Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, Shot By Gunman

Anonymous Moose, I'm going to throw your logic back at you, solely because I'm curious as to your response.

Your entire claim for relaxed gun control laws is that "if ordinary, law-abiding citizens carried guns, which they don't have because they can't carry them, less crime would be committed due to criminal 'fear' and the ability for individuals to protect themselves." You back this statement up with the rhetoric that there is "no evidence" that supports the idea that stricter gun control laws make us safer.

So, here are my questions for you:

1. Did you actually look up studies investigating the hypothetical world of stricter gun control, and what they concluded regarding public safety? I'm sure an issue as important as this has been researched extensively, and you didn't bother to provide one source backing up your claim, which leaves room for considerable suspicion of truth.
   
   
   
2. To turn your logic back on you, where is the evidence that supports the conclusion that relaxed gun control laws make a safer society? You also did not provide this, which, again, does not do much for your claims.
   
   
   
3. Finally, I ask you this: I looked up gun control laws in the United States, and discovered that the earliest age one can legally obtain a firearm is 18 (though not all until 21). That means that any college age student in the United States is legally able to own a gun and use it, we'll assume, as a measure of protection, when needed. Since that's the case, please tell me why every student in the massacred classroom at Virginia Tech during the school shooting a few years ago did not have a gun on their person to protect themselves. I suppose the logical answer would be school rules preventing bringing guns to class, which of course leads me to my follow-up question to you as to whether or not you believe college and university rules should be changed to allow students to bring loaded guns to class as a measure of protection. You know, "just in case."
   

You see, the bottom line is that you did not provide solid, conclusive evidence supporting any of your claims, but merely the logic that "by owning guns, law-abiding citizens can protect themselves, which reduces crime." To essentially sum up a few of my aforementioned points, a simple counterargument would then be is it also not possible that the rate of crime could increase proportionally to the amount of law-abiding citizens owning guns? In other words, if every 18+ year old in the United States legally owned a gun, can you confidently tell me that crime rates would be lower than they are now?

Do you have any solid evidence that gun control laws stop crime and protect people from gun violence? I already see that you truely did not take the time to study American Law. If you did, you would notice that our gun laws vary greatly between states and even cities. Some areas are relaxed, but others like Chicago have heavy regulations (even calling for a complete ban on fire arms), but they have the highest rates for violence and crime. Just to quickly answer your question regarding Virginia Tech, many areas have laws restricting where you can use a gun. Common restricted areas include schools, churches, court houses, and banks. While not all areas have the same restrictions, this is one of the common types of restrictions.

I dont have much time right now, so I'll try to get to the point.

The first problem with Gun Control laws is that they a bill of attainder against our principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Rather than just punishing those that commit crimes, gun control infringes upon the rights everyone without and due process. Bills of attainder are illegal, but polititians and gun control advocates dont seem to care. As a result, everyone is treated as a criminal rather than just the criminals.

Second, why not allow people defend themselves? Creating gun free zones is just asking for trouble. In the school example, almost every person is disarmed, and if you are lucky a police officer or two will be on campus. Even if an officer is on campus, he or she will be ineffective. If someone with the intent to kill walked onto a campus while armed, he or she would be in the building and capable of killing the moment he or she was in. To make it worse, classrooms are deathtraps, and it would be easy for the gunman to gather a sizable group of hostages. History shows that such situations dont end well.
What would happen if student's could bare arms on campus? Its quite simple, they could fight back. Instead of cowering in fear, several students will be able to shoot the gunman and limit the death toll. There wont even be a hostage situation. The hostages will be able to shoot the gunman and be free. Instead, we have to wait for the sociopath and the police to negotiate or untill the sociopath is done killing others and shoots himself or herself.

