DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 06, 2015, 10:56:15 PM
-
Kinda lopsided so far.
The PBS thinks of itself as even handed , which proves them clueless.
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gunned-down/
Good historical information , with a strong slant.
-
I was more impressed by the following program "Path to Violence".
Where the Frontline episode was a tale of woe about how the American people can't accept the wisdom of their betters.
"Path to Violence" is about alertness and realism in improving security and care for children in school, this story includes a lot of success, but since such success wounds and bleeds less than failure we hear less of it.
-
It was a glorious documentary that showed what utter and ASSHOLES Lapierre and Heston and the rest of those fanatics are.
Where were these Good Guys with guns when the gun nut blew the heads off those cops?
Nowhere in sight.
-
Where were these Good Guys with guns when the gun nut blew the heads off those cops?
Nowhere in sight.
NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, so probably because legally, the "good guys" were not allowed to. As opposed to the radical who assassinated the officers, most gun owners, are law abiding. Not to mention, that this was a sudden attack, where the radical fired only 4 shots. Broke every law on the books, and no proposal currently being pushed by anti-gun/anti-2nd amendment radicals would have stopped it either. Chew on that for a bit
-
Chew on your schlong, The fact is that not a single NRA moron was there to protect those cops.
-
A) Not their job/function
B) NY has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books, making it even far more unlikely anyone could have saved those officers, with their own firearms
C) Not one bloody gun control proposal being pushed by your ilk, would have stopped this crime
Damn facts
-
It was a glorious documentary that showed what utter and ASSHOLES Lapierre and Heston and the rest of those fanatics are.
Where were these Good Guys with guns when the gun nut blew the heads off those cops?
Nowhere in sight.
If one of them was there, he was probably empty handed.
-
The murder of those cops would not have happened anywhere in Western Europe, Japan, Australia and a lot of other places as well.
This is because there are not a zillion guns for gun nuts to get their hands on there./
And again, if guns make the public safer, why did it not prevent this?
Wayne Lapierre is full of shit.
-
The murder of those cops would not have happened anywhere in Western Europe, ...............
Not taking this seriously?
Paris is in Western Europe last I checked and they don't have any laws that prevent this sort of thing.
Because law hasn't got that effect.
-
The murder of those cops would not have happened anywhere in Western Europe, Japan, Australia and a lot of other places as well.
Sure it could have. It happened here, because race-baiters, that you so proudly defend, have portrayed law enforcement as one massive racist organization, targeting black men. Ignorant radicals then take that as a justification to kill police officers. Its no different than what happened in Paris, where the gun control is far stricter than here, and yet radical Islamic terrorists used completely illegal automatic weapons, to murder 12. It has squat to do with how many guns we have in this country. You don't disarm the law abiding, and think that the radicals will decide not illegally acquire their weapons to kill
And you answered your own question....NY is a region where guns are strictly regulated. Very few are allowed to carry concealed. Nothing however could have prevented this.....not one of your precious anti-gun proposals would have stopped this. This radical didn't purchase his gun legally, thus no background check. He only fired 4 rounds, so no ban on magazines greater than 10 rounds would have stopped it.
The only one FOS is the one proclaiming that its the amount of guns in this country that allowed those officers to be assassinated :o
-
PBS asked all the main NRA and other gun nut organizations to contribute to their documentary and every one of them declined.
So it this was one-sided, then whose fault is that?
I remember how utterly clueless and moronic Michael Moore made Charleton Heston look. Poor bastard blathered on about how he thought he needed guns to protect himself from "certain people", but he just could not define who those "certain people were" without looking like an asshole and a bigot. Of course, he has never been threatened by anyone.
Let them bury him with a gun in his cold, dead hands. Throw all the rest of his arsenal into that coffin with him. He can be like a time capsule when they dig him up in 2626.
-
I remember how utterly clueless and moronic Michael Moore made Charleton Heston look.
