Shooting at Sikh temple: 7 dead, including suspected gunman, police say

[FKA Reader]

Oliver wrote:

<quoted text>
It’s sad when a person like you looks up to warped and evil men.
The disgrace is a proven liar like Al Sharpton (that unstable Blacks like you admire).
If you would only follow in the steps of conservative Blacks (e.g., Walter Williams, Allan Keyes, Allan West, Thomas Sowell, Ken Blackwell, J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas) you would live a clean life and become a credit to your race and to the world.
Make the right choice.

So, living a clean life requires a far right political viewpoint?

BTW--a record of Ken Blackwell's not so very clean record of voter suppression: http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-91...

[tranpsosition]

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>Do they not have Google in England?

They do indeed. I thought it might be better for you to look it up and compare on your own, without someone you could see as an opponent giving you the data.

Do you think the homicide rate is higher in the UK? Just your opinion.

[Oliver]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
So, living a clean life requires a far right political viewpoint?
BTW--a record of Ken Blackwell's not so very clean record of voter suppression: http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-91...

No, but you (liberals) continue to attack any Black man who dares stray from the welfare plantation. Progressive Ohioan even uses horrific racist language to describe conservative Blacks, when those individuals exhibit the kind of work ethic, initiative and energy which is desperately needed in the Black Community.

[FKA Reader]

Oliver wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but you (liberals) continue to attack any Black man who dares stray from the welfare plantation. Progressive Ohioan even uses horrific racist language to describe conservative Blacks, when those individuals exhibit the kind of work ethic, initiative and energy which is desperately needed in the Black Community.

Funny--I have never associated Progressive Ohioan with a plantation of any kind, or welfare, either.

In fact, until recently I didn't realize that he (I think he) was black.

But again, when there are so many hard-working blacks to choose from, why is it that folks on the right are always holding up examples of far-right conservatives as the only appropriate exemplars of hard work, industry, responsibility and bettering oneself?

You don't have to agree with Barack Obama (or Progressive Ohioan), but I don't think he got to where he is by shuckin' and jivin'.

[Wait what]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny--I have never associated Progressive Ohioan with a plantation of any kind, or welfare, either.
In fact, until recently I didn't realize that he (I think he) was black.
But again, when there are so many hard-working blacks to choose from, why is it that folks on the right are always holding up examples of far-right conservatives as the only appropriate exemplars of hard work, industry, responsibility and bettering oneself?
You don't have to agree with Barack Obama (or Progressive Ohioan), but I don't think he got to where he is by shuckin' and jivin'.

Investigations such as "Operations Board Games" interfere. But interestingly enough, the liberal political black folk I really respected were for...Hillary. Didn't much care for Barack. I thought that was interesting, don't you?

[TonyD2]

tranpsosition wrote:

<quoted text>
Except that increased regulation is precisely what worked here.
Would you like me to find you some information about the history of gun control in the UK/

Restricting law abiding peoples' rights isn't the right way to do it.

[FKA Reader]

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Restricting law abiding peoples' rights isn't the right way to do it.

Yeah--I would prefer some other way to go about things as well. We are stuck in a cultural rut of believing that increasing firepower makes us safer (and more right).

The problem is that we haven't done a bang-up job of limiting fire-arms to the righteous and sound of mind. We have sort of limited legal ownership to good hoop-jumpers, but that doesn't appear to be quite the same thing.

And there is some evidence of a false bravado that tends to accompany being armed. I suspect this is more true at the amateur than the professional (law enforcement) level. Professionals, whether due to training or experience, are somewhat less likely to walk into or escalate situations where shooting may be the result.

And then we have lots of folks who swear that THEIR gun will never go astray, never be found loaded by a four-year-old, never be taken off by a teenager, never be stolen. This is a fool's paradise. The "bad guys" (an elusive definition if there ever was one) aren't building their own guns out in the woods somewhere. All the guns that end up in the wrong hands started out in the right hands first. And sometimes the right hands turn into the wrong hands resulting in deadly domestic violence or suicide.

What would it take for a lot of people to just decide that everybody owning a gun is a really bad idea--even if they have a right to do it?

[tip]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah--I would prefer some other way to go about things as well. We are stuck in a cultural rut of believing that increasing firepower makes us safer (and more right).
The problem is that we haven't done a bang-up job of limiting fire-arms to the righteous and sound of mind. We have sort of limited legal ownership to good hoop-jumpers, but that doesn't appear to be quite the same thing.
And there is some evidence of a false bravado that tends to accompany being armed. I suspect this is more true at the amateur than the professional (law enforcement) level. Professionals, whether due to training or experience, are somewhat less likely to walk into or escalate situations where shooting may be the result.
And then we have lots of folks who swear that THEIR gun will never go astray, never be found loaded by a four-year-old, never be taken off by a teenager, never be stolen. This is a fool's paradise. The "bad guys" (an elusive definition if there ever was one) aren't building their own guns out in the woods somewhere. All the guns that end up in the wrong hands started out in the right hands first. And sometimes the right hands turn into the wrong hands resulting in deadly domestic violence or suicide.
What would it take for a lot of people to just decide that everybody owning a gun is a really bad idea--even if they have a right to do it?