Then the results of gun control usually come down to one result, only the government and the criminals have the guns. Governments like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China loved gun control. It disarmed the people so they could not fight back against their military police. Just to remind gun control advocates, these guys are on your side. Then back to the criminal issue, you wont stop them with petty gun control laws. There are other methods of killing people. Knives, poison, and dihydrogen monoxide are a few common tools. And if they want a gun that badly there are various methods out there. The most dangerous methods would be joining gangs (these guys love gun control too), or worst of all, the government. Some of the worst thugs of all actually join the police, and have commited acts between killing dogs on a whim to stripping women naked and leaving them in prison cells for hours. To be specific on gun crimes, we also have cases like with Oscar Grant, where he was pinned to the ground, cuffed, and then shot by a police officer. I could also mention the Kent State shooting, where our own National Guard killed 4 and wounded 9.

Anyway, I've run out of time here. Just to sum it up. I'm not worried about random little punks running around with guns. As long as I'm allowed to carry my gun to defend myself, I'll be fine.

Edit: Just to make it clear, my point with "Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works" is that dictatorships like Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR had total gun control and it worked against the people.

Edit 2: I cant believe I forgot to mention Mexico. Go read their gun control laws and just look up how bad gun violence is there. Their country has some of the strictest gun control laws, but they are under gang/mafia rule.
http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/0...3343.shtml

Better to be alive and do some time rather than being dead.

Debatable.

Just did some re-search, so basically Sarah Palin and republicans are some greedy capitalists who don't want free health care for poor/disabled people or their families. They let small kids die just because they want to keep their taxes low?

Wow, those republicans make me want to puke. She says "it's time to make a stand". My stand is that everyone has right to be healthy.

If these updates wont take effect, US will not be a welfare state.

Obama FTW

Just did some re-search, so basically Sarah Palin and republicans are some greedy capitalists who don't want free health care for poor/disabled people or their families. They let small kids die just because they want to keep their taxes low?

Wow, those republicans make me want to puke. She says "it's time to make a stand". My stand is that everyone has right to be healthy.

If these updates wont take effect, US will not be a welfare state.

Obama FTW

Democrats = Spend spend spend.

Republicans = Conserve conserve conserve.


Id like free healthcare for all and such, but with no way to pay for it, its not feasible to at this time.

Just did some re-search, so basically Sarah Palin and republicans are some greedy capitalists who don't want free health care for poor/disabled people or their families. They let small kids die just because they want to keep their taxes low?

Wow, those republicans make me want to puke. She says "it's time to make a stand". My stand is that everyone has right to be healthy.

If these updates wont take effect, US will not be a welfare state.

Obama FTW

First, Federal Level Healthcare systems are illegal. If you want government run healthcare system then work at the local or state level where it may be legal (depending on state and local laws). Also, many states do have forms of healthcare and assistance for those are are disabled, young, or needy in some way or another.
My state offers welfare for families that need it (its abuse is another issue) and has a free healthcare program for children. I dont know about other states, but if your state needs it then ask that state's government to take action. Dont force an illegal program upon the whole country.

Second, Obamacare will ruin the healthcare system. I dont see how freezing doctor's wages (so low that many are quitting) and making it illegal for hospitals to expand (they may apply for an exception once every two years at most) will save our healthcare system. Healthcare will decline with those kinds of changes. And I havent mentioned the panel that decides what healthcare you can and cannot receive.
Edit: as a side note, I dont want the same government that claims that injecting us with Mercury is safe to be dictating my healthcare.

Third, we have other forms of BS to deal with in Obamacare. Obamacare will make it legal for government officials to come into the homes of expecting parents and parents with young children (no warrent required) and tell the parents how to raise and treat their children. That's not all, the bill also gives the government the power to empty your bank account. This Obamacare far more than a healthcare issue. Its an infringment on people's rights.

I could go on, but I think the topic was related to shootings, not this.

Edit: Looks like I was right, someone did shoot Loughner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXKMJlFGA..._embedded#!
Although it looks like Fox wants to demonize a man that potentially saved several lives.

I also hate how the media is trying to blame the shootings on those of the "right wing" while this guy was more "left wing." They are also trying to say the tea party is responsible, but... a guy that burns the flag and calls the Communist Manifesto one of his favorite books just doesnt seem like he would be with the constitutionalist tea party.

