Detroit CCW toter convicted in nephew's shooting

[Starboard Tack]

A Detroit businessman who fatally shot his nephew over a debt dispute was convicted of first-degree murder Thursday, with some jurors crying minutes after the verdict was read.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011108190340

One of those rare toters who use a gun to solve money/property/business problems.

[DanTex]

1. Sounds like a "Kleck DGU"

Q: Hello, sir, have you used a gun defensively in the last 12 months?
A: Hell yes!
Q: What were you being threatened with?
A: Defaulting on loans.
Q: OK I'll put that down as "robbery".
A: Sounds good. I should mention that I was convicted for first-degree murder in a court of law...
Q: The law is not of concern to this study. For our purposes, if you say it's defensive, then it's defensive.
A: Wow, they let you get away with that!
Q: Depends what you mean by "they"...

[iverglas]

9. snork

Uh oh, wait for the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, that you are dancing on a grave.

I'd say: the grave of the murderer, but then I am opposed to capital punishment since I am opposed to any killing of anybody by anybody, other than where it is an unintended outcome in a case of true (individual or collective) self-defence, so I wouldn't be doing that either.

Oh, all right, I'd probably have taken out Hitler if I'd had a clear shot. But I'd have expected to be charged and tried and convicted for it. Another reason I'm against minimum sentences ...

[Hoyt]

2. Come on-- we all know CCW's are saints and never shoot or draw on anyone but armed assailants as a

last resort.

[X_Digger]

3. Feel free to quote someone saying that, Hoyt..

It really would help you make your case.

[Hoyt]

5. If I showed you story of CCWer shooting an incapacitated robber in head several times, you'd deny it...

[X_Digger]

7. Can you provide one such instance?

Or is this another example of you 'using different words' -- aka, making shit up?

[Hoyt]

8. Are you asking for example of CCWer shooting incapacitated robber in head several more times?

[X_Digger]

10. Read your own post..

Find one person saying..

CCW's are saints and never shoot or draw on anyone but armed assailants as a last resort.

[iverglas]

11. okay, well that was pretty disturbing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ&feature=relmfu

He also quite obviously intended to shoot the kid who had fled the store, when he followed him with the gun ... before going back into the store, reloading (as I understand it), and calmly shooting the kid on the floor in the head a few more times. I mean, that is fucking disturbing.

So can you give directions to what's been said here about it?

It seems he's been convicted and sentenced to life - ?

[X_Digger]

13. Yup, search this forum for 'pharmacist' in the last 3 months..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=435533

[iverglas]

12. alright ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x225359

Gratifying to see a couple of the tombstones in that thread. Makes me wonder what they managed to do that hasn't been done in the last couple of weeks I've been observing by people still walking among us, including one in particular on a quick perusal of that thread, whose comments were every bit as filthy ... but no more filthy than what I've seen in the last couple of weeks, of course.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. No, we're asking you to back up your own post #2. How unreasonable, eh?

We know you won't...

[iverglas]

47. interesting

our chummy sceptic posts a disruptive bigoted attack on moi, which is properly deleted, and the post of mine it wholly irrelevantly "replied" to goes with it.

The post in question was a reference to a further thread at DU discussing the pharmacist case, with numerous very icky commentaries on the case, and numerous tombstones among the posters of such comments ... none of which differed qualitatively from many things I've read here in the past couple of weeks, when it comes to rejoicing in the deaths of strangers.

That's just simple fact.

[oneshooter]

20. You can't even show us the picture of a "cowboy" with 2 guns sticking out! n/t

[Kennah]

4. And it is indeed rare for CCW licensees. If only the rest of the country were as law abiding.

[Hoyt]

6. Actually rest of country that could get a CCW are just as law abiding, and certainly more rational.

Fortunately, 90%+ of law abiding citizens don't see the need to carry a gun or two in public.

[Starboard Tack]

15. How rare do you like it? Medium rare?

Do you honestly believe that you are part of some holy elite? How obnoxiously condescending can you get?

[iverglas]

17. kind of puts one in mind

of that Order in that Dune book ... horrible boring crap that was ...

Bene Gesserit, that was it. Silly pretentious Latin, got up my nose way back then.


You caught this, right?



:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

16. CCW permit holders have killed 370 people in the past 4 years in the US

That number is approx. double the total gun deaths in the UK for the same time period.
Pretty amazing for such a violent country. Couldn't, by chance, have anything to do with vastly different gun legislation.
Fact: People don't shoot each other if they have no guns.

[iverglas]

18. *and that is just homicides*

I hate it when people act as if homicide is the only harm done with guns. (Not picking on you, just pointing it out.)

Homicides will out, generally, there being bodies. Undetected homicides are rare.

Other crimes go undetected (or the people committing them go unidentified) much more often.

How many instances of intimidation, just for starters? Who the hell knows?

