Tragedy in AZ: God be w/Rep. Gabrielle Giiffords and others

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:13 am

FF, sorry to hear about that.

And there is SOME substance to the concern over Obama's signing this Order.

Melissa "scored a point" because I provided data that proved her wrong? Wow, is that how it works in your alternate universe?

Remember that guns became more difficult to obtain between 1993-2001. There was a not-coincidental decrease in the violent crime rate. Hmmmm...

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:19 am

Behshad wrote:Explain to me how this 22 year old psycho would've killed 6 people with a bottle of Tylenol , A rope or even a razor ! THAT'S the main reason we need strict & controlled gun laws. Guns are MADE to kill. Simple as that.

The 9/11 terrorists sealed the fate of death of over 3000 people in a heartbeat starting with nothing more than... box cutters.

It's legal to own a handgun in this country, period. Why should the TONS of people who do own them and respect them PROPERLY have to have "strict" and "controlled" laws forced upon them because every now and then some nutcase like this goes off?

He could have killed those same 6 people by mowing them down in a car too. Should we start having "strict" and "controlled" laws as to who can and can't buy a car now too? :lol:

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:21 am

Whatever. People like you are impossible to reason with because you already know all the answers, even when you're proven wrong.

by **RedWingFan** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:31 am

Seven Wishes wrote:
Melissa wrote:He could have killed those same 6 people by mowing them down in a car too. Should we start having "strict" and "controlled" laws as to who can and can't buy a car now too?

Whatever. People like you are impossible to reason with because you already know all the answers, even when you're proven wrong.

Congratulations Melissa!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tq6b_hDvUA
:lol:

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:34 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Whatever. People like you are impossible to reason with because you already know all the answers, even when you're proven wrong.

Not sure who you're talking to, but I'm far from impossible to reason with :lol:

You didn't prove me wrong when talking about what happens now as far as people's chosen methods of suicide now. Or even in the last 10 years. I don't know all the answers at all and never claimed to :lol:

I've been asking questions actually, that no one who wants these "strict" and "controlled" laws forced upon people who already obey the law, can seem to answer.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:34 am

Riiiight.

Except she, like you, was wrong.

And you REFUSE to address the four things I just listed.

by **ebake02** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:36 am

Seven Wishes wrote:FF, you are so out of touch, such a conspiracy whore, that you can't tell white from black.

Presidents have had this power since 1836. Additionally, your boy Dubbya circumvented the law to attack Iraq and illegally eavesdrop on citizens. Bush's blatant disregard for the Constitution was frightening.

His man Dubbya made that Executive Order possible when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law in 2008 too.

by **Behshad** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:40 am

Melissa wrote:
Behshad wrote:Explain to me how this 22 year old psycho would've killed 6 people with a bottle of Tylenol , A rope or even a razor ! THAT'S the main reason we need strict & controlled gun laws. Guns are MADE to kill. Simple as that.

The 9/11 terrorists sealed the fate of death of over 3000 people in a heartbeat starting with nothing more than... box cutters.

It's legal to own a handgun in this country, period. Why should the TONS of people who do own them and respect them PROPERLY have to have "strict" and "controlled" laws forced upon them because every now and then some nutcase like this goes off?

He could have killed those same 6 people by mowing them down in a car too. Should we start having "strict" and "controlled" laws as to who can and can't buy a car now too?

People can use other non-weapon items & other methods to kill people , no doubt.
But usually when a nutjob goes over the edge , the easiest weapon of choice and method is a gun.

Even those who have guns and respect them properly have had to experience family members or friends get killed by accident.

Had this kid or the one at Virgina Tech or others involved in mass shootings not have access to a gun , many lives would've been saved.

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:52 am

Behshad wrote:People can use other non-weapon items & other methods to kill people , no doubt.
But usually when a nutjob goes over the edge , the easiest weapon of choice and method is a gun.

Even those who have guns and respect them properly have had to experience family members or friends get killed by accident.

Had this kid or the one at Virgina Tech or others involved in mass shootings not have access to a gun , many lives would've been saved.

