Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
I'm sorry. I love the phrase anti-gun bigots. Bigots against firearms? The same guy who without any trace of irony calls the due process of George Zimmerman a public lynching believes that firearms are the victims of bigotry.
Tell us more Vela. Are people who want to ban smoking in public places anti-nicotine bigots? Are diabetics glucosophobes? Sorry to resort to mockery, but you Right-wingnuts are really good at developing phrases that are laughable on their face, self-discrediting, and a good filter for anyone with any semblance of intelligence.
And you guys should probably re-consider accusing James Brady (or his organization) of dancing on graves when he's a paraplegic. It sounds almost as bad as referring to the fair trial of a man who shot an African-American teen as a lynching.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
And you guys should probably re-consider accusing James Brady (or his organization) of dancing on graves when he's a paraplegic. It sounds almost as bad as referring to the fair trial of a man who shot an African-American teen as a lynching.
Oh, good call. I was distracted by the "o'" and didn't pay attention to the "Brady" part. notdrunk was indeed quoting from a statement issued Monday by Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/?q=brad...g-at-navy-yard
But again, nothing factually incorrect in Gross's plea for common-sense gun regulations that are favored by a majority of the American people.
On the other hand, the assertion that U.S.military bases are "gun-free zones" because of Bill Clinton and the Democrats is a lie intended only to misinform and distract.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thombergeron
You’ll forgive my impatience with your inexactitude, but my work is in health science, where being 99.9% right means somebody died.
But moreover…
This is not 0.1% untrue. Stating that “only” police have blanket authority to carry on base renders your statement entirely untrue. As I pointed out by referring directly to the policy document, numerous categories of DoD personnel are authorized to carry on base and ANY personnel can make a personal-protection appeal.
But really, the issue is not that you, personally, are incorrect. It’s that you are participating in a large-scale organized effort to misinform the public. You and your mouthbreather buddy bobvela didn’t come up with the “Clinton-era policy makes military bases gun-free zones” argument on your own. You got your cut-and-paste orders from various right-wing dittohead sources like this
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...itary-gun-free
and this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3067936/posts
and this
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...-not-want-hav/
and this
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/16...ed-them-to-be/
and this
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/...se-order-83587
and this
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cl.../#.UjnmxWSiccg
The gun lobby is trying desperately to get out in front of this since it directly disproves Wayne LaPierre’s ridiculous assertion that “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” In both the Navy Yard on Monday and in Ft. Hood in 2009, the unavoidable truth is that the good guy with a gun got shot. Indeed, the only way to avoid that truth is by lying or deluding yourself into thinking that there are no armed personnel on U.S. military bases. Because Clinton.
I’m afraid I have no idea who “Good 'o Brady” is, and you haven’t linked to a source. I do note, however, that the two paragraphs you’ve quoted contain no misstatements of fact, in stark contrast to gun nuts’ current line of argument, which is based, in its entirety, on falsehoods.
Again, my post mentions anytime. And, I mentioned an exemption. Furthermore, I never said they were no armed military personnel on military bases in my posts. DoD policy on carrying firearms is to limit and control the carrying of firearms by military personnel.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
And, no I sourced the "Clinton-era" from a site that was unpolitical.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6770093_mil...earm-laws.html
I got it from another site too but I can't find the link anymore.
Anyway, they (i.e., Brady Campaign) are using the deaths to push their agenda like the NRA. You just happen to more likely to agree with their ideas for laws.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
If you had the directive, it says on it the date of issuance, 1992. This should have clued you in to the fact that Clinton wasn't President since he was inaugurated in 1993.
It is really silly to be parsing this language. Right wing nutjobs frequently make the argument that if more people were carrying weapons, such atrocities would either be deterred or headed off in the earliest stages by heroes like you and Bobvela.
Certainly there was a high enough density of gun possession that this could have been a decent test case for this hare-brained proposition.
If a guy walks into a school, will every member of the faculty have a gun? Will the students have guns? I'm not sure how many people need to be strapping before you guys are convinced that the solution to gun violence is not more people who cannot read department of defense directives carrying guns.
Why was it even necessary to mention the President who issued the directive? Oh yes, to scapegoat him. Surely you mentioned Clinton for a reason. Now you know it was issued by his predecessor. Whatever conclusion you were driving at when you gratuitously mentioned Clinton you can still make with respect to Bush, can't you? Have at it hoss.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
And, no I sourced the "Clinton-era" from a site that was unpolitical.
I got it from another site too but I can't find the link anymore
Are you sure it wasn't the Huffington Post?
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
Anyway, they (i.e., Brady Campaign) are using the deaths to push their agenda like the NRA. You just happen to more likely to agree with their ideas for laws.
I think the specific point that I made was that there is a difference between stating one's policy preference and lying. Kind of speaks volumes that you are still unable to comprehend the distinction.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
It is really silly to be parsing this language. Right wing nutjobs frequently make the argument that if more people were carrying weapons, such atrocities would either be deterred or headed off in the earliest stages by heroes like you and Bobvela.