How Ironic.....I remember how utterly clueless & moronic Larry Elder made Michael Moore look. Poor blathering hypocritical bastard. I'm surprised however, it took you this long to try to change the subject to Moore & Heston, as if they had anything to do with what happened in New York & Paris. Then again, when the facts aren't on your side, that's your go-to crutch
-
PBS asked all the main NRA and other gun nut organizations to contribute to their documentary and every one of them declined.
So it this was one-sided, then whose fault is that?
In a clunky, round-about way, this brings up a good question. Putting aside the apparent rationalization on it being ok for a "news source" to push a 1 sided propaganda piece, how much does an organization, like PBS, need to push to get "both sides" of a story? Then again, I've seen, read, and heard countless stories from news sources, like PBS, CNN, even NPR, which proport to be both unbiased and reporting "all sides" to a story, when in the end, they present a commentary that is anything but balanced
-
If LaPierre wanted a balanced coverage, he was invirted to speak, as were all the other Gun Nut organizations. They all declined.
They cannot stand up to the questions that they would be asked and knew they would look like assholes.
That is because they ARE assholes.
But they had their chance. They were invited, and they declined.
And Michael Moore really did make Heston look like a dolt. Because Heston is a dolt. A fearful, frightened skeered little twit that is not half the man that many of the figures he played were.
-
Making Charlton Hesston look like a dolt was skilled and difficult work.
PBS could have presented the facts as they are even if they had to find them without the help of the NRA.
I did appreciate that they did not go into the supposed control of the NRA by gun manufacturing companies , or perhaps I would have liked it better if they had , and found that to be a fantasy, but that would be a lot to expect.
The overall tone was one of tragic regret that the NRA was so effective , not a celebration of good sense and democracy in action.
The basic premise that gun control is desirable goes unexamined. The harm done and the harm that could be done by gun control is ignored.
Being invited to speak to PBS is a little like being interviewed by Pravda, the editing is the power.
-
The overall tone was one of tragic regret that the NRA was so effective , not a celebration of good sense and democracy in action.
The basic premise that gun control is desirable goes unexamined. The harm done and the harm that could be done by gun control is ignored.
Being invited to speak to PBS is a little like being interviewed by Pravda, the editing is the power.
100% spot on!!
-
You continue to amaze me with your total stupidity and ignorance.
-
You continue to amaze at your knee jerk attempt to use me as your go-to inability to refute a point someone else was making :o
-
Arned Citizens Fight Back!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSd6x5iy6xU
-
How dare anyone defend themselves. Don't they realize that if they didn't have access to a firearm that the bad guys would........hmmmm.......help me out here.......leave them alone?
-
SIRS....I heard the first 3 French Policemen on the scene were not even armed with guns!
I wonder if the Police Officer on the sidewalk was unarmed?
Crazy!
-
Sounds exactly like the world our good professor advocates, one where in reality, only the criminals have guns, acquired illegally of course. Just so long as we "get those guns off the streets" (and out of the hands of the law abiding citizen)
-
Why was Wayne LaPierre asleep at the switch in NYC?
-
Did NY approve Wayne for a CCW permit??
Not to mention that a person legally allowed to carry a firearm is not acting as some suppliemental law enforcement. That's not the NRA's function, or what they teach. If you weren't so blatantly and purposely ignorant of what the NRA is all about, you'd grasp that concept
-
So what was that asshole LaPierre jabbering about? Where are the "good guys with guns" supposed to prevent "bad guys with guns"?
There are too many nuts with guns, and they do NOT make anyone safe.
-
So what was that asshole LaPierre jabbering about?
I don't know....you're the one pulling stuff from every which way, in some transparent effort to change the subject. Perhaps you can provide an example, where some context can be provided. Good guys with guns OBVIOUSLY makes everyone safer. Be it good police officers or good law abiding citizens. No one can be everywhere at once, so bad guys with guns will occasionally achieve their desired ends.