In all these years, not one of my guns has ever killed a human.
Millions of other gun owners can make the same claim.
Imagine that.

[TonyD2]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah--I would prefer some other way to go about things as well. We are stuck in a cultural rut of believing that increasing firepower makes us safer (and more right).
The problem is that we haven't done a bang-up job of limiting fire-arms to the righteous and sound of mind. We have sort of limited legal ownership to good hoop-jumpers, but that doesn't appear to be quite the same thing.
And there is some evidence of a false bravado that tends to accompany being armed. I suspect this is more true at the amateur than the professional (law enforcement) level. Professionals, whether due to training or experience, are somewhat less likely to walk into or escalate situations where shooting may be the result.
And then we have lots of folks who swear that THEIR gun will never go astray, never be found loaded by a four-year-old, never be taken off by a teenager, never be stolen. This is a fool's paradise. The "bad guys" (an elusive definition if there ever was one) aren't building their own guns out in the woods somewhere. All the guns that end up in the wrong hands started out in the right hands first. And sometimes the right hands turn into the wrong hands resulting in deadly domestic violence or suicide.
What would it take for a lot of people to just decide that everybody owning a gun is a really bad idea--even if they have a right to do it?

The law is about what IS, not what MIGHT BE. Should we ban knives or baseball bats or cars because someone might misuse one? You want to punish everyone for the uncertain possibility of actions of a few. You are still warped.

[FKA Reader]

tip wrote:

<quoted text>
In all these years, not one of my guns has ever killed a human.
Millions of other gun owners can make the same claim.
Imagine that.

A three-year-old in Mt. Vernon accidentally shot himself with a gun that his parents thought was out of his reach.

A twelve-year-old near Houston, Texas shot his eleven-year-old brother last week. They were at home alone and decided to play with rifles that are kept in a closet that is supposed to be locked.

Two days ago a twelve-year-old was shot accidentally by his sixteen-year-old brother in Birmingham.

Those are just a few quick accidents that I pulled from Google.

But then, the seventeen-year-old in Chardon who shot up a school cafeteria this year used a rifle that was kept at his grandparent's home.

And one legally-owned and carried gun in Florida killed a kid on his way home from the store.

So--maybe a million guns have never killed anyone. Tell that to someone who is burying their child. And explain how that balances out.

[FKA Reader]

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
The law is about what IS, not what MIGHT BE. Should we ban knives or baseball bats or cars because someone might misuse one? You want to punish everyone for the uncertain possibility of actions of a few. You are still warped.

It sounds like you are saying we have no problem with people dying in this country from gunshot wounds.

[VAdoc]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah--I would prefer some other way to go about things as well. We are stuck in a cultural rut of believing that increasing firepower makes us safer (and more right).
The problem is that we haven't done a bang-up job of limiting fire-arms to the righteous and sound of mind. We have sort of limited legal ownership to good hoop-jumpers, but that doesn't appear to be quite the same thing.
And there is some evidence of a false bravado that tends to accompany being armed. I suspect this is more true at the amateur than the professional (law enforcement) level. Professionals, whether due to training or experience, are somewhat less likely to walk into or escalate situations where shooting may be the result.
And then we have lots of folks who swear that THEIR gun will never go astray, never be found loaded by a four-year-old, never be taken off by a teenager, never be stolen. This is a fool's paradise. The "bad guys" (an elusive definition if there ever was one) aren't building their own guns out in the woods somewhere. All the guns that end up in the wrong hands started out in the right hands first. And sometimes the right hands turn into the wrong hands resulting in deadly domestic violence or suicide.
What would it take for a lot of people to just decide that everybody owning a gun is a really bad idea--even if they have a right to do it?

You've obviously never shot with LEO's. Most of them are anti-gun and usually are very poorly qualified shooters. Several know nothing about their weapon except how to pull the trigger and put more bullets in it. Some of the most dangerous shooters I've been on the range with are carrying badges. I remember the first time I went to a shoot and a gang of local PD and sheriffs deputies showed up to the range for a match. They disqualified 2 of them that day and told them they were never allowed back since they were so unsafe.

False bravado? Again you've not interacted much with LEO's. Many of them have a chip on their shoulder or a Napolean complex. Many have short tempers. I've seen this first hand. You're a fool if you think a police officer is any less hotheaded or foolhearty than your typical concealed carry permit holder.

"What would it take for a lot of people to just decide that everybody owning a gun is a really bad idea--even if they have a right to do it?"

I'm not sure because events like aurora Colorado only reinforce my belief that I should carry everywhere I go since I can't carry a law enforcement officer on my back everywhere I go.

I'll ask you the same question. What would it take for a liberal to decide that the majority of citizens owning a gun is a good idea?

[TonyD2]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
It sounds like you are saying we have no problem with people dying in this country from gunshot wounds.

No, I am saying we don't have the right to punish one person for another's misfeasance or malfeasance.

[VAdoc]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
So--maybe a million guns have never killed anyone. Tell that to someone who is burying their child. And explain how that balances out.

