# George Zimmerman is back in the news



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 22, 2013)

And it has nothing to do with his trial this time.  Apparently, he pulled a man from an overturned truck after it had crashed.  

http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...d=SM-facebook-072213-12.30p-zimmermansavesman

One of the reader comments said, "_Well.  The good thing about George Zimmerman is he likes to get involved.  The problem with him is he likes to get involved.  Having said that, I hope that he and his family keep safe_."

Speculation about it being staged aside (I have no opinion on that), it seems that he does like to get involved.


----------



## Carol (Jul 22, 2013)

Not just "a man" but a family of 4 -- 2 parents and 2 children according to the ABC source in the Examiner article.

He was tried, and acquitted.  His parents are getting death threats and presumably he is too. Yet he still goes to aid the family.

I dunno.  Maybe my own volunteer efforts have colored my perception but to simply say he likes getting involved seems a bit dismissive.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2013)

He should not have gotten out of his truck.  He should have observed and called 911 and not gotten involved. I wonder if the national sheriff association approved his rescue technique.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 22, 2013)

There's less concern when no kids are shot while trying to  go home, dude.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There's less concern when no kids are shot while trying to  go home, dude.



Ohhhh well see when nobody attacks him he doesn't need to shoot anyone


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2013)

They better give him his gun back soon tho...
Considering the nasty phone calls everybody is getting...

A lady who's number is one digit off from his has gotten over 100 nasty calls so far. Really charming....no relation, just her phone number is similar...but that's just minor details! :shrug:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2013)

granfire said:


> They better give him his gun back soon tho...
> Considering the nasty phone calls everybody is getting...
> 
> A lady who's number is one digit off from his has gotten over 100 nasty calls so far. Really charming....no relation, just her phone number is similar...but that's just minor details! :shrug:



Yeah there's another Zimmerman in mass or CT I can't remember which he's gotten a bunch of death threats too


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2013)

Her name isn't even Zimmermann...

But I guess it's all right to threaten uninvolved people in the name of justice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyTW4v_iO_I&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Brian King (Jul 23, 2013)

Kudo's for his getting out and helping that family. As too all the threats, perhaps George should change his name to Ben Gahzi. It would remove him from the press and the White House agenda's

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

Carol said:


> Not just "a man" but a family of 4 -- 2 parents and 2 children according to the ABC source in the Examiner article.
> 
> He was tried, and acquitted.  His parents are getting death threats and presumably he is too. Yet he still goes to aid the family.
> 
> ...


Perhaps, though aside from finding the reader comment humorous (and probably the most intelligent of the ones I read), it has no bearing on the story or on my perception of Zimmerman.

The press likes to paint people in a way that will help them to sell papers/increase viewers.  Compartmentalizing people means that they can more easily make the public feel a specific way about them.  But people are more complex than the labels the press likes to hang on them.

Zimmerman = Racist.
Bono = Humanitarian.
Mother Theresa = Saint.
Rush Limbaugh = Conservative.
Jon Stewart = Liberal.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  George Zimmerman = racist in the eyes of the press, yet he was willing to go out of his way to help a stricken motorist.  Bono = Humanitarian, yet he's a shill for Monsanto.  Mother Theresa = Saint, yet there is some evidence to suggest that her shelters were places where people went expecting medical treatment and found none.  Rush Limbaugh = Conservative, yet off air, he does some of the same things he accuses those he criticizes of doing.  No clue on Jon Steward; I don't know much about him except that as a human being, he's probably more complex than simply being 'liberal.'

Most of us will never find ourselves in the position of a George Zimmerman, but with the right conflation of events, any of us could.  And most of us like to think that we're more than what a single adjective can convey.


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2013)

> There's less concern when no kids are shot while trying to go home, dude.




Yeah...that whole other part, you know...where the drug using, violence prone,  amatuer criminal, large, aggressive,  teenager waits in ambush and attacks a guy by punching him in the nose, following him to the ground and continues to hit him and smack his head into the concrete sidewalk even after a witness yells at him to cut it out...yeah, that part always seems to get overlooked...especially by the people protesting...

