Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 133

Thread: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    So, based upon history.. how do we know it won't happen here?
    Well gee with that as your premise let's talk about how the government will one day take away our cars, and then our TVs and then...

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    Quite often it's been proven that communities that have a greater population of gun owners have generally had less violent crime.

    But, of course our anti-gunners don't want to acknowledge these facts, they'd rather continue running the emotional rhetoric about how guns kill CHILDREN AND KITTENS!!! THEY'RE EVIL.
    Really? could you link to that study because I believe the "ghetto" probably has a lot of guns and a lot of gun violence. Oh, you mean white conservative upwardly mobile communities. Got it.

  3. #73
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    In other words, in your fantasy world of the future.

    So, my history backed statement is a "fantasy world."... Right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Well gee with that as your premise let's talk about how the government will one day take away our cars, and then our TVs and then...
    This is a popular anti-gunner position... When you've been proven wrong, you resort to nuclear bombs, tennis shoes, or various other things to ditract from the argument at hand.

    Like I've said, my position is backed by history, please tell me why it's invalid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Really? could you link to that study because I believe the "ghetto" probably has a lot of guns and a lot of gun violence. Oh, you mean white conservative upwardly mobile communities. Got it.
    Oh, sweet another anti-gun argument ditractor. Use race as a trump card!

    More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  4. #74
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Slippery Slope, you chose your name well, because you are that: Slippery. Facts you don't wish to notice don't seem to stick to you. Facts have been presented and you are simply ignoring them...making it tempting to simply ignore you.


    You're making up excuses to dodge the answer because you know full well that England's gun related death is WAY lower than the USA. We aren't talking about violent crimes, we are talking about gun related crimes. But that harms your argument so you'd better avoid it...
    Not at all. There were statistics at a couple of the links I posted, did you bother to read them?
    You use the point, "This is the USA, its a different culture, etc" as an argument that registration could never lead to confiscation HERE. At the same time, you decline to acknowlege that cultural differences between the US and UK are a primary reason for the different homicide rates.

    Another thing you're ignoring is that the violent crime rate IS extremely relevant, not simply the murder rate. Things like home invasions, rapes, strong-arm robbery, armed robbery, assaults, armed assaults and so on that do not necessarily result in death DO demonstrate how much violence is going on in a culture, and is relevant to law-abiding citizens being deprived of the most effective means of self-protection.


    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    How so, because I am an advocate for gun registration?
    Yes, not to mention you seem to wish to disparage the notion of armed self-defense in general. I posted a link to the Kleck study, regarding how guns are used for defense many times more often than for homicide.



    Is this supposed to pass as an argument? Can you name one mass murderer who shouted "give me your money" before opening fire? Mass murderers do go to liquor stores and 7/11 to find masses of people to kill. Keep trying.
    The distinction between robbers and murderers is a thin line. An armed robber is someone whose moral/ethical view is so far gone as to threaten others with a deadly weapon in order to achieve illegal gain. From that to murder is a small step, and one that happens regularly. There are cases in the news every day of robberies that result in one or more murders, even after the victims cooperated. My best friend died in a double homicide resulting from an armed robbery, despite full cooperation.

    Your point fails utterly.



    No, it is mere hypoerbole as well as fear mongering. There are over 300 million people in the USA, our government will NEVER be able to pass a law that would enact the confiscation of private citizens guns. To say otherwise is either intellectual dishonesty, fear mongering and or ignorance.
    I hope you are correct. Are you familiar with the analogy of how to boil a live frog? You turn up the heat slowly so he doesn't jump out of the pot.
    In similar fashion, we have ended up where we are now through incrementalism, numerous small steps of little significance alone but leading over time to major changes.

    The "slippery slope fallacy" does not apply if the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

    G.
    Last edited by Goshin; 04-15-09 at 06:46 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    So, my history backed statement is a "fantasy world."... Right.
    Yes because your statements are based on OTHER countries and OTHER societies, NONE of which are like ours.

    This is a popular anti-gunner position... When you've been proven wrong, you resort to nuclear bombs, tennis shoes, or various other things to ditract from the argument at hand.
    First, I haven't been proven wrong. Second, I'm not trying to distract from the argument at hand, I'm simply using your own "what if" and applying it to everything else which, to an intelligent person says, you're argument is fallacious.

    Like I've said, my position is backed by history, please tell me why it's invalid.
    Not our history however and as you and your pals like to point out, we are nothing like them.

    Oh, sweet another anti-gun argument ditractor. Use race as a trump card!
    I'm not using race as a trump card but you are obfuscating the point that I effectively made.

