And let's not forget the Puerto Rican separatists who shot up Congress during the Truman Administration.

(Having a normal memory rules! (But antigunners call a normal memory "paranoia" -- I've heard it done.))

Oh, riiiiight, Spexx: go and find for me the overwhelming slaughters that occurred every week and twice on Sundays during the decades before "gun control" laws started making things safer for bandits and murderous madmen!

I'm waaaaiiiitinnnnng......


...tap tap tap...

...you're a rager against self defense, you know...

... tap tap tap...

Couldn't find any proof of that fantasy, could you now?

Antigunners tend to have fantasies of this kind, and have them a lot.* Gunners don't. Seems antigunners have murder crawling around in their hearts -- however passivated. They're shifting the killing in these fantasies onto some "other."

Everyone's got an opinion -- but please, is an informed opinion (one Spexx manifestly does not have) too much to ask?

*Raging Against Self Defense lays out an explanation of the underlying motivations of the anti-self-defense claque. Fearfulness and a frantic rage, revenge fantasies and a desire to kill that the fantasizer cannot accept as coming from himself come into the explanation a lot. The antigunners suppress only with difficulty this boiling urge to kill. Gun people, by contrast, don't have these nightmares.

Yeah, sure, V.

And submitting to murder is a good idea. That is at bottom what you're telling me.

If that's true in your universe, you should trade it in on a better model.

So wait, because I'm too lazy to put in an apostrophe in words that as far as I'm concerned dont need it, it A.) invalidates my entire post and B.) proves that youre smart?

What?

Smart enough to have a decent respect for the forms of my mother tongue AND a more informed opinion about what words need it, yes. The loudly antigrammarian -- well, it's the empty pot that sounds the loudest, isn't it?

And its laziness in/less-than rigorous idea formation that would invalidate an entire post.

Maturity in part consists of knowing when something is a lost cause, and whether that's the hill you want to die on. There's also this continuing effort to shift the issue from the topic to the issue being me. Invalid.

I raised a very valid and very TRUE point, that you ignored. I'll post it again.

Anywayz, spelling nazis are usually trolls and hardly ever mature...

Is MaggieL trying to avoid my question: "I ask you again: do you think distributing more guns will decrease gun related deaths?"

I think more armed citizens reduces violent crime of all kinds.

I refuse to conflate being armed with being violent, because I know they're not the same thing...no matter how much those already disarmed by their state (or looking to have the state disarm others) try to muddy that water.

I also don't accept the proposition that all "gun-related deaths" (whatever that vagueness actually means) are ipso facto bad things. If all "gun related deaths" were bad, then all police should be immediately disarmed. Total nonsense.

If some violent criminals are killed as a result of more responsible citizens being armed, I call that a win. I suspect it would result in fewer shooting deaths overall, because a criminal violent enough to cause one innocent death will probably be responsible for more than one if left at large.

Therefore every spectator in an NFL stadium must be required to carry a concealed weapon as you do. Anyone who does not have a gun will be provided one. Then no crimes would occur. Therefore no deaths would occur. Therefore no players on the field need fear for their life. That is what MaggieL and Urbane Guerrilla both claim. Who believes this and who has real serious doubts?

In your logic the US and A should be the country with the least gun related deaths in the world. Please explain why it isn't the fact.
Most regions in the world did advanced socially after the Wild West and French Revolution. Obviously you're born in a wrong era.
Your expectation proves wrong, time and again...

There's a lot going on in my universe. What's NOT going on in it is this: Unarmed teachers in schools is submitting to murder.:crazy:

Do you read your own posts? Can you hear what you're saying? Do you seriously contend that failing to arm teachers is submitting to murder? That can not be true. I am not impressed, much less intimidated by your hysterics. You're ridiculous. You're a clown. You say something dumb and then try to frighten, insult and harass people to try to defend it. Your tools are bombast, paranoia, obfuscation and oversimplification. You'd be better off if you'd just admit your mistake and we'll all move on. Until that happens, I'll remain annoyed and amused by your buffoonery.

:notworthy

Oh, riiiiight, Urb: go and find for me the kind of student behavior currently going on in schools that occurred every week and twice on Sundays during the decades before "gun control" laws started making things safer for bandits and murderous madmen!

I'm waaaaiiiitinnnnng......

... tap tap tap...

Couldn't find any proof of that fantasy, could you now?

Times have changed, old man. I think you're on the "m" of Alzheimer's. Get informed.

Which is it, Maggie? Does more guns reduce violent crime? Or does it mean there is only "good", alleged violent criminals getting killed?

Now you're coming across as a "arm yourself, but don't shoot" supporter.

You keep trying to conflate "gun related deaths" with violent crime against innocents.

How many of your "gun related deaths" are two drug dealers shooting at each other over money or territory? Who won't be deterred because "guns are illegal" any more than they are by "drugs are illegal"?