Some Good News For a Change

[n2ize]

California businessman kills 5 lowlife gang pieces of dirt that attacked him. This shows that guns are not evil and actually do save lives.

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/ca-businessman-kills-five-gang-members-in-multiple-attacks/

[kb2vxa]

That might go over in Texas...

[n2ize]

Disregard this post. The site hosting this story and comments doesn't like any facts that contradict their agenda.

[kb2vxa]

Oh, you noticed that.

[KC2UGV]

California businessman kills 5 lowlife gang pieces of dirt that attacked him. This shows that guns are not evil and actually do save lives.

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/ca-businessman-kills-five-gang-members-in-multiple-attacks/

Actually, it shows guns killed 5 people.

[kb2crk]

Actually, it shows guns killed 5 people.

Actually it shows one person killed 5 people

[KC2UGV]

Actually it shows one person killed 5 people

Using a tool, whose design purpose is to kill. The guy wouldn't have killed anyone without the gun.

[kb2crk]

Using a tool, whose design purpose is to kill. The guy wouldn't have killed anyone without the gun.

and the gun could not pull its own trigger.

[KC2UGV]

and the gun could not pull its own trigger.

And, then gun enabled the person to kill 5 people. Without the gun, at least 4 people would be alive.

[kb2crk]

And, then gun enabled the person to kill 5 people. Without the gun, at least 4 people would be alive.
And then he could have killed them one at a time with a knife. or all five with an IED. there are many tools to kill with. none of them could act on their own accord.

[KC2UGV]

And then he could have killed them one at a time with a knife. or all five with an IED. there are many tools to kill with. none of them could act on their own accord.

Notice how IED's are criminal to own? Notice how knives aren't?

Can you see the difference?

An IED's purpose is to kill. Just like a gun. A knife, not so much.

[kb2crk]

Notice how IED's are criminal to own? Notice how knives aren't?

Can you see the difference?

An IED's purpose is to kill. Just like a gun. A knife, not so much.

Ok then lets ban all guns. it does not matter to me as I do not own one. A drug dealer would have one whether it were banned or not. a bank robber would have one legal or not. It seem that the only people that a gun ban would affect would be Legal gun owners. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. The man could of run over five people with his car and killed them. If someone want to kill people they will find a way. maybe we should ban air travel as aircraft were used to kill thousands of people in one day.

[W4GPL]

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people."

As much as I support gun ownership, that phrase is so overly simplistic and naive it makes me want to spit. People make the choice to kill people, guns make it remarkably easy. Do you honestly think someone like Jared Loughner would have had the mental capacity to build and place an IED that would severely injure 18 people? C'mon, that's just a silly argument.

I don't know what the right answer is, but let's not kid ourselves with half baked slogans directly from the mouth of the NRA.

[kb2crk]

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people."

As much as I support gun ownership, that phrase is so overly simplistic and naive it makes me want to spit. People make the choice to kill people, guns make it remarkably easy. Do you honestly think someone like Jared Loughner would have had the mental capacity to build and place an IED that would severely injure 18 people? C'mon, that's just a silly argument.

I don't know what the right answer is, but let's not kid ourselves with half baked slogans directly from the mouth of the NRA.

There is no arguing with the fact guns make it easy. But a gun ban is not the right answer. I am not sure what the right answer might be either. I do believe in the right to own firearms even though I am not an owner myself. It is also overly simplistic to blame a gun for killing people.

[W4GPL]

It is also overly simplistic to blame a gun for killing people.If there were fewer guns, there would be fewer homicides. Not so simplistic.

[KC2UGV]

Ok then lets ban all guns. it does not matter to me as I do not own one. A drug dealer would have one whether it were banned or not. a bank robber would have one legal or not. It seem that the only people that a gun ban would affect would be Legal gun owners. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. The man could of run over five people with his car and killed them. If someone want to kill people they will find a way. maybe we should ban air travel as aircraft were used to kill thousands of people in one day.

And, if we ban bombs, only criminals will have bombs. If we ban ICBM's, only criminals will have ICBMS...