    I agree that some decrease in robberies will occur as more people carry concealed weapons and I'm not arguing against that idea but unlike your ilk I'm not stopping there for convenience. You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase. Statistically, you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun. So, will more people be shot because more people have guns handy??
    My wife's friend got cut off in traffic, she flipped the woman off. The woman, with her 3 kids in the car, proceeded to chase her down, force her to the curb, got out of her car and punched my wifes friend through her open window, then the struggle ensued and the woman pulled MWF through the open window by her hair and when she fell to the ground began kicking her and had to be puled off by a bystander. Do you think she might have used a gun if she had one in the car with her?

  6. #76
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Yes because your statements are based on OTHER countries and OTHER societies, NONE of which are like ours.
    A point you refuse to acknowlege in comparing murder rates.





    I agree that some decrease in robberies will occur as more people carry concealed weapons and I'm not arguing against that idea but unlike your ilk I'm not stopping there for convenience. You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase.
    Nonsense. Every state adopting shall-issue carry permits has experienced a decrease in violent crime, its a proven fact. Your point is false.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #77
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Yes because your statements are based on OTHER countries and OTHER societies, NONE of which are like ours.


    First, I haven't been proven wrong. Second, I'm not trying to distract from the argument at hand, I'm simply using your own "what if" and applying it to everything else which, to an intelligent person says, you're argument is fallacious.


    Not our history however and as you and your pals like to point out, we are nothing like them.


    I'm not using race as a trump card but you are obfuscating the point that I effectively made.


    I agree that some decrease in robberies will occur as more people carry concealed weapons and I'm not arguing against that idea but unlike your ilk I'm not stopping there for convenience. You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase. Statistically, you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun. So, will more people be shot because more people have guns handy??
    My wife's friend got cut off in traffic, she flipped the woman off. The woman, with her 3 kids in the car, proceeded to chase her down, force her to the curb, got out of her car and punched my wifes friend through her open window, then the struggle ensued and the woman pulled MWF through the open window by her hair and when she fell to the ground began kicking her and had to be puled off by a bystander. Do you think she might have used a gun if she had one in the car with her?


    History has proven that registration leads to confiscation. I don't care if other nations are different, registration of firearms has led to their confiscation.

    Your point was meant to ditract, cars, tv, and other luxuries are not guaranteed to not be infringed upon by the constitution like firearms are. Please try again.

    History repeats itself for those who don't learn from past lessons... I believe germany was a representitive republic before Hitler got elected... Funny how that works out eh?

    Right, so you were speaking of law-abiding citizens who are permitted to own firearms in the ghetto, right?

    As far as your last statement, I don't give a flying **** what you think I should do presented with someone robbing me. My decision is my own, and of noone else's power to make for me. If I'm confronted by a robber and believe that my shooting them will end the situation, I will shoot them. It's MY CHOICE.

    For your second story, if your wife's friend had been armed in the State of Arizona she'd have been legally allowed to shoot the woman who physically assaulted her. Ending the whole situation, and removing one less desireable from the gene pool.

    What's funny, I had a similar situation happen.. mozying along on the freeway I notice some road rage going down... guy in a truck is abusing the hell out of some kids in a toyota corolla... Guy in the truck STOPS in the middle of the freeway cutting them off and bring them to a stop.. I almost run into both of them... then another truck almost runs into us. So we're all sitting here in the middle of the freeway at a dead stop.. and this guy gets out of his truck and approaches the toyota corolla with a club of sorts. I get out of my vehicle and draw my weapon. Guy sees me and my pistol, gets back into his truck and takes off. I hop back into my car, call 911 telling them what happened and follow him till DPS pulls him over / arrests him.

    I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen. Once again proving that firearms used in a responsible manner can prevent crime. But, you and your gun control friends won't acknowledge that kind of **** happens.. cause it's inconvenient... the truth is.
    Last edited by stevenb; 04-15-09 at 07:01 PM.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  8. #78
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    History has proven that registration leads to confiscation. I don't care if other nations are different, registration of firearms has led to their confiscation.
    NRA-ILA :: Firearms Registration: New York City`s Lesson
    Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

    In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

    City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

    Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

    Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

    Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

    In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

    The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

    The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

    The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #79
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    NRA-ILA :: Firearms Registration: New York City`s Lesson
    Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

    In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

    City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

    Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

    Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

    Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

    In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

    The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

    The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

    The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."

    Gee, I'm not surprised at all by this to be honest.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  10. #80
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    That's right there are cultural differences. One is that we don't have a law the prevents citizens from owning handguns. We are a nation of gun owners and out Constitution protects our right to have guns.

    Please link those stats so we can determine how far off you actually are.
    Someone else already did.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057991191

    England must leave the EU!
    Last edited by Wessexman; 04-15-09 at 11:51 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •