ForumGarden

Saint_;1421740 wrote: lol. Sorry for wasting part of your life! =^..^=
I wasn't complaining.

Beautifully written Saint_. I felt every word, as if I were there. Did you ever tell your parents this story?

Ahso!;1421629 wrote: 22822506

Ahso!;1422231 wrote: 2506


Hope they counted this one.

No arrests planned in fatal shooting Monday, says Sumner County sheriff

Sumner County law enforcement authorities said they finished their investigation of a fatal shooting Monday night in which a 41-year-old man from Iowa was shot by a farmer.

Sumner County Sheriff Darren Chambers said no arrests will be made in Monday’s shooting, and that the farmer shot the man in self-defense.

“We’re not going to pursue criminal charges,” Chambers said. “Based on the scene and a witness and the history of the gentleman, we don’t feel this was anything more than self-defense.”

Wichita Eagle

Nobody knows how many deaths, life threatening injuries were spared due to the actions of a citizen with a firearm.

tude dog;1422319 wrote: Hope they counted this one.

No arrests planned in fatal shooting Monday, says Sumner County sheriff

Sumner County law enforcement authorities said they finished their investigation of a fatal shooting Monday night in which a 41-year-old man from Iowa was shot by a farmer.

Sumner County Sheriff Darren Chambers said no arrests will be made in Monday’s shooting, and that the farmer shot the man in self-defense.

“We’re not going to pursue criminal charges,” Chambers said. “Based on the scene and a witness and the history of the gentleman, we don’t feel this was anything more than self-defense.”

Wichita Eagle

Nobody knows how many deaths, life threatening injuries were spared due to the actions of a citizen with a firearm.


Maybe the NRA should start up a website to count them as an antidote to the site Ahso's using. On the other hand, maybe they know it would be embarrasing how slowly the numbers went up in comparison.

Bryn Mawr;1422399 wrote: Maybe the NRA should start up a website to count them as an antidote to the site Ahso's using. On the other hand, maybe they know it would be embarrasing how slowly the numbers went up in comparison.
Why? Ahso's posting all of them, except even he can't be arsed to actually check them. It's the numbers that he's interested in. Actually reading each and only counting the ones that are homicides or multiple murders would hurt his crusade.

Have even you checked the link? Each little figure is linked to a story.

Ahso!;1422231 wrote: 25062590

For the argument of cops killing the "bad guys" you have to ask yourself how many the police would have killed had they been more sure the "bad guy" didn't have a gun, or in fact did not have a gun.

The gun lobby has a vested interest in "bad guys" having access to firearms, legal or not. That's why they don't want background checks for private sales. Background checks for the retail vendor works for the gun lobby because it keeps them in business, however, the way to keep the illegal traders in business is to exempt them from background checks with the sale or transfer of firearms. They don't give a damn if the private guy gets locked up. The percentages are with them because there are so many private transfers of guns.

Watched a bit on morning TV concerning the arming of teachers in Texas.

Seeing young kids going through a drill, evacuating and hiding in what looked like a cupboard, another crouching behind a WC.

A teacher wedging the door closed with furniture, and the comment from a youngster who should have been reciting nursery ryhmes rather than answering a TV reporters question about why they were doing the drill. He said something about "the bad guys may have guns"..........................

What is America doing to it's children ?

Kinda reminds me of the ol' Duck & Cover. I was too young to do that but I heard alot about it.

Accountable;1422431 wrote: Kinda reminds me of the ol' Duck & Cover. I was too young to do that but I heard alot about it.




We used to have to get down under our desks. I look back at that today and wonder what the hell good anyone thought that could really do us?

flopstock;1422433 wrote: We used to have to get down under our desks. I look back at that today and wonder what the hell good anyone thought that could really do us?


You were in a better position to kiss your ass goodbye..

I watched 48hours and they were doing this 1957 abduction and murder story.



The townsfolks hit the streets with shotguns, rifles in their arms and guns tucked in their waistband, searching house to house and every car at roadblocks they set up.



