens in there carrying, and believe it or not, no ok-corral style shootouts as the anti-gun wacko left predicted.

44

Here’s an interesting article in “POLICE” magazine which shows that the police understand that having armed citizens helps prevent or stop violent crime. Regardless of how well staffed and equipped the police are, they simply can’t be everywhere to prevent crime. Armed citizens help fill that gap, in addition to providing a deterrent to violent crime.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Weapons/Articles/2009/12/Unarmed-Victim-Zones.aspx

45

I think it’s important to point out that not everyone is qualified to carry/use a gun. They need to be educated just as police officers are. On a side note. In my town a few months ago there was a guy that was attacking women in their driveways at night as they got out of their cars. My wife was denied pepper spray because she didn’t have an FID card :shocked. So I went to store and bought her a travel sized deoderant spray. It had a 5 foot range… I know it works because I accidentally shot myself in the eye when I was a teenager getting ready for a date :banghead. It burn like hell!

46
My wife was denied pepper spray because she didn't have an FID card

Since when does a person need permission to have pepper spray?

47

That’s the law in Massachusetts :banghead :bs. But there’s no law about protecting yourself with deoderant! :beer

48

You’ve got to get out of the land of socialism!!! So, let me get this straight…in the People’s Republic of MA criminals have guns but law abiding citizens can’t even have pepper spray! UNBELIEVABLE! Come on down to the United States, where we are still relatively free!

49

What happens if the laws change wherever I go? That’s not out of the realm of possibility with B.O. at the healm. You just have to find ways to outsmart the criminals and the laws. I think its ridiculous also but its all about adapting.

50

Make sure you give your wife a lighter too. That would be much more potent.

51

I know a guy who got his face burned pretty good doing that. The flames ignited the spray backwards and the can blew up… It all fun and games until someone loses some skin and hair! :biggrin

52

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=309

53

John,

Surely, that can’t be right. MILLIONS of additional gun sales, many of which went to first time gun buyers and hundreds of thousands of new concealed carry holders and CRIME WENT DOWN DURING THE GREATEST ECONOMIC DOWNTURN SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Socialists like FO must be crying up a storm. More guns = less crime! Who woulda thunk it?

54

The FBI report stated that the murder rate had gone down, not the crime rate. Criminologists thought it might be due to more emphasis on controlling gangs, more high-tech surveillance, etc.

It is good news that murders are down.

It is bad news that the number of police officers killed by gunfire in 2009 is up 24% over last year. 47 officers have been shot and killed this year while on duty, up from 38. The most were killed in Pennsylvania.

“The availability of guns compounds the problem,” criminologists said.

Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi and Nevada lead the country in the gun death rates per 100,000 people. These states have very high rates of gun ownership, with more than half of all homes with guns.

Louisiana has about 20 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year. So if you live in a town of 100,000, 20 of your fellow citizens will die in one year from gunshots. These statistics I got from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. It seems incredibly high to me. In our little burg of 50,000, we have had 4 or 5 gun deaths this year, based on my memory of reading the newspaper front page.

To me, it’s all about responsible gun ownership. Having educated, licensed, trained owners who pay a licensing fee for their guns. Who don’t buy them at gun shows with no background check. Owners who accept the life-and-death responsibility of their ownership of lethal weapons.

Furnishedowner

55

I’m a bit suprised that the crime rate, murder rates, are down. There is no way they will stay there. I am expecting them to go through the roof once the financial slide starts. I just bought my dad a shotgun for xmas for this very reason. Though I’m not too sure what he is going to think of it.

Your statistics don’t bother me a bit. Two incidents that happened on streets I own property come to mind. Both were gang/drug shootings. Unfortunately only one gang banger died. I wish there was weapons we could give them that only they could kill each other with. Sorta cuts down on repeat offenses, and prison costs. Speaking of that, what happense when the prisons run out of $$, or the $$ goes bad, and the guards go home? Are you gonna be able to protect yourself, property, and family?

56

I’m one of the first time gun owners this year. I bought my gun at a shop and properly registered it. I just got my concealed carry permit last week. The whole ordeal cost me a 1/2 day off work and about $160 for a five year permit. I had to surrender my home state driver’s license and also my right to vote in my home state too.
I think that’s enough of a sacrifice to exercise my right to bear arms. I don’t think we need additional taxes on that.

57

My dad just got me MY very own first gun for Christmas. Looks like im a part of this “new gunownership” group. God, you Liberals must hate it.

58

Furnishedowner,

“The FBI report stated that the murder rate had gone down, not the crime rate. Criminologists thought it might be due to more emphasis on controlling gangs, more high-tech surveillance, etc.”

