It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#84444 Dec 11, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
You and I think very differently.
I think like people have for thousands of years, you think like people that have been trained by liberal public schools, IE to rely on some great gov authority to protect you.

A: I too like many others in a civilised society have had hundreds of thousands of years of learning what succeeds and what fails and we build a society based on that knowledge....we could live like a caveman so that liberal thinking sees you living in a house with gas for heating and doors against the weather and intruders...it's called evolving....

The village is what is important. A family makes uo that village. Strangers are a danger, until proven otherwise.

A: A stranger to you is a relative or friend to someone else...you must learn to be discerning without prejudice.

trayvon was a stranger in the neighborhood. This neighborhood had been experiencing "danger". IE , break ins.

A: that is profiling, just because the neighborhood had experience break ins there was no call to judge Trayvon as a suspect here or suspicious just because he was black and on the estate......it was one persons word there is no evidence to support them that Trayvon was one of the two they had seen roaming the estate....

One of the villagers saw a "suspicious character". Checking out suspuiscious characters is something villagers have been doing for thousands of years, and is a very important evolutionary tool.

A: And you only have the so called word of someone that has experience neighborhood break ins by living in that closed community....a lone black kid in a hoody would no doubt be seen as a threat...but reporting suspicious behaviour and applying that behaviour to this kid was unsubstantiated and bias....Covering each others arse is another thing village people do when the shit hits the fan as well to the point of murder and bigotry...

Everything Z did is something I would like to think anyone in my neighborhood would do.

A: No it isn't because you don't know what he did....you are making the mistake every person with bias does especially when you don't actually know the facts, you weren't there....so you also in your own way, have the same village mentality when a like minded person does what you would have done it is easier to justify his actions and not see them as they are and in this case it points to murder.....

Unfortunately, most of my neighbors are liberals who would not even call the law if they heard screaming in their back yard.

A: you don't have to be a liberal to investigate noises in your back yard, but you might to take matters into your own hand to the point of murder.

Since Trayvon was a "visitor", he had no right to expect to wonder freely thru the village without being confronted. Even the "gangs" understand that concept.
A: I agree.....but there is no evidence to support that he was ever asked what he was doing there or if he had been ordered off either.

Since Z was a villager, he had an obligation to check out the stranger.

A: An obligation to check out yes, not to take matters into his own hands.....

Since that is not part of your thinking process, Z will always be the villian to you, and T will be the hero.
Which is a counter evolutionary way of thinking At least according to me and history.

A: Not true, I understand self defence and I also understand murder, and I look at as much of the evidence as it stands, and I try to put myself in "both" their shoes to work out what happened, and Zimmermans story doesn't add up....there are holes that appear like untruths....if they fill them in then I might think differently but I have read the transcrips in full and heard the accounts and Z is either leaving things out or he is hiding something....No you jump, the gun history isn't finished with Z yet, you will have to re-write history if he is found guilty...and at this time I believe they will....
Guppy

Gadsden, AL

#84445 Dec 11, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe on your planet. On our planet they used cliffs (as in ran them off one, not the guy that annoyed you in grade school), and later, rode horses and used arrows.
Are you saying the only way they killed the buffalo was by running them over a cliff?

Scratching forehead.

And later ~ rode horses and used arrows.

Scratching forehead.

Are you going to make me reread these books, so I can tell you, you are wrong.

Zig's been in solitary confinement way too long.
Guppy

Gadsden, AL

#84446 Dec 11, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe on your planet. On our planet they used cliffs (as in ran them off one, not the guy that annoyed you in grade school), and later, rode horses and used arrows.
Wait...The indians followed the buffalo for food. They would pack up and move about every two weeks. Are you saying everywhere they went there was a cliff? Wouldn't that be sumthin.

Time to pull out the books......again.

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84447 Dec 11, 2012
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>Ever been to Dealey Plaza?
You never questioned Oswald's ability to fire 3 rounds in under 8 seconds with a bolt action rifle all the while sighting in between shots on a moving target?
Oswald wasn't that good.
Strange that a strip club owner be allowed to wander down the ramp while the alleged assassin of the POTUS is being transferred between jails?
Weirdest damned thing, the 4 digit code I have to type in to publish this post is '1963'.
Yes, I've been to Dealey Plaza. I lived in Texas, early seventies.

No, I never questioned Oswald's ability to fire 3 rounds in 8 seconds. It's been proven possible many times. The first shot was a miss, you know.

