New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Sowell is correct.

LeilaniMP

LeilaniMP

Empress
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/12/18/invincible_ignorance__116451.html

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
 
I believe that this is why mass murderers target schools and universities. They can do the most damage because the people in these "no gun" zones are essentially easy prey.

There are few if any examples of a rampage being stopped by anything but someone with another weapon.
 
The people want and end to the insane culture of guns.....The people know the NRA Ass holes and their Right Wing supporters are to blame....They will be taken down
 
Saladin2 said:
The people want and end to the insane culture of guns.....The people know the NRA Ass holes and their Right Wing supporters are to blame....They will be taken down
Click to expand...

Taken down? I presume you mean that in a political and not a literal sense?
 
Sowell knows as well as any of us that liberals' opinions are based in emotion, not facts. This is one of the most obvious cases. The numbers of legal gun owners acting to save others' lives and property far outweigh any incidents of wrongdoing. But that doesn't matter when there's a "crisis" they can capitalize on with emotions alone.
 
I mean that in every sense...Laws will have to be changed for sensible and rational gun control...Those that don't comply will be fined or jailed...Those that openly threatened law enforcement or innocent citizens...Will be killed...Without mercy
 
Next control the airwaves, and the Obama Christ child will have become the perfect Gestapo leader of a nation you can goose-step all around.

I look forward to you trying that.
 
The Mall shooter in Oregon was taken out by an armed person (shopper) at the Mall. The media isn't saying much about it because it proves the fanatics to be wrong.

Shooters are wussy cowards who target places where they won't find resistance.

I hope the anti-gun zealots all have signs in their front yards advertising their dwellings are gun-free zones since they think that is the answer.

Colorforms said:
I believe that this is why mass murderers target schools and universities. They can do the most damage because the people in these "no gun" zones are essentially easy prey.

There are few if any examples of a rampage being stopped by anything but someone with another weapon.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly.

In Oregon the mall shooter was taken down by an armed citizen. We don't hear about that, though.

Facts are nothing a distant glimmer in the universe for libs. They prefer to not base anything on them.
Dino said:
Sowell knows as well as any of us that liberals' opinions are based in emotion, not facts. This is one of the most obvious cases. The numbers of legal gun owners acting to save others' lives and property far outweigh any incidents of wrongdoing. But that doesn't matter when there's a "crisis" they can capitalize on with emotions alone.
Click to expand...
 
So maybe Sally would fail a mental health screening. Thank goodness, another potential serial killer without access to guns. She should be perfectly safe now because you can't kill people without having access to guns.
 
thumbs up.jpgthumbs up.jpgthumbs up.jpg

You see so much anger exhibited by some!
Colorforms said:
So maybe Sally would fail a mental health screening. Thank goodness, another potential serial killer without access to guns. She should be perfectly safe now because you can't kill people without having access to guns.
Click to expand...
 
Sowell is a right wing crackpot that tried to dress up the talking points with big words.

As is so often the case with him, he sets up a straw man argument to support a popular right wing canard, and "supports" it with a few loose facts (which often turn out not to be facts) spinkled in for the appearance of legitmacy.

This man also thinks that environmental regulation of any sort is bad and that we'd be better off if we still had lead paint and DDT.

He's a favorite of the sort of moron that thinks that American Thinker is not an oxymoron.
 
Sowell is a hack, always has been, always will be. Let's be clear about it. If the gun control laws were national instead of local, the main thrust of his argument would collapse. Moreover, if the number of guns were vastly diminished, the chance that the few left could do damage would be lessened as well. All that is needed for any honest debate is a look at those nations that have restricted gun ownership. I realize that this is a macho thing for a lot of people. I just want to ask a simple question "quien es mas macho?" Is it the man who stands unarmed or the Rambo type shooting up a theater?
 
LeilaniMP said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/12/18/invincible_ignorance__116451.html

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
Click to expand...

Sowell is one of the stupidest human beings in the commentariate today. If we were talking about the effectiveness of LOCAL gun legislation, the case of Washington, DC might be a useful one. But it's not at all meaningful in a discussion of national gun legislation. Obviously, if you try to impose gun restrictions in DC, when a quick ride on the Metro can take you to Virginia, the gun regulation of DC don't matter much. The de facto gun rules in DC are lowest common denominator rules in the surrounding areas, since people are free to "forum shop."

If Sowell weren't a blithering imbecile, he'd know that any meaningful examination of the effectiveness of gun control regulations has to look at NATIONAL gun control (e.g., the Brady Law and Assault Weapon ban of the early 90s, or the gun legislation changes in places like the UK and Australia), not local gun control. Nations can meaningfully restrict guns from crossing their borders in a way that localities can't.
 
LeilaniMP said:
The Mall shooter in Oregon was taken out by an armed person (shopper) at the Mall. The media isn't saying much about it because it proves the fanatics to be wrong.

Shooters are wussy cowards who target places where they won't find resistance.

I hope the anti-gun zealots all have signs in their front yards advertising their dwellings are gun-free zones since they think that is the answer.
Click to expand...

The media has said plenty about it, and no, the mall shopper did NOT "take out" the gunman. He does take credit for the gunman killing himself, though.
http://www.wistv.com/story/20366316/armed-citizen-pulls-gun-on-oregon-mall-shooter
Posted: Dec 17, 2012 4:23 PM CST Updated: Dec 17, 2012 5:27 PM CST [h=6][/h]





A Portland, Oregon man is recounting the terror he encountered inside a shopping mall when a gunman opened fire killing two people last week.

The man had a gun of his own and had to make a split second decision as he came face to face with the gunman.
Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her 4-month-old baby when a masked gunman opened fire.
"I heard three shots and I turned and looked at Casey and I go , are you ***** serious? She looks at me and she goes 'yeah,'" Meli said.
As the friend and baby hit the floor, Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle, he kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side," he said.
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, a glock 22, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"In my mind I kept saying like drop it.. drop the gun, you know, and when I drew up I got tunnel vision and all I saw was my front sight on his head and I was indexing and as I was going down I was going to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew that if I fired and missed, I could end up hitting them," he said.

So, Meli took cover inside a nearby store. he never did pull the trigger and he stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up because I didn't shoot him, but I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and as Meli points out taking the innocence of everyone else.
"I don't ever want to have to see anyone that way ever, it bothers me," he said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top