Mass shooting in Chicago - 13 shot

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I dont think its very sensible to have a gun if you are not going to use it to kill someone. Thats what they were made for. If you want a toy go get a BB gun and shoot cans with that.

Ever hear of hunting? Ever hear of protecting yourself and your family if you live in the country/woods? Guess what - wild animals will attack and kill humans. Not everyone that has a gun thinks of killing another human. Grow Up!

If you live somewhere and have to hunt for your food or kill wild animals attacking you that makes sense. You are killing something. My neighbor who shops at Safeway, encounters no wild animals, but is not prepared to kill another human being doesnt need a gun.

So you want to tell your neighbor whether or not he/she is allowed to have a gun?

Believe it or not, humans can be just as wild as animals, and some are even more dangerous than a rabid raccoon. If you think you can outwit them, you'd better think again. Many are doped up, drunk, and pissed off at the world. Nothing you say will matter to them. They see you as another fool that dared to cross their path. They don't know the law (some do, but still) and they don't follow the law; they make their own laws.

 

[PredFan]

I dont think its very sensible to have a gun if you are not going to use it to kill someone. Thats what they were made for. If you want a toy go get a BB gun and shoot cans with that.

Ever hear of hunting? Ever hear of protecting yourself and your family if you live in the country/woods? Guess what - wild animals will attack and kill humans. Not everyone that has a gun thinks of killing another human. Grow Up!

If you live somewhere and have to hunt for your food or kill wild animals attacking you that makes sense. You are killing something. My neighbor who shops at Safeway, encounters no wild animals, but is not prepared to kill another human being doesnt need a gun.

Another sign of your irrational thinking is how you keep changing your story.

I am prepared to kill. I am also prepared not to. My gun is for my protection, not to kill.

 

[Asclepias]

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make your warped sense of reality the right one. We have been trying to help you understand it but you are being irrational.

Let me get this straight. You have a weapon that can kill someone but you dont want to kill someone.

Yes.



Bear spray won't work idiot.



You reeaaly need to look up the definition of "irrational" you are way off.

It doesnt make sense to own a weapon capable of killing someone if thats not what you have it for.

I have it for protection. Not to kill someone.

Does that really make sense to you?

Yes of course it makes sense, it makes sense to me and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together.

Your stubborn adherance to the logically false narrative that the only reason to have a gun is to kill some one, is about as irrational as it gets. We've tried to explain it to you but you are apparently incapable of reason.

If you dont want to kill someone you get something that is non-lethal. You may kill someone with a gun.

Why would bear spray not work? If it can stop a grizzly I'm pretty sure it can stop a human.

irrational:
: not thinking clearly : not able to use reason or good judgment see first line for example.

You can protect your self with any number of electronic devices, animals and weapons. You dont need a gun for protection.

You haven't given me one reason why you have a gun and you think I'm irrational but yet you play with things that can kill people?

 

[PredFan]

Let me get this straight. You have a weapon that can kill someone but you dont want to kill someone.

Yes.



Bear spray won't work idiot.



You reeaaly need to look up the definition of "irrational" you are way off.



I have it for protection. Not to kill someone.

Does that really make sense to you?

Yes of course it makes sense, it makes sense to me and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together.

Your stubborn adherance to the logically false narrative that the only reason to have a gun is to kill some one, is about as irrational as it gets. We've tried to explain it to you but you are apparently incapable of reason.

If you dont want to kill someone you get something that is non-lethal. You may kill someone with a gun.

Why would bear spray not work? If it can stop a grizzly I'm pretty sure it can stop a human.

irrational:
: not thinking clearly : not able to use reason or good judgment see first line for example.

You can protect your self with any number of electronic devices, animals and weapons. You dont need a gun for protection.

You haven't given me one reason why you have a gun and you think I'm irrational but yet you play with things that can kill people?

Not wanting to does not equal "won't".

Bear spray doesn't work on bears either.