Of course it was too late, by then.



But I can't imagine that happening today.

flopstock;1422433 wrote: We used to have to get down under our desks. I look back at that today and wonder what the hell good anyone thought that could really do us?


Just an observation.............

How many times has America had a realistic threat of invasion or nuclear attack ?

I am old enough to remember the world holding their breathe over Cuba, that is the only time that comes close to my mind.

Over the years the UK has suffered numerous very real 'Terrorist' attacks, the only noticeable difference was the withdrawal of rubbish bins in railway stations, signs and announcements to heighten public awareness, and an occassional glimpse of armed Police.

Are Americans over dramatising ?

Ahso!;1422425 wrote: 2590

For the argument of cops killing the "bad guys" you have to ask yourself how many the police would have killed had they been more sure the "bad guy" didn't have a gun, or in fact did not have a gun.

The gun lobby has a vested interest in "bad guys" having access to firearms, legal or not. That's why they don't want background checks for private sales. Background checks for the retail vendor works for the gun lobby because it keeps them in business, however, the way to keep the illegal traders in business is to exempt them from background checks with the sale or transfer of firearms. They don't give a damn if the private guy gets locked up. The percentages are with them because there are so many private transfers of guns.2605

Bruv: "Are Americans over dramatising ?"

GWBush certainly was. To keep people in fear meant to keep himself in office. The neo-cons do overdramatize the ones "out to get" us. I don't see this in the Obama Administration, using fear as a means of control. It is more of a right-wing phenomena, internally it is used by some of the gun crowd regarding Mexican gangs, black folks coming to get us law-abiding peaceful white people.

Re: Duck & Cover. Those drills occured for me in grade (elementary) school. Although nonsensical, that did help calm children into thinking they had some control over their destiny, so in that way it did help allay some fears. There is still a sign above the entrance to my basement (I live in an apartment building) that proclaims "Fallout Shelter".

Bryn Mawr;1422399 wrote: Maybe the NRA should start up a website to count them as an antidote to the site Ahso's using. On the other hand, maybe they know it would be embarrasing how slowly the numbers went up in comparison.


NO

NRA already does enough stupid things.

The real antidote for what Ahso! is posting is to ignore it.

But I can't resist pointing out the immorality of equating what happened in Sandy Hook to many of the little figures. That is why I post some real self defense stories which appear on that sitel.

No context, no links.

Accountable;1422421 wrote: Why? Ahso's posting all of them, except even he can't be arsed to actually check them. It's the numbers that he's interested in. Actually reading each and only counting the ones that are homicides or multiple murders would hurt his crusade.

Have even you checked the link? Each little figure is linked to a story.


Yes, I checked out the site and read quite a few of the details - especially those relating to the deaths of young children.

The point I was making is that Ahso's site is a base count covering all deaths involving guns. Every time this subject has come up at least one apologist has raised the unknown number of those killings that are saving lives so it would make sense to publish those numbers - unless they've already counted them and found it better to leave the number "unknown" rather than show how small they are.

tude dog;1422454 wrote: NO

NRA already does enough stupid things.

The real antidote for what Ahso! is posting is to ignore it.

But I can't resist pointing out the immorality of equating what happened in Sandy Hook to many of the little figures. That is why I post some real self defense stories which appear on that sitel.

No context, no links.


It's only stupid for them to do it if it debunks the claim that guns save lives - if it supports that view then it's game over and they have no more attempts to cut gun numbers.

Clerk shoots robbery suspect armed with toy gun in Harris County

AnneBoleyn;1422449 wrote: Bruv: "Are Americans over dramatising ?"

GWBush certainly was. To keep people in fear meant to keep himself in office. The neo-cons do overdramatize the ones "out to get" us. I don't see this in the Obama Administration, using fear as a means of control. It is more of a right-wing phenomena, [...]
Then you're not paying close enough attention. Bush did it with fear of being invaded/killed. President Obama is doing it with fear of going broke and starving to death while "they" live high on the hog. Same tactic, different scapegoat, same end.

