The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
LOL You know those three you found you had to look hard for!! Since there were at least 3 to 5 murders in central Florida alone, EVERY single day since Christmas, do you honestly think, three out of over 290 in Central Florida alone justifies arming every woman, man and child?? There is still northern Florida and my goodness I bet Miami stats beat out central Florida in crimes committed by guns in the same period of time.
Come on, Get real.
Come on, Get real.
HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?????
Idiots. Liars.
typical response from you! You presume to question the number with your "analytical thinking"... that's what the idiot member taxi just labeled your thinking... "analytical"! You know, where you throw down "Idiots. Liars" as the full extent of your, uhhh.... "analytical thinking"! Well done taxi... that's called an "own goal", hey taxi! :mrgreen:
but c'mon, Colpy! Weren't you the guy who has repeatedly stated you're in favour of background checks? Or does that end when you assume your U.S. wannabe persona? If you're so in favour of background checks, wouldn't you want to close any/all loopholes acting to counter the effectiveness of background checks? Or... if you don't believe there are any loopholes and/or you don't accept the number of stated guns transferred via those loopholes, (ala your "analytical thinking", stated "Idiots. Liars"), wouldn't you want to properly challenge and refute the claim? Think "analytical" Colpy... it's the member taxi way!
oh my, Colpy... the NRA/Wayne LaPierre USED TO BE IN FAVOUR of universal background checks... mandatory background checks for any sale, no loopholes, none whatsoever! Whaaa happened, hey Colpy?
for them before being against them
.
.
alright, alright, alright! So, just where does that number of transferred guns without a background check figure originate... the one to which member Colpy "analytically" applies his "Idiots. Liars" labels to?
why, it's from a 2013 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence. Specifically:
the statement originates within testimony given by, James Johnson, the police Chief of the Baltimore County Police Department. Johnson is also the chair of the U.S. National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence and represents nine national law enforcement organizations.
selective extracts from Johnson's testimony:
- The organizations in the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence urgently call on you to require background checks for all firearms purchases, ensure that prohibited purchasers’ records in a National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS, are complete, and limit high-capacity-ammunition-feeding devices to 10 rounds.
- While background checks are required for purchases through licensed gun dealers, no check is required for private sales, such as those through online or print ads or gun shows. It’s a major problem.
- From November 2011 to November 2012, an estimated 6.6 million gun transactions occurred without a background check. Up to 40 percent of firearm transactions occur through private individuals rather than licensed gun dealers.
- Background checks work. They stopped nearly 2 million prohibited purchasers between 1994, and 2009. We already have a national background check system in place. Therefore, extending a background check to all firearms purchases can easily be implemented, and it should be without delay.
- While background checks are required for purchases through licensed gun dealers, no check is required for private sales, such as those through online or print ads or gun shows. It’s a major problem.
- From November 2011 to November 2012, an estimated 6.6 million gun transactions occurred without a background check. Up to 40 percent of firearm transactions occur through private individuals rather than licensed gun dealers.
- Background checks work. They stopped nearly 2 million prohibited purchasers between 1994, and 2009. We already have a national background check system in place. Therefore, extending a background check to all firearms purchases can easily be implemented, and it should be without delay.
You sure you want to get into epistemology, Colpy? I don't think your interlocutors are ready for that step.
HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?????
Idiots. Liars.
Waldo uses a 15 second sound clip out of context and thinks he's proved a point but he couldn't erase this little clip available once his video finished
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDgvHJ8ZkTc#t=137
I know, I know...you hate having your idiotic ideas questioned. Like a Dipper, you love to spend other people's money. Your silly insults don't hide that fact.
Quote: Originally Posted by waldo
typical response from you! You presume to question the number with your "analytical thinking"... that's what the idiot member taxi just labeled your thinking... "analytical"! You know, where you throw down "Idiots. Liars" as the full extent of your, uhhh.... "analytical thinking"! Well done taxi... that's called an "own goal", hey taxi!
but c'mon, Colpy! Weren't you the guy who has repeatedly stated you're in favour of background checks? Or does that end when you assume your U.S. wannabe persona? If you're so in favour of background checks, wouldn't you want to close any/all loopholes acting to counter the effectiveness of background checks? Or... if you don't believe there are any loopholes and/or you don't accept the number of stated guns transferred via those loopholes, (ala your "analytical thinking", stated "Idiots. Liars"), wouldn't you want to properly challenge and refute the claim? Think "analytical" Colpy... it's the member taxi way!
oh my, Colpy... the NRA/Wayne LaPierre USED TO BE IN FAVOUR of universal background checks... mandatory background checks for any sale, no loopholes, none whatsoever! Whaaa happened, hey Colpy?
for them before being against them
Wow.