And see, the biggest problem with that idea quoted above...it is getting pushed on the public...even though it isn't even part of the story...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/y...chers-plan-to-tell-kids-about-trayvon-martin/



> In the wake of the verdict in the Trayvon Martin shooting, several teachers said they would invoke mob justice, vigilantism and the idea that Florida law allows people to hunt and kill black kids when discussing the case with their students.
> The Hairpin, a prominent liberal women&#8217;s blog, asked several teachers, counselors and professors to explain how they would talk about the case &#8212; which reached its conclusion last week after George Zimmerman was found innocent of Martin&#8217;s murder &#8212; in their classrooms.





> &#8220;The thing is, I see Trayvon Martins everyday,&#8221; wrote the teacher. &#8220;I worry about young black men and their prospects in a world where a man is able to kill one without being convicted of something. Even if it isn&#8217;t as simple as that, kids will see it that way. Rednecks are holding their heads a little higher and tapping the guns on their holsters eager for a stand your ground moment.&#8221;



See, the problem is that those young black men are in danger because of other young black men...not "White," "Hispanic," men...but instead of addressing the problems that lead to the deaths of all these young men...they want to blame everything but the real problem.

Another thing...George Zimmerman, according to people looking into the matter...self-identifies as "Hispanic," speaks spanish to his grand parents and mother...so where does the "redneck," come into play?  Again...Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case...

The Judge was wrong to bring Stand Your Ground into the case...she made several reversible errors in this trial and was a really poor judge.

And whichever teacher said this should be fired...



> Nevertheless, another teacher cited the verdict as evidence of the &#8220;fact that Florida law allows people to hunt and kill black youth,&#8221; and said that it was important to talk about it with students.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 23, 2013)

billc said:


> ...
> 
> The Judge was wrong to bring Stand Your Ground into the case...*she made several reversible errors in this trial and was a really poor judge.*
> 
> And whichever teacher said this should be fired...



I didn't follow the trial broadcasts, I don't have time.  But I did note the judge questioning Zimmerman quite closely, and almost confrontationally about whether he wanted to testify in court.  It almost seemed as if she were trying to convince him to do so.  If the jury was present for that exchange (I don't know if they were or not), that alone would have guaranteed a new trial had there been a conviction.

As to the teacher, if that is what the person was, it is interesting.  Individuals do have a right to their own opinion.  Teachers have a duty to teach.  It is well known they can guide their students into thinking as they do, if they are sufficiently respected by students.  The problem as I see it though, is that they are also agents of the state, and paid by the state.  There must be some obligation to teach factually, not emotionally.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

billc said:


> See, the problem is that those young black men are in danger because of other young black men...not "White," "Hispanic," men...but instead of addressing the problems that lead to the deaths of all these young men



Gun control.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

billc said:


> Yeah...that whole other part, you know...where the drug using, violence prone,  amatuer criminal, large, aggressive,  teenager waits in ambush and attacks a guy by punching him in the nose, following him to the ground and continues to hit him and smack his head into the concrete sidewalk even after a witness yells at him to cut it out...yeah, that part always seems to get overlooked...especially by the people protesting...


Martin's background doesn't change the fact that he was shot and killed.  If you shoot and kill an addict prostitute, it's still murder or manslaughter unless you can prove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  Which is what happened in Zimmerman's case; the defense made a stronger case for self defense than the prosecution made for murder or manslaughter.

As for whether Martin waited in ambush, so far as I know there are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the fight between them.  All we have is the account of the lone survivor of the scuffle and an eyewitness who saw them after the scuffle had started.  It doesn't mean that that isn't what happened.  Regardless, those of you who defend Zimmerman in these discussions seem just as determined to ignore anything he did to contribute to the outcome as Martin's supporters are to ignore anything Martin did. 

As for the protestors, they've got anger about other things and are using this as an opportunity to vent.  It is unjustified and is causing more harm than what Zimmerman is accused of (two people were killed if I recall, in addition to the death threats being made to people).




billc said:


> See, the problem is that those young black men are in danger because of other young black men...not "White," "Hispanic," men...but instead of addressing the problems that lead to the deaths of all these young men...they want to blame everything but the real problem.


