DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on February 14, 2013, 06:49:15 AM
-
Cops: Woman shot dead at 'Blade Runner' Oscar Pistorius' South African home
By Cecile Antonie, John Newland and Jason Cumming, NBC News
A woman has been found shot dead at the South African home of Olympic and Paralympic star Oscar Pistorius, police said Thursday.
Britain's Sky News reported that the woman had been shot in the head and arm and said the 26-year-old Pistorius was being interviewed by police in Pretoria.
Citing local reports, Reuters reported that the victim was believed to be Pistorius' girlfriend and that the sprinter may have mistaken her for a burglar. Police would not confirm the woman's identity.
"We can confirm a 26-year-old man has been taken into custody following a complaint by a neighbor that there was a shooting at the home of Oscar Pistorius," a police spokesman told NBC News. "He is being charged with murder and he will appear in the Pretoria regional court later this afternoon."
The Associated Press and several South African media outlets reported that Pistorius had been arrested and was being questioned, and that a 9mm handgun had been found at his home in the luxurious Silver Woods gated community.
http://msntv.msn.com/Pages/News/Handler.ashx?url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16957208-cops-woman-shot-dead-at-blade-runner-oscar-pistorius-south-african-home? (http://msntv.msn.com/Pages/News/Handler.ashx?url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16957208-cops-woman-shot-dead-at-blade-runner-oscar-pistorius-south-african-home?)
------------------------------------
9mm owners: If you need counseling, please, get it. No need to shoot anyone because you're too proud to get the help you need.
BSB
-
Thought harrison ford lost it
-
That 'Blade Runner' was my first thought when I saw the headline.
BSB
-
Why would 9MM owners need counseling? That makes no sense, in this apparent accident ???
-
Shooting someone ONCE might be by accident. But TWICE?
I would think that a need for counseling would apply no matter what gun was used.
-
Hmmmmmm.........still waiting for more details to emerge, but the initial non-answer as to why 9MM owners need couseling, and the latest round of news that Mr Blade Runner is being charged with MURDER, sure does put a damper into the inferred template of a mistaken person shot by the homeowner, and how they shouldn't have had the gun to defend themselves in the 1st place or this kind of "accidental tragedy" is likely to happen
-
So, how's that counseling behind the "accidental in home shooting" coming along?
-
Shooting someone behind a bathroom door certainly sounds paranoid to me.
A sane person would FIRST ascertain that the only other person who was supposed to be in the house was where she was supposed to me, e.g. in bed. Only then would sane person say something reasonable, like "I have a gun,and will use it. come out slowly with your arms up."
Now that you know this, you might avoid plugging an unwanted hole in Mrs sirs someday.
-
Right, because when you have someone in the bathroom, that's when you start shooting, vs calling 911 ::)
And no need to worry about Mrs Sirs.....I have no intention to shoot at an unarmed door.
-
The first thought of a sane person who knows there are only two people in the house would, again, be to account for that other person before shooting anything. Even calling out her name would be logical.
Of course, only one person even knows what really happened.
No gun = no one shot.
-
Not sure, what you're trying to argue here, Xo. Our sprinter had gone mad?? So, we're back at square one....what can we do to keep guns out of insane folks, while leaving the law abiding alone
No pulling trigger = no one shot
But I thank you for helping to debunks Bsb''s and yours nonsense about me being a gun nut. I think its safe to say, minus a yet to be confirmed malicious intent, its pretty nutzy to shoot an innocent unarmed door
-
Again, no gun, no one gets shot.
It is a plus that you do not believe in shooting at closed doors.
-
Again, no one pulls the trigger = no one gets shot. Insane person doesn't get access to gun = no one gets shot. Crazed killer doesn't get access to gun = no one gets shot
::)
-
Is there any reason to think that an athlete could not kill a person using a cricket bat?
This is a case in which the presence of a gun might not matter.
-
Almost anybody could kill almost anyone with a bat. You don't have to be an Olympic athlete. Humans have been using clubs for 10s of thousands of years.
Guns are a problem. Face it. There are people who just aren't responsible enough to have a gun around and often you don't know who they are until it's too late. You know, you folks on the right have a serious problem facing reality. Wake up will yah, jesus key'rist.