Just did some re-search, so basically Sarah Palin and republicans are some greedy capitalists who don't want free health care for poor/disabled people or their families. They let small kids die just because they want to keep their taxes low?

Wow, those republicans make me want to puke. She says "it's time to make a stand". My stand is that everyone has right to be healthy.

If these updates wont take effect, US will not be a welfare state.

Obama FTW

It isn't like that. It is the fact that the US doesn't have enough money to fund all these government programs. The government has been practicing Keynesian economics for far too long. Sooner or later, you have to bite the bullet and cut spending. The only problem is, Republicans are idiots and still don't save money, they just spend it all on wars. At its base, the Republican party, I think, is probably more of what the Founding Fathers envisioned, small government that protects the freedom of the people, but what's happened is that the people running the party now are Religious evangelicals who just want to bomb Muslims.

It isn't like that. It is the fact that the US doesn't have enough money to fund all these government programs. The government has been practicing Keynesian economics for far too long. Sooner or later, you have to bite the bullet and cut spending. The only problem is, Republicans are idiots and still don't save money, they just spend it all on wars. At its base, the Republican party, I think, is probably more of what the Founding Fathers envisioned, small government that protects the freedom of the people, but what's happened is that the people running the party now are Religious evangelicals who just want to bomb Muslims.

You just reminded me of a funny video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s

In terms of Republicans and Democrats, they are just the same party with a slightly different flavor to them. Republicans lead by Bush started the wars we are in today, and Democrats lead by Obama are continuing those wars. Same goes for torture in Guantanimo, the patriot act, etc. When it comes to healthcare most Democrats support Obamacare while Republicans support a federal healthcare system... just not Obama's. They will seem to legitimately disagree on some issues like abortion, but they seem to agree on the major issues that shape our nation. There is a very good reason why George Washington warned the nation about political parties...

As for bombing Muslims, we just need an external enemy to distract the people. We need a boogie man to scare us into letting congress pass illegal bills like the Patriot Act. The boogie man in WW2 was Hitler. Then Stalin and the communists in the cold war. Now it is some Muslims and the potential of "homegrown terrorism."
Speaking of homegrown terrorism, that is what the media wants to portray this shooting as.
Personally, I'm not going to let myself be afraid. I dont see a reason to fear terrorism when it kills less people per year than peanuts or bee stings.

We had a moment of silence for her and the other victims of the shooting in class today. It's a real shame because she was a really nice person.

One thing that bothers me about this though is Phelps and co. plan to picket the funerals of victims. Including that of a 9 year old girl... It's bad enough that these people were senselessly shot.

Personally, I'm not going to let myself be afraid. I dont see a reason to fear terrorism when it kills less people per year than peanuts or bee stings.

See. Government agencies are preventing and masking some attacks that go on. It's because they have and are doing a good job at protecting us that terrorists aren't walking over us.

In one of my classes in high school, my teacher taught an FBI leading agent, so he came in as a guest speaker once. He said that since 9/11 terrorists have tried minor attacks over 150 times since 9/11, but all of them have been prevented or stopped in the act.

I really have no definitive article or source for the number 150 beside our guest speaker, he said most of the stuff is covered up from the media.

See. Government agencies are preventing and masking some attacks that go on. It's because they have and are doing a good job at protecting us that terrorists aren't walking over us.

In one of my classes in high school, my teacher taught an FBI leading agent, so he came in as a guest speaker once. He said that since 9/11 terrorists have tried minor attacks over 150 times since 9/11, but all of them have been prevented or stopped in the act.

I really have no definitive article or source for the number 150 beside our guest speaker, he said most of the stuff is covered up from the media.

In otherwords, you made this all up and cant prove any of it. Even if you arent lying, you accepted what this guest speaker said without any proof at all.