I don't need a gun for protection, I have a gun for protection. Can you see the difference?

I have given you the one and only reason I have a gun. You are irrational in both your arguments and your refusal to use reason.

 

[Yurt]

Why do you shoot guns? They could kill someone. If you are not prepared to kill someone you really shouldnt have a gun.

i disagree. i've never owned a gun, but have plenty of friends who do. the only shooting we do, i borrow their guns, is at the range or some place in the hills shooting cans. you don't need to be prepared to kill someone if you own a gun.

for example, you can shoot to wound in order to defend yourself. you're being irrational.

Yes you can shoot to wound if you are that capable. More likely is that you will miss and get yourself killed. I dont play with guns because they are not a toy. I think people that play with guns or use them to make themselves feel more manly should be the first people to get their guns confiscated. This is a problem you need to get straight with. I'm not the one thats irrational here.

i don't need to get straight with anything. you're the one with the irrational fear of guns and you're simply projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

should people who buy sports cars to feel manly have their cars confiscated?

 

[Asclepias]

Ever hear of hunting? Ever hear of protecting yourself and your family if you live in the country/woods? Guess what - wild animals will attack and kill humans. Not everyone that has a gun thinks of killing another human. Grow Up!

If you live somewhere and have to hunt for your food or kill wild animals attacking you that makes sense. You are killing something. My neighbor who shops at Safeway, encounters no wild animals, but is not prepared to kill another human being doesnt need a gun.

So you want to tell your neighbor whether or not he/she is allowed to have a gun?

Believe it or not, humans can be just as wild as animals, and some are even more dangerous than a rabid raccoon. If you think you can outwit them, you'd better think again. Many are doped up, drunk, and pissed off at the world. Nothing you say will matter to them. They see you as another fool that dared to cross their path. They don't know the law (some do, but still) and they don't follow the law; they make their own laws.

Where did you see me write that?

I know humans can be just as wild as animals. I wouldnt try and outwit one thats why I have a gun so I can kill them if they attack me in my home.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes.



Bear spray won't work idiot.



You reeaaly need to look up the definition of "irrational" you are way off.



I have it for protection. Not to kill someone.



Yes of course it makes sense, it makes sense to me and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together.

Your stubborn adherance to the logically false narrative that the only reason to have a gun is to kill some one, is about as irrational as it gets. We've tried to explain it to you but you are apparently incapable of reason.

If you dont want to kill someone you get something that is non-lethal. You may kill someone with a gun.

Why would bear spray not work? If it can stop a grizzly I'm pretty sure it can stop a human.

irrational:
: not thinking clearly : not able to use reason or good judgment see first line for example.

You can protect your self with any number of electronic devices, animals and weapons. You dont need a gun for protection.

You haven't given me one reason why you have a gun and you think I'm irrational but yet you play with things that can kill people?

Not wanting to does not equal "won't".

Bear spray doesn't work on bears either.

I don't need a gun for protection, I have a gun for protection. Can you see the difference?

I have given you the one and only reason I have a gun. You are irrational in both your arguments and your refusal to use reason.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I dont want to kill anyone either but i will if they come in my home.

Yes bear spray does work on bears. I know from first hand experience. theres also mace and pepper spray that works on humans

Yes I see the difference. So you choose to have a weapon that can kill someone for protection instead of something else that can provide protection that is non-lethal? Is this correct?

 

[Missourian]

Evidently if you pull it out you are prepared to use it. If you pull a gun on someone and are only using it for a deterent you have a great chance of getting your gun taken and yourself killed.

I didn't say "only" use a gun as a deterrent, I said if a deterrent use resolves the situation, there is no NEED to take a life.

9 times out of 10, a deterrent use DOES resolve the situation.