BSB
-
Alas, there is no law against stupidity, and its human nature that's the problem, not the particular tool some murderer or some insane person happens to use, be it a bat or a shotgun.
There IS however also a right to bear arms in this country. So, as passionate and sincere as you might be, reality is a far crueler critter....at least until you can invent something that can magically pre-determine who WILL act out irresponsibly. Paging Minority Report
-
This happened in South Africa so it has nothing to do with your precious little 2nd amendment. Just like banning AR15s has nothing to do with your precious little 2nd amendment. Just like banning high capacity magazines has nothing to do with your precious little 2nd amendment. In fact most of what you bore us silly with has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.
Organized societies place controls on guns for a reason. Those who don't, like Afghanistan, Somalia, and disturbingly the United States, pay the price. Anyone with an IQ over 60 can figure that out.
BSB
-
This happened in South Africa so it has nothing to do with your precious little 2nd amendment.
Actually it has quite a bit to do with that precious thing called the constitution. Banning a weapon that looks mean doesn't absolve the person intent on killing. they can just as easy grab a shotgun or a bat. Your fixation with the AR & magazines is indeed fascinating, while it does precious little to actually decrease violent crime or gun deaths.
Organized societies place controls on guns for a reason. Those who don't, like Afghanistan, Somalia, and disturbingly the United States, pay the price. Anyone with an IQ over 60 can figure that out.
We're pretty organized ourselves. Our founders were actually smart enough to put in place the mechanisms to amend the Constitution, if it's just so burdensome for some. By all means, stop flapping the gums, take that 60+IQ, and do something about it, if the 2nd amendment is just that horrid
-
Frankly Sirs you aren't even remotely connected intellectually to the founding fathers. In fact you aren't even remotely related intellectually to the United States of America. You're just an internet blowhard with nothing to contribute to this forum let alone this country. You don't belong to a political party. You don't even belong to the NRA. You never took an oath to defend the constitution. What you say about our founding documents means absolutely nothing to me. In fact I'd be more interested in what some of our illegals have to say than you. It would be far more heart felt, not to mention interesting.
BSB
-
Frankly Sirs you aren't even remotely connected intellectually to the founding fathers. In fact you aren't even remotely related intellectually to the United States of America. You're just an internet blowhard with nothing to contribute to this forum let alone this country. You don't belong to a political party. You don't even belong to the NRA. You never took an oath to defend the constitution. What you say about our founding documents means absolutely nothing to me. In fact I'd be more interested in what some of our illegals have to say than you. It would be far more heart felt, not to mention interesting.
BSB
Why ad hominim?
You could just point out how he is wrong , or perhaps you can't because he isn't.
This is an actual instance of the second amendment not being at fault because this is a distant land without constitutional protection for arms.
The victim had a skull fracture and three bullet wounds, possibly because she was attacked with a pistol and a cricket bat.
So the pistol is no more the problem than the cricket bat is the problem.
The wielder of the weapon does not share the responsibility with the weapon itself, anyone who picks up a weapon takes on responsibility.
-
That's right, I didn't bring up the 2nd amendment, he did. I pointed out it had nothing to do with 2nd amendment. He didn't. Further I've never posted anything contrary to the 2nd amendment. All his allusions to the 2nd amendment in response to my posts are just crap. Further, I never said anything about a bat being more or less dangerous then a gun. You brought up the bat. I pointed out, correctly, that you don't have to be an athlete to kill someone with a bat. You seemed to think it was pertinent. It isn't. I could kill someone with a bat and I'm 68, no longer an athlete, with the loss of a limb just like him.
Anymore BS?
BSB
-
Nothing that happens in South Africa has one damned thing to do with the second amendment. Sirs is wrong to allude to it in this case. And BSB's description of this jerk is right on the money. An internet blowhard with no credibility whatever, and not one damned thing useful to say.
-
Frankly Sirs you aren't even remotely connected intellectually to the founding fathers. In fact you aren't even remotely related intellectually to the United States of America. You're just an internet blowhard with nothing to contribute to this forum let alone this country. You don't belong to a political party. You don't even belong to the NRA. You never took an oath to defend the constitution. What you say about our founding documents means absolutely nothing to me. In fact I'd be more interested in what some of our illegals have to say than you. It would be far more heart felt, not to mention interesting.