Of course criminals will always skirt the law. But, the fewer guns in circulation, the fewer guns that people can use to kill with.

Again, Airplane: Designed to fly. Guns: Designed to kill.

There is a difference.

[n2ize]

And, then gun enabled the person to kill 5 people. Without the gun, at least 4 people would be alive.

The man used the gun to protect himself from trash that were threatening him. Using the gun as a tool he neutralized their attempt. I think that this is really great. No, I don;t like the killing but I live the fact that this man defended himself against trash.

However, I don't like the theme of the site I linked to. They seem to rejoice in the killing. Killing is never something to take pleasure in. Even if it is nessesary to stop lowlifes.

[n2ize]

And, if we ban bombs, only criminals will have bombs. If we ban ICBM's, only criminals will have ICBMS...

Of course criminals will always skirt the law. But, the fewer guns in circulation, the fewer guns that people can use to kill with.

Again, Airplane: Designed to fly. Guns: Designed to kill.

There is a difference.

Guns can be many things. For instance a gun can be a safety device. In that context I see a gun as similar to a fire extinguisher. A fire extinguisher you shoot at a fire to kill the fire and neutralize its dangerous and destructive effects. A gun you shoot at criminal bums to stop them from killing and destroying .

[w2amr]

Actually, it shows guns killed 5 people.
It also shows 5 scum bags getting what they deserved.

[kf0rt]

Guns can be many things. For instance a gun can be a safety device. In that context I see a gun as similar to a fire extinguisher. A fire extinguisher you shoot at a fire to kill the fire and neutralize its dangerous and destructive effects. A gun you shoot at criminal bums to stop them from killing and destroying .

I "get" Corey's point on this, but feel it's misguided. Yeah, guns were designed to kill. We could go a step further and say that guns were designed to kill bad guys, but then wouldn't "bad guy" become a similar perspective debate? Guns are also an integral part of who we are as a nation. And screw it, they've never made me fearful. We shouldn't let the fact that many millions of rounds are fired in the name of sport every year get in the way of the same debate that has been going on for eons, though. We're fighting the miniscule percentages here, while ignoring the vast majority.

Guns and abortion: nary a mind was ever changed. I think our individualistic opinions on these subjects are somehow locked into our DNA.

[kb2crk]

I "get" Corey's point on this, but feel it's misguided. Yeah, guns were designed to kill. We could go a step further and say that guns were designed to kill bad guys, but then wouldn't "bad guy" become a similar perspective debate? Guns are also an integral part of who we are as a nation. And screw it, they've never made me fearful. We shouldn't let the fact that many millions of rounds are fired in the name of sport every year get in the way of the same debate that has been going on for eons, though. We're fighting the miniscule percentages here, while ignoring the vast majority.

Guns and abortion: nary a mind was ever changed. I think our individualistic opinions on these subjects are somehow locked into our DNA.



You make a few good points.

[kb2vxa]

Any time you want to stir up a hornet's nest all you have to say is one word and guns heads the list.

Oh, the snot has caked against my pants
It has turned into crystal
There's a bluebird sitting on a branch
I guess I'll take my pistol
I've got it in my hand
Because he's on my land

And so the story ended
Do you know it oh so well
Well should you need I'll tell you
The end-end-end-end-end-end-end-end
And...

Yes I've seen you sitting on the couch
I recognize your artillery
I have seen you many times before
Once when I was an Indian
And I was on my land
Why can't you understand

And so the story ended
Do you know it oh so well
Well should you need I'll tell you
The end-end-end-end-end-end-end-end

Chances are I totally lost you there. Arthur Lee & Love, from the Forever Changes album, Live And Let Live.

[PA5COR]

The last 30 years i fired 8000 to 10K rounds yearly.
The only things that got hurt were target paper, old bowling pins, or the steel falling plates or the sandberm at 100 meters.
What did i do wrong?

[KC2UGV]

The man used the gun to protect himself from trash that were threatening him. Using the gun as a tool he neutralized their attempt. I think that this is really great. No, I don;t like the killing but I live the fact that this man defended himself against trash.