Here is a recent example from the news here in Missouri.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYUdPrs2Ls"]Man Pulls Gun on Robber VIDEO Missouri liquor store clerk pulls gun on armed robber - YouTube[/ame]

I guess thats where I differ. I think the best deterrent is the news that someone got blown away trying to rob my store in this case for example. The next person to rob the store may not be afraid just because you pulled one out. If he knows you are going to use it he will look for an easier target. What if the guy had shot him instead?

I both disagree and agree.

While I don't agree with killing to make an example...the variables involved in this Missouri case are staggering.

This clerk allowed an armed criminal to escape while he "had the drop on him" for lack of more suitable parlance.

If this guy kills the next clerk right out of the gate, does this clerk bear any responsibility for that?

Conversely, this could be the defining moment that changes this would be criminal's life, and puts him on the straight and narrow path.

It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" conundrum, much like the one played out in Spiderman mythology.

Peter Parker let's a criminal escape when he had the power to stop him, and that criminal then kills his Uncle Ben.

But if you kill the guy, you are going to heap a mountain of pain on his innocent family...his parents, spouse, siblings and children.

It is a difficult decision all around.

That's why IMO you need hard and fast rules thought out ahead of time.

I'm don't think everyone will come to the same conclusion.

My conclusion is, when the threat is no longer imminent, lethal force is off the table.

Whether this is the best course of action open to debate, but it is the course I have chosen after careful deliberations on the law and my conscience.

 

[Asclepias]

i disagree. i've never owned a gun, but have plenty of friends who do. the only shooting we do, i borrow their guns, is at the range or some place in the hills shooting cans. you don't need to be prepared to kill someone if you own a gun.

for example, you can shoot to wound in order to defend yourself. you're being irrational.

Yes you can shoot to wound if you are that capable. More likely is that you will miss and get yourself killed. I dont play with guns because they are not a toy. I think people that play with guns or use them to make themselves feel more manly should be the first people to get their guns confiscated. This is a problem you need to get straight with. I'm not the one thats irrational here.

i don't need to get straight with anything. you're the one with the irrational fear of guns and you're simply projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

should people who buy sports cars to feel manly have their cars confiscated?

I dont fear guns I have respect for what they can do so I dont treat them as toys or a phallic symbol. Why should we confiscate sports cars? They were not created to kill people nor do people buy them for that reason or protection.

 

[Asclepias]

I didn't say "only" use a gun as a deterrent, I said if a deterrent use resolves the situation, there is no NEED to take a life.

9 times out of 10, a deterrent use DOES resolve the situation.

Here is a recent example from the news here in Missouri.

Man Pulls Gun on Robber VIDEO Missouri liquor store clerk pulls gun on armed robber - YouTube

I guess thats where I differ. I think the best deterrent is the news that someone got blown away trying to rob my store in this case for example. The next person to rob the store may not be afraid just because you pulled one out. If he knows you are going to use it he will look for an easier target. What if the guy had shot him instead?

I both disagree and agree.

While I don't agree with killing to make an example...the variables involved in this Missouri case are staggering.

This clerk allowed an armed criminal to escape while he "had the drop on him" for lack of more suitable parlance.

If this guy kills the next clerk right out of the gate, does this clerk bear any responsibility for that?

Conversely, this could be the defining moment that changes this would be criminal's life, and puts him on the straight and narrow path.

It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" conundrum, much like the one played out in Spiderman mythology.

Peter Parker let's a criminal escape when he had the power to stop him, and that criminal then kills his Uncle Ben.

But if you kill the guy, you are going to heap a mountain of pain on his innocent family...his parents, spouse, siblings and children.

It is a difficult decision all around.

That's why IMO you need hard and fast rules thought out ahead of time.

I'm don't think everyone will come to the same conclusion.

My conclusion is, when the threat is no longer imminent, lethal force is off the table.

Whether this is the best course of action open to debate, but it is the course I have chosen after careful deliberations on the law and my conscience.