Bryn Mawr;1422458 wrote: It's only stupid for them to do it if it debunks the claim that guns save lives - if it supports that view then it's game over and they have no more attempts to cut gun numbers.
Nah, the two sides will always talk past each other because those of Ahso's ilk want guns gone because they are the bogey man, things of mythical powers that create nightmares. Those of the other extreme actually fear that slippery slope that if they give even one milimeter that guns will be outlawed and confiscated tout de suite.

Accountable;1422463 wrote: Nah, the two sides will always talk past each other because those of Ahso's ilk want guns gone because they are the bogey man, things of mythical powers that create nightmares. Those of the other extreme actually fear that slippery slope that if they give even one milimeter that guns will be outlawed and confiscated tout de suite.


The debate will always need facts and figures - if either side tries to talk past the other when it is obvious that they cannot address the points then they will lose the floating voter and the more they lose the more will float away.

The fact that they don't publish such figures is, in itself, an indication that the numbers don't stack up as well as the stories do.

Accountable;1422462 wrote: Then you're not paying close enough attention. Bush did it with fear of being invaded/killed. President Obama is doing it with fear of going broke and starving to death while "they" live high on the hog. Same tactic, different scapegoat, same end.


I'll see you & raise you one: BS. Besides, we're talking guns not economy.

The small item I watched on TV early this morning was a snippet from a half hour respected current affairs program from the BBC.



I got it wrong, it's not that the Americans over dramatise things, it's that the nation was formed by people escaping persecution, and that that paranoia is genetic.

As a landmass the United States is safe from invasion, north is a friendly country, south is a country that is invading by stealth despite the amount of arms held in private hands.

Two major acts of aggression Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were not deterred by private gun ownership.

Civil rights advances, Gay rights, Equal opportunities etc. were gained by argument and legislation, and not from the barrel of a gun.

In the mean time, as noted in this very forum, filibustering is a tool used to bend the rules, if the election shenanigans and the gerrymandering doesn't work.

To my mind the 'Freedom' to carry a concealed weapon, and the 'Freedom' to own a weapon capable of firing 90 times in a single minute, equates to a sort of 'Freedom' ..........but not the sort of freedom that makes people really free, as in the definition of the word.

Bruv: "I got it wrong, it's not that the Americans over dramatise things, it's that the nation was formed by people escaping persecution, and that that paranoia is genetic."

You are correct sir! We are still embroiled in a Puritanical nightmare.

Bruv;1422471 wrote: The small item I watched on TV early this morning was a snippet from a half hour respected current affairs program from the BBC.



I got it wrong, it's not that the Americans over dramatise things, it's that the nation was formed by people escaping persecution, and that that paranoia is genetic.

I'd be interested in reading the transcript of that program since it's not available for me to watch. Do you know where a transcript can be found?

I'm particularly interested in any study cited that speaks to the genetic element you allude to? I ask because I'm skeptical of the implication.

America is a culture deeply rooted in tradition, though that appears to be changing as us old white people die off and more multicultural folks move forward to replace us. Guns are a part of that tradition. America doesn't care much for change. I imagine it appears to those outside that we enjoy only adding to our traditions and rarely subtract from them. Perhaps we're traditions hoarders.

AnneBoleyn;1422470 wrote: I'll see you & raise you one: BS. Besides, we're talking guns not economy.


Really? I don't recall the Bush administration ever using fear tactics regarding gun control. Perhaps you can refresh my memory of where he overdramatized regarding guns.

Ahso!;1422476 wrote: I'd be interested in reading the transcript of that program since it's not available for me to watch. Do you know where a transcript can be found?

I'm particularly interested in any study cited that speaks to the genetic element you allude to? I ask because I'm skeptical of the implication.

America is a culture deeply rooted in tradition, though that appears to be changing as us old white people die off and more multicultural folks move forward to replace us. Guns are a part of that tradition. America doesn't care much for change. I imagine it appears to those outside that we enjoy only adding to our traditions and rarely subtract from them. Perhaps we're traditions hoarders.