But why you keep answering your own question is beyond me, and helps reinforce what I and so many others have been saying for years. Areas with more permissive gun laws and CCW permits have less violent crime than those locations that are far more heavily restricted, such as NY. It's too bad NY didn't have more realist CCW holders.....that assassination may have been prevented, though doubtful, since it happened in the blink of an eye, when not even another police officer who could have been no more than 15ft away could have seen and stopped it
-
LaPierre failed to prevent a gun nut from killing a couple of cops. He is not a Good Guy with a Gun he is an asshole with a big mouth, pimping for ads from gun and ammo companies to donate to his wacko organization.
-
LaPierre's function isn't in preventing radicals from killing cops. His current function is to support the 2nd amendment, and improve the ability for good guys to better defend himself/herself, from bad guys
-
Then he should not have made that idiotic statement about how more guns make everyone safer.
His main job is to raise funds for the NRA buy soliciting money from the guns and ammo people.
BBC America, PBS and NPR are far and away the most balanced news coverage in this country. And they report MORE news by far, since what ads they run take up vastly less time. The network news stuffs seven commercials into most commercial breaks. Hearing Henry Winkler and Fred Thompson hawk reverse mortgages is not news.
-
The problem is that more guns in "the good guys" hands DOES make us safer. That's backed up by both facts & common sense. That doesn't equate to preventing every crime & murder. Merely lessens them
-
Then he should not have made that idiotic statement about how more guns make everyone safer.
I wouldn't mind making such a statement myself.
When the two policemen were assassinated.....
Wasn't this crime easier to commit in NYNY due to its highly restrictive environment that disarms most of the decent people (not the criminals of course, because guns are so useful to crime that criminals are willing to do whatever it takes to get one)?
I wouldn't maintain that this crime would become impossible ever , even if the city were thick with good guys that were well armed, people willing to act suicidal are hard to deter.
But , I think it well demonstrated that this crime does not become impossible with any sort of restriction on guns either.
What does change with more people having guns is the margins , rational criminals do compute the odds and rob and rape less where their odds of being injured in the act are greater, this moves the margins in a positive way.
-
Countries that restrict guns have far fewer gun deaths. The American Gun Nut Lobby is provincial and does not think that what goes on in the rest of the world applies to the US.
I seriously doubt that civilians with guns are likely to prevent any cops, anywhere, from being shop by some crazed gun nut, which is what happened in NYC. The murderer was a crazy gun nut.
The Nightline program on PBS specializes in specific news stories. The story of how a minority of Gun Nuts, lobbyists and their organizations prevented a majority of people from having their representatives from passing legislation against ammo clips and particularly efficient firearms used to slaughter the children at New Town and in the parking lot where Rep Gifford was speaking is a bona fide news story.
The will of the people was subverted by a well financed bunch of fanatical gun nuts. That is the story here. PBS had every right to run this story. They has=d an OBLIGATION to do so.
-
Doesn't matter what other countries do, we have the 2nd amendment. And France literally has a complete ban on firearms, and they were just hit by radicals with automatic weapons. So, making guns illegal to the law abiding doesn't stop murderers and radicals from committing atrocities. It only makes the law abiding more vulnerable. The facts prove this, here in this country.....the greater gun deaths occur in regions with the strictest gun laws. NY, DC, Chicago, etc.
You're right in that a law abiding civilian, legally able to carry a firearm, is unlikely to prevent an officer from being assassinated. That's not their job or function. A law abiding civilian, legally able to carry a firearm, simply makes it more likely that person can defend themselves from an attempted attack. And more of those law abiding in an area makes attacks on police officers less likely......unless of course the thug in question, is on a suicide mission. In that case, you could have a dozen police officers of where these 2 officers were assassinated, having bagels & coffee, and the 2 cops would still have been murdered
And one more time....NOTHING being pushed by Anti-gun nuts, as supposed "common sense gun laws" would have stopped this assassination, of these 2 officers. The will of a small radical minority may have been thwarted, but that's about it
-
Doesn't matter what other countries do, we have the 2nd amendment.