Thats a lot of hypotheticals pointing to a fairytale ending. Maybe its because of some of the things I saw growing up. If i let a guy go and he kills someone else that would bother me way more than me killing him now and his family suffering. Its possible that this could be an aha moment for the criminal but it also could be a case where he comes back shoots you for payback. it took a lot of thinking for me to come to my stance. A rule I learned growing up is not to point a gun at someone unless you are going to use it. Since a gun can kill you I next had to ask if i was prepared to take a life in defense of my home. The answer was yes so I got a gun.

 

[Missourian]

I guess thats where I differ. I think the best deterrent is the news that someone got blown away trying to rob my store in this case for example. The next person to rob the store may not be afraid just because you pulled one out. If he knows you are going to use it he will look for an easier target. What if the guy had shot him instead?

I both disagree and agree.

While I don't agree with killing to make an example...the variables involved in this Missouri case are staggering.

This clerk allowed an armed criminal to escape while he "had the drop on him" for lack of more suitable parlance.

If this guy kills the next clerk right out of the gate, does this clerk bear any responsibility for that?

Conversely, this could be the defining moment that changes this would be criminal's life, and puts him on the straight and narrow path.

It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" conundrum, much like the one played out in Spiderman mythology.

Peter Parker let's a criminal escape when he had the power to stop him, and that criminal then kills his Uncle Ben.

But if you kill the guy, you are going to heap a mountain of pain on his innocent family...his parents, spouse, siblings and children.

It is a difficult decision all around.

That's why IMO you need hard and fast rules thought out ahead of time.

I'm don't think everyone will come to the same conclusion.

My conclusion is, when the threat is no longer imminent, lethal force is off the table.

Whether this is the best course of action open to debate, but it is the course I have chosen after careful deliberations on the law and my conscience.

Thats a lot of hypotheticals pointing to a fairytale ending. Maybe its because of some of the things I saw growing up. If i let a guy go and he kills someone else that would bother me way more than me killing him now and his family suffering. Its possible that this could be an aha moment for the criminal but it also could be a case where he comes back shoots you for payback. it took a lot of thinking for me to come to my stance. A rule I learned growing up is not to point a gun at someone unless you are going to use it. Since a gun can kill you I next had to ask if i was prepared to take a life in defense of my home. The answer was yes so I got a gun.

I have no problem with your stance.

The only issue I had was with the statement "I only point a gun a someone when I intend to use it."

My point was, a circumstance may arise where a person who, as an example, is threatening you with a knife, or a club, might surrender at the appearance of a defensive firearm...in that instance you could brandish your gun and not intend on using it if it was successful in deterring a criminal.

In this example, once you deployed your firearm, would you be intent on using it?

 

[BullKurtz]

Yesterday you were claiming you were a world-class sniper and could put a round through another sniper's scope...and now you're confessing you had to think long and hard about buying a "gun". You're a fucking joke, flower-boi, a fraud, a troll, a sniveling weak little suburban white boy coward. You should be banned from this and all political boards just for your cuntesque name and avatar.

 

[Asclepias]

I both disagree and agree.

While I don't agree with killing to make an example...the variables involved in this Missouri case are staggering.

This clerk allowed an armed criminal to escape while he "had the drop on him" for lack of more suitable parlance.

If this guy kills the next clerk right out of the gate, does this clerk bear any responsibility for that?

Conversely, this could be the defining moment that changes this would be criminal's life, and puts him on the straight and narrow path.

It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" conundrum, much like the one played out in Spiderman mythology.

Peter Parker let's a criminal escape when he had the power to stop him, and that criminal then kills his Uncle Ben.

But if you kill the guy, you are going to heap a mountain of pain on his innocent family...his parents, spouse, siblings and children.

It is a difficult decision all around.

That's why IMO you need hard and fast rules thought out ahead of time.

I'm don't think everyone will come to the same conclusion.

My conclusion is, when the threat is no longer imminent, lethal force is off the table.

Whether this is the best course of action open to debate, but it is the course I have chosen after careful deliberations on the law and my conscience.