However, I don't like the theme of the site I linked to. They seem to rejoice in the killing. Killing is never something to take pleasure in. Even if it is nessesary to stop lowlifes.

But, it in no way proves that guns save lives. It proved that guns are used to kill 5 people.


Guns can be many things. For instance a gun can be a safety device. In that context I see a gun as similar to a fire extinguisher. A fire extinguisher you shoot at a fire to kill the fire and neutralize its dangerous and destructive effects. A gun you shoot at criminal bums to stop them from killing and destroying .

Guns are exactly one thing: A tool designed to kill people. Just like nuclear ICBM's can act as a deterrent, but you can not say that nuclear weapons save lives.


It also shows 5 scum bags getting what they deserved.

It doesn't prove, however, that guns save lives.


I "get" Corey's point on this, but feel it's misguided. Yeah, guns were designed to kill. We could go a step further and say that guns were designed to kill bad guys, but then wouldn't "bad guy" become a similar perspective debate? Guns are also an integral part of who we are as a nation. And screw it, they've never made me fearful. We shouldn't let the fact that many millions of rounds are fired in the name of sport every year get in the way of the same debate that has been going on for eons, though. We're fighting the miniscule percentages here, while ignoring the vast majority.

Guns and abortion: nary a mind was ever changed. I think our individualistic opinions on these subjects are somehow locked into our DNA.

Guns are only an integral part of our nation, because our nation is bloodthirsty. The second amendment never intended people to be walking around armed to the teeth. It intended gun ownership, and mandated military service by all military aged males in a well-regulated militia.

I just wish gun supporters would at least be honest with themselves and everyone else: Guns don't save lives. Guns kill. Then, we can get to the finer points of "is it ok to kill" in various circumstances?

[n2ize]

But, it in no way proves that guns save lives. It proved that guns are used to kill 5 people.



Guns are exactly one thing: A tool designed to kill people. Just like nuclear ICBM's can act as a deterrent, but you can not say that nuclear weapons save lives.



It doesn't prove, however, that guns save lives.



Guns are only an integral part of our nation, because our nation is bloodthirsty. The second amendment never intended people to be walking around armed to the teeth. It intended gun ownership, and mandated military service by all military aged males in a well-regulated militia.

I just wish gun supporters would at least be honest with themselves and everyone else: Guns don't save lives. Guns kill. Then, we can get to the finer points of "is it ok to kill" in various circumstances?

So what do you propose. 5 lowlifes come in to a guys shop and threaten him. What is he supposed to do, shake their hands and tell them "I'm with ya brother" and hold hands, strum a guitar and sing kumbaya with them ?? I don;t know about you but if I am threatened by 5 pieces of trash and I have a gun I shoot the bastards.

Okay, if guns were made to kiull then all the better. In a tight situation you want something that has killing power. As far as saving lives, well, if the lowlife was gonna kill a decent person and the decent person shoots the lowlife first then yes, I'd say that gun saved a life.

[KC2UGV]

So what do you propose. 5 lowlifes come in to a guys shop and threaten him. What is he supposed to do, shake their hands and tell them "I'm with ya brother" and hold hands, strum a guitar and sing kumbaya with them ?? I don;t know about you but if I am threatened by 5 pieces of trash and I have a gun I shoot the bastards.

Okay, if guns were made to kiull then all the better. In a tight situation you want something that has killing power. As far as saving lives, well, if the lowlife was gonna kill a decent person and the decent person shoots the lowlife first then yes, I'd say that gun saved a life.

I only propose that we drop pretenses, and start treating guns for what they are: A tool, designed to kill people, as efficiently as possible.

You know what would be great? If only law enforcement, military, and members of a well-regulated militia had guns. You want a gun? Join the army, police, or local militia.

[NQ6U]

You want a gun? Join the army, police, or local militia.

Technically, you are already part of your local militia.