Certainly there was a high enough density of gun possession that this could have been a decent test case for this hare-brained proposition.
If a guy walks into a school, will every member of the faculty have a gun? Will the students have guns? I'm not sure how many people need to be strapping before you guys are convinced that the solution to gun violence is not more people who cannot read department of defense directives carrying guns.
Thank you for making this point. You're absolutely right. The gun nuts are desperately trying to muddy the waters because they don't want a test case of the proposition that more guns equals less gun violence. And they don’t want a test case because this has already been tested and shown to be absurd.
At Ft. Hood in 2009, armed base police officers responded within 2-3 minutes. The first officer to encounter Nidal Hassan was Kimberly Munley. Hassan shot her three times, kicked her service weapon away, and continued his assault.
On August 24, 2012, Jeffrey Johnson shot and killed a former co-worker on 33rd Avenue in New York City. Two NYPD officers responded. When Johnson raised his weapon, the officers fired a total of 16 rounds, killing Johnson and injuring 9 bystanders. Johnson himself did not fire his weapon during the confrontation police. All of the casualties resulted from police fire.
On Monday, at the Washington Navy Yard, armed police officers were on scene within two minutes, and confronted Aaron Alexis fewer than seven minutes after the first shots were fired. Alexis continued to hold officers at bay for at least another 30 minutes.
Putting down an armed opponent is no small feat. Firefights are chaotic and messy. Bullets fly everywhere. The only people who think that bad guys with guns are easily stopped by good guys with guns are people who have never been shot at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bobvela
Besides, unlike on such a domestic base, beyond normal law enforcement, in the civilian population there at least exists the prospect of an armed civilian who may be at the right place & the right time to act... which oddly happens far more than you'd think.
Actually, this virtually never happens. I’m willing to bet that you can’t come up with a single unambiguous case of an armed civilian stopping an armed assailant.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thombergeron
I think the specific point that I made was that there is a difference between stating one's policy preference and lying. Kind of speaks volumes that you are still unable to comprehend the distinction.
Lying? Nope. The security at the Navy Yard was lacking. It has come out that only one security guard was able to respond to the shooting. The other six were stuck manning the gates. The fact is a "good guy" aka a police officer did ultimately stop him.
The LaPierre quote is from a speech calling for putting school resource officers (i.e., police officers) in all of the schools in this country to deter future mass shooters. Not just one police officer but multiple officers in a school. Or, at least train and certify individuals to become armed security guards in schools. Or, train and certify select teachers and staff to be armed.
Lofty goal but he wasn't pushing an idea that everybody should just be given a gun. Additionally, if a shooter is focused on an armed individual, it gives a chance for others to escape the madness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thombergeron
Actually, this virtually never happens. I’m willing to bet that you can’t come up with a single unambiguous case of an armed civilian stopping an armed assailant.
http://fox6now.com/2013/04/11/dierre...-aldi-robbery/
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ed-3821108.php
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/7...162941656.html
http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-2...cience-teacher
Yes, there have been instances in which armed civilians stopped armed criminals and a mass shooter.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
It has come out that only one security guard was able to respond to the shooting.
Lovely turn of phrase, "It has come out that..."
That one guard must have had three firearms. The two confiscated by the intruder from security and the one he kept to shoot the intruder with, after thirty minutes of exchanging gunfire.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
Lying? Nope. The security at the Navy Yard was lacking. It has come out that only one security guard was able to respond to the shooting. The other six were stuck manning the gates. The fact is a "good guy" aka a police officer did ultimately stop him.
The first person Aaron Alexis shot was armed with a handgun. DC and park police officers were on scene within 2 minutes. SWAT entered Building 197 within 7 minutes. Aaron Alexis was not "stopped" for another 30 minutes. Is it your contention that the American public needs to be prepared to endure 30-minute firefights in populated areas in order to be "safe"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
The LaPierre quote is from a speech calling for putting school resource officers (i.e., police officers) in all of the schools in this country to deter future mass shooters. Not just one police officer but multiple officers in a school. Or, at least train and certify individuals to become armed security guards in schools. Or, train and certify select teachers and staff to be armed.
Lofty goal but he wasn't pushing an idea that everybody should just be given a gun. Additionally, if a shooter is focused on an armed individual, it gives a chance for others to escape the madness.
That's fine. But you, bobvela, and hordes of other mouthbreathers didn't even wait for the gunfire to die down before blaming Bill Clinton for turning military bases into "gun-free zones." Which is just a blatant lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
Is Andrew Wurst supposed to be the "mass shooter"? Andrew Wurst shot all four people he set out to shoot, ran out of ammunition, and left the scene. In what sense was he "stopped"?
The assailant in San Antonio was armed with a knife, and went ahead and stabbed the person he intended to stab. He was arrested, but again, not stopped.
The other two were robberies, so again, I'm not clear how they're relevant to the issue at hand. In the United States in 2013, if someone wants to obtain a firearm and shoot 1, 2, or 20 people, there's really nothing to stop them from doing that.