[Starboard Tack]

24. You're absolutely right

Non fatal firearm injuries are at least double the fatalities and cost the US billions of dollars annually (some estimates exceed 100 billion)
That's just the economic impact. The social and psychological impact is immeasurable.

The instances of intimidation are a whole other thing. From what I read here, and from other research, it is highly likely that legal toters are the predominant intimidators. They seem so proud of themselves, when, by just pointing their pistols at people, it makes them run away. Very rarely do they mention that the person they are intimidating was armed with anything more than a knife or big muscles. One would have thought a sword, or hefty walking stick would take care of those kinds of ruffians.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Absolutely, one mustn't forget the moral harm caused by legal firearm carriers.

Also, what "other research" might that be, and where might we find it?

[Starboard Tack]

58. Try this link

FIREARM INJURY IN THE U.S.
www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

[rrneck]

21. Absolutely

If they can't get guns they all become librarians.

[Logical]

23. And you realize that rate (per ccw holder) is less than the general population??? Research it more!

[Starboard Tack]

25. You should all get medals then.

[friendly_iconoclast]

I agree. Their murder rate is less than that of UK citizens.

Now that's an inconvenient truth for you, innit?

[Starboard Tack]

36. No idea what you mean. Who's murder rate?

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. US CCW holders. The people you were wringing your hands over in your post #16

You had to word that one very carefully, didn't you? At least one of the murders attributed to CCW holders at that clusterfuck
of a site was a strangulation- and still US CCW holders have a lower murder rate than UK citizens as a whole...

[iverglas]

41. "UK citizens as a whole"

With the general population of the UK of course including convicted criminals, the mentally ill, substance abusers, gang members, organized criminals, people too young to qualify to carry a concealed weapon but not too young to commit a homicide ...

C'mon, don't most murderers already have records as long as your arm, according to the "pro-gun" line?

So if a holder of a permit to carry a concealed weapon is certified conviction-free, by definition, exactly what is your basis for this "comparison"?

Let's have us a breakdown of UK murders, so we can exclude all the offenders who would not have qualified for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the US.

I'm sure you have the figures up your, um, sleeve somewhere.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Don't need them- even by your own standards, CCW holders are no especial danger.

[Starboard Tack]

Jeez, you have to learn how to respond to the post.

How am I supposed to know which you are referring to.
Anyway, there was no hand wringing, just a comment.
So, to clarify, how many CC toters are there? 2-3 million right?

That translates into about 80 kills a year from a handful of good law abiding folk.
The UK has about 60 million people and manages less than 50 kills a year.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. At least 5.76 million, actually. And you're still attempting to play tricks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x450672

Did you think we wouldn't notice that you list all killings by any method committed by CCW holders in the US- but
only killings via firearm in the UK?

Nice try, but no prize....

[Starboard Tack]

55. OK so what you're saying is it's about even

40-50 kills per year
Only the population is different. 6 million in the US and 60 million in the UK

Result being: You are 10x more likely to be shot by a CCW permit holder than anyone in the UK.
Boy, I hope the toters don't start rioting when they lose their permits.

You don't really think you're gonna win this argument do you?
But more important than winning is learning something from it. You just taught me something, 2 things actually. 1. I should check more carefully who I'm responding to. 2. There are twice as many fools toting guns around as I thought.

[Logical]

37. Einstein, you are the one claiming that CCW holders are dangerous. Proof please!!

[iverglas]

42. "Einstein, you are the one claiming that CCW holders are dangerous."

Quote please!!!!

[iverglas]

40. I love a Logical-come-lately

And you realize that rate (per ccw holder) is less than the general population??? Research it more!

And you realize that the general population from which your rates are drawn include

- persons too young to legally carry firearms in public (but not to be convicted of crimes)
- persons with criminal convictions
- persons who have been committed for psychiatric care or judged mentally incompetent
- persons never previously convicted but involved in drug trafficking, gang activity, other crimes, etc.
- persons who are substance abusers
- persons who have a mental illness

All of these are either

- selected out automatically
or
- likely, to varying degrees, to be selected out by self-selection (what meth head or coke addict, or person with a delusional mental illness who has never been committed for care, or gang member, is actually going to apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon?)

from the "CCW" population.

I would venture to guess thare are other differences, e.g. the average age of permit holders is higher than the average age of the general population in the same age group.

The "general population" is therefore NOT comparable to the population of permit holders in very relevant and significant ways.

This has all been discussed at great length in this forum many times. Perhaps you would like to "Research it more!"!

[Logical]

89. LOL....you made my point. CCW holders are even safer than people who cannot carry guns! Thanks!

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. US CCW permit holders have a lower murder rate than UK citizens.

And it makes not a whit of difference to a murder victim what method was used, so what's your point?

[Starboard Tack]

38. My point is that guns in the hands of the most responsible US citizens kill more

than guns in the hands of the most violent Brits.
4.2 per 100k people in the US are murdered by guns every year
1.28 per 100k people in the UK are murdered by ANY means.

