Summations Only

Not to mention that gun DEATHS are irrelevant anyway unless we know whether the person was the victim of a crime or the criminal being defended against. Also how many wrongful deaths by gun there are in relation to homicides by other means, also how many ATTEMPTED crimes were prevented by the potential victim's possession of a gun, which was the statistic I brought up earlier from Correia's blog post, whom Dr. A dismissed as a "halfwit" out of his abysmal immoral ignorance.

This is the sort of post you do a lot that by all rights should get you suspended but for some weird reason just about never does. Just the usual posturing blathering saying absolutely nothing. You're the halfwit masquerading as intelligent. What a laugh.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Answering you seems like a lost cause but I guess I can try. I know very well how you guys think, it's all over your posts, you don't need to carry on about it. You have no feeling for the situation and ought to stay out of it.RAZD asked for regulations, I suggested the only one that makes sense to me GIVEN THE INCITING EVENT THAT BROUGHT ALL THIS UP, the attack on the school children. DISARMING THE NATION IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM, THE VERY IDEA IS ABSURDITY IN THE EXTREME AND IT CAN ONLY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS, but it's the one all you guys start screaming about when these awful murders happen. Take guns away from the good people while the crazies who commit the murders continue to have access to them. You think my solution sounds bizarre?What a nonsense idea you have about what it would be like having some security guards or armed teachers around. The friendly cop on the block is more my image, and nobody would have the slightest idea about teachers who have concealed carry guns, why should they? Your imagination is working overtime to no good purpose.Yes I know YOUR bogeyman is the people who are in favor of guns, but that picture has been painted for you by the leftwing nuts WE don't trust.There is no feeling at all of a gun culture in this country, by the way, UNTIL THESE MURDERS OCCUR, and it's only when all YOU nuts come out with your idiotic NONSOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM THAT WOULD IN FACT MAKE IT WORSE, that you hear from the ones whose rights are being threatened by your idiotic nonsolution.Forgive us if the fact that when such idiotic nonsolutions are so immediately proposed to a situation they could not possibly affect for the better, if we suspect the whole reason for the uproar is to deprive us of our rights. There is nothing rational in relation to the problem at hand, protecting children or anybody from these homicidal maniacs, in the gun control fanaticism that is the knee-jerk response to them, THEREFORE it looks like somebody just wants the good guys disarmed.So far you haven't felt the effects of the disarming of you Brits although some have felt them and the rest of you scoff at them. Home invasions and increased crime is no small result from my point of view.But when I talk about circumstances changing, it IS when you take away people's guns that they BECOME vulnerable to criminal activity and all kinds of horrors that otherwise just don't occur, and don't occur in America either except in certain violence-ridden areas. The gun people of this country are quiet law-abiding people, you only hear from them when you threaten to take away their second amendment right.BUT we know from history that there was a good reason to have our second amendment and some of us are smart enough to know that those reasons are still just as real as they ever were. Let us quietly keep our guns and you'll never hear from us. Take them away and that's when the circumstances can change and the reason to have them becomes apparent.I think you Brits and Australians who've lost your guns are sitting ducks for the next Hitler you are so sure isn't going to happen to you. You might want to leave US our guns at least. Tangle scoffed at the fact that Americans sent guns to Brits when there was the threat of a Nazi invasion, but the Brits of that time appreciated it even if you people have lost all sense of history and of the fact that there is real evil in this world that calls for self defense measures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, you were, and you weren't expecting it, were you? That's the perennial problem, nobody expects a Hitler to show up in this world so nobody does anything to be prepared and yet somehow it happens, out of the blue. Some of us see the world shaping up for the next one. Too bad it's only some of us.And sure, you can't defend against tanks and bombs but you might be able to defend your family when they come on foot and that does happen. Germany DID disarm the nations they invaded so they could just round people up and kill them. The Turks disarmed the Armenians etc. etc. etc. It's something to think about, and it seems crazy crazy crazy NOT to think about it. I call that scoffing. And it's SO sadly wrong. For one thing it had nothing to do with PR since hardly anybody knew about it. For another I'm sure you'd love to have a gun handy when certain things start happening. You didn't get invaded then, which is what the guns were for. I'd be laughing myself to death if I weren't crying so hard. Criminals don't obey laws on a global scale just as they don't on a local petty scale. Wasn't Chamberlain beside himself with joy because he thought he had an agreement with Hitler? Who then, golly gee, broke it? There is a horrific evil brewing behind the scenes of the EU that you are blinded to for some reason, although the loss of national sovereignties bit by bit OUGHT to be a clue. Nobody is trying to stop a modern army, that's just one of the straw man arguments on your side that befogs the issues. The point is to be able to defend yourself in close quarters and perhaps gain time to escape and hide or whatever is necessary when the time comes. Being totally unarmed means you're an easy target, easy to herd off to concentration camp, easy to line up alongside a ditch and shoot in the head, easy to get however they want to get you. Why make it easy for them?I guess you all think we've finally achieved the perfect world in which everybody is just a nice guy?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think the answer to how Gandhi defeated England is that England was basically civilized. A Hitler would not have honored Gandhi's methods. This is where you guys are SO naive.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, that one, and your making a moral equivalence between the British Empire and the Third Reich is nauseating.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Bunch of straw man blather and nonsense as usual RAZD. Did you happen to get educated by Jesuits somewhere along the way? Just curious. Ugh. Where on earth did I deny that the British Empire had their ruthless oppression side? THIS IS A FALLEN WORLD. CHRISTIANS EXPECT TO SEE SUCH THINGS IN THE BEST OF NATIONS AND IN ALL WORLD EVENTS. Nevertheless the British Empire is NOT to be compared with the Third Reich and only a morally deranged mind could suggest such a thing. Excuse me if I suggest that you are morally deranged but I'm not singling you out. Most of the world is morally deranged these days under Leftist persuasion. Moral equivalence between The British Empire and the Third Reich is a sure diagnostic sign of the disease. Oh yes it does. Gandhi wouldn't have survived half a second if the totalitarian mobsters of World War II and other atrocities in this world were running things in India, totalitarian homicidal maniacs that are just waiting for their chance to rise up again. Absolute moral idiocy. As I said I don't expect perfection in anything on this earth. Apparently you do. Apparently you think you can sit back and judge, can denounce SOME oppression as equal to Hitler's massive homicidal program. That is moral insanity.If you have something to say about Mubarek, say it, stop making insinuations, to what I have no idea. Mubarek was a Muslim tyrant overthrown by far worse Muslim tyrants, and that's about as far as I want to go with the subject myself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The only reason one refers to Hitler is that he was the biggest and baddest in most of our memories and he just about succeeded in taking over Europe. But I could have mentioned Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot or Mussolini or those guys in Croatia whose names I can never remember and so on. But even those guys didn't have Hitler's ambition to rule the world, or maybe they simply never got that far. The British Empire didn't expand through the desire to subjugate others or rule the world either, but through trade interests, but ruling the world WAS the aim of Hitler.And again you are imputing to me that stupid idea that I think any country is "free of evil." How many times do I have to tell you I don't believe that? 1) Unlike you and other irrational polyannas I don't EXPECT peace in this world and those who think it's possible are usually setting things up for violence in spite of themselves.2) Meeting violence with violence is sometimes the only thing you CAN do and it does work in some situations. The very threat of responding with firepower CAN be a deterrent to violence. If peaceable means are possible, by all means go with them first, but they are not always possible, though you seem to think they are.3) I don't think in terms of having a gun held to my head. If I'm dead I'm dead. My concerns are believe it or not what I think would best prevent the very evils in the world you think you want to prevent. Not my own death but what's good for the world. That's what you think you care about, too, isn't it?I believe your solutions are not only unrealistic but in most cases would worsen the problem. Doing anything that deprives ordinary people of guns in America, or seriously restricts them, is going to make things worse. Gandhi's methods could only work with a nation already committed to civilized standards and would result only in one dead Gandhi and much loss of Indian lives if he tried it under the rule of any of those I name above.