And no, the lack of deaths due to terrorism does not prove our government is successful at stopping terrorism. It just means that not a lot of people die as a result of terrorism. It could be that either the government is successful or possibly that terrorism isnt that big of a deal. Personally, I'm more worried about Mexican drug cartels invading areas of Arizona than silly terrorists.

You are one crazy mother effer. It was a guy from the FBI F4. I mean I can't exactly google "FBI intelligence how many terrorist events since 9-11."

That's like saying "Maybe this flu shot is helping with the flu. If it is, good job. If not, oh well. But I'm not worried since I don't have it. I'm scared about getting pneumonia."

You are one crazy mother effer. It was a guy from the FBI F4. I mean I can't exactly google "FBI intelligence how many terrorist events since 9-11."

That's like saying "Maybe this flu shot is helping with the flu. If it is, good job. If not, oh well. But I'm not worried since I don't have it. I'm scared about getting pneumonia."

Do you know his name? Did he show you any proof? Did he mention any specific cases? How do you know he didnt lie?
I'm not a crazy mother pineappleer. I'm just someone that isnt afraid to ask and I'm someone that is aware that the government often lies to the public to further its own agenda. As an example, we know the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete lie to get us into the Vietnam War. A more recent example is the Iraq War. They fabricated evidence of WMD's and ignored all of the inspector's reports that no WMD's existed to get us into Iraq. They lied then. They continued to lie. What makes you think they arent lying now?

You picked a pretty bad example, considering the fact that flu shots are being loaded with poisons these days. Squalene and mercury are just a few examples. And I mentioned the Mexican Drug Cartels, because they are an example of a real threat. Terrorists... They cant even surpass the death toll insects produce.

I dont see a reason to fear terrorism when it kills less people per year than peanuts or bee stings.

This reminds me, we should outlaw peanuts because I'm allergic to them.

This reminds me, we should outlaw peanuts because I'm allergic to them.

Its sad that the government doesnt ban that killer, but at least we can rest safely knowing that the EPA is exterminating those dastardly bees: http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html
Although, we will be starving tomorrow, because bees are the insect most responsible for pollinating plants in the US.

Do you know his name? Did he show you any proof? Did he mention any specific cases? How do you know he didnt lie?

I remember his last name is Scala. He didn't show any proof. He did as a matter of fact and it was interesting. But I'm bad at remembering details so I can't give you specific locations...F3.

He told an incidence of when terrorists inhabitted a factory and were making toxic gases to put in the sewer systems, but they charged in and put a stop to it before it happened.

I'm not a crazy mother pineappleer.

I was joking lol. I didn't mean to say that offensively.

I understand that terrorists may not seem like a big threat in comparison to other things, and that the government makes them out as big in order to accomplish other objectives, but they do deserve some credit since terrorism -can- be a big thing and we haven't seen as much of it now.

I remember his last name is Scala. He didn't show any proof. He did as a matter of fact and it was interesting. But I'm bad at remembering details so I can't give you specific locations...F3.

He told an incidence of when terrorists inhabitted a factory and were making toxic gases to put in the sewer systems, but they charged in and put a stop to it before it happened.




I was joking lol. I didn't mean to say that offensively.

I understand that terrorists may not seem like a big threat in comparison to other things, and that the government makes them out as big in order to accomplish other objectives, but they do deserve some credit since terrorism -can- be a big thing and we haven't seen as much of it now.

Truth can be interesting... but so can fictional stories.
And the government only deserves credit if they can prove that they deserve it. So far, they have not proven a thing. The FBI cant even prove Osama was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e13664.htm

Save the gun debate for the angry dome guys... this story had another tragic turn today.

Little update I heard today on the radio... Gabrielle Giffords passed away this morning in the ICU where she was being treated. My condolences to her friends and family.

Little update I heard today on the radio... Gabrielle Giffords passed away this morning in the ICU where she was being treated. My condolences to her friends and family.

Nothing on the news about this.

She's definitely still alive. Google search shows nothing else and that would come up immediately were it true.

how cool would it be to tell stories to your grandchildren about how you got shot in the head and lived