Mass shooting at Batman premiere in Colorado.

Drinking and 'packing would also be a concern and should be regulated.

meeproach:

LOki:
I'm just saying that when laws are passed, and actions taken, to disarm criminally violent sociopaths (and keep them that way) we should leave everyone else out of it; because treating everyone else as if they are criminals is wrong.

So then, would you submit to a physical and psychological check-up as well as drug testing every 6 months to maintain your gun permits? We're talking about sitting down with a doctor who will ask you how your marriage is going, your job, as well as making sure your neurotransmitters are balanced and yer not smoking anything but tobacco. Would you agree to all that to assure the public that you really are fit to handle the responsibility of owning a gun. Air craft pilots do this.

If by reason of demonstrating criminally violent behavior (and/or other physical/mental incompetence issues, e.g. age, substance abuse, disease, etc.) I am required THEN to have a permit--I would have no objection to a physical and psychological check-up as well as drug testing every 6 months to maintain gun permits.

The only objection I would have (to the point you're OBVIOUSLY driving at) would be to an unfounded presumption that ordinary people objectively possess insuffient moral/physical/mental competence to possess weapons, and as such require permits, weapon registration, etc.

So yes, if the individual in question demonstrates some moral/physical/mental incompetence issue; otherwise no.

meeproach:
Would you register any gun you have?

If I had a record of moral/physical/intellectual incompetence that subsequently required that I obtain a permit to own weapons, then yes; I would register any weapon I had as a requirement to posses them.

Otherwise, no.

meeproach:
How about paying an annual liability insurance fee (per gun) in case of oopsies, as you do for your car?

No.

@meeproach

How is your position different from saying that no one should need a drivers license, vehicle registration or insurance until after they have an accident where they did or almost killed someone?

If you agree that people with moral/physical/mental incompetence issues should not have guns than how are we supposed to identify them before there are tragic consequences?

Your stated positions in this thread are beginning to convince some of us that your attitudes, ethics, beliefs and reasoning skills mark you as one of the folks who are unfit for gun ownership.

^^

@LOki

meeproach:
How is your position different from saying that no one should need a drivers license, vehicle registration or insurance until after they have an accident where they did or almost killed someone?

a) Since my position isn't that no one should need a gun ownership permit, gun registration, insurance, or whatever until after they have or almost have killed someone, it is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying that no one should need a drivers license, vehicle registration or insurance until after they have an accident where they did or almost killed someone.

b) Self defense is a right--driving is not.

c) Owning, possessing, carrying, or otherwise "having" guns is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than shooting them. Just as owning, or just sitting in, a car is different than careening down the sidewalks of downtown in a car.

d) Besides the above, it's really no different at all. What of it?

meeproach:
If you agree that people with moral/physical/mental incompetence issues should not have guns than how are we supposed to identify them before there are tragic consequences?

The same way we identify them for other things ... like buying beer, like voting; I.D. validation & background checks.

meeproach:
Your stated positions in this thread are beginning to convince some of us that your attitudes, ethics, beliefs and reasoning skills mark you as one of the folks who are unfit for gun ownership.

Hardly. I'm not the one here suggesting that ordinary folks should be presumed to be morally/physically/mentally incompetent. That we should presume every one guilty of future crimes they might commit; and treat them as such. I'm not the one here that explicitly asserted that my rights trump yours.

The fact of the matter is meeproach, your stated positions have PROVEN that you are morally incompetent to possess weapons of any nature.

@meeproach

@LOki

Your position is bullmeep.

The Colorado shooter had nothing in his background to indicate his sociopathic tendencies. The only way to find this in advance is with the barrage of tests such as meeproach suggests, and that you think should only apply to other people, not you. Your self-interest is showing in a big way here.

If I have wrongly classed the AR-15 as a military weapon then that is down to me not being a gun-nut, but I still say that you do not need to have a fully-automatic assault rifle with a 100-round mag. I doubt you would get much usable meat if you shot up a deer with one either, but if it is capable of single-shot action then I will concede that it may be usable for hunting.