Not strange. Many of the cops knew him and hung out at his strip club. You don't think cops are priests, do you?:-)

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84448 Dec 11, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying the only way they killed the buffalo was by running them over a cliff?
Scratching forehead.
And later ~ rode horses and used arrows.
Scratching forehead.
Are you going to make me reread these books, so I can tell you, you are wrong.
Zig's been in solitary confinement way too long.
Sometimes they snuck up on them.
Guppy

Gadsden, AL

#84449 Dec 11, 2012
After Jack Ruby killed Oswald, he explained that he killed Oswald to spare Jackie Kennedy the pain of going through a trial.

Does that sound logical to you?
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84450 Dec 11, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
What book are you reading?
One thousand to one? Didn't know that. Let me know where you read that ~ I'd like to read it too.
I haven't read much about the east coast indians. I wonder if they were as barbaric as the indians in other parts of the country?
Ten soldiers could take on 100 indians? Not true. THEY HAD TO RELOAD AFTER ONE SHOT. THE INDIANS WERE TOO GOOD WITH THE BOW AND ARROW.
Of course the indians lost. When did I say they didn't.
If I had known I would be quizzed about the indians ~ I would have taken notes whilst reading about them.
American history books could not go into detail of exactly what went on with the indians and the Americans. The book would be huge and kids would get bored.
Some of the captives that were released or ran away were interviewed by the newspapers. I've read two of them. You might be surprised about what went on.
Before eating anymore useless rants?? What is that supposed to mean??
You should try expanding your little mind. There is a big world out there. Not just your neighborhood. Get out of Mississippi much, Tracyvon?
Please explain how many white men were in this country at the outbreak of hostility with the indians. 10 solders to 100 indians you did read the WHOLE post didn't you? REPEATERS and REVOLVERS don't need reloading after every shot. Then came the cannon and Gatling gun. The bow of the time was not even close to the european long bow which was not close to the crossbow which was not close to the gun. 30 yards was a good shot with the bow the natives had. The gun was deadly past 100 yards and many times the settler carried a long arm and a side arm or more giving him MORE than one shot before reloading. The average battle the indian would have to travel 70 yards under gun fire before getting close enough to return fire, try that sometime and get back to me.
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84451 Dec 11, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Interestingly enough, in the later 19th century, the Indians had better firearms than the military. The white man was fortunate that 90% of the Indians had been killed by disease between 1500 and 1800.
But the arms were few and far between and ammo scarce. They faced men who were born and raised around guns and had handle them from an early age. The ammo situation meant the indian could not waste rounds practicing and when he ran out it was very difficult to obtain more (no Walmart around). The indian was also not known for maintaining a gun, exposure to the elements and few if any tools or knowledge of the workings of the gun. Many guns they acquired were rendered useless before they ever saw battle. The "BETTER" gun was a repeater which was chambered with a less powerful and shorter range round than the military single shot like the 45-70
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lara, Australia

#84452 Dec 11, 2012
ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING lN THE U.S.!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!
Law

Papillion, NE

#84453 Dec 11, 2012
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wrote:
ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING lN THE U.S.!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!
Dancing in the blood are you? Typical.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lara, Australia

#84454 Dec 11, 2012
Law wrote:
<quoted text>Dancing in the blood are you? Typical.
Still think civilians with guns is a good idea do you? Typical.

DANCING!- WOOH!- DANCING!- WOOH!- DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY!

YOU SHOULD BE DAAAAAANCIING - YEEEAAAAHHH!
DAAAAAAANCIING - YEEAAAHHH!
tere -tere -teRE -tere -terere --tere -tere -tere...
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84455 Dec 11, 2012
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wrote:
<quoted text>
Still think civilians with guns is a good idea do you? Typical.
DANCING!- WOOH!- DANCING!- WOOH!- DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY!
YOU SHOULD BE DAAAAAANCIING - YEEEAAAAHHH!
DAAAAAAANCIING - YEEAAAHHH!
tere -tere -teRE -tere -terere --tere -tere -tere...
Said the insufferable, crass bitch from 'down under.'
So, is that 'down under' a dingo, or a 'roo today, animal diddler?
Does your day get ruined when there are no stories for you crow about? Probably.
Imagine that: YOU are down and out, dejected even, when there are no death to be reported upon.
But then YOU ARE thoroughly ELATED to broadcast the deaths of innocents, and YOU BROADCAST that fact.
Yet you have the unmitigated temerity to cast aspersions at others.
YOU are ONE SICK BASTARD/BITCH!
The SuperHeroes

Torrance, CA

#84456 Dec 11, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Said the insufferable, crass bitch from 'down under.'
So, is that 'down under' a dingo, or a 'roo today, animal diddler?
Does your day get ruined when there are no stories for you crow about? Probably.
Imagine that: YOU are down and out, dejected even, when there are no death to be reported upon.
But then YOU ARE thoroughly ELATED to broadcast the deaths of innocents, and YOU BROADCAST that fact.
Yet you have the unmitigated temerity to cast aspersions at others.
YOU are ONE SICK BASTARD/BITCH!
Exclusive: Dr Fraud is.......