So, your chances of being intentionally shot by another person here are about 3.5 times higher than being murdered by any method in the violent UK.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. You compared the two populations as a whole, *not* "the most responsible US citizens" (CCW holders)

I understand that you might not want to discuss the actual murder rate amongst US CCW holders (as it would totally fuck up your case), but kindly cease trying to pretend that the rate is the same as the population as a whole- it isn't, and you know that very well.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Let me clarify

I compared the gun homicide rate in the US with the total homicide rate in the UK

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. And yet earlier you were remarking on the specific danger of CCW holders, not guns as a whole

Trust me, I'm not a bit proud of the murder rate in the US, by whatever method used.

We've always had a higher murder rate than the UK, even when the gun laws were similar.

[Starboard Tack]

57. You are correct, but that was a different post.

Wasn't trying to confuse.

[iverglas]

43. I commend post 41 to you

and I will look forward to your reply in due course.

And it makes not a whit of difference to a murder victim what method was used, so what's your point?

I'd have to check who it was who kindly pointed out that one of the murders by a person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon (in the US) was by ... strangulation, was it?

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer, eh? Yet there they were, a certified good guy, wandering abroad with a gun ...

[GreenStormCloud]

77. Over 60 of those were suicides in which the CCW didn't shoot anyone but himself.

But you will accept anything to get that number up. And it has taken since may 2007 to get to that total. Annualized, removing the suicides, that is about 78 per year. Since there are about 10 million CCWer in the US then that is a very low annual rate. The annual rate would be .78 per 100,000 which is far below the U.S. murder rate which is 5.0 per 100,000.

You are much more likely to be struck by lightning that to be illegally shot and killed by a CCWer.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Does suicide mean they weren't really dead. You will do anything to minimize tragedy

I don't accept anything to get the numbers up. I didn't create the numbers. I didn't shoot 78 (your number) per year. These killings were done by licensed toters. You can claim those numbers are insignificant, but you can't hide from the reality of it. Go tell the victims families their losses don't really count, because you don't want to be told you can't tote anymore.
There are those of us who will speak out until this madness stops.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. Are you claiming that if they had been denied a CCW they would not have killed themselves?

And our rate is far below that of the general population.

[Starboard Tack]

87. I'm not the one making claims. I'm just stating facts and giving opinions.

Considering how easy it is to successfully commit suicide with a gun, I would assume that many lives would be saved using other methods. Not to mention the mess it causes. Yuk!

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. And you would be wrong in your assumption. Look at Japan.

More specifically, look at their suicide rate. It is higher than the US murder and suicide rates combined.
Less than 1% of these are committed with firearms.

So no, it's not the weapon that causes the suicide.

[Starboard Tack]

93. I'm sorry. Did you say Japan? WTF does Japan have to do with guns?

My point was, how many attempted suicides are unsuccessful with guns.
Nice try at deflection

[gejohnston]

97. you don't know much on the subject do you?

attempts are almost always cries for help. Using a lethal means, they don't call anyone. My brother had a friend in high school that could have picked one of many guns. He chose to drink battery acid instead.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Speaking of pitiful deflections.

"Considering how easy it is to successfully commit suicide with a gun, I would assume that many lives would be saved using other methods. Not to mention the mess it causes. Yuk!"

You just made Japan relevant. Japan is almost completely prohibitive of private firearms ownership. Possession outside certain shooting clubs is restricted. Ownership is severely restricted.

YET, they manage to have a much higher suicide rate than we do. Not only that, but they opt for methods of commiting suicide that are highly dangerous to bystanders. Such as, mixing household cleaners to produce deadly gas, killing themselves and possibly other people inside a building.

If you didn't plan to go down this road, I understand, but I suggest you erred in offering unfounded opinions about suicide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7365138.stm

[beevul]

120. Kinda depends how you view suicide.

If you hold the view that you or anyone else holds some substantial interest in someone elses life, or if you simply want to use the suicide in an argument against guns, I guess using it thiose ways, either or both, is acceptable.

If on the other hand, you hold the view that your life is your own, 100%, and eveyone elses lives are their own, 100%, well, it doesn't much matter what the method of suicide is, then does it?

I'm curious, which camp do you fall into?


Who owns YOUR life?

[iverglas]

122. no, kinda depends on whether you give a shit about other people

I'm curious, which camp do you fall into?

I fall into the camp that consists of humanity at large, and accordingly, with that camp, I believe that human societies have a duty of protection that includes providing the necessary assistance and care to their members who are in difficulty.

I fall into the camp that acknowledges that a majority of suicides are committed by people with problems that can be alleviated, and believes that the loss of their lives is a tragedy.

I fall into the camp that acknowledges that many people at risk of committing suicide are also at risk of committing homicide, and that it is not uncommon for a suicide to be part of a homicide-suicide plan or for a person to commit suicide after killing someone else.