Human nature unfortunately.  Our modern society is built around blame shifting.



billc said:


> Another thing...George Zimmerman, according to people looking into the matter...self-identifies as "Hispanic," speaks spanish to his grand parents and mother...so where does the "redneck," come into play?


I made that observation over on the other thread.  And I stand by it.  Zimmerman is not white.  

But the media_* needs *_him to be white so that they can fan the fires and keep the story going.  Without that element, this story would probably never have taken off like it has, the trial would be over and its verdict a footnote on the nightly news.  Make him white and you ignite racial issues and get protests that your reporters can cover and spin into a story that will bring in more viewers.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Gun control.



Are you positing this as the problem that led to the deaths of these young men or the solution to the problem?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Are you positing this as the problem that led to the deaths of these young men or the solution to the problem?



A _partial _solution.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

arnisador said:


> A _partial _solution.


I'm going to disagree.  Given the nature of the topic in which you're bringing this up, gun control would not have altered the outcome.  Trayvon Martin was unarmed and George Zimmerman had a conceal and carry permit if memory serves.  So going back to Bill's post about problems facing "young black men" and the list of descriptors about Martin (drug use, amateur thug, anger issues, etc.), you see problems that are unaddressed by gun control and which apparently didn't correlate into him carrying a gun.

I won't get into a debate about the efficacy of gun control (I have mixed feelings on the subject), but the kinds of problems that face "young black men" require meaningful solutions that address the root causes, which gun control does not.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm going to disagree.  Given the nature of the topic in which you're bringing this up, gun control would not have altered the outcome.  Trayvon Martin was unarmed and George Zimmerman had a conceal and carry permit if memory serves.  So going back to Bill's post about problems facing "young black men" and the list of descriptors about Martin (drug use, amateur thug, anger issues, etc.), you see problems that are unaddressed by gun control and which apparently didn't correlate into him carrying a gun.
> 
> I won't get into a debate about the efficacy of gun control (I have mixed feelings on the subject), but the kinds of problems that face "young black men" require meaningful solutions that address the root causes, which gun control does not.



In fact his comment was "See, the problem is that those young black men are in danger because of other young black men" and my reply was in response to that--black-on-black crime.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In fact his comment was "See, the problem is that those young black men are in danger because of other young black men" and my reply was in response to that--black-on-black crime.


Again, to which I still don't see gun control as a solution, even in part.  One can have black on black, white on white, or any same on same crime with or without guns.  The presence of guns does not determine the path a person will take.  There are a good number of issues that gun control can potentially address in a positive way, but this is not one of them in my opinion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Gun control.



I've been to quite a few homicides and of them all only one was a legal gun owner and that was me.  See murders already illegal so is buying or owning a gun when you know your not allowed so I'm not sure what else we can make illegal.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> He should not have gotten out of his truck.  He should have observed and called 911 and not gotten involved. I wonder if the national sheriff association approved his rescue technique.



Honestly, I'd be more sympathetic to Zimmerman's judgement calls if he _hadn't_ called 911 first; then there'd be no question of whether he should have pursued after being told he didnt' need to.

The two events are not comparable.  

In the case of the traffic accident, you have an immediately apparent need (person trapped in car) with a possible element of time sensitivity depending on the nature of the crash.  Zimmerman saw the need and offered a solution.  The story had a happy ending.

In the case of a person seen in the neighborhood that Zimmerman determined was suspicious looking, you have an ambiguous situation involving a person who may or may not be up to no good and may or may not be armed (in the end, he wasn't, but Zimmerman did not know that).  It concerned him enough to call 911 but was ambiguous enough that he didn't immediately take direct action.  Zimmerman at some point after the call judged it necessary to pursue, which ended in a physical confrontation and young man dead as a result.  The story had a sad ending.

When stories have a happy ending, the good samaritan is praised, God is thanked, and if the rescuer is of a different race from that of the victim, interracial cooperation and harmony are heralded.