[kb2vxa]

"...but you can not say that nuclear weapons save lives."
Oh but so many Americans say they did, trouble is the residents of Hiroshima ans Nagasaki tend to disagree. Along came testing in the Pacific and as the Bikinis were shaking their fists something was happening under the waves. It grew and grew, then in 1956 a 400' high cross between a T Rex and a Stegosaurus rose out of the sea and ate Tokyo. Raymond Burr was mumbling something about nuclear weapons saving lives but residents of Tokyo disagreed and fed him to the monster.

Was Enola really Gay?

[VE7DCW]

"...but you can not say that nuclear weapons save lives."
Oh but so many Americans say they did, trouble is the residents of Hiroshima ans Nagasaki tend to disagree. Along came testing in the Pacific and as the Bikinis were shaking their fists something was happening under the waves. It grew and grew, then in 1956 a 400' high cross between a T Rex and a Stegosaurus rose out of the sea and ate Tokyo. Raymond Burr was mumbling something about nuclear weapons saving lives but residents of Tokyo disagreed and fed him to the monster.

Was Enola really Gay?

It was funny ...... Perry Mason trying to deal with Godzilla ..... but the nuclear symbolism intended by the Japanese producers of that film did come through loud and clear ........ it was neat how they did it in what I thought was only the real good movie of that genre! :yes:

[KC2UGV]

Technically, you are already part of your local militia.

Actually, I am not. I'm no longer enlisted, and have not chosen to join a local citizen militia, or the national guard.


"...but you can not say that nuclear weapons save lives."
Oh but so many Americans say they did, trouble is the residents of Hiroshima ans Nagasaki tend to disagree. Along came testing in the Pacific and as the Bikinis were shaking their fists something was happening under the waves. It grew and grew, then in 1956 a 400' high cross between a T Rex and a Stegosaurus rose out of the sea and ate Tokyo. Raymond Burr was mumbling something about nuclear weapons saving lives but residents of Tokyo disagreed and fed him to the monster.

Was Enola really Gay?

Exactly :)

[KK4AMI]

Actually, I am not. I'm no longer enlisted, and have not chosen to join a local citizen militia, or the national guard.



Exactly :)

You been out 7 years yet? You are still in the reserves other wise!

[KK4AMI]

I only propose that we drop pretenses, and start treating guns for what they are: A tool, designed to kill people, as efficiently as possible.

You know what would be great? If only law enforcement, military, and members of a well-regulated militia had guns. You want a gun? Join the army, police, or local militia.

There is the fallacy in your argument. In the hands of an untrained individual, the gun is not an efficient killer, more a way to inflict injury. In the hands of a trained individual it becomes a more efficient killer. This would prove that people kill people more then guns. Actually, more people can be killed by all modes of transportation, now that is efficiency.

[KC2UGV]

You been out 7 years yet? You are still in the reserves other wise!

I did 8 years total: 1.5 years DEP (Delayed Entry), 6 active, and 1.5 years inactive reserve.

So, yeah. I'm no longer on the reserve's rolls.

[KC2UGV]

There is the fallacy in your argument. In the hands of an untrained individual, the gun is not an efficient killer. In the hands of a trained individual it becomes a more efficient killer. This would prove that people kill people more then guns. Actually, more people can be killed by all modes of transportation, now that is efficiency.

Let's ask the 8 year old who is dead if an untrained hand is an efficient killer...

Also, there are a shit ton more operating hours for motor vehicles than for guns in the US... For every one hour on the range, each person has 2 hours of motor vehicle operating time, just for starters. And, then add 1.5 hours per day for commute to/from work, etc etc

[KK4AMI]

Let's ask the 8 year old who is dead if an untrained hand is an efficient killer...

Also, there are a shit ton more operating hours for motor vehicles than for guns in the US... For every one hour on the range, each person has 2 hours of motor vehicle operating time, just for starters. And, then add 1.5 hours per day for commute to/from work, etc etc

That is not a logical argument, just an appeal to emotion. How many hours have guns been carried without firing a shot. Guns have been around far longer then cars. Plus this came from a safety sight on Driveway Safety.