That is utterly idiotic. There are a lot of hunters in France, and they have rifles to hunt with.
So far, there were maybe 14 peopls killed in the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
Add all the nut job mass murders that we have had in the US since 1995, when the last attack in France occurred, and we have had many many times more people murdered by Gun Nuts. Columbine, New Towne, the Gaby Gifford thing, and countless others, most of whom never offended anyone anywhere.
We are far less safe because of your fucking Gun "Rights"
-
Countries that restrict guns have far fewer gun deaths.
Do countries with fewer pools have fewer drownings?
There is no country with a lower overall death rate , it is 100% everywhere.
We are keeping the pools because we value swimming enough to put up with the cost, there are intangible and tangible benefits to gun ownership that a solid majority of the US public value above the risk of death by illegal shooting.
In France they have decided otherwise , with fewer pools they drown less , but they do still drown, with fewer guns they shoot less but do still get shot.
How do you estimate the benefit of making everyone helpless?
Is it like the benefit of no one learning to swim?
-
Ypur gun is as likely to be used to shoot a member of your own family as it is to shoot you.
Swimming is at least good exercise, and swimming pools are not deliberately made to kill people or animals. That is a poor comparison.
As I have said, there are far too many guns for this country to ever put this under any rational control. There is no solution, other than to stay away from places where gun nuts tend to go. There is no way to collect all the guns that are likely to be used against innocent people. The bill proposed on the PBS program was as reasonable as it could be. It might have prevented at least some people from being massacred the next time some insane gun nut goes are, by making it necessary to change his clips more often.
-
Ypur gun is as likely to be used to shoot a member of your own family as it is to shoot you.
I don't get your point there.
Neither of these is very likely , nor desirable.
-
Swimming is at least good exercise, and swimming pools are not deliberately made to kill people or animals. That is a poor comparison.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
Is intent the important factor?
Filling in all of our swimming pools would save many more children's lives than vaporizing every gun in the nation.
Why concentrate on the smaller problem, and the problem with the more difficult solution?
You seem to be discounting completely the number of people who have benefited from having a gun handy, my own life was preserved by my mother having a gun just one time , this is only once that I might have died as an infant so it is statistically insignificant. However she afterwards made sure that I learned to swim in a pool exposing me to that danger repeatedly.
I must have swum thousands of times now, I have been threatened by guns very few times, but whatever finily kills me will kill me dead just once.
-
Doesn't matter what other countries do, we have the 2nd amendment.
That is utterly idiotic. There are a lot of hunters in France, and they have rifles to hunt with.
Yea, damn Constitution, giving me rights you claim I shouldn't have. How about I don't think you should have a right to privacy. I think every one of your slinky movements should be known, to everyone. And of course that's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as your implication I shouldn't have the right to a firearm, to protect myself.....be it from some radical thug/thief/terrorist, or a tyrannical forming Government. The 2nd amendment has squat to do with hunting, or what French hunters put on their plate. France has banned the guns that the Islamic terrorists used. Sure didn't seem to stop them now, did it. That's what's utterly idiotic....to think banning them would stop such killings
So far, there were maybe 14 peopls killed in the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
And.......? Were you hoping for more?
Add all the nut job mass murders that we have had in the US since 1995, when the last attack in France occurred, and we have had many many times more people murdered by Gun Nuts.
Add all the lives saved in the U.S. by the use of a firearm, since 1995, would dwarf the number taken, by murderers of all creeds, using a gun. Per the FBI (not sirs, not the NRA, not some RW publication, but per the FBI,) murders at the hands of a gun, since 2006, average around 8600 - 9600 deaths. In that SAME time frame, the lowball figure is approx 600,000 lives saved, annually. The highball figure for lives saved is 2.5 MILLION. That's 2.5 MILLION times a person used a firearm to defend them self. So, just taking the low ball figure, has guns saving lives over 60X more than those taken
60+x MORE lives saved than those taken, using one of those evil guns. You can cite all the mass murders and school shootings you want. It's a mere drop in the proverbial bucket of lives saved, using a gun, in the same time frame
What's completely devoid of any rational thought, is to believe & claim that abolishing the 2nd amendment somehow makes this country safer from the bad guys. Like all of a sudden, they're going to start to abide by the law?? When they weren't doing so in the 1st place?? Banning guns merely disarms the law abiding. "Bad guys" are going to still get them
We are far less safe because of your fucking Gun "Rights"
Couldn't be more wrong, and the facts demonstrate that. Then again, one must consider the source
-
The gun death rate in the US is far higher than in any country where there are no "rights" to bear arms.
