Loughner declined from the army, but passed a background check to buy a gun?

[Hoggen]

Trying to compare Canada or Europe to the US is like trying to compare an insane asylum to a pre-school. Culture and genetics go much further in determining how many people are going to go nuts or be violent than the prevalence of firearms.

Hassel... rather than go back and forth trying to see who can piss the farthest, I'll say my peace and end my participation in your ever-so highbrowed and impossibly perfect thread.

In the US, I have the right to own a gun.
I would like to see the liberal laws that make it nearly impossible to track juvenile offenders erased. This nut would never have seen a permit if his actions had been available for review.
In spite of the belief of people that spend most of their lives in front of a computer screen, many people have proficiency with firearms, and are still perfectly good citizens that would never commit a crime or kill someone in anger.

That's about all there is to it. Fear me and my neighbors if you like. We all have guns. I hear people practicing with rifles at least once a week. Most of my friends hunt, and most of them can hit a target with a pistol at 75 yards with a 6 inch pattern from a full clip. I'm sure many would have trouble killing someone, but I'd trust them to be there for me over a cop anyday. I've seen cops take 10 minutes to show up in a large metropolitan area, or in the country.
This creep killed 6 and wounded another 14 in less than two minutes.

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Stibe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So one guy starts shooting, now you have say 4 more people shooting at him, all in a crowd. Police hear nothing but gunshots and see people with weapons. What do you think is going to happen?

they engage in a socially open and nuanced conversation about the pros and cons of what is currently taking place

[Stibe]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

they engage in a socially open and nuanced conversation about the pros and cons of what is currently taking place

lol.


I'm all for gun ownership. It shouldn't be as easy as it is tho.

[john_savage1982]

Originally Posted by DaBlitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guns as with any tool can be misused by People, but they dont use themselves ergo the problem is People. Our problem is the way we deal with the People who commit such acts. I still see Loughner being labeled as "alleged" shooter or "accused" shooter. He DID IT, plenty of people witnessed the crime. So why wasted years and years of time and money in the Justice System. Don't care about any of the "why" he did it. he just did it. Now why waste years and money on him (even giving him a chance to some day do it again, ever how remote that is). We need a hanging Judge court for the obviously guilty and just have them taken out back and show them they same courtesy they have shown others. Spend a decade with this type court and you can bet the US numbers will drop as low as those countries proud of the fact they restrict and indivdual's right to bear arms.

You sound like Uthgaard - shoot first, don't ask questions later. You also sound like somebody who thinks things are what they are and there is no way to interpret a set of events any differently -- If somebody does (see things differently), they must be wrong, right?

I disagree.

Consider the Blackstone formulation, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Fortunately for the US, the idea of innocent until proven guilty follows along the Blackstone formulation. The truth is decided in a trial - not by some some person immediately saying "I saw him do it, it must be true.", then punishment immediately being administered.

You seem to think that any indication of guilt is guilt and people shouldn't waste their time when it's "that obvious". In this case I think there is little doubt that he is guilty but without putting all the facts together in a formal trial then we'd simply be punishing a man without presenting all the evidence indicating guilt.

Now we play the what-if game. What if the circumstances were slightly different. What if somebody was attacking them in a grocery store and they, in self-defense, felt they had to use their gun to defend themselves. Suppose he missed a few times and killed other people along with his assaulter. Now, in most states this is still a criminal act, but the penalty is less harsh if during trial the defendant can prove he was acting out of self defense. From a witness point of view, one might have only seen the man open-fire, and not realized it was for another reason. Is the truth completely obvious?

Reasonable doubt is the standard of proof for a reason. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt insures, as much as humanly possible, that an innocent person is not punished.

[Slathar]

im from the murder capital where they murder for capital

[Timzilla]

Then I hear Nancy Palosi or some other equally diseased liberal spew some retarded shit about gun control, and I'm relieved to realize that the vast majority of Americas kooks aren't running around with loaded glocks.

[bizzum]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

im from the murder capital where they murder for capital

detroit? or as we people who live nearby and pretend we live there call it, d-town.

[purist]

Timzilla sounds fat as hell

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Timzilla [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then I hear Nancy Palosi or some other equally diseased liberal spew some retarded shit about gun control, and I'm relieved to realize that the vast majority of Americas kooks aren't running around with loaded glocks.

go stuff your face fatty mcfatfatgoo

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Timzilla sounds fat as hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Fatty says whaaaa...?