I fall into the camp that doesn't pretend that all suicides are noble acts of self-determination and that suicide is never a matter for public concern.


Who owns YOUR life?

Nobody owns my life. I don't speak idiot loonytarian-babble. Lives are not property. Persons are persons. And as a member of a society, I owe them my share of the concern and care that their society owes them.

[Union Scribe]

124. Cite, please.

"many people at risk of committing suicide are also at risk of committing homicide"

For someone so concerned for the mentally ill, you're certainly willing to make drastic generalizations about them.

[iverglas]

126. ah, I missed something

Oh, nope. I see I answered it when you followed me to another thread with the question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=453491&mesg_id=453683

You don't seem to have replied ...


For someone so concerned for the mentally ill, you're certainly willing to make drastic generalizations about them.

For a decent person, merely typing those words would have been painful.

My statement:

many people at risk of committing suicide are also at risk of committing homicide

was not a generalization, let alone drastic. See the word "many" there? Any idea what it means? It doesn't mean "most" or "a majority" or even "a large proportion". Feel free to look it up.

[beevul]

125. Yeah it sure does.

"I fall into the camp that consists of humanity at large, and accordingly, with that camp, I believe that human societies have a duty of protection that includes providing the necessary assistance and care to their members who are in difficulty."

Sounds great, except when society defines as "members who are in difficulty" people that dont WANT that assistance. But society decides, either way, right?


"I fall into the camp that acknowledges that a majority of suicides are committed by people with problems that can be alleviated, and believes that the loss of their lives is a tragedy."

Society knows better than those individuals whats good for them. Nothing new there. Thanks for the confirmation though.

"I fall into the camp that doesn't pretend that all suicides are noble acts of self-determination and that suicide is never a matter for public concern."

Of course you don't. But then, you are also in the camp that is willing to walk over any suicides that ARE acts of self determination, in an effort to drag "public interest" somewhere it doesnt always belong, happily towing the "one size fits all" trailer right there behind it. In any case, Its right back to "society decides", right?

I know its an alien concept to you, but one size DOESN'T fit all.


"Nobody owns my life. I don't speak idiot loonytarian-babble. Lives are not property. Persons are persons. And as a member of a society, I owe them my share of the concern and care that their society owes them."

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Keep telling yourself that nobody owns your life, while the society youre a member of attempts to make rules regarding what you can and can not do to your own body. Attempts making rules what you can or can not do WITH your own body. Attempts making rules what you can or can not ingest/inhale into your own body. Oh, wait, "society decides" doesn't sound quite so good, now, does it. Oh but it sounds great if it means banning tobacco...to prevent people from exercising choice of what to ingest/inhale...but not so good if it means preventing abortion...but it sounds great if it means preventing the eating of red meat - remember, some in society have decided for you that thats bad...but it doesn't sound so good because some in society have decided that gender change isn't such a good thing, but it was decided by society so...

You talk a great game iverglas (usually anyway), but in the end, your lack of principle betrays you...and much of what you claim to believe in. It is interesting to see what your're willing to toss under the bus and why, however.

The war on womans right to choose, for example, will never be over, until it is universally accepted that the "ownership" and right to do as one pleases with and to ones own body where it does not directly or materially harm others, is absolute.

The same goes for the war on drugs.

The right to vote, the right to speak freely, for example, are just platitudes, if one can not make even the most basic fundamental decisions about the one thing in life that is really truly their own - their life and their body.

I guess thats an individualistic view though, and therefore somehow "idiot loonytarian-babble".

The bottom line, is that you want "society to decide", right up until the point that you don't, and as usual, in a most unprincipled fashion.

The greater good, is for society to have its limits, and some things and principles to be beyond those limits.

But you won't agree, except in cases when you do. :rofl:

"kahn, I'm laughing at the superior intellect."

[iverglas]

127. what garbage, what utter crap, what ugly trash

I fall into the camp that consists of humanity at large, and accordingly, with that camp, I believe that human societies have a duty of protection that includes providing the necessary assistance and care to their members who are in difficulty.
Sounds great, except when society defines as "members who are in difficulty" people that dont WANT that assistance. But society decides, either way, right?

Were you intending to ask me a question? I'm not seeing one.

What a society decides is whether to provide assistance. What an individual decides is whether to accept it. What the fuck is your problem here?


I fall into the camp that acknowledges that a majority of suicides are committed by people with problems that can be alleviated, and believes that the loss of their lives is a tragedy.
Society knows better than those individuals whats good for them. Nothing new there. Thanks for the confirmation though.

Definitely confirmation of something here. Not what you're pretending, of course. Confirmation of your own total lack of respect for both the person you're addressing and the truth. Your portrayal of me as saying/meaning something I neither said nor meant is just ugly, and definite confirmation of your desperation.