Exactly B, and I understand where you're coming from. But the same can be said about cars even, just to use the same example I already have. People who have cars and respect them properly have had to experience family members or friends getting killed by accidents too. Sometimes even doing so themselves, like the 3 cases my husband has worked of toddlers getting run over in their own driveways because mom thought dad had the kid, dad thought mom had the kid, etc., or the 2 cases of kids being left in their carseats and dying in a hot car because mom or dad forgot about them being back there. Again, should we have strict and controlled laws as to who can and can't buy a car because of accidents like this?

There's always going to be something at the top that's most dangerous. Always.

by **ebake02** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:55 am

I guess what disturbs me the most is that this guy walked into a sporting goods and legally purchased that hand gun. This guy was known to numerous members of the community be mentally disturbed and he had been arrested by law enforcement and he still passed the mandatory FBI background check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This and the tragedy at Virginia Tech show how fucked up the gun laws are in this country.

by **Behshad** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:03 am

You still don't get it. A car is not built to kill, a gun is ! The gun doesn't serve ANY other purpose than to harm /kill. Accidents happen every day. But The kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and just by accident kill people

And ask your husband how many cases he has actually been involved with where the good guy managed to pull out his gun and take out the bad guy that was attacking him. I bet you 9 out of 10 innocent people who were attacked by someone with a gun , didn't even get a chance to use theirs to defend themselves even if they had a gun.

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:21 am

Behshad wrote:You still don't get it. A car is not built to kill, a gun is ! The gun doesn't serve ANY other purpose than to harm /kill. Accidents happen every day. But The kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and just by accident kill people

And ask your husband how many cases he has actually been involved with where the good guy managed to pull out his gun and take out the bad guy that was attacking him. I bet you 9 out of 10 innocent people who were attacked by someone with a gun , didn't even get a chance to use theirs to defend themselves even if they had a gun.

Actually he said there is no shortage of calls where people who own guns think a prowler is coming in and they are armed themselves. And here's what you need to remember... the bad guy with the gun KNOWS when he's going to use it. The law-abiding gun owner who owns one for self defense does NOT always know when they may need to defend themselves. So that argument could go round and round for days, lol.

And I KNOW the kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and do this, I was simply talking about the "accidents" you had mentioned also, but I love how you tried with that one :lol:

Crime in this country would increase dramatically from where it already is if you were to take guns away from law abiding people who own them for self defense. The bad guys, no matter how hard anyone tries, will NOT give up their guns. Never happen.

by **Behshad** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:33 am

Melissa wrote:
Behshad wrote:You still don't get it. A car is not built to kill, a gun is ! The gun doesn't serve ANY other purpose than to harm /kill. Accidents happen every day. But The kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and just by accident kill people

And ask your husband how many cases he has actually been involved with where the good guy managed to pull out his gun and take out the bad guy that was attacking him. I bet you 9 out of 10 innocent people who were attacked by someone with a gun , didn't even get a chance to use theirs to defend themselves even if they had a gun.

Actually he said there is no shortage of calls where people who own guns think a prowler is coming in and they are armed themselves. And here's what you need to remember... the bad guy with the gun KNOWS when he's going to use it. The law-abiding gun owner who owns one for self defense does NOT always know when they may need to defend themselves. So that argument could go round and round for days, lol.

And I KNOW the kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and do this, I was simply talking about the "accidents" you had mentioned also, but I love how you tried with that one

Crime in this country would increase dramatically from where it already is if you were to take guns away from law abiding people who own them for self defense. The bad guys, no matter how hard anyone tries, will NOT give up their guns. Never happen.

BINGO!

The bad guy always have the upperhand EVEN when the abiding citizen has a gun to protect himself. Which makes it pointless to own that gun in the first place.

And those countries with strict gun laws have much lower crime rates and no mass shootings in grocery stores or schools. So your personal "guess" about a future with strict gun laws is just an inaccurate prediction

by **S2M** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:39 am

Behshad wrote:You still don't get it. A car is not built to kill, a gun is ! The gun doesn't serve ANY other purpose than to harm /kill. Accidents happen every day. But The kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and just by accident kill people

And ask your husband how many cases he has actually been involved with where the good guy managed to pull out his gun and take out the bad guy that was attacking him. I bet you 9 out of 10 innocent people who were attacked by someone with a gun , didn't even get a chance to use theirs to defend themselves even if they had a gun.