Cerberus - Cerberus is a giant three-headed dog.

In Greek and Roman mythology, Cerberus, or Kerberos, was a three-headed dog-like beast with a serpent's tail and was responsible for guarding the gates of Hades and keeping spirits from leaving.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012040...
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84458 Dec 11, 2012
The SuperHeroes wrote:
<quoted text>
Exclusive: Dr Fraud is.......
Cerberus - Cerberus is a giant three-headed dog.
In Greek and Roman mythology, Cerberus, or Kerberos, was a three-headed dog-like beast with a serpent's tail and was responsible for guarding the gates of Hades and keeping spirits from leaving.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012040...
Sock puppets ^galore^.
The SuperHeroes

Torrance, CA

#84459 Dec 11, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Sock puppets ^galore^.
Stockholm, next Dr Cerberus, or Copenhagen?

Must say your Good Aussie Mad Dog SWITCHERS are even more mobile than you, on their CAI' BANG CARLSBERG !!! OOOHOHOHOHOHOOOOOO ...world tour.
Guppy

Gadsden, AL

#84461 Dec 12, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Please explain how many white men were in this country at the outbreak of hostility with the indians. 10 solders to 100 indians you did read the WHOLE post didn't you? REPEATERS and REVOLVERS don't need reloading after every shot. Then came the cannon and Gatling gun. The bow of the time was not even close to the european long bow which was not close to the crossbow which was not close to the gun. 30 yards was a good shot with the bow the natives had. The gun was deadly past 100 yards and many times the settler carried a long arm and a side arm or more giving him MORE than one shot before reloading. The average battle the indian would have to travel 70 yards under gun fire before getting close enough to return fire, try that sometime and get back to me.
Don't know how many white men were here at the time. You look it up and get back to me. What difference does it make? Most men WERE NOT in the military ~ they lived in big cities.

Yes, they needed to reload AFTER each shot. Yes, at some point they got better weapons. That is a fact. Deal with it.

Yes, they carried a rifle and a side arm. Doesn't help with reloading.

Lots of info, but what does it all mean?f
Guppy

Gadsden, AL

#84462 Dec 12, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> But the arms were few and far between and ammo scarce. They faced men who were born and raised around guns and had handle them from an early age. The ammo situation meant the indian could not waste rounds practicing and when he ran out it was very difficult to obtain more (no Walmart around). The indian was also not known for maintaining a gun, exposure to the elements and few if any tools or knowledge of the workings of the gun. Many guns they acquired were rendered useless before they ever saw battle. The "BETTER" gun was a repeater which was chambered with a less powerful and shorter range round than the military single shot like the 45-70
Tracyvon ~ What is your point? You could say the same for the military. They didn't have a Walmart either.
Dupont ~ Merchants of Death.

The indians were not known for maintaining a gun. Where do you get this stuff?
Guppy

Gadsden, AL

#84463 Dec 12, 2012
Guppy wrote:
After Jack Ruby killed Oswald, he explained that he killed Oswald to spare Jackie Kennedy the pain of going through a trial.
Does that sound logical to you?
Did the police ASK Oswald if he wanted an attorney? No.

If they had, he would have said Yes.

Did he have one?

No.

Didn't want to get an attorney involved because then the truth would have come out.

Oswald had bruises on his face. Why?

He had a black eye? Why?

Who shot Tippet? sp?

So many unanswered questions.

Arlen Specter ~ the one bullet theory.

The bullet was found at the hospital. On a stretcher? HTH did it get there if it went through Kennedy and Connelly?

Did the government help Marina Oswald after her husband died?

Why can't this be solved once and for all?

Why was Jack Ruby there when they were moving Oswald? That was a coincidence.

Why did Jack Ruby die of lung cancer? He didn't smoke. Second hand smoke? Unlikely.

Why didn't someone shoot Jack Ruby after her shot Oswald? Interesting.

Why did Oswald die after being shot just once? Interesting. Did they let him die?

Why were they moving Oswald? Why wasn't he protected by an army of police? One person was with him? Why not more?

It was nice of Jack Ruby to spare Jackie. Very thoughtful of him. He was a tough guy, but I guess he had a soft heart when it came to women.

Why was Jackie spared? She was wearing a pretty pink suit.

Did Jackie send that suit to the cleaners or did she preserve it as a reminder of what was done to her husband the president.