When the story has a sad ending, people want to place blame.  Who is responsible?  Justice must be done!  Lines are drawn, sides are taken, and people demand restitution.  Since the sad ending brings out negative emotions, this often happens in a way in which accuracy takes a back seat to a need to win and in which the sense of loss at the death of another human being is diminished in favor of one side gaining victory over the other.

Demonstrators who are angry about the verdict are not honoring Martin.  Honestly, I don't think they care one whit about him.  They're simply mad that a trial in which they had no part didn't go the way that they wanted it to.

People who are supportive of the verdict and of Zimmerman's actions aren't bothered by the loss of life; they are more concerned with how the trial's verdict might impact some part of their own life, be it self defense, the right to carry a gun, or the idea that a man may be convicted in order to pacify the crowd that threatens to riot if things don't go their way.  

In the end, after the confrontation with Martin, a seventeen year old boy was dead and his family was grieved.  Every flaw he had and bad decision he ever made is now laid bare for the world to see, and regardless of what verdict the jury had reached, that young man is dead.  

The death of another human being diminishes us all in some way. 

Also, whenever a person is killed by another, there are consequences.  They aren't always the same; a police officer killing a man who draws a gun on him will have different consequences from that of a man pulling a gun on and killing a police officer.  Which are different from those of a young child who kills a sibling or themselves while playing with the gun they found in their parent's bedroom.  But when life is taken, there are always consequences.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've been to quite a few homicides and of them all only one was a legal gun owner and that was me.  See murders already illegal so is buying or owning a gun when you know your not allowed so I'm not sure what else we can make illegal.


Agreed.  

The problem with gun control is that people often conflate it with crime control.  Even if you could effectively rid the world of guns, you wouldn't rid the world of violent crime.  I doubt the statistics would change, as people intent on killing others would simply resort to a lower tech mechanism, as they did for thousands of years prior to the advent of firearms.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Honestly, I'd be more sympathetic to Zimmerman's judgement calls if he _hadn't_ called 911 first; then there'd be no question of whether he should have pursued after being told he didnt' need to.
> 
> The two events are not comparable.
> 
> ...


I wasn't comparing the two events.  Its sarcasm.


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've been to quite a few homicides and of them all only one was a legal gun owner and that was me.  See murders already illegal so is buying or owning a gun when you know your not allowed so I'm not sure what else we can make illegal.


We see homicides all the time where the gun was legally owned.  I can't believe that you've never encountered one in your professional career.  We have people who are mentally ill who have legally purchased weapons and used them.  And that doesn't even count the people who are found criminally negligent because someone else (ie, their toddler or child) uses the legally owned gun in the death of another. 

For example, the guy that shot Jared Loughner bought the gun he used to kill six people legally.  It happens.  A lot.


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The problem with gun control is that people often conflate it with crime control.  Even if you could effectively rid the world of guns, you wouldn't rid the world of violent crime.  I doubt the statistics would change, as people intent on killing others would simply resort to a lower tech mechanism, as they did for thousands of years prior to the advent of firearms.


Guns are very efficient.  While there will always be violent crime, I don't see how anyone could fail to acknowledge that a guy with a firearm will be able to kill/injure more people in less time than without a firearm.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> Guns are very efficient.  While there will always be violent crime, I don't see how anyone could fail to acknowledge that a guy with a firearm will be able to kill/injure more people in less time than without a firearm.


Yes and no.  A gun needs skill.  I mentioned a running gun battle we had the other day.  Over 30 shots were fired spanning a block and half.  Other then a parked Honda and Chevy nothing was hit.  
I know for a fact I could take a kitchen knife into an elementary school and do more damage then I could with a gun.  
Now with a little skill and training or luck then guns would give you more bang for your buck.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> We see homicides all the time where the gun was legally owned.  I can't believe that you've never encountered one in your professional career.  We have people who are mentally ill who have legally purchased weapons and used them.  And that doesn't even count the people who are found criminally negligent because someone else (ie, their toddler or child) uses the legally owned gun in the death of another.
> 
> For example, the guy that shot Jared Loughner bought the gun he used to kill six people legally.  It happens.  A lot.