Why ad hominim? You could just point out how he is wrong , or perhaps you can't because he isn't.
It's just what he does. It's actually SOP by hard core leftists....when unable to refute, throw garbage and try to sound superior
And the part that's really unfortunate, is this is a fella who fought and sacrificed for our freedoms, yet not grasp what freedom in this country really is :-\
-
"yet not grasp what freedom in this country really is"
Wrong again. I've said absolutely nothing that contradicts any freedom our founding fathers documented. And what's more you know it yet you continue to post the same bullshit. That makes you a liar, a fraud, and a creep.
BSB
-
actually you have...you freely advocate folks who should or should not have access to a gun, myself included. You try, weakly, to hide behind semantics what is vs isn't an assault weapon and emotion as it relates to banning 1 type of semi-automatic weapon, but others, that killers can use just as easily are supposedly ok.
Not just not grasping what real freedom is, as it relates to our Constitutional rights, but not having the cajones to address the real issues of violent crime and gun violence. Here's a hint, its NOT about the gun. When you can put your ideological blinders away, we'll actually be able to have a serious conversation and substantive brainstorming at what could be done
-
Hiding behind semantics. Translation, posting the facts. The facts being that banning a class of weapons is not contradictory to the constitution. The facts being that American citizens have the right to pursue their dreams without the threat of being killed by a weapon that the military uses in combat. The only one playing semantic games is you. Ret. Gen McChrystal doesn't say that the AR15 is the same weapon our soldiers carry just to run his mouth off. He says it because its true. I say it because it's true. It's a fact because it's true. We know, we've carried them. You on the other hand haven't carried one. (and don't give me this dogshit about auto vs semi, any soldier will tell you that semi-auto is the most effective selection)
Freedom is having the right as a people to pick and chose. A lack of freedom is not having that right. The right to strengthen gun laws is a freedom. Not being able to is a lack of freedom. The only one advocating for a reduction of our liberties in this debate is you sirs. You're the one who knows nothing about what freedom means. You're the one who is using the constitution to reduce our liberties. But that's your game Sirs. Reducing choice all the while pretending it's strengthening our freedoms.
BSB
-
Don't even try pulling "facts", since you actively ignore most facts:
MORE lives are saved in this country using a gun, than those taken
LESS violent crime in areas with more permissive gun laws than those areas with much sctricter ones
DECREASING violent crime in this country with its "plethora of guns" vs countries like England which watch its violent crime continuing to grow
Those are FACTS
Freedom is FREEDOM. FREEDOM to own a firearm, semiautomatic rifle in fact. THAT RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, regardless of how mean looking the weapon is, SO SAYETH THE CONSTITUTION. You don't like it, AMEND IT. Yea, you're hiding behind semantics. Currently it's "this class". After the next massacre, it'll be "that class", and then it'll be another "class". Again, your problem is that the gun is NOT the problem. If you had some intellectual honesty here, you'd stand up and say ALL semi-automatic weapons should be banned, especially considering that's the VAST majority choice by murderers and gang members. But no, you're hiding behind a weapon that is no different than any other magazine fed semi-auto. It's just LOOKS like a military assault rifle.
Gotta love this semantic summersault, my advocating freedom is somehow "reducing choice". And a decrease in the rate of growth is actually a cut. Only in leftist lingo :o
-
The violent crime rate and the gunshot rate in England is a teensy percentage of the number of people that get blown away by guns here in the US.
Your beliefs are just that: beliefs. Fables that I refuse to swallow.
-
"It's just LOOKS like a military assault rifle"
You're so afraid of freedom that you want to restrict freedom of information. As Gen McChrystal and I both know the AR15 and the M16/M4 are the exact same gun. The only difference is one click on the selector switch. Easily remedied, as I've pointed out.