I fall into the camp that doesn't pretend that all suicides are noble acts of self-determination and that suicide is never a matter for public concern.
Of course you don't. But then, you are also in the camp that is willing to walk over any suicides that ARE acts of self determination, in an effort to drag "public interest" somewhere it doesnt always belong, happily towing the "one size fits all" trailer right there behind it. In any case, Its right back to "society decides", right?

Your statement is as factually wrong as your behaviour is morally wrong. The contempt your words convey, both basless contempt for the person you are speaking to and more importantly contempt for the truth, oozes from them. That you could spew such ugly false shit speaks volumes about you and says nothing about me, the target of your shit. It doesn't stick, but it sure did bounce back.

Canada decriminalized suicide (i.e. attempted suicide) decades ago. That's one of many hallmarks of a civilized society: the recognition that individuals have the right to self-determination in that regard, as an exercise of the right to liberty. Another hallmark is acceptance of the duty to assist members of a society who are in difficulty. The two are often found in tandem, and when one is absent, the other often is too.


Nobody owns my life. I don't speak idiot loonytarian-babble. Lives are not property. Persons are persons. And as a member of a society, I owe them my share of the concern and care that their society owes them.
Spoken like a true lawyer.

Spoken like a progressive person. What you imagined "lawyer" had to do with it, I couldn't guess.


Keep telling yourself that nobody owns your life, ...

Thank you, I will. My life is not property. And I am not an idiot loonytarian.

... while the society youre a member of attempts to make rules regarding what you can and can not do to your own body. Attempts making rules what you can or can not do WITH your own body. Attempts making rules what you can or can not ingest/inhale into your own body. Oh, wait, "society decides" doesn't sound quite so good, now, does it. Oh but it sounds great if it means banning tobacco...to prevent people from exercising choice of what to ingest/inhale...but not so good if it means preventing abortion...but it sounds great if it means preventing the eating of red meat - remember, some in society have decided for you that thats bad...but it doesn't sound so good because some in society have decided that gender change isn't such a good thing, but it was decided by society so...

What the fuck are you yammering about?

In the society I am a member of
- there are no laws regulating access to abortion services
- attempted suicide is not a crime (assisting suicide is still being worked out)
- tobacco is not banned (I repeat: what the fuck are you yammering about?)
- cannabis, at least, would have been formally decriminalized some time ago were it not for political interference from the US government (and we do not fill our prisons with small-time drug offenders, you can rest assured)

... whatever. What the fuck are you yammering about?

Apparently, you're working up a sweat trying to portray me as having said/meant something that I neither said nor meant, and that what I did say could not possibly have been interpreted as meaning.

The war on womans right to choose, for example, will never be over, until it is universally accepted that the "ownership" and right to do as one pleases with and to ones own body where it does not directly or materially harm others, is absolute.

No, it will never be over until it is universally accepted that women are full, equal human beings, with full, equal human rights, and more particularly the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to security of the person. Rights that are recognized in my constitution and reflected in the laws and public policies of Canada, even though some segments of society have yet to recognize that women have them.

What is it you don't grasp here?

The right to vote, the right to speak freely, for example, are just platitudes, if one can not make even the most basic fundamental decisions about the one thing in life that is really truly their own - their life and their body.

Yeah. The fundamental nature of such decisions about one's life and body are why the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to security of the person are commonly called "fundamental rights". At least, in the big wide world outside the USofA.

I guess thats an individualistic view though, and therefore somehow "idiot loonytarian-babble".

No, it's just babble, that I presume comes from some resistance to the concept of fundamental rights.

The bottom line, is that you want "society to decide", right up until the point that you don't, and as usual, in a most unprincipled fashion.

The bottom line is that your statement is 100% false and was made without the slightest shred of evidentiary basis, which kind of leaves me wondering exactly why you did make it, given that it isn't just false, it's genuinely disgusting.

[beevul]

128. Blah blah blahbetty blah.

"The bottom line is that your statement is 100% false and was made without the slightest shred of evidentiary basis, which kind of leaves me wondering exactly why you did make it, given that it isn't just false, it's genuinely disgusting."

So you claim.

Of course, you assume that nobodys been paying attention to your antics over the years...or forget that people have been.

Ibuprofen much?

Responding to your wall of diversionary grooming simply isn't worth my time.

In my time here at DU, you are, the singular most unprincipled poster I have ever seen.

And all anyone has to do, is search your posts to see it for themselves.

[iverglas]

129. you're the one making the claims, babe

Like this one:

The bottom line, is that you want "society to decide", right up until the point that you don't, and as usual, in a most unprincipled fashion.

Back it up with something besides your open mouth, will you?


Hahahaha for this one:

Responding to your wall of diversionary grooming simply isn't worth my time.

Do you even know what "diversionary grooming" refers to? It's all mine, you know -- glad to see you've been paying attention --

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&biw=1024&bih=640&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22diversionary+grooming%22&btnG=Search


In my time here at DU, you are, the singular most unprincipled poster I have ever seen.

