Police in milwaukee shoot an armed suspect who was fleeing ftom them and people protest and riot against it

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:35 pm

First topic message reminder :

Police say a Milwaukee officer has shot and killed an armed man during a foot chase.

Capt. Mark Stanmeyer says officers stopped a car with two people inside Saturday. He says the pair got out of the car and ran and that the officers chased them.

He says a 23-year-old man who was one of the people fleeing was armed with a handgun and was shot by an officer during the pursuit. The man's name wasn't immediately released.

Stanmeyer says the man died at the scene. He says the handgun was determined to be stolen.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-milwaukee-officer-hit-brick-shooting-aftermath-41367976

Looks like the protesters like having armed criminals on the streets and don't want the police to do anything about it.

by eddie Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:49 pm

nicko wrote:Over here if the blacks want a new tv,trainers ect, any protest brings them out with a chance of a good riot to burn, rob and fight the police, any low life white scum will join in.

Jeez Nicko, that's a big statement to make and pretty unfair too.

by Tommy Monk Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:02 pm

I was talking about the first part of what you said Quill... as I'm sure you well know...!

You were trying to explain away the danger this criminal posed while in possession of the stolen gun... even trying to compare it with possession of a nail file at one point!!!

And on streets of America where criminals are running around with stolen/illegal firearms willy nilly and terrorising decent law abiding folk etc... that is an argument FOR the law abiding citizens to have weapons for their own protection.

Here in the UK we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world... as well as tight laws on the public possession of a great many number of other items (that could be classed as a weapon) without a valid reason for having it... but the criminals still have a vast array of firearms and other weapons!!!

It is the law abiding citizens who are totally disarmed and vulnerable here!!!

by Original Quill Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:30 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And on streets of America where criminals are running around with stolen/illegal firearms willy nilly and terrorising decent law abiding folk etc... that is an argument FOR the law abiding citizens to have weapons for their own protection.

That's a good argument in theory, but no one can tell the difference between criminals and law abiding folk. So in practice, we have the two law abiding folk shooting and killing each other, while the criminal gets away.

Wassup with that?!!

by Tommy Monk Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:56 pm

What you talking about Quilliss...???

Everything would be normal and smooth flowing... until the criminal started doing something criminal... which would identify them as a criminal...

The law abiding folks would just be going about their usual law abiding business... doing no harm to anyone... wishing well to everyone... but would be able to defend themselves (and others) if attacked by a criminal!!!

And any attack would be so much less likely to happen anyway with so many law abiding folk around having guns... that it is a hugely preventative measure on crime!!!

by Original Quill Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:06 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Everything would be normal and smooth flowing... until the criminal started doing something criminal... which would identify them as a criminal...

You hope. Again, sounds good in theory, but it doesn't happen in 1 - 2 - 3 - fashion. You come upon something already happening, and you don't know who the good guy is, and who the bad guy is. Now, that's reality, innit? Since when did you ever see such an event start like a stage play?

So you come in and see things as they are in the middle, and you start shooting like the damn fool you are, and you kill four cops, two kids, and seven mothers and grandmothers. Now, ain't ya proud?

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:35 pm

No... you don't get involved if you don't know what's happening... you get your head down find a safe place and phone police... but you have your gun to protect you if the criminal starts shooting at you...

by Original Quill Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No... you don't get involved if you don't know what's happening... you get your head down find a safe place and phone police... but you have your gun to protect you if the criminal starts shooting at you...

Riiiiight...and if pigs had wings they could fly. James Bond was a fictitious movie character.

Now back to reality. If a person is fool enough to pull out a gun, he's not exactly going to be passive and reflective in that situation. Most likely, he's the type who will blast away at anything moving. Like I said...how many grandmothers??

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:14 pm

Fact remains that a criminal is less likely to try anything in the first place If high number of surrounding public law abiding citizens had guns on them.

by Original Quill Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Fact remains that a criminal is less likely to try anything in the first place If high number of surrounding public law abiding citizens had guns on them.

I don't believe that, and I don't think you realistically do either.

Guns are not the cool, dispassionate toys you envision. Guns rarely work as threats--stick 'em up, and everyone raises his or her hands. No, people generally run, or more frequently take reciprocal action. Even if you think you are pulling your gun to threaten someone, he doesn't know that. You have just given him a license to kill you on grounds of self-defense.

If everyone had a gun, you would simply cause mayhem. You seem to believe that people are innately rational. Reason is not intrinsic...it's an acquired behavior. When confronted with a threat, people are chemically induced to respond with noradrenaline and adrenaline. If you pull an gun, 99% of the time you will receive a 'fight or flight' response, neither of which will be pleasant for you. You will either end up dead or find yourself being prosecuted for murder.

by eddie Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:09 pm

Have to say, been following this thread (or the conversation between you two) and I think Quill is right.
Your last post was spot on - in that it sounds right to me.

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:15 pm

Plenty of law abiding citizens already have guns either on their person or under the counter of their business workplace etc... they don't pull them out willy nilly to threaten other law abiding citizens with...

by Ben Reilly Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Plenty of law abiding citizens already have guns either on their person or under the counter of their business workplace etc... they don't pull them out willy nilly to threaten other law abiding citizens with...

In a city near me recently, a guy went to threaten his wife at her gym with a gun. One of the trainers got his own gun and started telling the guy to drop his. Instead, the guy shot and killed the trainer.

by nicko Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:19 pm

EDDIE, do you not watch the news? windows smashed,doors pushed In.

and out come the Blacks clutching TV's Trainers and any thing else they can get their hands on.
They do the same in America, the blacks outnumber the whites in this'
and i'm not being racist, it happens.

by Original Quill Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Plenty of law abiding citizens already have guns either on their person or under the counter of their business workplace etc... they don't pull them out willy nilly to threaten other law abiding citizens with...

A lot of them do, tommy. There are as many mishaps with firearms proportionately, as there are accidents with automobiles.

The following, happening in Tulsa, OK, is quite common:

CNN wrote:Family: Son killed by neighbor who called him 'dirty Arab'

Tulsa, Oklahoma (CNN)For years, the Jabara family says, their Tulsa neighbor terrorized them.

He called them names -- "dirty Arabs," "filthy Lebanese," they said.

He hurled racial epithets at those who came to work on their lawns, they alleged.

He ran Haifa Jabara over with his car and went to court for it.

And it all came to a head last week when the man, Stanley Vernon Majors, walked up to the front steps of the family home and shot and killed Khalid Jabara, police said.

"The frustration that we continue to see anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, xenophobic rhetoric and hate speech has unfortunately led up to a tragedy like this," it said.

Tense times

These are tense times for Muslim-Americans -- and those perceived to be Muslims. (The Jabaras are Christians of Lebanese descent.)

Ever since the Paris attacks, carried out by extremists hiding behind religion, xenophobic bile has poured out. Then came San Bernardino, and after it anti-Muslim rhetoric from the Trump campaign, and a steady stream of hateful incidents came rolling in.

What makes the Jabara case stand out is authorities had several opportunities to intervene, but appeared to have bungled, the family believes.

"This is troubling at any time, but profoundly disturbing given the current climate of our country and the increase nationally in cases of hate crimes," the family said.

Deep roots in Tulsa

Khalid Jabara's parents immigrated to the United States in the early 1980s from Lebanon.

They settled in Tulsa and raised three children. One brother became a lawyer, the sister works in marketing, and Khalid Jabara ran the family catering business with his mother.

Khalid Jabara was the superstar of the family, said his younger brother, Rami Jabara.

He excelled at everything: he could sing, he was athletic, he was good at basketball and computers, you name it, the brother said.

"I know my brother had not an ounce of anger. He was giving, generous. He'd give away his last couple bucks to anybody. He just wanted to be around family," he said.

The Jabara family moved into their current home 12 years ago. A few years later, Stanley Majors moved into the house next door.

Long history of complaints

The harassment and intimidation began almost immediately, they say.

"He'd call us names all the time. 'You dirty Arabs, get out of here,'" the mother, Haifa Jabara, told CNN.

"I had a guy who mowed our lawn, he's black. He'd scream, 'You N-word, get out of here."