The AR15 has been the weapon of choice at 3 mass shootings I can think of without even trying. Duh. It will be banned. It will take several more years, but it will happen. It's that simple. In the mean time Democrats will keep winning the White House keeping it away from those who would restrict our freedom to chose a more beneficial, and productive path in this country. That's freedom. Using your evolutionarily selected brain to solve societal problems is freedom. Making educated choices rather than dancing to a nostalgic rhythm is freedom. Living in the present, with an eye towards the future, rather than being controlled by the past is freedom. Not being so afraid that you have to carry a gun as if you lived in some Mexican, drug infested, boarder town, is freedom. Freedom loving people the world over constantly reject the status quo and replace it with new ideas, new products, new sciences, new blood. That is the freedom America was shaped for. That is the freedom people have uprooted and come to this country to benefit from. Selling an all too easy to use military killing machine to the public at large runs contrary to every freedom ever espoused by philosophers and statesmen alike throughout history. You lose Sirs. And you will keep on losing in ever increasing amounts. People like me, XO, and the fresh blood pouring into this country, will see to it.
BSB
P.S. More people saved by guns then injured or killed? As XO points out, not a chance in hell.
-
No, they are NOT the same exact gun. The military version has an automatic mode. The semi-auto that the rest of us are "allowed" to own does NOT.
That's a FACT
If you try to "remodel it" as you claim, THAT's ILLEGAL as well
That's a FACT
The weapon of choice for the VAST majority of murders in this country, numbering in the THOUSANDS, is NOT an AR-15 or even a semi-automatic rifle, for that matter.
That's a FACT
You want to focus all this wrath on 1 CLASS of weapon, based on 3, count'em 3 massacres, while you ignore the thousands killed with all sorts of different classes, demonstrates the egregious inconsistency, in your platform
So, yea, you and xo can continue to ignore all those inconvenient facts, such as more lives saved, but that's at your credibility door. I'm comfortable having the facts on my side, not to mention the Constitution, that......what was that again?...oh yea, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
And go stuff your "restriction in freedom of information" crap somewhere, where it might at least sound true. It holds no water here ::)
-
More rejection of freedom of information, aka lying.
They banned fully automatic weapons and they can ban the AR15 in a New York second. When they do it will infringe only on the demented minds of a few fruit loops. You lose Sirs.
BSB
-
My understanding is that you can still own automatic weapons as long as you are willing to file the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. Is that no longer the case?
-
More rejection of freedom of information, aka lying.
ROFL.......this is truly hilarious. We've gone from the ridiculous notion that I'm advocating some suppression of information or is it rejecting information, or is it......, (only God knows how that irrational conclusion was reached), and now that equates to "lying". LYING ABOUT WHAT?? Good gravy ::)
They banned fully automatic weapons and they can ban the AR15 in a New York second.
Meaning exactly what I've been saying....this class semi-automatic, then another, then another, then we'll all be left to what Xo advocates, single shot black powder muskets, where the musket balls will have a 2000% tax applied to every ball purchased. Sure they could ban it, but that's never been the issue.
The issue is why would you ban this "class" of weapon, when its a mere fraction of a fraction in in choice by murderers, leaving the vast majority of the law abiding without the choice of that weapon to better defend or use, as they see fit?? Answer......it's just the next step. Then it'll be another class, then it'll be another class, all with the soft hearted rhetoric "We're not banning them all, just these, that you don't really 'need'. Look at all the rest we're still permitting you to keep..............until we decide you don't need them either"
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. You don't like it....amend it
-
My understanding is that you can still own automatic weapons as long as you are willing to file the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. Is that no longer the case?
You have to have a special ATF license, and have pretty much been mugged by government bureaucracy & mounds of paperwork, pass all manner of background checks, pay all fees, and be willing to be "visited" by Government agents, at any time, to inspect your inventory
Or so I've read. And then yes, you can own military assault rifles & pistols
-
So what the government did was restrict access instead of banning that class. Am i still correct in this understanding?