Yeah.....I'd like to see some homeowner who has weapons, and is surprised by an intruder (weapons, mind you, that are kept separate from the ammo) find the time to not only grab their weapon - but also get to the ammo, then load the fucking thing.....

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:47 am

Behshad wrote:The bad guy always have the upperhand EVEN when the abiding citizen has a gun to protect himself. Which makes it pointless to own that gun in the first place.

And those countries with strict gun laws have much lower crime rates and no mass shootings in grocery stores or schools. So your personal "guess" about a future with strict gun laws is just an inaccurate prediction

Wrong. With that logic, should you just take guns away from cops too? :lol:

Seriously? :lol:

Because it's pointless for anyone to have a gun, just let the bad guys win! :lol:

You're not getting that the bad guy ONLY has the upper hand in the sense that he KNOWS what he WANTS to do. What you don't know, since you don't work in law enforcement and only see the news, is that these same bad guys will and DO act differently when they think someone else is armed. Happens all the time, ask any cop who works in any city or county that doesn't happen to be in BFE.

And no it's not a guess at all that taking guns away from law abiding people who own them for self defense would dramatically increase crime. Crime would increase immensely if bad guys knew they didn't have a chance at all of being shot by whoever they are committing a crime against. Sorry, but I DON'T want to live in a world like that.

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:49 am

S2M wrote:
Behshad wrote:You still don't get it. A car is not built to kill, a gun is ! The gun doesn't serve ANY other purpose than to harm /kill. Accidents happen every day. But The kid in AZ didn't accidentally walk in and just by accident kill people

And ask your husband how many cases he has actually been involved with where the good guy managed to pull out his gun and take out the bad guy that was attacking him. I bet you 9 out of 10 innocent people who were attacked by someone with a gun , didn't even get a chance to use theirs to defend themselves even if they had a gun.

Yeah.....I'd like to see some homeowner who has weapons, and is surprised by an intruder (weapons, mind you, that are kept separate from the ammo) find the time to not only grab their weapon - but also get to the ammo, then load the fucking thing.....

Oh so they ALL keep their weapons separate from the ammo? Another wrong :lol:

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:49 am

Imagine...the horrors of a gun-less society...shudder at the constant street rioting and murderous rampages of the Swedes, Scots, Swiss, and Norwegians. :roll:

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:58 am

And how would you make this country a gun-less society? Really? :lol:

Like all the MANY bad guys are just going to line up and turn all their guns in? And then everybody will just get along so nicely in a completely crime free country? :lol:

That sounds all nice and pretty and everything (say hello to Peter Pan and the tooth fairy for me! :lol:

) but will never happen.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:33 pm

The point is, nations do exist where violence and guns are not woven into the social fabric. And statistics do prove that the rate of violent crimes would decrease if there were more regulation. It happened during the Clinton years.

by **Melissa** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:03 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:The point is, nations do exist where violence and guns are not woven into the social fabric. And statistics do prove that the rate of violent crimes would decrease if there were more regulation. It happened during the Clinton years.

I understand where you're coming from, truly. But my point is, since they are here, there is no turning back now. Do I like that? No of course not. And it's kind of like this... same thing with nuclear warheads. Do I like them? NO. Do they exist? YES. Is it necessary for this country to have them? In my opinion, YES, otherwise we may as well learn to start speaking Russian or Chinese, or just watch this country get blown off the map. Mutual destruction is the only thing that gives pause there. That is my point. Taking guns away from people who own them the right way, and for self defense, would leave us all as sitting ducks to criminals who are NOT going to give theirs up.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:04 pm

I agree with you 100%. I was simply stating it COULD be done. Somewhere.

by **StevePerryHair** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:09 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:I agree with you 100%. I was simply stating it COULD be done. Somewhere.

Are you scared to quote her? :lol:

by **Michigan Girl** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:18 pm

StevePerryHair wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:I agree with you 100%. I was simply stating it COULD be done. Somewhere.