I Googled for a transcript but found none.

The genetic link was just me being facetious, it appears to me that a nation that values the right to bear arms over the lives of it's children has major issues.

It appears to me that a nation that values short-term security over liberty has major issues, even if that nation uses the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (do it for the children!) to justify their stance.

NOTE: Both sides of the debate are rife with appeals to fear, which is also a logical fallacy.

Accountable;1422483 wrote: Really? I don't recall the Bush administration ever using fear tactics regarding gun control. Perhaps you can refresh my memory of where he overdramatized regarding guns.


I don't see where the Obama administration is using fear tactics either. The fear is being pushed by the NRA & what you are seeing is reaction to their paranoia.

This type of reasoning is like the right-wing saying Obama is devisive. No he isn't; he was legally elected & some loudmouths on your side can't deal with that. Did I say some? Most all of republican congress, ignoring the will of the people, not respecting their wishes as to who should lead. How is Obama to blame for that? I'm sure you'll think of something.

Damn Women! Causing devisivnous for demanding the vote! (etc.) Ruining men's peaceful homes. Same old same old.

Bryn Mawr;1422458 wrote: It's only stupid for them to do it if it debunks the claim that guns save lives - if it supports that view then it's game over and they have no more attempts to cut gun numbers.


Gun rights do not depend on the ability to prove they save lives.

I have written before that guns used for self defense happen eighty thousand, upwards to two million times a year. All depending on who you believe.

This is an interesting article which brings up the difficulty of estimating the number of self defense gun use.

Gun control 101: Do Americans often use firearms in self-defense?

What I find amazing is that some people want to make the rest of the nation copy the gun laws of Chicago, IL.

Bryn Mawr;1422465 wrote: The debate will always need facts and figures - if either side tries to talk past the other when it is obvious that they cannot address the points then they will lose the floating voter and the more they lose the more will float away.

The fact that they don't publish such figures is, in itself, an indication that the numbers don't stack up as well as the stories do.


I have no problem with facts/figures. Fact is, my position on firearms are totally dependent on facts/figures.

Ahso!;1422448 wrote: 2605


Sorry, this one did not count :wah:

Suspect Shot After Kicking In Front Door Of Residence

Accountable;1422498 wrote: It appears to me that a nation that values short-term security over liberty has major issues, even if that nation uses the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (do it for the children!) to justify their stance.


You will have to explain the logic behind that..........as you have brought a fictional part vulcan part human fictional character into the conversation.

AnneBoleyn;1422503 wrote: I don't see where the Obama administration is using fear tactics either. The fear is being pushed by the NRA & what you are seeing is reaction to their paranoia.

This type of reasoning is like the right-wing saying Obama is devisive. No he isn't; he was legally elected & some loudmouths on your side can't deal with that. Did I say some? Most all of republican congress, ignoring the will of the people, not respecting their wishes as to who should lead. How is Obama to blame for that? I'm sure you'll think of something.

Damn Women! Causing devisivnous for demanding the vote! (etc.) Ruining men's peaceful homes. Same old same old.Wow. You are absolutely drowning in the kool aid, aren't you? I won't chase you around as you evade your own issue. :yh_bye

Bruv;1422518 wrote: You will have to explain the logic behind that..........as you have brought a fictional part vulcan part human fictional character into the conversation.
You're nowhere near as obtuse as you pretend to be.

Appeal to Emotion

Accountable;1422526 wrote: You're nowhere near as obtuse as you pretend to be.

Appeal to Emotion


Im sure I could hang some fallacious label on your argument.

You apppear to believe that "Freedom" trumps everything else.

Everything is subordinate to the American Dream of Freedom.

The same sort of argument when race issues are debated and the humourous response "Is it cos Im black?".......meaning 'you just cannot understand, or comment, even your biased opininion is flawed, because you are not in heightened position to get the gravity of my argument,' all I can say is Testes, in the nicest possible way.