Yes, and it is the MURDER rate you have been arguing that MORE guns would increase it… instead it has DECREASED…

“It is bad news that the number of police officers killed by gunfire in 2009 is up 24% over last year. 47 officers have been shot and killed this year while on duty, up from 38. The most were killed in Pennsylvania.”

Police are not usually shot in the line of duty by LAW-ABIDING gun owners, so all of your burdens you want to place on LAW-ABIDING gun owners would NOT have changed this outcome…

“The availability of guns compounds the problem,” criminologists said."

Since you don’t cite your source for this article… here it is for everyone else…

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1838715

The FULL quote to put it in COMPLETE context, which shows the OPPOSITE of what Furnishedowner was saying…

“The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists say. But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer deaths so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country, according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer gun deaths this year.”

Some other interesting quotes from the article you missed Furnishedowner…

“In 1973, during a heyday of corruption and crime, there were around 600,000 officers and about 156 gunfire deaths. Currently, there are about 900,000 law enforcement officers nationwide and only 47 gunfire deaths this year _ a per-capita decrease of nearly 21 percent.”

[i][b]“As of Saturday, 47 police officers have died nationwide this year after being shot while on duty, up from 38 for the same time in 2008, which was the lowest number of gunfire deaths since 1956, according to the data.”

“Despite the increase in the number of gunfire deaths from 2008, there have been fewer overall officer deaths so far this year: 117, compared with 125 last year, according to the statistics. The major reason is that traffic deaths are down 24 percent.”
[/b][/i]

“To me, it’s all about responsible gun ownership.”

So you are saying you have a way for the CRIMINALS to be responsible gun owners?? No, as we’ve seen time and time again in your approach, it’s about CONTROLLING LAW-ABIDING gun owners because there is NO WAY you can control the criminal… ALSO, from the article…

““But folks who are willing to intentionally target police officers seem to be able to find a way to accrue guns regardless of what the laws in those state would be,” Morison said.”

So now the article you used as a basis for your post is SAYING what WE’VE been saying all along - those who are willing will find a way REGARDLESS of the law… is it sinking in yet?

"Having educated, licensed, trained owners who pay a licensing fee for their guns. Who don’t buy them at gun shows with no background check. Owners who accept the life-and-death responsibility of their ownership of lethal weapons.’

And tell us HOW this would stop the CRIMINAL from getting a black-market gun or STEALING one?.. Otherwise, don’t you understand that all you are looking at is a “feel-good” solution that does NOT address the problem???

Tell you what though, Furnishedowner, the CRU is looking for people like you to misrepresent the data and cherry pick to FORCE their own position on everyone else… :beer

Looks like more world-travel is calling you…

Justin0419,

“I had to surrender my home state driver’s license and also my right to vote in my home state too.”

Can you expound on this… you are saying that in order to get your permit, you had to GIVE-UP the RIGHT to vote??? How did they justify that after jumping through all their hoops???

59

Because I’m in the military, I’ve always maintained my license in my home state (IL). MS would only grant me a concealed carry permit if I surrendered my IL license and got a MS license. My understanding of the situation is that I have to vote in MS now since I live here and now am licensed here. If that’s really the case, it’s unfortunate because IL is generally a blue state and MS is safely a red state. As someone who is generally conservative, I’d rather have my vote count in IL and try to change that to a red state (or whatever party is going to quit ruining this country and spending us into oblivion).

60
I just bought my dad a shotgun for xmas for this very reason.
I'm one of the first time gun owners this year. I bought my gun at a shop and properly registered it.
My dad just got me MY very own first gun for Christmas.

Well, just to add to the list, I bought my dad a Glock 17 for Christmas. In addition, my wife, daughter, and sister all just got their concealed carry licenses!!! Merry Christmas FO - things are getting a LOT safer thanks to the responsible citizens on this forum! Maybe you should take some responsibility for YOUR own safety and that of your family. You too could become a responsible, law-abiding gun owner. If you feel the need, you could even send the serial number along with a licensing fee to Comrade Obama if they don’t require registration or licensing in your area!

For my part, I got a scope for my Mosin Nagant sniper rifle (7.62 X 54R) and a KKM barrel for my Glock (fully supported chamber for shooting reloaded ammo).

Justin and Hoosier - I know you’re new to the gun ownership thing, so I’ll forgive you for breaking a major rule of firearms: WHEN YOU GET A NEW GUN, YOU’VE GOT TO TELL US WHAT YOU GOT!!! Do tell!

FO - in total, I was responsible for encouraging many people to get their concealed carry licenses during 2009. At least 4 of them did so and at least 3 of them bought new guns. I also bought some new guns in 2009 and am planning to buy some more in 2010. I’ve got my eye on one of those .50 Caliber (Barrett 50BMG) Rifles that the socialists have banned in California. When the socialists ban it, I feel obligated to buy it (legally, of course).