I am not good with these idiots having any weapons, but I haven't noticed any of them having "Sociopath" written in big letters on their foreheads and don't know any other way of easily identifying them in advance, so limit the guns that are available to those suitable for their intended purpose. I am sure he didn't put "shoot the meep out of a theatre" on his permit application or background check paper-work as his reason for buying a gun.

dragonstaff:
Your position is bullmeep.

Whatever.

dragonstaff:
The Colorado shooter had nothing in his background to indicate his sociopathic tendencies.

So what? It's not like I was hiding the fact, or any facts about him. Why are you meeping at me?

dragonstaff:
The only way to find this in advance is with the barrage of tests such as meeproach suggests, ...

And that offers no guarantees either.

dragonstaff:
... and that you think should only apply to other people, not you.

Ah, back to the make believe meep again. You meepasses can't make a single point refuting something I say without making the "bullmeep" up youself and claiming I said it.

dragonstaff:
Your self-interest is showing in a big way here.

I don't think so ... it's totally eclipsed by your self-serving disinformation.

dragonstaff:
If I have wrongly classed the AR-15 as a military weapon then that is down to me not being a gun-nut, but I still say that you do not need to have a fully-automatic assault rifle with a 100-round mag.

Oh you say so, do you? Well, that's just different then, isn't it?

Not that "need" is even relevant, ... I'd just like to know; based exactly upon "what" do you say that I (or someone else) do not need to have a fully-automatic assault rifle with a 100-round mag.? What are your qualifications for establishing for everyone else what they need? By what RIGHT do you determine what the needs of others are? And tell me why any of us are in the least way obligated abide by your sanctimonious decrees?

dragonstaff:
I doubt you would get much usable meat if you shot up a deer with one either, but if it is capable of single-shot action then I will concede that it may be usable for hunting.

This is why it is best to STFU when you have no idea what you're talking about--whether it's guns or hunting. Even the M-16 (the version of the AR-15 capable of fully automatic fire) is capable of delivering its 5.56mm rounds one......at......a.......time. Leaving PLENTY PLENTY of usable meat.

dragonstaff:
I am not good with these idiots having any weapons,...

That's some good news I suppose.

dragonstaff:
... but I haven't noticed any of them having "Sociopath" written in big letters on their foreheads ...

Are you suggesting we do it for them?

If so, I seriously have no idea why you guys think I'm the meep-bag here.

dragonstaff:
...and don't know any other way of easily identifying them in advance,...

Except that we (like every other civilized country) maintain the criminal records of all our criminals. We do it so well that we are able to stop felons from voting ... just by comparing their I.D. to a list of known felons.

I'll just bet you're hoping no one noticed that you weren't able to think of that.

dragonstaff:
... so limit the guns that are available to those suitable for their intended purpose.

Ok. The intended purpose of a machine gun is to lay down a large amount of suppressive fire. Since machine guns are suitable for that purpose, I agree with you that they should remain available ... just not to assholes like meeproach who have earned their place on a list.

dragonstaff:
I am sure he didn't put "shoot the meep out of a theatre" on his permit application or background check paper-work as his reason for buying a gun.

That's just the way sociopaths operate. They tell you a lot of bullmeep, and omit plenty of important details. Like "we're disarming you for your own safety" and "but we're not going to disarm ourselves though."

Really dragonstaff, it's YOUR position that's demonstrably bullmeep.

@dragonstaff

Loki...

Bathed in NRA talking points, baptized in Waavy-Graavy Libertarian Philosophy, and full of 100% bullmeep.

Just more made-up-bullmeep from BDW.

Nothing to see here... no surprises at all... just kep moving along.

@BigDinWaunakee

Loki... Bathed in NRA talking points, baptized in Waavy-Graavy Libertarian Philosophy, and full of 100% bullmeep.

FEEL THE LOVE IN THIS THREAD!!
FEEL IT!!