So you are wrong.
You fail to recognize this, so you are stupid.
On the other hand, I was wrong to say that Charleton Heston is an idiot. This is untrue, since Charleton Heston is dead. He is no more, like the Monty Python Norwegian Blue Parrot.
I must amend my statement to read Charleton Heston WAS an idiot. Now he is an ex-idiot. One who died without needing to use his alleged arsenal even once. All the money he spent on it was wasted.
Had he spent it on a coffin way back when, THAT would have been a much wiser investment.
-
What you fail to recognize is for every 1 murder, at the hands of a gun, 60+ more lives are saved with the same evil gun. And that's a minimum low ball figure
Facts are not your friend, I'm afraid. Nor is the Constitution....that ironically protects your right to spew such AMBE
-
That is NRA bullshit. If you had a brain, you would recognize that.
They never count all the children that play with guns and shoot themselves, Mommy, Daddy or someone else. They never count the many fools who manange to shoot themselves cleaning their guns.
Those are all "accidents" and therefore unrelated entirely to gun ownership.
By your logic, all we need are even more guns and we would have a NEGATIVE murder rate. Live people would be popping up all over the place, as if by magic, not even realizing that their existence was occasioned by gun ownership. They would have no idea who they were or what their names were.
-
That is concrete fact. If you weren't so blinded in ignorant leftist propaganda, you'd recognize that
Of course there are stats that include all those who have used guns, in some manner. The number is still 10 : 1 in the manner of lives saved, to all gun related deaths
So instead of 60+:1, that number drops to 10:1, when you include accidents & suicides
So, no, that's not my logic what-so-ever. The logic is that more guns in law abiding hands, makes it safer for everyone. This isn't a mathematical vacuum, simply reality, backed up by the facts
-
Believe any nonsense you want.
-
One professor's anti 2nd amendment opinion, is the rest of the world's reality I suppose. As I said, facts are not your friend...especially when this topic comes up
-
Charlton Heston decided for himself what he thought right.
That isn't stupid, if you can swim against the current in 63 and still be swimming against the current in 93 while the current itself has turned 180, this must mean you are able to think for yourself.
Charlton Heston (born John Charles Carter; October 4, 1923 – April 5, 2008) was an American actor[1] and political activist.
.................http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston..........
The starring roles gave the actor a grave, authoritative persona and embodied responsibility, individualism and masculinity; he rejected scripts that did not emphasize those virtues. His media image as a spokesman for Judeo-Christian moral values enabled his political voice.[2]
................
In 1944, Heston enlisted in the United States Army Air Forces. He served for two years as a radio operator and aerial gunner aboard a B-25 Mitchell stationed in the Alaskan Aleutian Islands with the 77th Bombardment Squadron of the Eleventh Air Force.[21][22] He reached the rank of Staff Sergeant.
...........................
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Poitier_Belafonte_Heston_Civil_Rights_March_1963.jpg/640px-Poitier_Belafonte_Heston_Civil_Rights_March_1963.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Ronald_Reagan_Charlton_Heston.jpg)
.................................
-
Even after he was shot, Reagan never wised up. It was not in the script.
All the money Heston wasted on his arsenal was wasted. His guns are almost certainly still around, eventually the odds are that one of them will be used to shoot someone who does not deserve to be shot.
-
And even greater odds that one of his guns will be used to save a life