"In the US fifty children are being backed over by vehicles EVERY week. Forty-eight are treated in hospital emergency rooms and at least two children are fatally injured every WEEK. These unthinkable tragedies are happening most often in the driveway of the child's home and in 70% of the incidents the driver of the vehicle is their parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle or older sibling."

[KC2UGV]

That is not a logical argument, just an appeal to emotion. How many hours have guns been carried without firing a shot. Guns have been around far longer then cars. Plus this came from a safety sight on Driveway Safety.

"In the US fifty children are being backed over by vehicles EVERY week. Forty-eight are treated in hospital emergency rooms and at least two children are fatally injured every WEEK. These unthinkable tragedies are happening most often in the driveway of the child's home and in 70% of the incidents the driver of the vehicle is their parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle or older sibling."

Now, please compare operating hours for guns vs. cars, please.

You state: In order to kill with a gun, you need to be trained. However, many instances illustrate how stupid that line of thinking is. An 8 year old with no training can kill very easily with a gun.

[NQ6U]

Actually, I am not. I'm no longer enlisted, and have not chosen to join a local citizen militia, or the national guard.

You are according to the Militia Act of 1903 which says that the militia consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

[KC2UGV]

You are according to the Militia Act of 1903 which says that the militia consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The militia act of 1903 was circumvented by both the all-volunteer army, and the SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment.

[kb2vxa]

"In the US fifty children are being backed over by vehicles EVERY week."
This is driveway safety? I don't know if anyone other than myself knows that backing out of a driveway is illegal.

That makes me wonder how many children are shot in their driveways. Why is it that any time guns are mentioned absurdity gets thicker than flies on poop? Now go look in the mirror, you'll see a presidential candidate staring back at you.

[n2ize]

Using a tool, whose design purpose is to kill. The guy wouldn't have killed anyone without the gun.

Right, but he probably would have been killed by the lowlife pieces of garbage.

[n2ize]

It also shows 5 scum bags getting what they deserved.

^^^^^ + 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000

[n2ize]

I only propose that we drop pretenses, and start treating guns for what they are: A tool, designed to kill people, as efficiently as possible.

Right, they are designed to kill. Which is what makes them great for killing dirtbags that prey on innocent people.



You know what would be great? If only law enforcement, military, and members of a well-regulated militia had guns. You want a gun? Join the army, police, or local militia.

No, because that would leave too many people without the ability to kill lowlifes when the need arises. Allowing only law enforcement to carry guns may be fine in a major urban center when the nearest rmp unit is only 30-60 seconds away at any given moment and stands a greater chance of catching the perps after the perps kill some innocent person and the major goal is to enforce the law (after the fact) and not to prevent a killing. But in a more rural or remote area the perps will kill and get away clean long before law enforcement even knows anything happened. In either case the only way the individual has to protect himself is by having the ability to easily kill the dirt that tries to infringe and deface his life.

[KC2UGV]

Right, but he probably would have been killed by the lowlife pieces of garbage.

But yet, it does not prove that guns save lives.


Right, they are designed to kill. Which is what makes them great for killing dirtbags that prey on innocent people.


And, makes it just as easy for dirtbags to kill lots of people.



No, because that would leave too many people without the ability to kill lowlifes when the need arises. Allowing only law enforcement to carry guns may be fine in a major urban center when the nearest rmp unit is only 30-60 seconds away at any given moment and stands a greater chance of catching the perps after the perps kill some innocent person and the major goal is to enforce the law (after the fact) and not to prevent a killing. But in a more rural or remote area the perps will kill and get away clean long before law enforcement even knows anything happened. In either case the only way the individual has to protect himself is by having the ability to easily kill the dirt that tries to infringe and deface his life.

In a more rural area, if the criminals know the person is armed, they'll just come in guns ablazing, and not care.

[K7SGJ]

But yet, it does not prove that guns save lives.



And, makes it just as easy for dirtbags to kill lots of people.



In a more rural area, if the criminals know the person is armed, they'll just come in guns ablazing, and not care.


If it's my house, it would certainly be the last thing they would ever do.