Did Bobby Kennedy think he was next?

Did he let his guard down?

Why didn't Ethel Kennedy marry again? Did she have too much money and didn't want to share it with a poor guy?

Why did Ethel/Bobby have soooo many kidlets? Was she in competition with her mother-in-law? Maybe.

How did Ethel raise ALL those kids? Must have been bedlam at their house.

Why don't Kennedy's cry? No tear ducts?

Why do WE cry when we think of the Kennedy's? Blowing nose...

If Bobby Kennedy marries this new chick, will he drive her crazy too? Probably.

Why was Joe Kennedy allowed to annul his marriage after two kids and ten years? The catholics are nuts. Do the Kennedy's give a lot of money to the church?

Why?

Can someone tell me?

Why don't the Kennedy's carry guns?

Why did Teddy Kennedy clean up his act?

Why do the Kennedy's ALWAYS get away with stuff?

I need these questions answered.

@#@
X Obama Supporter

Coffeyville, KS

#84464 Dec 12, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the police ASK Oswald if he wanted an attorney? No.
If they had, he would have said Yes.
Did he have one?
No.
Didn't want to get an attorney involved because then the truth would have come out.
Oswald had bruises on his face. Why?
He had a black eye? Why?
Who shot Tippet? sp?
So many unanswered questions.
Arlen Specter ~ the one bullet theory.
The bullet was found at the hospital. On a stretcher? HTH did it get there if it went through Kennedy and Connelly?
Did the government help Marina Oswald after her husband died?
Why can't this be solved once and for all?
Why was Jack Ruby there when they were moving Oswald? That was a coincidence.
Why did Jack Ruby die of lung cancer? He didn't smoke. Second hand smoke? Unlikely.
Why didn't someone shoot Jack Ruby after her shot Oswald? Interesting.
Why did Oswald die after being shot just once? Interesting. Did they let him die?
Why were they moving Oswald? Why wasn't he protected by an army of police? One person was with him? Why not more?
It was nice of Jack Ruby to spare Jackie. Very thoughtful of him. He was a tough guy, but I guess he had a soft heart when it came to women.
Why was Jackie spared? She was wearing a pretty pink suit.
Did Jackie send that suit to the cleaners or did she preserve it as a reminder of what was done to her husband the president.
Did Bobby Kennedy think he was next?
Did he let his guard down?
Why didn't Ethel Kennedy marry again? Did she have too much money and didn't want to share it with a poor guy?
Why did Ethel/Bobby have soooo many kidlets? Was she in competition with her mother-in-law? Maybe.
How did Ethel raise ALL those kids? Must have been bedlam at their house.
Why don't Kennedy's cry? No tear ducts?
Why do WE cry when we think of the Kennedy's? Blowing nose...
If Bobby Kennedy marries this new chick, will he drive her crazy too? Probably.
Why was Joe Kennedy allowed to annul his marriage after two kids and ten years? The catholics are nuts. Do the Kennedy's give a lot of money to the church?
Why?
Can someone tell me?
Why don't the Kennedy's carry guns?
Why did Teddy Kennedy clean up his act?
Why do the Kennedy's ALWAYS get away with stuff?
I need these questions answered.
@#@
The Catholic church didn't annul the marriage because of money given to them by the Kennedy's. The church does that for Catholics period, Kennedy or not. And they will do it more than once for the same person too. I know a guy that has been married three times, the first two were annulled by the church, even though the first marriage produced three children together, and both of the first two marriages they were paying spousal support to the x wives even after the annulments. Yes, it's nutty stuff.

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84465 Dec 12, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholic church didn't annul the marriage because of money given to them by the Kennedy's. The church does that for Catholics period, Kennedy or not. And they will do it more than once for the same person too. I know a guy that has been married three times, the first two were annulled by the church, even though the first marriage produced three children together, and both of the first two marriages they were paying spousal support to the x wives even after the annulments. Yes, it's nutty stuff.
Yes, a little money makes the sin go away.:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do white women really have sex with dogs? (Dec '12) 20 hr Your daddy 50
News Australian forces seen mired in mission (May '06) Sat Sambo 6
Always in the mood for s*xting and nudes! k ik ... Dec 2 molline32 1
f19 here wanna trade n:des daddy? just k:k me 8... Nov 29 haileykhalifa 1
White people are scum thieves of the world (Mar '13) Nov 28 omar alfredo 159
Poll Is Proud Misogynist the smartest poster on this... (Jan '13) Nov 28 bobby boner vII 38
Targeted Individuals (gangstalking) and the Rh ... (Sep '14) Nov 25 Tammy 37
More from around the web