I love how the this debate is being tag teamed by two people that do not even live in the U.S.A. You can live in your restrictive world and leave ours alone.

BigD you just like to meep with LOki no matter what the topic.

@LOki

meeproach:
How is your position different from saying that no one should need a drivers license, vehicle registration or insurance until after they have an accident where they did or almost killed someone?

L0ki:
a) Since my position isn't that no one should need a gun ownership permit, gun registration, insurance, or whatever until after they have or almost have killed someone, it is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying that no one should need a drivers license, vehicle registration or insurance until after they have an accident where they did or almost killed someone.

meeproach:
Sounds like closing the barn door after the horse is out is good enough for you.

L0ki:
b) Self defense is a right--driving is not.

meeproach:
My point is not about self defense. Nobody is theatening your right to study judo. It's about satifying the people that share public spaces with you that you can and will take responsiblity for any mishaps you have with your potentially lethal devices.

L0ki:
c) Owning, possessing, carrying, or otherwise "having" guns is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than shooting them. Just as owning, or just sitting in, a car is different than careening down the sidewalks of downtown in a car.

meeproach:
Your point is valid, however many cars are not street legal, often because they do not meet public saftey standards. Some can be driven only on designated tracks. Keeping assault rifles in gun lockers at the range would be a reasonable law in the same vein. I'm sure you disagree, we have different opinions.

L0ki:
d) Besides the above, it's really no different at all. What of it?

meeproach: See response to B).

meeproach:
If you agree that people with moral/physical/mental incompetence issues should not have guns than how are we supposed to identify them before there are tragic consequences?

L0ki:
The same way we identify them for other things ... like buying beer, like voting; I.D. validation & background checks.

meeproach:
Clearly that works.

meeproach:
Your stated positions in this thread are beginning to convince some of us that your attitudes, ethics, beliefs and reasoning skills mark you as one of the folks who are unfit for gun ownership.

L0ki:
Hardly. I'm not the one here suggesting that ordinary folks should be presumed to be morally/physically/mentally incompetent. That we should presume every one guilty of future crimes they might commit; and treat them as such. I'm not the one here that explicitly asserted that my rights trump yours.

meeproach:
I'm not the one here suggesting that morally/physically/mentally incompetent folks be presumed fit to carry guns until they prove otherwise. You are. Speaking of moral amd mentally incompetence, I never explicitly asserted my righs trump yours, I asserted some rights trump other rights, using you and me as examples. "You label me an "Anti-rights meep", it's the opposite. I believe in my right-to-life so strongly that it trumps your right to carry a gun in the public spaces we share. Life, Liberty, Happiness - in that order. Your liberty to bear arms which makes you so happy, (not YOUR arms, specifically, but your right to them) causes thousands of people to loose their right to life every year" is what I said. Either you lack reading comprehension (mental fitness) or you deliberately tried to misrepresent my statement (lack of moral fitness) such that your next statement would be an example of "projection", a subconcious psychological defense mechanisim where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people:

L0ki:
The fact of the matter is meeproach, your stated positions have PROVEN that you are morally incompetent to possess weapons of any nature.

meeproach:
Luckily for you, you're only metaphorically shooting yourself in the foot.

@fastlane

I think that this has gone beyond location now.

All I am really trying to do is understand the reasoning behind the lack of gun control (note I say control, not to be confused with an out-right ban) in the US, especially as it relates to "heavy" weapons. Does the NRA, and people with the views espoused here by LOki really think that the Second Amendment should include your own tactical nuke in the basement or an Abrams tank in the driveway? If not, why not? Where does the line get drawn and why? And by whom?

wait.. I guess you can't deliberately and subconsciously misrepresent my statement at the same time. I guess it's either/or.

@dragonstaff

What do you consider a "heavy" or "light' weapon or low "calorie " weapon?

@fastlane

"Heavy" in this case would be an assault rifle with a large capacity mag. I realize on thinking about it that the term is usually used to indicate calibre not rate-of-fire, but I think you will get my meaning now.