Waldo, you are becoming very close to completely incoherent. I suggest you visit a mental health professional ASAP.
To clarify my stance to anyone else out there, yes I approve of background checks......where it is constitutionally appropriate. There are two different constitutions to be considered here.
In Canada, the Charter Section 26 recognizes our ancient rights, in this case as set out in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Canadians have a right to keep arms for defense "as allowed by law". That means the application of a licensing system complete with background check is perfectly legitimate in our system, IMHO.
In the USA, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which makes it much more difficult for the state to legitimately interfere in the free trade and exchange of firearms, and in which the application of universal background checks is a very iffy proposition.........
Two separate nations, two constitutional systems, two different sets of rules.
This is all beyond Waldo's limited capacity to understand, so you have to forgive his foaming at the mouth, yapping, and chasing his own tail. He can't help it.
Hilarious!!
First Waldo lies through his teeth about what LaPierre says........
Second (oh I LOVE this) the idiot Dick Gregory presents a 30 round magazine (at 9:50). While he is ranting on about the need for more gun controls, he breaks the existing laws. What an idiot.
NBC Asked DC Police for OK to Use Clip, Were Denied
I now remember the very discussion about the newscaster using that clip illegally a while back on the forum...
Thanks for reminding me, it didn't click when I posted the video this morning
Thanks for reminding me, it didn't click when I posted the video this morning
No....I have no interest in contact sports...but I certainly am capable of analyzing stats...It seems to me that sportsmanship, which seems to mean a heck a lot to most men who value macho, would at least want to legitimately protect and preserve the innocent. Embracing ams and ammunition where the odds become wildly dangerous to those who's nature does not include armed combat is very short sighted. There is always a savior in the movies and in fairy tales but this is real life!! Talk to a mother who has lost a youngster in a drive by shooting and then decide whether Canadian gun laws should be loosened. The parents here want just the opposite.15 seconds.
You people do love to run the goalposts down the field.
Sure try to go for it. Even you might end up having a normal emotional balance; you really do seem to need some sort of connection to reality.
Colpy
What do you think laws are for?? If a law is stupid and serves criminals, more than those they are designed to protect, then they will be changed....guaranteed.
What do you think laws are for?? If a law is stupid and serves criminals, more than those they are designed to protect, then they will be changed....guaranteed.
Yes, but unfortunately the rest of us have to deal with it. Methinks you are not the only one living in Lala land here.
What a shame. But I rest calm in the confidence that you have the power within you to break free of the bonds of reality.
In large part, you already have. Good on you!
note: petulant, juvenile Colpy insults removed:
no, you're wrong... as I've written in the other thread where you ply this same BS of yours. Oh, wait... are you saying the Supreme Court of Canada... is no longer supreme? Is that what you're claiming, hey Colpy?
.
.
.
ya ya, so says the U.S. wannabe! But, but, but... the U.S. has (federal) background checks now. Jeezaz, how the hey did that happen Colpy. Of course, the problem in the U.S. is that there are huuuuuge loopholes (like the "gun show" loophole) that need to be "filled". C'mon, Colpy... you're for background checks; you've repeatedly stated so and now you've just reaffirmed it. C'mon Colpy... the loopholes need to be filled. Why would you be against that, hey wannabe?
you dumbass... you've quoted a video that I had nothing to do with! You doofus... as follows, this is the video I put forward...
no, you're wrong... as I've written in the other thread where you ply this same BS of yours. Oh, wait... are you saying the Supreme Court of Canada... is no longer supreme? Is that what you're claiming, hey Colpy?
can anyone help a bro out here... it seems member Colpy is attempting to claim he hasn't seen my prior post that completely debunks his BullShyte about a Canadian right to bear arms!!! :mrgreen:
.
.
.
Colpy, are you so intimidated by the waldo that you must forever pepper your posts with such a plethora of insults? Are you so lacking in your own position/argument that you can't actually write anything... anything... without such extensive inclusion of gross insults? :mrgreen:
the right to bear arms in Canada - the facts:
- Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398
you're welcome, Colpy... carry on
the right to bear arms in Canada - the facts:
- Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398
"Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited."
- Ontario Court Confirms No Right to Bear Arms in Canada; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal
you're welcome, Colpy... carry on
ya ya, so says the U.S. wannabe! But, but, but... the U.S. has (federal) background checks now. Jeezaz, how the hey did that happen Colpy. Of course, the problem in the U.S. is that there are huuuuuge loopholes (like the "gun show" loophole) that need to be "filled". C'mon, Colpy... you're for background checks; you've repeatedly stated so and now you've just reaffirmed it. C'mon Colpy... the loopholes need to be filled. Why would you be against that, hey wannabe?
you dumbass... you've quoted a video that I had nothing to do with! You doofus... as follows, this is the video I put forward...