-
Hiding behind semantics. Translation, posting the facts. The facts being that banning a class of weapons is not contradictory to the constitution. The facts being that American citizens have the right to pursue their dreams without the threat of being killed by a weapon that the military uses in combat. The only one playing semantic games is you. Ret. Gen McChrystal doesn't say that the AR15 is the same weapon our soldiers carry just to run his mouth off. He says it because its true. I say it because it's true. It's a fact because it's true. We know, we've carried them. You on the other hand haven't carried one. (and don't give me this dogshit about auto vs semi, any soldier will tell you that semi-auto is the most effective selection)
Freedom is having the right as a people to pick and chose. A lack of freedom is not having that right. The right to strengthen gun laws is a freedom. Not being able to is a lack of freedom. The only one advocating for a reduction of our liberties in this debate is you sirs. You're the one who knows nothing about what freedom means. You're the one who is using the constitution to reduce our liberties. But that's your game Sirs. Reducing choice all the while pretending it's strengthening our freedoms.
BSB
I think I am in agreement with the founders , particularly Madison , that there should be strict restrictions on the governments freedom to restrict the freedom of the people.
In particuilar they thought the freedom to keep and bear arms was important so that the people would not have to fear the government , Madison wrote that the people had many times the military might that the US Army had and he thought this was a good situation that should be preserved.
As laws against gun ownership began and increased in the 30's and until the 70's there was a coincidental increase in gun crime. Since the 90's the number of guns in private hands has increased a lot, coincidental with a decrease in shooting crimes overall. This co-relation is not enought to prove causality, but it is enough to indicate that feaer based on public ownership of guns is based on imagination.
-
In the 1790's, there was no way that the government could have taken away anyone's guns. Most people lived in the country, where there was little or no law enforcement,and depended on hunting to keep them through the winter. Indians and bandits were common.
They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.
-
In the 1790's, there was no way that the government could have taken away anyone's guns. Most people lived in the country, where there was little or no law enforcement,and depended on hunting to keep them through the winter. Indians and bandits were common.
They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.
The King thought he could .
The Patriots didn't think the King should have that freedom.
This turned into a fight.
-
They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.
Looks like they have the means to disarm everyone now, if they so wish. I just wonder at what cost.
-
I do not expect this to happen. I don't even think that this is the purpose of having people register their guns.
The British troops that fought in the American Revolution ended up fighting in Spain against Napoleon's brother and with the old reactionary king. They made even kitchen knives illegal, as testified by the etchings of Goya. Or perhaps it was the French that did this.
-
So what the government did was restrict access instead of banning that class. Am i still correct in this understanding?
Yes, you could say so........heavily restricted. Someone like me would be unable to jump thru all the required hoops. Former military and law enforcement have far lower & fewer hoops
-
They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.
Looks like they have the means to disarm everyone now, if they so wish. I just wonder at what cost.
Which adds an additional question......how much does one trust the Government? If they have everyone's registration of who owns what, and as Xo keeps pointing out, that we the people are completely out-gunned, what's to prevent the Government from simply saying, "well, we just have to do this.....for the children of course. Can't be having people having the possibility of going out and shooting up anyone" It wouldn't be that blatant....it would simply be a progression of "classes". 1st this class of gun, then after the next massacre, that class of gun, then eventually, the'll go after all semi-automatics, because of course, they've already banned so many others, and we'll be in no position to fight back, by that time......but of course, that was the whole point of the agenda
-
"So what the government did was restrict access instead of banning that class."
You can buy and sell almost anything if you have the proper license. You can buy heroine if you're properly licensed. You can buy anthrax if you're properly licensed. I think most people would think of them as being banned though.
Getting a Class III License for a fully automatic weapon, or a silencer, or a short barreled rifle, is difficult on the one hand but not so difficult on the other hand. I know 3 guys who have them. It took one of them over 20 years to get it. It took another only about 3 or 4 years. Can't remember exactly. And third guy was an active duty police officer. The funny thing is though the guy who had to wait 20 years was the only one I would have given a license to. It took him that long because he didn't suck up to local police chief. And yes, all 3 of them are Vietnam Vets.
The thing is you have to want it bad enough to put up with the red tape, and you have to hang in there. If you have a clean record in the end they almost have to give it to you. I thought about it but I didn't want to wait it out. Further, as an example, the guy who waited 20 years went and bought an M60 machinegun. This was over 20 years ago. The price, $14,000. It's probably about 3 times that now. So it isn't a cheap hobby.