@dragonstaff

His rate of fire with a semi auto riffle is only a few seconds faster of me reloading a semi auto pistol . I have shot and own revolvers, semi and full auto guns so unless you have better knowledge of heavy or light firearms .....well I won't I wont be rude cause I like you. BTW a .308 shell is bigger and much more destructive than a .223 and is the most popular caliber for hunting. Heavy weapon?



308, .223, 5.45x39, 7.62x39

meeproach:
My point is not about self defense. Nobody is theatening your right to study judo.

Your point is most certainly about limiting your victims self defense options (to practicing judo, apparently).

meeproach:
I'm not the one here suggesting that morally/physically/mentally incompetent folks be presumed fit to carry guns until they prove otherwise. You are.

Nope.

meeproach::
I never explicitly asserted my righs trump yours

Yet you go on to explicitly point out how you explicitily did so.

BRAVO!

@meeproach

Scratch One Loki-Klan:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/214314/44/4-year-old-Boy-Shoots-Kills-himself-in-Woodbridge-VA

Plain and simple, Loki is just a meep. I like to meep at meeps. You painted me with the correct color.

@LOki

Your obtuseness is impenetrable. Nonetheless, we're both happy with the gun laws in our respective countries.

You insist your present policies are predicated on the principals of self defense (which is another way of saying "security" which is another way of saying "safety").

Returning to my initial statement: If having less (or no) restrictions on fire arm ownership makes for a safer society, then the US would have the least victims of gun violence in the world.

Thus, while we are both satisfied with the laws in our own countries I can also derive schadenfreude from watching the higher frequency and scale of disasters that occur your country because whatever your reasons and rationals your policies are actually less productive by comparison.

BRAVO!

BigDinWaunakee, meeproach

Basically are you are saying that guns are just evil, that the mere possession of a gun increases your likelihood of murdering:
1) others?
2) self?

Are you also saying that the government knows what is best when it comes to my personal protection?

I know this is simplistic, but lol at you guys.

@LORDKAHUNA

Basically are you are saying that guns are just evil...

I'll reply the way L0ki does.. Nope, that's not what I said.

No, I am not asking for your quote you dipmeep, rather how close I am to the mark.

Do you believe that the accessibility/access/presence of a gun makes the populace more likely to murder one another?

Are you also saying that the government knows what is best when it comes to my personal protection?

I am not point countermeeping pointing your body of written work based on your use of syntax.

At the very least, you are more likely to involuntarily manslaughter somebody if you have a gun (or a car).

You are not even close. For the record, and what it's worth, I've fired plenty of .22 rounds with a rifle and boxes of 12 and 20 gauge at meep's. In the past 60 days I visited this range with a friend for her birthday and sampled a couple clips of 9mm Beretta and Glock, a .45 revolver, and even an AR-15.



I've had these souvenirs beside my monitor for weeks and throughout this thread. I do happen to think that accessibility/access/presence of a gun makes the populace more likely to murder one another. We are emotional animals and periodically act rashly. As far as the Canadian government and the laws we live with, I think our level or degree of gun control is reasonable and effective. I'm very confident as I go about my business in Toronto that it's extremely unlikely anybody around me is armed with a gun. I've gotten in to several physical fights in my time but the prospect of anyone dying or being maimed has been remote because hand guns are not permitted to be carried within our urban centers, except by people that work in security. Of course some break that law, but for many the risk of jail for being caught with one is a good deterrent. Guns are available, yet accidents and crimes of passion are less likely than they could be with laxer laws.

Oh that pic came up meeps. Ill try again.

Bah.

one more try:

You said:
" I do happen to think that accessibility/access/presence of a gun makes the populace more likely to murder one another. We are emotional animals and periodically act rashly."

You saying this is what you "think", without any statistical basis to back it up with?

