Armed man 'opens fire at German cinema'

[EnigmaO01]

Yeah! Ok...lol!

Now, the reality: we'll watch Europe collapse in a massivevcrime wave.

It's much more likely here with all the guns out there. Many of them are stolen on a daily basis.

 

[apdst]

It's much more likely here with all the guns out there. Many of them are stolen on a daily basis.

Guns can't commit a crime. However, criminals can. Send a few million thugs to Germany and see how easily guns are found.

The Paris terrorists were able to get their hands on automatic weapons. That was, what? 4, or 5 dudes? Throw a couple million more into the mix and see what happens.

 

[American]

Brilliant post.

Hit a nerve?

 

[TurtleDude]

I'll take their gun violence stats any day over ours. No comparison!

So comment is stupid.

would that include the 6 million disarmed people killed a few decades ago?

 

[TurtleDude]

They really aren't. German gun owners are just better than American gun owners at teaching their kids not shoot up places.

how many of the mass murderers were the children of American Gun owners?

 

[TurtleDude]

I should hope not. There have been 150 mass shootings so far this year. Also, 6,384 people are dead and 13,169 people have been injured in gun violence so far this year including 1,652 children. We pay a high price for radical interpretations of the second amendment.

How many of those are suicides?

How many of those are justifiable shootings

and how many of those were perpetrated by people who could not legally own firearms at the time they did the shooting?

because when you factor those out, there aren't many cases of legal gun owners illegally shooting other people. claiming the individual rights version of the Second amendment is "radical" demonstrates you really have no understanding of the constitution, the bill of rights and the foundation upon which the authors based our government

 

[Hatuey]

how many of the mass murderers were the children of American Gun owners?

Ask the kids from Columbine, Sandy Hook etc.


Sent from a flower watered by the tears of Trump supporters and crazy newb liberals.

 

[TurtleDude]

Double Derp!

Going to the gun violence that Germany had vs. ours is like going from a war zone to almost being in paradise. Spin it all you want but I've lived in Germany. No fear of some idiot blowing me down with a gun designed for military use there. No school shootings either. But here all bets are off.

But hey I guess we'll have to live with gun violence atrocities here cause we sure don't want to give up those military style rifles for civilian use! Oh no!

And before you say an AR-15 is a civilian gun, it was originally designed for the military. And I know the Sig Sauer MCX was used in Orlando. I'm a gun owner myself but have no need for guns like that. My penis size is adequate.

that stupid comment pretty much disqualifies you from being taken seriously on this issue. are you saying that you don't own firearms due to penis issues but others do? what idiocy. If you don't need certain guns (which is a stupid criteria anyway) then don't buy them. But don't tell others what they need since you are not in any position to do that. I just bought a MCX today. why? because I can and because I got a good deal on it. looks to be reliable and well made and the ergonomics are very good. and if it upsets some bannerrhoids-so much better

 

[TurtleDude]

Ask the kids from Columbine, Sandy Hook etc.


Sent from a flower watered by the tears of Trump supporters and crazy newb liberals.

how about the killers in Orlando and San Bernardino? Klebold and Harris didn't get firearms from their parents IIRC-they had a girl buy them for them.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Guns can't commit a crime. However, criminals can. Send a few million thugs to Germany and see how easily guns are found.

The Paris terrorists were able to get their hands on automatic weapons. That was, what? 4, or 5 dudes? Throw a couple million more into the mix and see what happens.

Guns don't kill, people do crap again. Oh brother!

They're still be a lot more dead on a daily basis if guns were easy to come by in Paris. Just look at U.S. stats.

 

[apdst]

Guns don't kill, people do crap again. Oh brother!

They're still be a lot more dead on a daily basis if guns were easy to come by in Paris. Just look at U.S. stats.

Does Paris have as many thugs as America does, yes, or no?

 

[Napoleon]

How many of those are suicides?

Zero. Suicides aren't included in this set.

How many of those are justifiable shootings

Out of 25,000 incidents so far this year: 387 involved police shooting a suspect or perpetrator and 771 were cases of self-defense. So, round numbers, only 5% of incidents are justifiable.

and how many of those were perpetrated by people who could not legally own firearms at the time they did the shooting? because when you factor those out, there aren't many cases of legal gun owners illegally shooting other people.

Not sure how you could reach that conclusion considering the fact that such data isn't collected. There was a DOJ survey of federal inmates in 2004 and 60% of the respondents who used a firearm in the commission of their crime said that thy obtained that gun from a legal source, but that's all the data there is.

claiming the individual rights version of the Second amendment is "radical" demonstrates you really have no understanding of the constitution, the bill of rights and the foundation upon which the authors based our government

The difference seems to be that I know what the founders said and did. Their actions reflect that their number one priority was public safety over individual liberty when it came to gun ownership. You are absolutely insane and ignorant of history if you think the founders would allow the free-for-all gun ownership we see today with no obligation to serve in the capacity of a militia and 95% of incidents involving guns being murder and maiming of citizens.

 

[TurtleDude]

Zero. Suicides aren't included in this set.



Out of 25,000 incidents so far this year: 387 involved police shooting a suspect or perpetrator and 771 were cases of self-defense. So, round numbers, only 5% of incidents are justifiable.



Not sure how you could reach that conclusion considering the fact that such data isn't collected. There was a DOJ survey of federal inmates in 2004 and 60% of the respondents who used a firearm in the commission of their crime said that thy obtained that gun from a legal source, but that's all the data there is.