Neighbors lodged several complaints with police against Majors over his behavior.

And in 2013, the family filed a protective order, which forbade Majors from having any contact with the Jabaras.

It didn't make a difference.

"Every time I came outside at night, he'd scream and yell at me. Scared me to death," Jabara said.

Attack while awaiting trial

In 2015, Haifa Jabara says she was taking a walk in the neighborhood when Majors ran her over with his car.

"He came from the back and hit me hard," she said. "I fell on the floor, bloody, bleeding from my head. A lady was passing by, called 911 and rescued me," she said.

She spent weeks in the hospital with a broken shoulder, collapsed lung and fractured ribs, among other injuries.

Police charged Majors with felony assault. Initially, he was held in custody without bond. But three months ago, against the district attorney's wishes, a judge allowed his release until his trial in March 2017.

"We can't help but question, could things have ended differently?" said Jenna Jabara, the victim's sister-in-law.

"If police had made contact with him, stuck around a little longer, if he hadn't been out on bond, if there had been more questions before bond."

'How many red flags does it take?'

The Jabaras said they lived in fear, and considered moving, but the parents are not that mobile.

"My dad is on a feeding tube and has a walker, it's not like we can just pick up and move," Rami Jabara said.

Instead, the family let the district attorney know about their fears,

"We did constantly communicate with the DA. After he was released, I told them, 'This is not gonna be good. I fear that something might happen,'" he said. "How many red flags does it take?"

Freed on bond

Despite protests, Majors was freed.

Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said Majors was an "obvious public safety risk and we made that argument to the court."

"The family did everything they were supposed to do and the system failed them," he said.

The family can't understand why a judge would release him without conditions -- without an ankle monitor, for instance.

"We ca'nt help but question, could things have ended differently?" Jenna Jabara said.

Majors' lawyer, Marvin Lizama, said the man had been in good spirits since his release.

"I don't know what happened last week that could have changed that," he told CNN.

"Never did I expect Mr. Majors to do something like this. This was unexpected and unfortunate."

The night of the slaying

The family feared the harassment would just escalate.

On Friday, the night of his slaying, Khalid Jabara called to tell his mother not to come home because Majors had a gun.

Officers arrived on scene but they couldn't go inside Major's home to check, so they left, said police spokeswoman Ashley Leland.

About 10 minutes later, Khalid Jabara was shot while he was on the phone with his mother.

"She heard what no one should ever have to hear," Abou-Chedid said.
Khalid Jabara died at the hospital.

After the shooting, officers found Majors hiding behind a tree at a library.

He has been arrested on suspicion of first-degree murder. And this time, he's being held without bail.

CNN's Sara Ganim and Jason Morris contributed to this report.

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Plenty of law abiding citizens already have guns either on their person or under the counter of their business workplace etc... they don't pull them out willy nilly to threaten other law abiding citizens with...

In a city near me recently, a guy went to threaten his wife at her gym with a gun. One of the trainers got his own gun and started telling the guy to drop his. Instead, the guy shot and killed the trainer.

He should have phoned the police instead.

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:58 pm

And Quill... this man was obviously disturbed and a menace... the authorities clearly failed here... and I just read that this man was banned from owning a gun so he was a criminal with an illegal weapon... if the neighbours had legal guns themselves then they could have protected themselves better.

by Original Quill Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:He should have phoned the police instead.

Rationally, yes. But you were just arguing for use of firearms as a deterrent. What does that have to do with calling the police?

Tommy Monk wrote:And Quill... this man was obviously disturbed and a menace... the authorities clearly failed here... and I just read that this man was banned from owning a gun so he was a criminal with an illegal weapon... if the neighbours had legal guns themselves then they could have protected themselves better.

But wouldn’t you expect to see more of this if gun ownership were free and unfettered? This is the kind of thing that happens, regardless. We can’t resort to calling these things ‘special cases’ every time they occur. This would be the new normal if all people were armed.

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:20 pm

1. No I said a criminal would be less likely to try things in the first place if high number of surrounding law abiding citizens had guns... and I said they should get their heads down and find a safe place and call police...