To be clear, I don't know if that is true or not, or if "% of gun possession can be actively measured without also factoring other societal/economic metrics to make it meaningful"

You also said:
"As far as the Canadian government and the laws we live with, I think our level or degree of gun control is reasonable and effective. I'm very confident as I go about my business in Toronto that it's extremely unlikely anybody around me is armed with a gun."

Except those enabled to carry out the will of the government, and criminals (like the ones that just shot up the block party in your very own Tdot).

Also, this:
"I've gotten in to several physical fights in my time but the prospect of anyone dying or being maimed has been remote because hand guns are not permitted to be carried within our urban centers, except by people that work in security."

This is anecdotal and weaksauce for arguement big mastebatory handwave

This:
"Of course some break that law, but for many the risk of jail for being caught with one is a good deterrent"

What do you base this lil fact on? Also what bearing does this have on those that would possess legally and responsibly?

Also this:
"Guns are available, yet accidents and crimes of passion are less likely than they could be with laxer laws."

What do you base this on, because to anyone reading this it would seem that it is essentially that GUNS R BAD.

Basically Loki is saying that bad people are bad, and LAWS don't protect in any way other than a metric.

If you were in that theater, what would you have wanted more?
1) Gun Laws?
2) Gun?

@LORDKAHUNA

You saying this is what you "think", without any statistical basis to back it up with?

You asked what I believe, you didn't ask why and you certainly didn't ask for stats. So meep you.

To be clear, I don't know if that is true or not, or if "% of gun possession can be actively measured without also factoring other societal/economic metrics to make it meaningful"

And?

You also said:
"As far as the Canadian government and the laws we live with, I think our level or degree of gun control is reasonable and effective. I'm very confident as I go about my business in Toronto that it's extremely unlikely anybody around me is armed with a gun."

Except those enabled to carry out the will of the government, and criminals (like the ones that just shot up the block party in your very own Tdot).

Yes I did say that. Yes there was a shooting in TO. What is your meeping point? Are you saying that "extremely unlikely" does not leave room for occasional incidents? Because it does, meep. Oh, I see, you think criminals with guns "(like the ones that just shot up the block party in your very own Tdot)" are common in TO. You DO have statistical basis to back that up with, right?

_ Also, this:
"I've gotten in to several physical fights in my time but the prospect of anyone dying or being maimed has been remote because hand guns are not permitted to be carried within our urban centers, except by people that work in security."

_This is anecdotal and weaksauce for arguement big mastebatory handwave

Heaven forbid I use an anecdote.. or several.

This:
"Of course some break that law, but for many the risk of jail for being caught with one is a good deterrent"

What do you base this lil fact on? Also what bearing does this have on those that would possess legally and responsibly?

I base it on the fact that some do break the law (see block party mentioned above) you tiresome mental midget. If you think a 3 year sentence for being caught with a gun is not a good deterrent then please explain the difference in gun violence stats between here and places without such a penalty.

Also this:
"Guns are available, yet accidents and crimes of passion are less likely than they could be with laxer laws."

What do you base this on, because to anyone reading this it would seem that it is essentially that GUNS R BAD.

Really? What do you base that your lil fact on? Do you have stats on "anyone reading this"? I didn't think so, meepo.

Basically Loki is saying that bad people are bad, and LAWS don't protect in any way other than a metric.

Those useless metrics!

If you were in that theater, what would you have wanted more?
1) Gun Laws?
2) Gun?

3) Popcorn.

meeproach:
Your obtuseness is impenetrable.

Obtuseness? Do you even know what the term means, dipmeep?

Let me straighten you out, using your own retarded calculus:

Your right to happiness in preventing me from possessing guns is TRUMPED by myright to the liberty of having guns that I would use to protect my right to my life.

This is all the more true considering that the broad right to possess guns has caused not one loss of anyone's right to life EVER ... whereas abridgments of the right to possess guns has caused hundreds of incidents where ordinary folks lost their live due to lack of effective tools for self defense.

meeproach:
You insist your present policies are predicated on the principals of self defense

No, you meeping retard. I insist that our present policies are predicated on the principals of the self-interests of criminals who rightly consider unarmed victims more tractable than armed ones.