Are you scared to quote her?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know how!! :lol:

Melly wrote:I understand where you're coming from, truly. But my point is, since they are here, there is no turning back now. Do I like that? No of course not. And it's kind of like this... same thing with nuclear warheads. Do I like them? NO. Do they exist? YES. Is it necessary for this country to have them? In my opinion, YES, otherwise we may as well learn to start speaking Russian or Chinese, or just watch this country get blown off the map. Mutual destruction is the only thing that gives pause there. That is my point. Taking guns away from people who own them the right way, and for self defense, would leave us all as sitting ducks to criminals who are NOT going to give theirs up.

Very well stated, Melly ...I'm with you!! :wink:

In re to this incident ...Tragic, all of it ...that child :cry:

by **StevePerryHair** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:40 pm

Michigan Girl wrote:
StevePerryHair wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:I agree with you 100%. I was simply stating it COULD be done. Somewhere.

Are you scared to quote her?
I'm pretty sure he doesn't know how!!

That can't be true!! Dean once said he was the most intelligent person on the board :shock:

by **S2M** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:57 pm

StevePerryHair wrote:
Michigan Girl wrote:
StevePerryHair wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:I agree with you 100%. I was simply stating it COULD be done. Somewhere.

Are you scared to quote her?
I'm pretty sure he doesn't know how!!

That can't be true!! Dean once said he was the most intelligent person on the board

As if..... :lol:

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:06 pm

Michigan Girl wrote:I'm pretty sure he doesn't know how!!

Fuck yourself!!!! I'm pretty sure you know how!!!!

You're a real pain in the ass. When it's someone who doesn't agree with you, you just can't stop yourself from being demeaning and talking smack...but when it's someone whose ideas are similar to yours - no matter how consistently wrong or asinine - you get yourself all hot and bothered.

I still remember the last thing you posted about me some time ago...and I think...no, I know...that you are a royal bitch. You found it necessary to not only interject yourself into a debate, but went way overboard. You're judgmental as all hell...and you haven't contributed one interesting idea to this, or any other, forum, since you first joined.

by **Michigan Girl** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:16 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:
Michigan Girl wrote:I'm pretty sure he doesn't know how!!

Fuck yourself!!!! I'm pretty sure you know how!!!!

You're a real pain in the ass. When it's someone who doesn't agree with you, you just can't stop yourself from being demeaning and talking smack...but when it's someone whose ideas are similar to yours - no matter how consistently wrong or asinine - you get yourself all hot and bothered.

I still remember the last thing you posted about me some time ago...and I think...no, I know...that you are a royal bitch. You found it necessary to not only interject yourself into a debate, but went way overboard. You're judgmental as all hell...and you haven't contributed one interesting idea to this, or any other, forum, since you first joined.

Yet another sig ...thanks, pot!! :wink:

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:16 pm

StevePerryHair wrote:
That can't be true!! Dean once said he was the most intelligent person on the board

Funny. I've never said any such thing about myself, nor intimated thereto. Not once. Yet the intimation here is that I did. Hmmm. Well, apparently, tonight is pin-the-tail on the Democrat, so bring it on, you slack-jawed, sheet-wearing, gun-toting, out-of-school-dropping, Palin-worshipping, Faux News ball-lickers.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:18 pm

Michigan Girl wrote: Yet another sig ...thanks, pot!!

I personally think it's not sig-worthy, but knock yourself out. Eventually your sig will take up an entire page, and then 'Drew will be all over you like an extra cheese double sausage pizza and two liters of coke.

by **Michigan Girl** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:18 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:
StevePerryHair wrote:
That can't be true!! Dean once said he was the most intelligent person on the board

Funny. I've never said any such thing about myself, nor intimated thereto. Not once. Yet the intimation here is that I did. Hmmm. Well, apparently, tonight is pin-the-tail on the Democrat, so bring it on, you slack-jawed, sheet-wearing, gun-toting, out-of-school-dropping, Palin-worshipping, Faux News ball-lickers.

I was wrong ...he can quote!!! :wink:

MR

Tragedy in AZ: God be w/Rep. Gabrielle Giiffords and others

Who is online