2. The authorities clearly failed here although he was banned from owning a gun so was an illegal weapon... had the neighbours got guns themselves then they would most likely have defended themselves and different result.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:22 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

1. No I said a criminal would be less likely to try things in the first place if high number of surrounding law abiding citizens had guns... and I said they should get their heads down and find a safe place and call police...

So, you admit to a highly diminished effectiveness to your theory. And look at what happened! With the diminished effectiveness of gun ownership, do you think it is worth it?

Tommy Monk wrote:2. The authorities clearly failed here although he was banned from owning a gun so was an illegal weapon... had the neighbours got guns themselves then they would most likely have defended themselves and different result.

I doubt it. He was simply on the front porch...are you suggesting that he should carry his gun everywhere. What about the shower? What if the neighbors don't wish to carry firearms, What then? Touch luck?

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:30 am

1. No.

2. He had just called police to say he thought he was in danger. The criminal had an illegal gun. If the victim had a legal gun he could have defended himself instead of being a sitting duck.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:1. No.

UM...so you've changed your mind? You no longer think gun ownership is worth the price society pays for it. I agree. I think the conservative theory--that fear of retribution dissuades shootings--is nonsense. A gun battle is trial by ordeal, and the shooter always manages to think he is right...and hence, will win.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. He had just called police to say he thought he was in danger. The criminal had an illegal gun. If the victim had a legal gun he could have defended himself instead of being a sitting duck.

The point is, the issue of who is the criminal is always determined after the fact. Here, the shooter thought of himself as one of the good guys...a person just like you, tommy. The guys he shot at were the bad guys, because they were dirty muzzies!

That's why this 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy' that the NRA promotes is utter nonsense. Everyone sees himself as the good guy. And if everybody arms himself, then everyone gets killed shooting bad guys, each of whom considers himself the good guy, and is shooting back. Now you may argue that at the end of all this there is more real estate for those left, if anyone, but you've gotta admit that from the standpoint of the overall common weal, it's not a very good result.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:05 pm

1. No I don't admit to a highly diminished effectiveness to my theory...

2. The guy was a crank, obviously disturbed, maybe mentally ill... he was a criminal and had an illegal firearm... the guy he shot was reportedly a Christian and family were from Lebanon... they knew he was dangerous and the authorities should have fine more to move him away or something. But had the victim had his own legal gun he may well be still alive today!!!

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:1. No I don't admit to a highly diminished effectiveness to my theory...

The question was: With the diminished effectiveness of gun ownership, do you think it is worth it?
Your answer was: No.

Be more careful next time.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. The guy was a crank, obviously disturbed, maybe mentally ill... he was a criminal and had an illegal firearm... the guy he shot was reportedly a Christian and family were from Lebanon... they knew he was dangerous and the authorities should have fine more to move him away or something. But had the victim had his own legal gun he may well be still alive today!!!

But the point is, the guy thought he was righteous just like you. In order for your theory to have any effectiveness, it must be human-motivated. If everybody believes he is the good guy, and other people with guns are all bad, what effect? Everybody shoots everybody else, No?

You're making a judgment that this guy was a bad guy now, after the fact. But the point-of-decision was back on that front porch, when guns were drawn and poised. Each person thought of himself as the 'good guy. But they can't both be right.

The NRA's 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy' theory is all ass-backwards. The time to determine who is 'good guy' and who is 'bad guy' is before the shots are fired, not like you are doing now, after the fact. The only way to prevent the shots from being fired is to remove the guns from the setting.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:52 pm

Double posted- deleted.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:52 pm

It's up to me to tell you what I mean... not the other way round...

"So, you admit to a highly diminished effectiveness to your theory...."

And I said no to that... so the rest of your supposition based on this initial falsehood was irrelevant.

2. The man was clearly trouble and criminal... I read about the case and his prior violent criminal behaviour towards his neighbours... and that he was married to a man!!!

He was a criminal with an illegal firearm... the neighbours should have got their own guns for protection especially as he was known to be hostile and dangerous and that authorities were failing to act on things or protect them properly.

All fits in with what I said initially.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's up to me to tell you what I mean... not the other way round...

It's up to you to know how to speak English, and not say inane, illogical things.