And you appear not only to have no access to a dictionary, but also to have no respect for the truth. As I believe I already said.

The shit you do fling. Well, it looks good on you.

[ileus]

19. 400,000 dollars....WTF? you don't shoot people that owe you that much, you'll never recover it.

The last thing I'd do is shoot someone that owed me 400k, unless it was in self defence.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Apparently that was his defence. Self defence.

[rrneck]

22. He broke the law and went to jail. Bye. nt

[Starboard Tack]

27. Yep. One more toter off the streets.

[PavePusher]

28. Wow.

Why do you hate Civil Rights?

[Starboard Tack]

29. I love civil rights, but I hate civil wrongs.

No civil rights issue here.

[PavePusher]

30. "...keep and bear...". Civil Right.

You have implied/insinuated that:

a. "toters" are all criminals

and

b. They should be jailed on principal.

Perhaps you meant something else entirely, but your wording does not reflect it.


Edited to correct an inaccurate quotation.

[Starboard Tack]

35. That's your interpretation. Toting guns in public is a form of social cancer.

I would also like to see less police on the streets, less litter on the streets, less gas guzzling cars on the streets, less junkies on the street, less homeless on the streets, less panhandling on the streets. I don't want those folk to go to jail. I want a society that doesn't produce, want or need them.
All are symptoms of social decay.

[iverglas]

44. "You have implied/insinuated that:"

a. "toters" are all criminals
and
b. They should be jailed on principal.
Perhaps you meant something else entirely, but your wording does not reflect it.

And you have come straight out and said that when someone says there is no "civil rights" issue involved in the decision as to whether to allow people to wander the streets with guns, they are saying that people with permits to do that are criminals and should be jailed.

You realize that your statement is completely false and is a very ugly thing to say to another member of this website, right?

How would you feel if you said that there was no civil rights issue involved in the decision as to whether to allow people to walk dogs on the street, and I said you were calling dog walkers criminals and calling for them to be jailed?

You have said no less, and just as bad. Claiming that someone has said that people who have committed no crime are criminals and should be jailed, when they have said nothing on which anyone could honestly base that claim, is monstrous. Accusing someone of calling for breaches of fundamental rights like the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process -- with no grounds for any such accusation -- quite monstrous.

Why do you think it is appropriate to say something like that about another member of this website? Why do you say it?

The poster did say something else entirely. And you have no basis in this universe for claiming otherwise.

[rrneck]

59. Nope.

A citizen (human being) broke the law and will pay his debt to society.

[Starboard Tack]

60. A CCW toting citizen who will no longer be toting

Guess that toting didn't work out too well for him.

[rrneck]

61. Prejudice doesn't work so well either.

You sound like someone from the "kill 'em all let God sort 'em out" school of judgemental dehumanization.

But I guess bigotry is OK as long as its tastefully presented and sufficiently ironic.

[oneshooter]

66. Or shown in a "civilized" manner. n/t

[rl6214]

80. WOW, "toting" three times in one post

gotta be a record.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[SteveM]

45. "One of those rare toters." Well, you got it right. Rare indeed. nt

[Starboard Tack]

46. Kinda like bees, right

Most of the time they're doing good stuff until you piss them off enough.
What's the CCW toter kill count now 370? (11 of those were cops)

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Thank you for agreeing that CCW holders are safer for cops than cops are.

Who says I don't appreciate you?

http://www.flcourier.com/flnation/5952-race-a-factor-in-friendly-fire-police-shooting

Torbit was Black, and according to a recent study, officers of color are more likely to succumb to friendly fire than White officers. Between 1994 and 2009, 10 of the 14 U.S. officers killed by other officers were minorities. But the last time an off-duty White police officer was killed by his colleagues was in 1982. These statistics were revealed in a 2009 New York state, independent study that examined the role race plays in an officer’s decision to open fire. Then New York Gov. David A. Paterson commissioned the study after two Black officers were consecutively killed by friendly fire in his state in 2008 and 2009.

That's 15 officers killed by their fellow officers, a cohort of approximately 700,000

Even if we take your figure as granted, that would be 11 police killed by members of a cohort of at least >5.7 million

Cops are in more danger from other cops than CCW holders.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Thanks for supporting my argument that cops should be the first to be disarmed.

[ileus]

64. Let's disarm criminals first, then cops.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Well, that's kind of a chicken and egg situation

But I think disarming cops first would be taking the moral high ground. Then nobody could justify toting guns around. Works pretty well in the UK

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Violent criminals don't care about morality, only strength.

The moral high ground means nothing to them.

[Fred Engels]

70. If I thought you were being serious there, I would laugh.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, shit, I did it anyway.

[Starboard Tack]

74. Good, because I was being serious. Not that I think it will happen, but it should.

Would need a serious amendment to the Second Amendment.

