Florida gun deaths suspect named as Shawn Tyson

typical blame a gun instead of the stupid idiot who pulled the trigger

as previously said if its not a gun they will find something else.

america will never get over its "primitive gun culture" because when that day arrives if ever

only criminals will have them.

and guess how much crime will skyrocket.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

It's painfully hilarious how so many Americans attempt to claim their independence or autonomy, along the lines of how big their arsenal of weaponry is.

Ok, so pick a reason to hate it, and then stick with that. Are you concerned about gun crime, or are you concerned with us keeping large arsenals to insure our independence? I have arguments for either, but I want to narrow down you source of hate for our guns.

BTW, the arsenals have helped to keep us independent. I have a good friend that was high ranking in the USSR, he came up though the military, and became a minister for the Soviet government. It was common knowledge to their military that the population of the United States could never be 'ruled.' They felt they could defeat our military handily, but they knew they coul d never rule the population.

As for my home, one should hope to meet the shotgun, because if I get my bare hands on them, it will be a much longer and more punitive ordeal for violating the sanctity of my home. The shotgun is merciful. Pray for the shotgun!

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

It's painfully hilarious how so many Americans attempt to claim their independence or autonomy, along the lines of how big their arsenal of weaponry is.

If you only realized how much truth is actually in that comment. An armed society is a polite society.

Originally posted by JarsCloutLife
I do agree with the others that have already replied. If it had not been guns, it would have been something else. We need to find the root of the problem. And that problem is that people want to hurt or kill other people.

Nonsense.

Please tell me why, in Britain, we usually don't get double murders, nor do we get a violent area of a city that you would seriously risk your life in.


I agree that we should find the root cause for criminal behaviour, and attempt to correct it, but you're still willfully ignoring the damaging effects of guns.


It's the impersonal mode of killing that makes these instruments so dangerous in a modern, civic sense.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


The reasons include, geography, culture, laws, and environment.

Seems as if you are wanting to cover the US under blanket rules along with everyone else. You know, what is good for one, must be good for the many. After all, it just so happens, England is the tip of the iceberg on the reasons we have guns.

to quote gun murder rates in the us is disingenous

1. we have an open southern border
2. we have a flow of illegal weapons coming into this country and illegals.
3. the statistics do not account for the demographic.
4. how many law abiding citizens who have never killed anyone thats over 150 million
5. who are committing the murders criminals mostly.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Hey Sherlock,
Tell you what. We'll consider redefining our Second Amendment rights when the Brits do something about the thugs and clowns at their football games. You know the ones. Can't watch a football game without kicking someones teeth in. Maybe your primitive society is the reason we have our Second Amendment. All those inbred Royals that kept standing on our necks till we threw them out of our country! It works both ways Amigo! Just take care of your house and we'll do just fine in ours! Maybe if your visitors would do some research where to go and where NOT to go might help!

Zindo

The OP and its poster are a prime example of how people who dislike guns will find ANY reason to dislike guns...

No amount of statistics or common since will suffice........

its a futile argument.......

However I bet hed LOVE my gun toting law if he was standing next to me somewhere and something happened to him , that was thwarted by the fact that myself and many others carry firearms......

BTW im a bit disgusted that you used the breaking alternative news thread, and the tragedy that this is..........to try and push your anti gun agenda...........

Simply distasteful........

Originally posted by butcherguy
I wonder when those folks in the UK will give up their violent soccer match riots?

From the videos I've seen of those affairs, itt is a darn good thing that they don't let them have guns over there. They aren't responsible enough to be in charge of their own fists and feet.

Please provide me with some examples of lethal hooliganism in English ''soccer'' games.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever been shot at an English football match.

Still, keep sipping that koolaid...

reply to post by getreadyalready


You are ignoring the facts.

If I get pissed off at someone, then I have the option of using my own hands or some instrument that I may find; and that is it.

People in the United States of cowering behind a remote source of violence, get an unhealthy and insalubrious sense of reality, and when they have to go out in the real world, they still cower behind their arsenal of weaponry !

What wimps !

The fear of being shot "in the wrong place at the wrong time" typically only happens when you walk into the bad areas of the high population density cities.

Similar trends likely exist in England; perhaps with less lethal results but no doubt still. Crime always exists in impoverished areas. Your use of the deaths of these two men to push your political beliefs is sick however, and I'll politely suggest that the gun was likely purchased illegally, which would absolve said "culture" entirely, as guns can be obtained illegally anywhere. Even in precious crime free Britain.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

There is nowhere in Britain where the possibility of being shot in the 'wrong part of town' is a serious consideration.

Really?........I would give "serious consideration" to a stroll through the housing estates of Moss Side in Manchester, or Ordsall in Salford.

Originally posted by Crunkman919
The country was founded on the principles of individual rights and the rights of the private citizen to protect those rights against tyranny and oppression by the government.

I would normally reply to your post in its fullest extent, but sadly, I didn't read past this first paragraph.

Anybody who quotes the slave-owners, drunkards, rapists, and obnoxious hypocrites who penned the US constitution, is clearly not interested in logical appraisals or critical commentaries.

reply to post by butcherguy

I wonder when those folks in the UK will give up their violent soccer match riots?

LOL.....you're about 35 years behind the times mate!.....the whole "soccer hooligan" thing is soooo 1970's here in the UK

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I was hoping you would say that. Obviously no one is cowering, and you are trying to elicit an emotional response, but instead I give you a very articulate piece about how the gun is the only tool that was ever a complete equalizer, and is responsible for the best form of "civilization."

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)

A Source

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

The point is that you have a nation of scared, fearful and cowardly citizens, who only possess weapons because everyone else does !

It's painfully hilarious how so many Americans attempt to claim their independence or autonomy, along the lines of how big their arsenal of weaponry is.

This is an absolutely absurd statement and it says far more about you then it does about the citizenry of The United States.

How exactly does an American claim their independence/autonomy along the lines of the size of their arsenal?
I would really like you to answer this as I'd would like better to understand the way you think.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Eh ? What ?

London has over 8 million people, so it's not a huge surprise to find ''at least 8'' shootings within that area, in the space of 2 months.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

nor do we get a violent area of a city that you would seriously risk your life in.

Yeah apart from london,manchester,glasgow,belfast,birmingham,liverpool,newcastle,cardiff and the rest

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
That "primitive gun culture in the U.S." prevents more crimes than it enables.

Idiotic comment.

As previously mentioned: in the worst areas of Britain's cities, there is absolutely no danger of being shot.

The restrictions on firearm ownership leads to no danger of ever having a gun intentionally fired at you.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
How nice of you to shamelessly exploit a tragedy to make your political point.

I am not exploiting a tragedy. I am, in fact, rather upset because of two British lads losing their lives because of the primitive, backward-ass country that is the USA.

You are shamelessly exploiting a counter-point, in a pathetic attempt to belittle my logical appraisal of this issue...

Originally posted by Skewed
It seems as if you are more concerned with the tool and how the crime was committed, instead of the crime itself. I can not help but think that you are actually saying, " I despise guns and they all need to be banned, but I do mind people being killed."

Nah, nah.

I don't despise guns.

Personally, I legally possess a pistol that is locked away for any 'emergencies'. LOL.