I can't recall any I've been to that involved a legally owned gun.  To be fair every homicide incoming a gun I've been to hasn't been solved so I guess its possible but all the ones where I know the outcome have been illegally possessed by the shooter.  The closest I can recall was a husband that shot his wife but I never went to it.  I was working but avoided it.  It was legally purchased but he had a protective order against him so legally he wasn't allowed to have it.  

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I disagree with your suggestion it happens a lot


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I doubt the statistics would change, as people intent on killing others would simply resort to a lower tech mechanism, as they did for thousands of years prior to the advent of firearms.



This has been proven false--and the effect on suicides is esp. dramatic.


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2013)

Come on, ballen.  I am not any kind of strong gun control advocate, but this is just BS and you know it.  Seriously.  

A guy with a gun, plenty of ammo and a place packed with unsuspecting, innocent people is a recipe for disaster.  A determined person armed with a knife, sword, machete, or club could certainly do some damage and may be able to kill some people.  But nothing like what the guy, even the relatively untrained guy, with a firearm and plenty of ammo could do.

And this also presupposes that the bad guys are untrained and unskilled.  As I've already pointed out, the idea that bad guys MUST have obtained weapons illegally is bogus.  And also, the idea that a bad guy can't go to the range like anyone else is also bogus.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I know for a fact I could take a kitchen knife into an elementary school and do more damage then I could with a gun.



More than Newtown? Really? Where people were shot through closed doors?


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I can't recall any I've been to that involved a legally owned gun.  To be fair every homicide incoming a gun I've been to hasn't been solved so I guess its possible but all the ones where I know the outcome have been illegally possessed by the shooter.  The closest I can recall was a husband that shot his wife but I never went to it.  I was working but avoided it.  It was legally purchased but he had a protective order against him so legally he wasn't allowed to have it.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I disagree with your suggestion it happens a lot


I'm speechless.  What about this guy?  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...rchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/

I'm not saying you're lying.  I believe that you may not have been involved in these cases.  But that doesn't mean they aren't common.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

arnisador said:


> More than Newtown? Really? Where people were shot through closed doors?



Yes I'm not saying everyone could but I know I could.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm speechless.  What about this guy?  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...rchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/
> 
> I'm not saying you're lying.  I believe that you may not have been involved in these cases.  But that doesn't mean they aren't common.


Compare the homicide rates of legal vs illegal guns.  I'm sure the data is out there.  I could be way off but I'd bet 3 to 1 illegal vs legal.  I'm driving to work so I can't search it but I'd bet FBI or DOJ have stats on it.  If I'm wrong if be shocked.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

I'll ask a guy I know at work he's retired Baltimore city homicide det.  He's worked over 350 homicides in his timeim interested in his take.  He will probprobably cuss at me and say leave me alone kid but I like messing with him so I'll see what he says.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

Some of my liberal friends are now doubting the truck rescue story--suggesting it's made-up or a planned incident. Sheesh! Too suspicious.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Compare the homicide rates of legal vs illegal guns.  I'm sure the data is out there.  I could be way off but I'd bet 3 to 1 illegal vs legal.  I'm driving to work so I can't search it but I'd bet FBI or DOJ have stats on it.  If I'm wrong if be shocked.



It looks like the answer is murky, in part because federal law prohibits the govt. from tracking things like this, and also because the answer depends heavily on exactly how the question is phrased. However, your experience of seeing _no _crimes with legal guns does seem extreme given the number of events you cite.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635



> If the question is actually What percentage of criminals legally buy  a gun and commit a crime with it, the percentage is extremely small.  The last data suggests that a fraction of one percent of those who  commit a gun related crime will legally purchase a gun and then commit a  crime with it. Most of those crimes are crimes of domestic violence,  essentially crimes of passion, and the gun happened to be in the house.  If no gun were present, some other weapon, knives, clubs, fists or  something else, would have been used instead. While the overwhelming  majority of professional criminals will use stolen street guns that  are cheap but very definitely illegal.
> However, if the question is What percentage of crimes are committed  with legally purchased guns the answer is about six percent of murders   and very few other crimes. Amateurs buy guns at a dealers; which  involves extensive paperwork, identification, FBI background checks, and  so on. Pros buy guns on the street, where the only requirement is money   or other valuta.
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs.



http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF



> Recent studies ofadult and juvenile offenders show that
> many have either stolen a firearm or
> kept, sold, or traded a stolen firearm:
> According to the 1991 Survey of
> ...