[Fred Engels]

96. You can keep on tacking to starboard, I'll stick with port, thanks.

:shrug:

[Starboard Tack]

103. Then you'd better change course, because I have the right of way.

Sailing on a starboard tack means the wind is coming from the starboard (right) side of the boat, which causes the boat to heel (lean) to port (left). The stronger the wind, the more the heeling.
The boat sailing on a starboard tack also has right of way over a boat sailing on a port tack.

I'm sure you are not a teabagger, so I'll excuse your lack of sailing knowledge, but it is usually a good idea to look these things up before assuming the opposite. That way you don't end up with egg on your face.

[Fred Engels]

104. I am desiccated with mortification.

But I'm not about to give up my constitutionally protected arms no matter what kind of wind you favor.

[Starboard Tack]

111. Arms are not protected by the Constitution, people are.

You'll have to be a little sharper if you want to present a cogent argument.

[oneshooter]

108. Looked to me as if he was refering to Port wine. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

112. Now, why does that not come as a surprise?

[rrneck]

63. I hate to interrupt you in mid tantrum

but how many people would be injured or killed for lack of effective self defense if all the guns went away?

Think you can produce something more than umbrage??

[iverglas]

65. you making an assertion?

how many people would be injured or killed for lack of effective self defense if all the guns went away?

Why would you think somebody else should guess the number of jelly beans just because you demand it?

If you want to demonstrate that your question has some relevance to the discussion, you're free to do so.

That would seem to mean answering your own question.

Good luck with that.

:rofl:

[rrneck]

67. You're welcome to try.

I'd be interested to see what you descover.

[iverglas]

69. no interest whatsoever!

Supremely not interested. I've read it all, I've crunched the numbers, I'm sure you know.

[rrneck]

71. I thought as much. nt

[iverglas]

73. hahahahahahahahahaha!

You say to someone:

how many people would be injured or killed for lack of effective self defense if all the guns went away?
Think you can produce something more than umbrage??

and you get an answer that is basically "no, thanks", and you think you've won?

A laugh riot.

Think you can produce something more than demands for something nobody has any obligation to produce for you, having made no assertion that calls for them to meet any such demands?

Didn't think so!

:rofl:

Yes, civil discourse, and the strange inability of Guns forum posters to grasp its most basic concepts ...

If you have a point to make, an argument to press, facts to present -- have at it!

[rrneck]

75. I didnt win a thing.

But you lost.

[Starboard Tack]

99. I would think far fewer than 30, 000 annually. What's your estimate.

Remember no guns in the equation. Tasers, pepper spray, fists, walking sticks, dogs. Think about it.

[rrneck]

102. And you know this how?

All you can produce is cocktail party chatter. It sound good while you're waiting for Gretchen to bring you another Chardonnay but it actually means nothing.

Why don't you try thinking about people instead of vague weasel words to support your personal preference because you just told a whole lot of people they don't fit into your cloistered world view.

[iverglas]

105. how about common sense and a little common decency tossed in?

The question was:

how many people would be injured or killed for lack of effective self defense if all the guns went away?

and all we really need to do is consider how many people who were NOT carrying firearms were NOT murdered in your average year.

But since they didn't have guns, shouldn't they all be dead?

:rofl:

No, but cereally, folks. Let's invent a wild number (everybody else does) and say that 50,000 people avoided injury or death, to themselves or someone else, in a year, by doing ... something ... with a firearm.

It seems like something like 4% of the population, or the eligible population, or some damned thing, has a permit to tote a gun around. I don't know. Make up your own number. Let's go really crazy and say that 5% of the adult population in the US hauls a firearm with them everywhere they go. Say that population is 150 million.

So 3/4 of a million people or so averted 50,000 injuries/deaths. Call that 0.07 each, for simplicity.

So the other 149.25 million people must have suffered ... I make it about another million more injuries/deaths. Because they didn't have guns to stop them.


I'll take cocktail party chatter (oooh look, it's the liberal élite) over total batshit crazy nonsense any day.

Gretchen, make mine a Cabernet, please. And none of that California crap.


Meanwhile, since you're the one who wants an answer to that question up there, why don't you tell us?

Nobody else was relying on the answer for anything.

[rrneck]

106. Sooooooo,

If we, somehow, stop people from carrying guns it's safe to assume some people, probably a whole bunch, will die or be seriously injured becaust they didn't have a gun or the bad guy KNEW they wouldn't have a gun.

But we don't know who those people will be. So every time you or any of the other people here trot out reams of numbers and peer reviewed journals to support the removal of unsightly guns from our streets you just told millions of people you don't give a fuck whether they live or die.

How does that arrogant short sighted attitude fit into any liberal, progressive, or Democratic ideology? Treating entire populations of people like numbers on a spreadsheet has rather a checkered past. It's no way for a Democrat to get elected in this country.

[iverglas]

107. yes yes yes!