This is one of the worst straw man posts you've done. What's impossible to do? Substantiate my opinion? If the Jews had all sat down in peaceful protest of the actions of the Nazis, would that have saved them from annihilation? If the Poles had greeted the conquering Nazis with peaceful protest would that have saved their country? If the Armenians all sat down in a hunger fast as they were being driven out across the desert would the Turks have relented? Would Stalin have fed the Ukrainians he instead starved to death if they protested Gandhi style? The thought makes for some pretty dark humor. It may be that none of these people ever had a chance no matter what they did, but peaceful protest is the last thing that could have helped. Huh? Gandhi wasn't just a single nameless individual, he was the symbolic leader of the Indians against the British Empire. I'm comparing him to the leader of any oppressed group under any of those homicidal totalitarian dictators, not to any nameless individual. Now you seem to have lost your marbles altogether. Huh? What kind of screaming craziness is this? What I said above repeated. You are also again indulging in stupid strawmannism by saying I'm a "big fan of using weapons to overthrow oppressive regimes." I'm a big fan of the Second Amendment's right to be armed against any kind of threat or tyranny, I've never said one thing about "overthrowing" anything. I refuse to play your games. If you have something to say about Mubarek then say it. Muslim, however, is a factor, because I'm concerned about Israel's position among even more fanatical Muslims since the "Arab Spring" than before.

Wow, it's still a shock to find out how crazy and nasty some people can be when you try to be helpful. It shouldn't be by now but it still is.

I don't know, Panda, as I actually SAID it might be that nothing could have helped the victims in any of the situations I mentioned. I DID say that. You know, in so many words. HOWEVER, maybe armed resistance would have saved Poland, maybe it would even have deterred Hitler altogether. Again, I don't know. And neither do you.

May I suggest that things may not stay so rosy with the EU, AND that if it weren't for America still being armed you wouldn't be so safe in your current disarmed state either. Just a thought. Sneer all you like but you might keep it in mind nevertheless.

Straggler, you haven't had to face the killing of children in a school like your son's. Now maybe you'd be silly enough to think disarming even more good people would make your son safer. But I'm talking in the context of attacks on school children, not the context of expected continued safety that you have in mind, and that's why I'm suggesting protecting schools with armed personnel of one sort or another. Ask the headmaster what he thinks after twenty children in the school half a mile away have been murdered.

I'd heard otherwise Panda, that the Poles weren't armed. But fine, if you're right, then the ansswer is that nothing wojuld have helped them. That does happen. But I'd still rather be armed than not when the nation is invaded myself.