The difference seems to be that I know what the founders said and did. Their actions reflect that their number one priority was public safety over individual liberty when it came to gun ownership. You are absolutely insane and ignorant of history if you think the founders would allow the free-for-all gun ownership we see today with no obligation to serve in the capacity of a militia and 95% of incidents involving guns being murder and maiming of citizens.

Nice dodge-if you obtain a gun through a "straw purchase" that is illegal but the straw purchaser obtained it "legally"

I think if the founders were alive today they would have hung FDR and his court for treason. and they would tell you its idiotic to say that a pre-existing natural right is dependent on membership in a government entity

 

[Napoleon]

Nice dodge-if you obtain a gun through a "straw purchase" that is illegal but the straw purchaser obtained it "legally"

Not a dodge and there is no data on straw purchases. All we know is that 60% of federal inmates who used a gun in their crime reported they acquired their gun from a legal source. Where people get their guns isn't even relevant. What is relevant is how they are used and 95% of the time they're used for illegal purposes.

I think if the founders were alive today they would have hung FDR and his court for treason. and they would tell you its idiotic to say that a pre-existing natural right is dependent on membership in a government entity

I think Washington would disagree with you and a gun is not a natural object so there is no such thing as a "natural right" to own one. There's no such thing as a natural right in the first place. Rights are social constructs.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not a dodge and there is no data on straw purchases. All we know is that 60% of federal inmates who used a gun in their crime reported they acquired their gun from a legal source. Where people get their guns isn't even relevant. What is relevant is how they are used and 95% of the time they're used for illegal purposes.



I think Washington would disagree with you and a gun is not a natural object so there is no such thing as a "natural right" to own one. There's no such thing as a natural right in the first place. Rights are social constructs.

a "legal source" means a family member or a friend who was able to buy the gun or possess it legally

the founders would be on my side. the founders sure thought there were natural rights-claiming otherwise is either the sign of profound ignorance or profound dishonesty.

 

[Napoleon]

a "legal source" means a family member or a friend who was able to buy the gun or possess it legally

It means retail stores, gun shows, gifts etc. 60% were legal acquisitions.

the founders would be on my side. the founders sure thought there were natural rights-claiming otherwise is either the sign of profound ignorance or profound dishonesty.

Their actions say otherwise.

 

[TurtleDude]

It means retail stores, gun shows, gifts etc. 60% were legal acquisitions.



Their actions say otherwise.

1) you aren't understanding what you have read. If your wife buys a gun and gives it to you, she obtained it Legally but since she knows you are a mope the transfer was illegal-in other words there are laws in place to punish you getting the gun that apply to your supplier

2) read Cruikshank and get back to me-the founders certainly believed in natural rights-its the entire foundation upon which the Constitution is based upon

 

[Napoleon]

1) you aren't understanding what you have read. If your wife buys a gun and gives it to you, she obtained it Legally but since she knows you are a mope the transfer was illegal-in other words there are laws in place to punish you getting the gun that apply to your supplier

You are reading things into the data that just aren't there. Fencing aka straw purchasing is included in the 40% that were illegal acquisitions not the 60% that were legal. It accounted for 7.4% out of that 40%.

2) read Cruikshank and get back to me-the founders certainly believed in natural rights-its the entire foundation upon which the Constitution is based upon

You're shifting the discussion again. First of all, there are no natural-rights. They don't exist in nature. They exist because the founders decided they should - with limits.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are reading things into the data that just aren't there. Fencing aka straw purchasing is included in the 40% that were illegal acquisitions not the 60% that were legal. It accounted for 7.4% out of that 40%.



You're shifting the discussion again. First of all, there are no natural-rights. They don't exist in nature. They exist because the founders decided they should - with limits.

your argument that there are no natural rights is a stupid diversion. what matters is that those who wrote the bill of rights believed there were and it was those rights they believed existed that serves as the scope and the reach of the rights guaranteed in the BOR.

as to how criminals acquire firearms-UBGCs won't do a damn thing to change them from getting firearms

why is it that almost every gun restrictionist is a left winger?

 

[JANFU]

Hit a nerve?

On the sarcasm front.

 

[Lovebug]

The numbers don't have to stick anywhere. They stand alone and the distinction in the legality of acquisition of the guns used is irrelevant in a country where just about anyone can legally obtain a gun for illegal purposes.

I beg to differ. The average legal gun owner isn't going around killing people at random. It is those who have no regard for the law, gun laws or any other.
Killing is already against the law, and some just don't care. Do you think those who don't care would suddenly start paying attention to yet another gun restricting law? No, and no matter how many laws you come up with, it won't change unless you dig deeper into why people don't give a damn about the already existing laws.
So yeah, show me how many law abiding legal gun owners have committed murder. Show me.

 

[Napoleon]

I beg to differ. The average legal gun owner isn't going around killing people at random. It is those who have no regard for the law, gun laws or any other.
Killing is already against the law, and some just don't care. Do you think those who don't care would suddenly start paying attention to yet another gun restricting law? No, and no matter how many laws you come up with, it won't change unless you dig deeper into why people don't give a damn about the already existing laws.
So yeah, show me how many law abiding legal gun owners have committed murder. Show me.

Everyone is law abiding until they aren't so, again the numbers stand on their own. What I think is that not being able to account for every possible scenario isn't a valid reason for not addressing scenarios that can be accounted for.

 

[Lovebug]

Everyone is law abiding until they aren't so, again the numbers stand on their own. What I think is that not being able to account for every possible scenario isn't a valid reason for not addressing scenarios that can be accounted for.

So basically you can't come up with a number to substantiate your accusations.

 

[Napoleon]

So basically you can't come up with a number to substantiate your accusations.

I already provided the numbers.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It only took three posts.

for someone to emphasize the obvious.