Also if you think you need one that badly enough due to societal circumstances, converting an AR15 type firearm to full auto is very easy to accomplish. And if things have gotten that bad they'll be no need to worry about the law. Further, the worse things get the more fully automatic weapons will surface. That's the fallacy in this concern about a rouge government. All sorts of things begin to become available if there are enough people with the guts to push back.
Oh yeah, one more thing. You want a fully automatic Russian AK? Take a little trip in your boat out to international fishing waters. It's that easy. And up here those huge Russian fish factories aren't that far out.
BSB
-
Probably the best way to ban firearms is to take all the pussy guns off the market. Make the gun owners have to step up to the plate if they want to shoot. No more .223s for example. Make them step up at least to a 308 or 30'06. I'd like to start heavier but I like the 308 so I have to leave that in. And with sidearms make them start at the .45. No more .357s or 9mms. And no more Redhawks or Super Blackhawks. Make them shoot the heavy magnums out of a lighter weapon. Nothing heavier then a Blackhawk say. And for shotguns only 8 and 10 gauge. Just goose guns. Only teeth rattlers. That should weed out a lot of the wannabes.
BSB
-
Probably the best way to ban firearms is to take all the pussy guns off the market. Make the gun owners have to step up to the plate if they want to shoot. No more .223s for example. Make them step up at least to a 308 or 30'06. I'd like to start heavier but I like the 308 so I have to leave that in. And with sidearms make them start at the .45. No more .357s or 9mms. And no more Redhawks or Super Blackhawks. Make them shoot the heavy magnums out of a lighter weapon. Nothing heavier then a Blackhawk say. And for shotguns only 8 and 10 gauge. Just goose guns. Only teeth rattlers. That should weed out a lot of the wannabes.
BSB
So are you in favor of banning guns, or just in favor of pulling gun owners chains?
-
I trust the present government more than I trust the sort of nuts I have seen at gun shows or weird creeps like sirs.
There is NO CHANCE that a bunch of NRA clowns could overthrow the US government. The best thing we can do to remain free has nothing to do with guns, but a complete revision of the way our elections are financed. We also need to get lobbyists out of the business of writing our laws.
-
I trust the present government more than I trust the sort of nuts I have seen at gun shows or weird creeps like sirs.
LOL....and why would you trust me?...I'm not in any seat of power. The Government is, and they have a track record, which helps to determine how anyone with a rational mind could actually trust them. But cudos on argueing a point never made, yet again, such as the NRA alone trying to overthrow the Government ::)
-
Probably the best way to ban firearms is to take all the pussy guns off the market. Make the gun owners have to step up to the plate if they want to shoot.
So now we have a "pussy class" to add to the classes. Yea, screw the small statured women and their freedom to choose a weapon more suited for them, and forget children ever defending themselves, while the bad guy takes his illegally obtained smaller more lethal tool, and mows those folks down, without a fuss or getting any blood on his shoes. Brilliant
That should weed out a lot of the wannabes.
Wannabe....whats?
-
NRA members claim that their guns are defending democracy, or at least are necessary to defend it.
-
Not their guns......the 2nd amendment's guns, which include millions of folks who are NOT members of the NRA, like myself
-
You are defending San Diego from Rhinoceri. I was only addressing what the NRA claims. It hardly matters, because neither the NRA nor all gun owners are not defending us from government oppression. No more than they are defending us from T. Rex's. Brontosauri, and Pterodactyls.
-
You are defending San Diego from Rhinoceri.
What rhinoceri would those be? You know something I don't? If you had mentioned run away pit-bulls, at least you'd have a tiny credible leg to stand on. But alas, you're most comfortable in the world of ridiculous hyperbole
I was only addressing what the NRA claims
You're mutating their claims, to make it sound ridiculous......but then again, you do what you do
It hardly matters, because neither the NRA nor all gun owners are not defending us from government oppression.
We are defending it from trying to become oppressive. Subtle, but distinct difference. One is active, your mutated version, one is real, as in an ongoing deterrent
No more than they are defending us from T. Rex's. Brontosauri, and Pterodactyls.
Now you have an obsession with .... dinosaurs? Ummm, ok :o