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html



> Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get  guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars.  "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
> 
> In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways  criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when  someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.  According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many  straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk  into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for  the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people  walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are  illegal activities.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Compare the homicide rates of legal vs illegal guns.  I'm sure the data is out there.  I could be way off but I'd bet 3 to 1 illegal vs legal.  I'm driving to work so I can't search it but I'd bet FBI or DOJ have stats on it.  If I'm wrong if be shocked.



"3 to 1" is not the same as "all to none", which is what you said. 

Sent from my iPad


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> "3 to 1" is not the same as "all to none", which is what you said.
> 
> Sent from my iPad



I never said it doesn't happen.  I said I've never been to one.  Right after that I said it happens but its not common.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

arnisadmy92 said:
			
		

> It looks like the answer is murky, in part because federal law prohibits the govt. from tracking things like this, and also because the answer depends heavily on exactly how the question is phrased. However, your experience of seeing _no _crimes with legal guns does seem extreme given the number of events you cite.


Like I said I can't think of a single homicide I've been too that involved a legally owned gun.  You don't need to believe me or agree or not it is what it is.  


> http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you proved my point.  I didnt say most illegal guns were stolen I said shooters were not legally allowed to posses guns.  A straw purchase is illegal.  A gun dealer illegally selling guns to a criminal is illegal.  Stealing a gun is illegal.  If you ask me the #1 way I see criminals getting guns is a addict trades a gun for drugs or buys a gun to trade for drugs.  Both of which are illegal.


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2013)

and we are moving from a guy pulling an accident victim from a car (or several) to how many people are killed by illegal guns....

I swear, you guys could not stay on topic if your life depended on it!

:lfao:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> and we are moving from a guy pulling an accident victim from a car (or several) to how many people are killed by illegal guns....
> 
> I swear, you guys could not stay on topic if your life depended on it!
> 
> :lfao:


Say the lady that changes the topic to staying on topic


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I never said it doesn't happen.  I said I've never been to one.  Right after that I said it happens but its not common.



Common is subjective.  You said 3 to 1 which would be 25%.  I would say 25% is common, particularly since you said it and you are likely to estimate conservatively.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Say the lady that changes the topic to staying on topic



Nah, I just mentioned the other parts of the news, people threatening him and completely unrelated individuals....

That's news regarding him


----------



## crushing (Jul 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Some of my liberal friends are now doubting the truck rescue story--suggesting it's made-up or a planned incident. Sheesh! Too suspicious.



Oooh, more conspiracy theories.   Do they happen to be some of the same people that think Zimmerman fractured his own nose and bashed his own head in to the ground after shooting Martin?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 24, 2013)

crushing said:


> Oooh, more conspiracy theories.   Do they happen to be some of the same people that think Zimmerman fractured his own nose and bashed his own head in to the ground after shooting Martin?



Oh like that jim carrey movie.  sir what are you doing?  Carrey says. "I'm kicking my own a$%"


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> Guns are very efficient.  While there will always be violent crime, I don't see how anyone could fail to acknowledge that a guy with a firearm will be able to kill/injure more people in less time than without a firearm.


It isn't that I fail to acknowledge that; rate of violent crime is a separate matter from efficacy of the weapon.  How ridding the world of guns would affect the _death toll f_rom violent crime would be another matter.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I wasn't comparing the two events.  Its sarcasm.


I caught the sarcasm.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This has been proven false--and the effect on suicides is esp. dramatic.


If it has, please show me.  This isn't some deeply held conviction; I'm open to new information.  Also, I don't include suicide with violent crime.  