I am insisting that our present policies are just the begining of the precise same policies (with predicated on the same bullmeep priniples) as the ones you are advocating.

meeproach:
Returning to my initial statement: If having less (or no) restrictions on fire arm ownership makes for a safer society, then the US would have the least victims of gun violence in the world.

So what? Seriously. This non-sequitur is meaningless.

(Note to both meeproach and BDW: don't put your retarded notions of what you wish I have said into your response as if I said those things.)

@meeproach

LORDKAHUNA:
If you were in that theater, what would you have wanted more?
1) Gun Laws?
2) Gun?

Game, Set, and Match.

@LORDKAHUNA

If this thing is wrong, then i don't want to be right.

GUYS

GUYS

I REALLY, REALLY LIKE CHOCOLATE MILK

meepROACH CONCEDES TO L0KI - No bullmeep, Not Sarcastic.

I've been doing some research and thinking and I've come to a new set of beliefs about guns, culture, crime, violence and killing and I'm going to share a couple links so you can have your own epiphany. This is after all Linkswarm and sharing the good stuff is what we do.

First, although I'm going to concede and admit that I didn't understand what I now do, a couple more well deserved meep slaps are in order.

Loki: Obtuseness? Do you even know what the term means, dipmeep?

Yes, I actually looked it up here before I used it. See below for examples of your obtuseness.

L0ki: Let me straighten you out, using your own retarded calculus:

Your right to happiness in preventing me from possessing guns is TRUMPED by myright to the liberty of having guns that I would use to protect my right to my life.

I know we've been going back and forth for awhile now so let me refresh your feeble memory and correct your math:
-I'm not really in favor of gun control in the US. I'm a huge fan of American on American violence.
-Remember, America: shooting each other is not just your right, it's my pleasure!
-Oh for heavens sakes, L0ki, I'm the only one here besides you who does not want gun control increased in the US.
-The more guns you have the more superior I feel.

Where did you get the idea my happiness would be in preventing you from possessing guns? I get (got) off on watching Americans gather guns and then use them on each other.

L0ki: This is all the more true considering that the broad right to possess guns has caused not one loss of anyone's right to life EVER ... whereas abridgments of the right to possess guns has caused hundreds of incidents where ordinary folks lost their live due to lack of effective tools for self defense.

Oh look! Here's an example from today of the ACCIDENTAL loss a persons right to life because he's only an innocent unknowing 4 year old child in the vicinity of a guy exercising his right posses guns - courtesy of BigDinWaunakee. Now, was this child lacking effective tools for self defense?.. YOU meepING NINNYHAMMER.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/214314/44/4-year-old-Boy-Shoots-Kills-himself-in-Woodbridge-VA

OK, now I'm going to totally stop being argumentative and present the source of my new understanding. This is not so I can have the last jab it's because I've realized how complex the issue really is. I now think no amount of gun control in the US would eliminate events such as this. I'm also going to admit some shame in some of my earlier comments in this thread such as "The more guns you have the more superior I feel". It was true at the time and now I want to offer a sincere apology to everyone for my arrogance and nastiness.

This new insight started with me looking for ammo to hurl at L0ki and I watched this interview with Michael Moore (on Piers Morgan Tuesday, 7/24/12). Whatever you think of Michael Moore its an interview I hope some of you watch. He tosses out some amazing stats such as in the 23 richest countries 80% of all gun murders occur in the US, in Japan less than 7 gun murders every year. After watching the interview I started fact checking those stats.

The stats I found were pretty much what he claimed for Japan, just google 'japan shooting statistics' or whatever. While browsing the results of my search I found this page about Japanese Gun Control. It's loaded with citations so I gave it a good read. It's full of eye opening details about Japanese culture and history and I urge you all to read the whole thing because it's so meep informative.

Here's some highlights:

-With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun...

-Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.

-The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.

-The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.

-Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.