Thats a lot of hypotheticals pointing to a fairytale ending. Maybe its because of some of the things I saw growing up. If i let a guy go and he kills someone else that would bother me way more than me killing him now and his family suffering. Its possible that this could be an aha moment for the criminal but it also could be a case where he comes back shoots you for payback. it took a lot of thinking for me to come to my stance. A rule I learned growing up is not to point a gun at someone unless you are going to use it. Since a gun can kill you I next had to ask if i was prepared to take a life in defense of my home. The answer was yes so I got a gun.

I have no problem with your stance.

The only issue I had was with the statement "I only point a gun a someone when I intend to use it."

My point was, a circumstance may arise where a person who, as an example, is threatening you with a knife, or a club, might surrender at the appearance of a defensive firearm...in that instance you could brandish your gun and not intend on using it if it was successful in deterring a criminal.

In this example, once you deployed your firearm, would you be intent on using it?

Absolutely. My home is where I lay my head. My family is there. Anyone breaking that sacred ground dies for violating that space.

 

[PredFan]

If you dont want to kill someone you get something that is non-lethal. You may kill someone with a gun.

Why would bear spray not work? If it can stop a grizzly I'm pretty sure it can stop a human.

irrational:
: not thinking clearly : not able to use reason or good judgment see first line for example.

You can protect your self with any number of electronic devices, animals and weapons. You dont need a gun for protection.

You haven't given me one reason why you have a gun and you think I'm irrational but yet you play with things that can kill people?

Not wanting to does not equal "won't".

Bear spray doesn't work on bears either.

I don't need a gun for protection, I have a gun for protection. Can you see the difference?

I have given you the one and only reason I have a gun. You are irrational in both your arguments and your refusal to use reason.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I dont want to kill anyone either but i will if they come in my home.

Yes bear spray does work on bears. I know from first hand experience. theres also mace and pepper spray that works on humans

Yes I see the difference. So you choose to have a weapon that can kill someone for protection instead of something else that can provide protection that is non-lethal? Is this correct?

That is correct. I choose to use a gun for protection.

 

[BullKurtz]

I have no problem with your stance.

The only issue I had was with the statement "I only point a gun a someone when I intend to use it."

My point was, a circumstance may arise where a person who, as an example, is threatening you with a knife, or a club, might surrender at the appearance of a defensive firearm...in that instance you could brandish your gun and not intend on using it if it was successful in deterring a criminal.

In this example, once you deployed your firearm, would you be intent on using it?

He's never owned or used a firearm....Yesterday he was Wyatt Earp, today he's Woody Allen.

 

[PredFan]

I both disagree and agree.

While I don't agree with killing to make an example...the variables involved in this Missouri case are staggering.

This clerk allowed an armed criminal to escape while he "had the drop on him" for lack of more suitable parlance.

If this guy kills the next clerk right out of the gate, does this clerk bear any responsibility for that?

Conversely, this could be the defining moment that changes this would be criminal's life, and puts him on the straight and narrow path.

It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" conundrum, much like the one played out in Spiderman mythology.

Peter Parker let's a criminal escape when he had the power to stop him, and that criminal then kills his Uncle Ben.

But if you kill the guy, you are going to heap a mountain of pain on his innocent family...his parents, spouse, siblings and children.

It is a difficult decision all around.

That's why IMO you need hard and fast rules thought out ahead of time.

I'm don't think everyone will come to the same conclusion.

My conclusion is, when the threat is no longer imminent, lethal force is off the table.

Whether this is the best course of action open to debate, but it is the course I have chosen after careful deliberations on the law and my conscience.

