Comments on: 5 Dead In Fiery L.A. Home Standoff

Officer And Gunman Killed; Three Men, Likely Relatives Of Shooter, Also Dead

[gunownerdan]

Stun guns, bats, and martial arts are more effective than guns at providing protection?
Not against an attacker armed with a gun.
You can''t block bullets with your hands or with a baseball bat but you do have a chance of stopping a shooter by being able to shoot back.

[notblue]

Guns in the right hands save lives. People hell bent on killing or under any circumstances will not surrender or be taken alive will use any weapon to complete their evil agenda, guns are the weapons of choice for these people and no laws will stop them. Gun laws are in place for law abiding citizens not criminals that ignore the laws, that''s why gun control don''t work.

[displeased]

Which one of my ideas and claims are you talking about? Be specific please!~
Posted by schoollord

All of them.

[gunownerdan]

The reason why in most DGUs not a single shot is fired and no one is harmed is because most criminals are UNARMED!~
Posted by schoollord

An unarmed criminal can still be very dangerous and could even kill. Of course, schoollord will never admit this.

[gunownerdan]

If you read my hundreds of posts here you will see that term used ONCE!~
Posted by schoollord

An hour?
You have called me and others many different names schoollord and to say otherwise is a flat out lie.

[gunownerdan]

This placed guns as relatively 8th and 9th in terms of perceived effectiveness
Posted by schoollord

Please enlighten us schoollord, what exactly is so much more effective than guns?

[gunownerdan]

MyIDonCBS,
Nice use of stereotypes(like usual).

[myidoncbs]

Someone wondered, "do they own guns only because they have the "constitutional right" to own guns?" The answer, of course, is no-- they own guns because they are paranoid and insecure and/or s3xu.ally inadequate, and the cold, hard steel and the loud explosive bang and the fantasy that they are "in control" all make them feel more powerful. Unfortunately, the people that are attracted to guns (and especially those who brag about their guns) are the very people who should never be allowed to have guns, because their mental problems put the rest of us in immanent danger.

[gunownerdan]

"Generally, the number of justifiable homicides committed by police exceeded the number committed by citizens"
posted by schoollord


That''s because most of the time when a gun is used by a citizen in self defense, not a single shot is fired and no one is harmed.

[Krazcarl]

schoolord get of your soap box your mentaly challenaged and your point are mute I''ve raised chickens more intelligent than you . Your bored so you think by rattling GUNOWNERDAN chain your superior you just show your pathatic stupidity, If I was in a jam on the street I would rather have gunownerdan nearby than a coward like you. Hide behind the screen and attempt to look intelligent . YOU FAILED. You nothing but a bored troll and everyone sees it. By the way I don''t care about my gramatical errors, only ***** like you point that out.

[rukindr]

Done respectfully? Few here present the facts more respectfully than I do. I am the victim of the attacks not the perpetrator.

Posted by schoollord

I agree that you are being attacked, that was never in contention.

[gunownerdan]

schoollord,
You can''t protect lives by making it illegal for citizens to be able to protect their own lives.

[gunownerdan]

USBrit,
I said that all gun crimes are the result of ILLEGALLY-USED guns.
Some people own guns just because they can, but far more own them because they realize no one but themselves can be responsible for their own safety.
The courts have ruled many times that the police do not have an obligation to protect individual citizens.
In other words your life and your safety is YOUR responsibility.
Some people take this responsiblity seriously enough to be armed and capable of using their weapons.
It''s similar to why so many people have a fire extinguisher in their homes.
They don''t want their home to catch on fire, but if it does it would be best to be prepared for the worst.

[gunownerdan]

schoollord,
The Dred Scott decision is a good example of how courts can be very wrong, unless of course you believe non-white citizens are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as white citizens.

[gunownerdan]

exCoachKen,
The second amendment isn''t about hunting.
Those who want to ban "assault weapons" will use the term to describe any and all semi-automatic firearms including common shotguns and rifles. Allowing the government to ban scartly-looking guns will only lead to further infringements of our rights.
Better enforcement of existing laws is the answer.

[usbrit-2009]

How''s about this one. Gun owners always shout about their "constitutional rights." What if the founding fathers had not written the 2nd amendment. If it didn''t exist (but there were no laws outlawing guns either) would people such as gunownerdan be so adamant about owning one or 567? In other words, do they own guns only because they have the "constitutional right" to own guns.

[rukindr]

I am sure most posters here will tell you that I am not the probem in the name calling thing. You could have know that yourself if you have made a little bit of research before you posted your opinion. I wonder how you saw the "loser" claim but missed all the names they are calling me!~ Did you miss the posts of support many members here have posted too? I let the facts of gun violence I post speak for me!~

Posted by schoollord

Of course there''s support for gun CONTROL, and really, other than the Bill of Rights argument it''s pointless to give credence to anything else gun nuts say. I''m simply pointing out that you are being some what hypocritical in your posts and your argument would be better if it was done respectfully, I''m willing to bet the name calling would dramatically decrease. Your hearts in the right place and I agree a better solution needs to be found whether it''s restricting access to guns or figuring out if something is inherently wrong with our society. I would be interested to see what the percentage of violent crimes using guns overseas is versus the percentage of gun owners compared to that of the US.

[oeangus]

Goody, more people with guns getting killed! Way to go AMERICA! Your gun laws are way cool. It''s like being in a Hollywood action picture, 24/7!

[displeased]

I am interested in reducing weapons designed to kill people, not those that are legitimate for hunting. I see no reason for any civilian to own an AK-47, M-16, anti-tank weapon, machine gun, etc.
Posted by exCoachKen

Your ideas and claims sound more reasonable and realistic than schoollord''s. I agree there should be a compromise between everybody owning a gun and nobody owning a gun. I think gunownerdan mentioned earlier there are tight restrictions on obtaining heavy artillery, such as machine guns. But yet they''re still on the streets indicating a black market that will only get worse. There definitely are issues that need attention.

[usbrit-2009]

This is one I''ve asked before and will again. gunownerdan - you say (debatably) that most gun crime involves the use of illegally obtained guns. This, presumably everyone including the NRA agrees is a bad thing. Why then does the NRA try to figure out better ways of keeping guns out of the wrong hands rather than trying to relax what little control we have.