If we, somehow, stop people from carrying guns it's safe to assume some people, probably a whole bunch, will die or be seriously injured becaust they didn't have a gun or the bad guy KNEW they wouldn't have a gun.

Millions of them! Possibly brazillions!

You can tell from all the millions and brazillions of people dying right now because they didn't have a gun!

I thought I was joshing you. Possibly even mocking you. But here you are saying:

So every time you or any of the other people here trot out reams of numbers and peer reviewed journals to support the removal of unsightly guns from our streets you just told millions of people you don't give a fuck whether they live or die.

Well, it's worth knowing that I can say the most ludicrously insane thing I can think of, and you'll accept it as gospel!



typo fixed

[rrneck]

109. Just kidding huh?

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

110. Evading the question again with condescending insults.

How many?

[rrneck]

113. I'm not demanding any changes to the status quo.

If you want people to change their minds you need to come up with something more than an ideology supported by your delicate sensibilities.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Ok eyore, enjoy the status quo.

Some of us want to improve on it.

[rrneck]

115. You can't seem to get past your desires

and produce a solution.

[Starboard Tack]

116. Solution is eradicate all handguns and reinstate AWB with very stiff penalties.

Let's hear your option, Mr. Status Quo

[rrneck]

117. I want a pony.

Explain what good the AWB did then produce a firearm free self defense solution.

[oneshooter]

118. I wish that you would make up your mind.

Starboard Tack (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-22-11 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. Not take the guns away. I'm not trying to take your guns away.
But I would do anything to stop people carrying handguns around and if possible eradicate them from the planet. They all need to be melted down and used for something that will better our world, instead of destroying it. Keep your long guns and be happy with all the lives that would be saved.
Let's show those violent Brits that we can be at least as civilized as them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

123. Sorry, I forgot about AWB. My bad.

[SteveM]

95. Got data?

BTW, that's 370 over how many years? 11 cops over how many years? Assuming the data is correct. I believe some of that data has been posted here before, and much of it debunked.

"Most of the time they're doing good stuff until you piss them off enough."

Since there are several million CCWs out there, given your "data," very, very few seem "pissed off." I'm sure that disappoints you.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

62. Thank goodness you've disproven the myth that someone with a permit could never commit a gun crime

:sarcasm:

[Starboard Tack]

72. What was sarcastic about your comment?

It happens quite often and I didn't disprove it. The 370 killers with permits did that.

[aikoaiko]

85. The answer was sarcastic because there was no such myth to dispell.

[Starboard Tack]

86. You sound quite befuddled.

[aikoaiko]

92. To you, I am sure I sound befuddled. I don't think you can be helped.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. Yes. They are rare, very rare.

But you would attempt to use isolated events to take the guns away from millions of Americans who continue to obey the law.

[oneshooter]

78. I would guess that he would. After all he is in lust with the UK laws. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

82. Not take the guns away. I'm not trying to take your guns away.

But I would do anything to stop people carrying handguns around and if possible eradicate them from the planet. They all need to be melted down and used for something that will better our world, instead of destroying it. Keep your long guns and be happy with all the lives that would be saved.
Let's show those violent Brits that we can be at least as civilized as them.

[GreenStormCloud]

84. In you world of unicorns and rainbows, the weak are at the mercy of the strong.

Most muggers don't even use weapons. They simply select physically weaker people, such as us old folks. My guns give me the ability to defend myself.

[Starboard Tack]

88. So you use your guns against unarmed kids?

Where the hell do you live, where kids go around mugging old folk? What do you have that they would mug you for?
I've lived in some of the roughest neighborhoods in America and other countries and never seen kids mugging old folk. Unless, of course, they want that pistol you're packing. If you're that old and doddery, you should probably stay home, or get a big dog.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Says the guy who lives in a marina...

[Starboard Tack]

94. FYI - I don't live in a marina. I dislike marinas.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Where did I say "kids"?

I didn't I said the stronger would prey on the weaker. A healthy 25 year old mugger can usually take out a senior citizen with no trouble.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Not if he has a dog.

Mugger: Hey Pops, gimme your money or I'll beat you up
Senior Toter: Hold on a minute son, while a unzip my fanny pack and get my gun.
Mugger: OK, I'll take that too.
Senior Toter: No, I'm taking it out to shoot you with.
Mugger: You're kidding, right?

I'll go with the dog and a spare fifty, just in case the dog's feeling mugger friendly. Don't you wear a cape or something? I imagine you as this huge Texan wearing a green Superman type cape and GSC on your chest. Really is a great name.

What do you mean by "In your world of rainbows and unicorns the weak are at the mercy of the strong"?

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Pass.

Handguns are excellent tools for self defense. Maybe if you want to come guard me, 24x7 from all forms of physical assault. Do that for 80 years, and keep all my handguns locked in a safe, and at the end of that period, I'll let you melt down my handguns.