Hmmm sounds like we should make people take a test and get a license before being allowed to produce offspring rather than limiting gun control. Sounds like poor parenting to me. Shall we post all the stats of how many kids of killed or injured each year from drinking household chemicals or taking unsecured medicines? How about all kids who are hurt in home accidents not involving firearms in the home?

I dare you to ask someone who has used a gun to prevent seriously bodily harm to themselves or their families and see what they say.

[FKA Reader]

VAdoc wrote:

<quoted text>
You've obviously never shot with LEO's. Most of them are anti-gun and usually are very poorly qualified shooters. Several know nothing about their weapon except how to pull the trigger and put more bullets in it. Some of the most dangerous shooters I've been on the range with are carrying badges. I remember the first time I went to a shoot and a gang of local PD and sheriffs deputies showed up to the range for a match. They disqualified 2 of them that day and told them they were never allowed back since they were so unsafe.
False bravado? Again you've not interacted much with LEO's. Many of them have a chip on their shoulder or a Napolean complex. Many have short tempers. I've seen this first hand. You're a fool if you think a police officer is any less hotheaded or foolhearty than your typical concealed carry permit holder.
"What would it take for a lot of people to just decide that everybody owning a gun is a really bad idea--even if they have a right to do it?"
I'm not sure because events like aurora Colorado only reinforce my belief that I should carry everywhere I go since I can't carry a law enforcement officer on my back everywhere I go.
I'll ask you the same question. What would it take for a liberal to decide that the majority of citizens owning a gun is a good idea?

Target practice does not make for wisdom.

Yes, I have seen hot-headed cops in action. And I have also seen cops skilled at de-escalation.

Cops are trained in some basic reflexes--such as announcing themselves to be law enforcement. Giving an immediate order to drop a weapon or put hands up or drop to the floor. They are trained about when and how to enter a situation and what kind of back-up is required.

Idiots that think that dropping more civilian firepower into the Aurora theater blackness and chaos would have solved something need to be restricted from carrying dangerous weapons anywhere that there are people. Let me ask you--who do you shoot? If the answer is the guy with the gun, then how do you distinguish between the shooter who came in to take down a bunch of folks and three others like yourself who pull their weapon and start firing back? And how long does it take the police to sort things out?

[Boomer7]

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>According to the CDC, before we ban guns, we need to ban six things that are even more dangerous:

Cars
Water
Fire
Gravity
Poisons
Low oxygen environments

Give that a shot and get back to us.

You forgot spoons and forks! Those two items are aiding to obesity and diabetes! LOL!

[Female]

The only problem I have with not having gun control it would be open season on blacks and whom ever else may be on someone's hate list. Too many hate groups out there. They would just say " Oh, he was about to rob me" even though he may be unarmed. Their is enough loonies out there that can get a gun legally. There has to be a stop the hate campain. If all this hate continues it will reach a point that the people in our society will have to wake up because it will become too dangerous. Hate begots Hate until everyone is fighting among themselves and what will our country be like.

[Female]

OK I spelled the wrong there. Any way I just don't believe we need to become the Wild, Wild West all over again.

[Female]

The phrase "violence begets violence" (or "hate begets hate") refers to the concept that violent behavior promotes other violent behavior, in return. The phrase has been used for over 50 years, as in speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.(1958)[1] or the news report "Study: TV Violence Begets Violence" by CBS News (March 2003).[2]

Violence begets violence and evil begets evil are concepts described in the Gospel of Matthew, verse 26:52.[3] The passage depicts a disciple (identified in the Gospel of John as Peter) drawing a sword to defend against the arrest of Jesus but being told to sheath his weapon:


Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.[4]

[edit] Words by Dr. King

The reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.(1929-1968) used the phrase when saying:[1][5][6]


Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.[1]


The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.… Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that

[VADoc]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Target practice does not make for wisdom.
Yes, I have seen hot-headed cops in action. And I have also seen cops skilled at de-escalation.
Cops are trained in some basic reflexes--such as announcing themselves to be law enforcement. Giving an immediate order to drop a weapon or put hands up or drop to the floor. They are trained about when and how to enter a situation and what kind of back-up is required.
Idiots that think that dropping more civilian firepower into the Aurora theater blackness and chaos would have solved something need to be restricted from carrying dangerous weapons anywhere that there are people. Let me ask you--who do you shoot? If the answer is the guy with the gun, then how do you distinguish between the shooter who came in to take down a bunch of folks and three others like yourself who pull their weapon and start firing back? And how long does it take the police to sort things out?

*sigh* I've said numerous times that even having ff duty armed police officers in the theater in aurora wouldn't have done much, but you seem to ignore that. You can keep living in the dream world that the average law enforcement officer is a super soldier, but most of us know otherwise.

The police are often not first responders. They usually arrive after bad things have already happened.

Maybe one day you'll wake up. Perhaps after some lovely chaps in your neighborhood break into your home and pull a train on you you might change your mind, but I doubt it. You'd probably not even press charges. You'd probably say it wasn't their fault and your white guilt would le them walk. Who knows.

I hope you or one of your family members are never a victim of a violent crime. I have been and I can tell you what it's like.