-In an average year, the entire Tokyo police force only fires a half-dozen or so shots.

-17 per cent of all Japanese officially defined as homicide victims are children killed by suicidal parents.

-Japan, with its severe gun control, suffers no less murder than Switzerland, one of the most gun-intensive societies on earth.

There's way more important stuff that can't be summarized in bullet form and must be read in the context of the article.
I'm going to swarm it for wider dissemination, pending Alpha approval.

Conclusion: After reading the whole page, especially the conclusions of the author I thought about the vast cultural differences between the US and Japan and how deep the roots of those differences go. The sum of what I gathered helped me understand that gun control as practiced in Japan would never work anywhere else in the world. For that matter the gun control as practiced in Canada would probably never work in the US. I think each country must find policies that are compatible with it's own history and culture.

I hope this thread continues but for myself I think I'll listen to L0ki and STFU. I feel embarrassed by my earlier comments.

L0ki, that last pic really is a sweet gun. Thanks for the debate.

Remember, America: shooting each other is not just your right, it's my pleasure!

Wow, just wow

You are an incredible meepbag

meeproach:
YOU meepING NINNYHAMMER.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/214314/44/4-year-old-Boy-Shoots-Kills-himself-in-Woodbridge-VA

First, this kid did not lose his right to life BECAUSE someone was excersizing their right to posses a gun.

Second, this kid did not lose his right to life ... PERIOD.

Third, I share the same Social Darwinist sentiments you express towards Americans; I just expand those sentiments to everyone--so I have no idea why you try to make some point with this kind of drama.

meeproach:
GUN DEATH!!!!! statisics blahrghy blarg.

Yes, yes, little fellow; there would be no gun deaths at all if there were no guns at all--we all accept this. There also would be no bicycle deaths if there were no bicycles, no knife deaths if there were no knives, no swimming pool deaths if there were no swimming pools, no pencil deaths if there were no pencils, no paper-cut deaths if there was no paper, no marshmellow deaths if there were no marshmellows, no ... I doubt you get the point, but every sensible head on he planet gets it.

All you accomplish with trotting forth these OMG!GUNDEATHS!OMG! satatisics is to expose your hard-on for disarming your victims, and to demonstrate how cavalier you are about all other forms of violence and/or death at the hands of other people; how perfectly sanguine you are about the outcome of an encounter between a 250 lb serial killer and his victims ... as long as NO ONE uses a gun.

In the final analysis meeproach, there really is no point to our debate because we have fundamentally different views about what ordinary, regular folks are like.

I feel perfectly comfortable around ordinary, regular folks carrying their guns around because I think ordinary, regular folks are like me--we're just not terribly into shooting at anybody, let alone each other.

And you are terrified meepless at the prospect of ordinary, regular folks carrying guns around precisely because you think ordinary, regular folks are just like you--entirely untrustworthy.

@meeproach

Scratch another Loki-Klan:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/gunshot-kills--year-old-in-grant-county/article_322c05aa-d83b-11e1-bcfa-001a4bcf887a.html

Scratch several more Loki-Klan:

You betta start meepin, 'cause your numbers are droppin'

All these dip-meeps you claim belong to my clan, actually belong to yours--my people are not incompetent with guns.

@BigDinWaunakee

@meeproach

Excellent interview, thanx.

It got me to watch Bowling for Colombine on U2b.

Grandpa Loki get in on the action

Shooting Fish In A Jar

Loki-spawn, Mid-West Sect busy again:

The King is glad they got some of the tan-skins

No, meep.

BigDinWaunakee-spawn, Mid-West Sect busy again:

The King is glad they got some of the tan-skins

Those are your people. Gun control advocates enthusiastically promote this behavior, and they protect it by disarming their victims.

@BigDinWaunakee

Those are your people.

I would lay money these are probably people who used your exact lines of reasoning at some point in their not-too distant past.

We are sorry for your loss, Loki. We know that gunman was one of your finest.

What are you talking about?

Explain yourself.

@BigDinWaunakee