Many nations have levels of democratic freedom, freedom of individuals, religion etc. etc. but restrict the 'freedom' to carry concealed phallic extensions to placate paranoic delusionals.

The availability of these arms in fact multiply that paranoia, 'everybody else has one I want a bigger one'.............just in case.

Of course I maybe missing 'The point' that 'Our way of life' all hinges on the fact it needs to be protected, protected by fire power.

Protected from whom ?

If the freedoms of the most advanced, sophisticated and richest nation on earth depends on the right to bear weapons designed to spit slugs of metal into other human beings...............we should all reassess the definition of freedom.

Bruv;1422535 wrote: Im sure I could hang some fallacious label on your argument.

You apppear to believe that "Freedom" trumps everything else.

Everything is subordinate to the American Dream of Freedom.

The same sort of argument when race issues are debated and the humourous response "Is it cos Im black?".......meaning 'you just cannot understand, or comment, even your biased opininion is flawed, because you are not in heightened position to get the gravity of my argument,' all I can say is Testes, in the nicest possible way.

Many nations have levels of democratic freedom, freedom of individuals, religion etc. etc. but restrict the 'freedom' to carry concealed phallic extensions to placate paranoic delusionals.

The availability of these arms in fact multiply that paranoia, 'everybody else has one I want a bigger one'.............just in case.

Of course I maybe missing 'The point' that 'Our way of life' all hinges on the fact it needs to be protected, protected by fire power.

Protected from whom ?

If the freedoms of the most advanced, sophisticated and richest nation on earth depends on the right to bear weapons designed to spit slugs of metal into other human beings...............we should all reassess the definition of freedom.


I havent made a contribution to this thread but I have been following it.

I have nothing to add to it, other than, this post just about sums it all up for me. It says more than most of the rest of the thread.

It pressed a few buttons and engaged a few cogs

Retention of rights does not need justification. The banning of rights does. Bear in mind that any ban is a permanent solution to a current problem, and is therefore unnecessary.







As you can clearly see, gun crime has no correlation to gun ownership. The issue isn't the tool, and it isn't the right. The issue is deeper. It is systemic/cultural. I understand that standing on your soapbox and self-righteously preaching against the tool makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, and you can pretend you're doing something, but treating a symptom does not cure the disease. It often makes the problem worse.

So I'll leave you to making yourself feel better. :yh_bye

Accountable;1422525 wrote: Wow. You are absolutely drowning in the kool aid, aren't you? I won't chase you around as you evade your own issue. :yh_bye


I'll look beyond your tired worn out cliche to ask:

Give me some examples I can work with. Show me where fear, not facts such as Newton CT, or other real events, has been used.

In case you've forgotten I am a 2nd Amendment supporter (like Gabby Gifford).

Accountable;1422542 wrote: Retention of rights does not need justification. The banning of rights does. Bear in mind that any ban is a permanent solution to a current problem, and is therefore unnecessary.







As you can clearly see, gun crime has no correlation to gun ownership. The issue isn't the tool, and it isn't the right. The issue is deeper. It is systemic/cultural. I understand that standing on your soapbox and self-righteously preaching against the tool makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, and you can pretend you're doing something, but treating a symptom does not cure the disease. It often makes the problem worse.

So I'll leave you to making yourself feel better. :yh_bye


This thread is built on soapboxes. Every poster her is standing on one. Stamping your feet will not do yours any good at all.

You're right though. I do feel warm and fuzzy



So I'll leave you to nail the legs back on your own soap box

Bruv;1422535 wrote: Im sure I could hang some fallacious label on your argument.

You apppear to believe that "Freedom" trumps everything else.

Everything is subordinate to the American Dream of Freedom.


I can't speak for Accountable, but freedom, is worth dying for.

Bruv;1422535 wrote: The same sort of argument when race issues are debated and the humourous response "Is it cos Im black?".......meaning 'you just cannot understand, or comment, even your biased opininion is flawed, because you are not in heightened position to get the gravity of my argument,' all I can say is Testes, in the nicest possible way.