Without guns, certain types of violent crime would be dramatically impacted.  The Sandy Hook shooting, drive by shootings, etc.  I'll defer to a police officer or someone with specific statistics on this, but I suspect that as dramatic as such crimes are, they probably account for less than one percent of the murder rate.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> Come on, ballen.  I am not any kind of strong gun control advocate, but this is just BS and you know it.  Seriously.
> 
> A guy with a gun, plenty of ammo and a place packed with unsuspecting, innocent people is a recipe for disaster.  A determined person armed with a knife, sword, machete, or club could certainly do some damage and may be able to kill some people.  But nothing like what the guy, even the relatively untrained guy, with a firearm and plenty of ammo could do.
> 
> And this also presupposes that the bad guys are untrained and unskilled.  As I've already pointed out, the idea that bad guys MUST have obtained weapons illegally is bogus.  And also, the idea that a bad guy can't go to the range like anyone else is also bogus.


In theory, he is correct.  The knife never runs out of bullets.  However, a person armed with only a knife is perceived as less of a threat by onlookers and is more likely to be subdued, as people don't need to be concerned with being hit prior to being within the dramatically shorter range of a knife.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Some of my liberal friends are now doubting the truck rescue story--suggesting it's made-up or a planned incident. Sheesh! Too suspicious.


It may be made up, but at this point, why bother?  The people who want him dead won't not want him dead because of this, and if it is fabricated, people will figure it out anyway, which will make him look even worse.

So far, I haven't heard anything to that effect except from people speculating about it on Facebook, and I have little inclination to spend much time digging on it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2013)

But in reality, a gun is a much more efficient way to kill people, and as we've been told over and over by gun advocates, it's easy to reload.  That is, after all, the entire argument against bans on high capacity magazines.  If we can't, as reasonable people, agree that guns are a much more efficient way to kill people than knives or clubs, then there's really no foundation for a reasonable discussion.  It's just self apparent to me.  

If you want to drive a nail into wood, you can do it with the flat side of an iron, but the right tool is a hammer.  Nothing else works as well as the right tool for the job.  Want to be a bad guy and ruin a lot of lives?  The right tool is one or more guns.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> But in reality, a gun is a much more efficient way to kill people, and as we've been told over and over by gun advocates, it's easy to reload.  That is, after all, the entire argument against bans on high capacity magazines.  If we can't, as reasonable people, agree that guns are a much more efficient way to kill people than knives or clubs, then there's really no foundation for a reasonable discussion.  It's just self apparent to me.
> 
> If you want to drive a nail into wood, you can do it with the flat side of an iron, but the right tool is a hammer.  Nothing else works as well as the right tool for the job.  Want to be a bad guy and ruin a lot of lives?  The right tool is one or more guns.


Oh, I don't disagree with you.  Not one bit.  There's a reason that swords are considered archaic weaponry and knives are considered tools for the kitchen and for utility in the trades.  It doesn't make them any less deadly, but they're nowhere near as efficient as guns.

The whole reason that militaries moved to guns was precisely because they could train much larger numbers of people to be effective in war in far less time than it took to train them in archery.  Swords really were more of an officer's weapon, but regardless, training someone to a level where they could be effective in combat, even single combat, is a very lengthy process.  With the average student, it takes about a year to get consistent quality cuts, half decent posture and guard, half decent footwork, and half decent distance management.  You can achieve the same efficacy with a gun in less than a month.  No footwork, and distance management isn't nearly as much of a factor.