Thats a lot of hypotheticals pointing to a fairytale ending. Maybe its because of some of the things I saw growing up. If i let a guy go and he kills someone else that would bother me way more than me killing him now and his family suffering. Its possible that this could be an aha moment for the criminal but it also could be a case where he comes back shoots you for payback. it took a lot of thinking for me to come to my stance. A rule I learned growing up is not to point a gun at someone unless you are going to use it. Since a gun can kill you I next had to ask if i was prepared to take a life in defense of my home. The answer was yes so I got a gun.

I have no problem with your stance.

The only issue I had was with the statement "I only point a gun a someone when I intend to use it."

My point was, a circumstance may arise where a person who, as an example, is threatening you with a knife, or a club, might surrender at the appearance of a defensive firearm...in that instance you could brandish your gun and not intend on using it if it was successful in deterring a criminal.

In this example, once you deployed your firearm, would you be intent on using it?

The fact remains that he is wrong in his irrational claim that guns are only for killing.

 

[PredFan]

Thats a lot of hypotheticals pointing to a fairytale ending. Maybe its because of some of the things I saw growing up. If i let a guy go and he kills someone else that would bother me way more than me killing him now and his family suffering. Its possible that this could be an aha moment for the criminal but it also could be a case where he comes back shoots you for payback. it took a lot of thinking for me to come to my stance. A rule I learned growing up is not to point a gun at someone unless you are going to use it. Since a gun can kill you I next had to ask if i was prepared to take a life in defense of my home. The answer was yes so I got a gun.

I have no problem with your stance.

The only issue I had was with the statement "I only point a gun a someone when I intend to use it."

My point was, a circumstance may arise where a person who, as an example, is threatening you with a knife, or a club, might surrender at the appearance of a defensive firearm...in that instance you could brandish your gun and not intend on using it if it was successful in deterring a criminal.

In this example, once you deployed your firearm, would you be intent on using it?

Absolutely. My home is where I lay my head. My family is there. Anyone breaking that sacred ground dies for violating that space.

In other words, you have that gun for protection.

 

[Yurt]

Yes you can shoot to wound if you are that capable. More likely is that you will miss and get yourself killed. I dont play with guns because they are not a toy. I think people that play with guns or use them to make themselves feel more manly should be the first people to get their guns confiscated. This is a problem you need to get straight with. I'm not the one thats irrational here.

i don't need to get straight with anything. you're the one with the irrational fear of guns and you're simply projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

should people who buy sports cars to feel manly have their cars confiscated?

I dont fear guns I have respect for what they can do so I dont treat them as toys or a phallic symbol. Why should we confiscate sports cars? They were not created to kill people nor do people buy them for that reason or protection.

and once again you show you only care about deaths depending on the tool. that is irrational. using your logic, we should never use rat poison because its sole purpose is to kill and guess what, it kills HUMANS.

can you now see how irrational you are?

 

[Asclepias]

Not wanting to does not equal "won't".

Bear spray doesn't work on bears either.

I don't need a gun for protection, I have a gun for protection. Can you see the difference?

I have given you the one and only reason I have a gun. You are irrational in both your arguments and your refusal to use reason.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I dont want to kill anyone either but i will if they come in my home.

Yes bear spray does work on bears. I know from first hand experience. theres also mace and pepper spray that works on humans

Yes I see the difference. So you choose to have a weapon that can kill someone for protection instead of something else that can provide protection that is non-lethal? Is this correct?

That is correct. I choose to use a gun for protection.

Thats why I say you are being irrational or deluding yourself. if you are fine with killing someone with it then thats what you got if for. There are other methods of protecting your home.

 

[Yurt]

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I dont want to kill anyone either but i will if they come in my home.

Yes bear spray does work on bears. I know from first hand experience. theres also mace and pepper spray that works on humans

Yes I see the difference. So you choose to have a weapon that can kill someone for protection instead of something else that can provide protection that is non-lethal? Is this correct?

That is correct. I choose to use a gun for protection.

Thats why I say you are being irrational or deluding yourself. if you are fine with killing someone with it then thats what you got if for. There are other methods of protecting your home.

perhaps the military should use mace....