Many nations have levels of democratic freedom, freedom of individuals, religion etc. etc. but restrict the 'freedom' to carry concealed phallic extensions to placate paranoic delusionals.


OK

Bruv;1422535 wrote: The availability of these arms in fact multiply that paranoia, 'everybody else has one I want a bigger one'.............just in case.


I frequent gun blogs, as you might imagine. I know other folk who carry. You seem to need to project your personal attitude to others. I would say that best you never handle a gun. But really, I would love it were possible to bring you to my local gun range. I would enjoy sharing my firearms, and inviting friends to share theirs. Have a good time.

Bruv;1422535 wrote: Of course I maybe missing 'The point' that 'Our way of life' all hinges on the fact it needs to be protected, protected by fire power.

Protected from whom ?

If the freedoms of the most advanced, sophisticated and richest nation on earth depends on the right to bear weapons designed to spit slugs of metal into other human beings...............we should all reassess the definition of freedom.


I suppose you are missing the point.

Are all Americans scriptwriters for The Waltons ?

Bruv;1422553 wrote: Are all Americans scriptwriters for The Waltons ?


Yes, and Little house on the prairie.

Bruv;1422553 wrote: Are all Americans scriptwriters for The Waltons ?


I made numerous posts here citing law, facts, figures, current news etc.

What do you bring?

ad hominem

Bruv;1422471 wrote:

As a landmass the United States is safe from invasion, north is a friendly country, south is a country that is invading by stealth despite the amount of arms held in private hands.

Two major acts of aggression Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were not deterred by private gun ownership.

Civil rights advances, Gay rights, Equal opportunities etc. were gained by argument and legislation, and not from the barrel of a gun.




tude dog;1422563 wrote: I made numerous posts here citing law, facts, figures, current news etc.

What do you bring?

ad hominem


Facts you might have missed

Bruv;1422568 wrote: Facts you might have missed


Nothing missed. I read it all before.

I believe I got your point. Thing is, none of that is relevant, except civil rights where negro folk were denied their rights.

AnneBoleyn;1422544 wrote: I'll look beyond your tired worn out cliche to ask:

Give me some examples I can work with. Show me where fear, not facts such as Newton CT, or other real events, has been used.

In case you've forgotten I am a 2nd Amendment supporter (like Gabby Gifford).
You first. You posted this:

AnneBoleyn;1422449 wrote: Bruv: "Are Americans over dramatising ?"

GWBush certainly was. To keep people in fear meant to keep himself in office. The neo-cons do overdramatize the ones "out to get" us. I don't see this in the Obama Administration, using fear as a means of control. It is more of a right-wing phenomena, internally it is used by some of the gun crowd regarding Mexican gangs, black folks coming to get us law-abiding peaceful white people.

Re: Duck & Cover. Those drills occured for me in grade (elementary) school. Although nonsensical, that did help calm children into thinking they had some control over their destiny, so in that way it did help allay some fears. There is still a sign above the entrance to my basement (I live in an apartment building) that proclaims "Fallout Shelter".
Then when I challenged you on it you sidestepped by saying we're talking about guns. So show me where/when President Bush used fear, not facts, pertaining to the Second Amendment.

You are right Accountable. In regards to GWB I was talking about terrorism & not the 2nd Amendment. Sorry for the faux pas. Ok, now that that's over, now you show me yours. I just know it's Big.

AnneBoleyn;1422602 wrote: You are right Accountable. In regards to GWB I was talking about terrorism & not the 2nd Amendment. Sorry for the faux pas. Ok, now that that's over, now you show me yours. I just know it's Big.
:wah: The sequester is low hanging fruit. They're cutting less from the budget than they increased from last fiscal year, but warned of all kinds of dire emergencies if we fell off the "fiscal cliff".

This would make for a fun thread subject. Historic Histrionics or something like that.