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2013)

Guns are more efficient.  That is why when you have a Sandy Hook, a 5' 2", female teacher armed with a pistol could have slowed if not completely stopped the attack.  Add one or two more teachers, adminstrators or just parents who might be on the campus, and you have the killer having to avoid getting shot, slowing him, possibly stopping him and saving lives. In fact, if the killer knew that the school wasn't a gun free zone, and in fact there was a strong likely hood someone with a gun would be on the grounds and might resist him...he might go somewhere else to begin with.  This was seen at Sandy Hook, and Colorado and almost every single mass shooting in a public place...the killer chose a location they knew would be "gun free."   The people who advocate getting rid of guns always fail to point out that the way to make guns really efficient killing tools is to only allow the killers to have them, allowing them to kill at will with no one to stop them.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Oh, I don't disagree with you.  Not one bit.  There's a reason that swords are considered archaic weaponry and knives are considered tools for the kitchen and for utility in the trades.  It doesn't make them any less deadly, but they're nowhere near as efficient as guns.
> 
> The whole reason that militaries moved to guns was precisely because they could train much larger numbers of people to be effective in war in far less time than it took to train them in archery.  Swords really were more of an officer's weapon, but regardless, training someone to a level where they could be effective in combat, even single combat, is a very lengthy process.  With the average student, it takes about a year to get consistent quality cuts, half decent posture and guard, half decent footwork, and half decent distance management.  You can achieve the same efficacy with a gun in less than a month.  No footwork, and distance management isn't nearly as much of a factor.


Thanks, Dan.  Exactly.  So, to borrow one of tgace's favorite terms, can we stop cluttering up threads with that bogus meme?


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2013)

> This has been proven false--and the effect on suicides is esp. dramatic.



Actually, this hasn't been proven false.  If you look at the statistics from around the world, countries that have extremely strict gun control, Russia, South America, and other places have higher murder rates than the U.S.  Also, countries that have the strictest gun control, Japan, and China also have higher suicide rates than the U.S.  So put on as many restrictions on guns as you want, and the murder rate will still depend on the culture...not guns...

Even in the U.K. where they have strict gun control...it doesn't stop gun crime, and in fact, it is on the rise there.

Even in the U.S., the cities with the strictest gun control also have the highest murder rates with guns, as opposed to cities that allow gun ownership and carrying the weapons...


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2013)

billc said:


> Guns are more efficient.  That is why when you have a Sandy Hook, a 5' 2", female teacher armed with a pistol could have slowed if not completely stopped the attack.  Add one or two more teachers, adminstrators or just parents who might be on the campus, and you have the killer having to avoid getting shot, slowing him, possibly stopping him and saving lives. In fact, if the killer knew that the school wasn't a gun free zone, and in fact there was a strong likely hood someone with a gun would be on the grounds and might resist him...he might go somewhere else to begin with.  This was seen at Sandy Hook, and Colorado and almost every single mass shooting in a public place...the killer chose a location they knew would be "gun free."   The people who advocate getting rid of guns always fail to point out that the way to make guns really efficient killing tools is to only allow the killers to have them, allowing them to kill at will with no one to stop them.


I agree with this.


----------



## granfire (Jul 24, 2013)

and since the man didn't shoot the locks off the overturned truck....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-res...story?id=19758908&ref=http://news.google.com/

Yep, even univolved people are fearful....
goodness gracious! Somewhere here the first amendment is being kicked into the manure, and the founding father are spinning in their graves. I don't think they had that in mind!


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2013)

Steve said:


> I agree with this.



Holy crap


----------



## arnisador (Jul 24, 2013)

billc said:


> Guns are more efficient.  That is why when you have a Sandy Hook, a 5' 2", female teacher armed with a pistol could have slowed if not completely stopped the attack.  Add one or two more teachers, adminstrators or just parents who might be on the campus, and you have the killer having to avoid getting shot, slowing him, possibly stopping him and saving lives. In fact, if the killer knew that the school wasn't a gun free zone, and in fact there was a strong likely hood someone with a gun would be on the grounds and might resist him...he might go somewhere else to begin with.  This was seen at Sandy Hook, and Colorado and almost every single mass shooting in a public place...the killer chose a location they knew would be "gun free."   The people who advocate getting rid of guns always fail to point out that the way to make guns really efficient killing tools is to only allow the killers to have them, allowing them to kill at will with no one to stop them.



So...the killers should have knives but the defenders should have guns?!?


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2013)

I would generally work out better for the good guys if this was the case.


----------



## Steve (Jul 25, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Holy crap



Lol.  If you actually read my posts, you wouldn't be surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------