Tommy Monk wrote:"So, you admit to a highly diminished effectiveness to your theory...."

And I said no to that... so the rest of your supposition based on this initial falsehood was irrelevant.

You're wasting my time. The fact is, I'm letting you off. Next time read what you are answering.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. The man was clearly trouble and criminal... I read about the case and his prior violent criminal behaviour towards his neighbours... and that he was married to a man!!!

He was a criminal with an illegal firearm... the neighbours should have got their own guns for protection especially as he was known to be hostile and dangerous and that authorities were failing to act on things or protect them properly.

All fits in with what I said initially.

You're repeating yourself, tommy. It's getting too boring. If you can't answer my last post about the NRA's specious 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy' dichotomy, we'll leave it at that.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It's up to me to tell you what I mean... not the other way round...

It's up to you to know how to speak English, and not say inane, illogical things.

Tommy Monk wrote:"So, you admit to a highly diminished effectiveness to your theory...."

And I said no to that... so the rest of your supposition based on this initial falsehood was irrelevant.

You're wasting my time. The fact is, I'm letting you off. Next time read what you are answering.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. The man was clearly trouble and criminal... I read about the case and his prior violent criminal behaviour towards his neighbours... and that he was married to a man!!!

He was a criminal with an illegal firearm... the neighbours should have got their own guns for protection especially as he was known to be hostile and dangerous and that authorities were failing to act on things or protect them properly.

All fits in with what I said initially.

You're repeating yourself, tommy. It's getting too boring. If you can't answer my last post about the NRA's specious 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy' dichotomy, we'll leave it at that.

So first you try to tell me what i mean... Now you're telling an English man to learn how to speak English...!?

Most amusing!

The criminal had an illegal gun on your case example... and he was known to be a bad guy because of his previous behaviour towards the family... he even ran one of them down in his car and was prosecuted for it!!!

The dead victim didn't have a gun... but he had called the police a few minutes before he was attacked... and had he got himself a legal gun beforehand then he undoubtedly stood an infinitely better chance of defending himself and being alive today!

If you can't stop criminals having illegal guns then it is all the more reason for law abiding citizens to be able to have guns themselves for their own protection.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's up to you to know how to speak English, and not say inane, illogical things.

You're wasting my time. The fact is, I'm letting you off. Next time read what you are answering.

You're repeating yourself, tommy. It's getting too boring. If you can't answer my last post about the NRA's specious 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy' dichotomy, we'll leave it at that.

So first you try to tell me what i mean... Now you're telling an English man to learn how to speak English...!?

Most amusing!

Yes, for an Englishman you're not very good at it.

Tommy Monk wrote:The criminal had an illegal gun on your case example... and he was known to be a bad guy because of his previous behaviour towards the family... he even ran one of them down in his car and was prosecuted for it!!!

But he thought he was a good guy. That's the point...all the NRA 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy' dichotomy does is convince each person he is right...even the bad guy. Guns assure death, not good or bad.

Tommy Monk wrote:The dead victim didn't have a gun... but he had called the police a few minutes before he was attacked... and had he got himself a legal gun beforehand then he undoubtedly stood an infinitely better chance of defending himself and being alive today!

If you can't stop criminals having illegal guns then it is all the more reason for law abiding citizens to be able to have guns themselves for their own protection.

If the victim had gotten himself a gun it would have been a contest as to who reached his gun sooner. Is that what you think is your morality? Who's faster?

It's trial by ordeal, tommy. They used to put people on boards and dunk them into the water, and if they survived they were moral and god-fearing. Is that your ethic? Chance? The NRA ethic is specious...it is to assure that both have a chance of dying. The more the merrier, I guess.

Remove the guns, and they both end up pissing at each other, no more. Nobody gets killed. Now, that's not a bad thing.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:03 pm

A criminal with an illegal gun is a bad guy.

The focus should be on removing criminals and removing their illegal guns to make things more safe...

Trying to stop law abiding citizens having legal guns for their own protection only makes law abiding citizens less safe...

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:A criminal with an illegal gun is a bad guy.

The focus should be on removing criminals and removing their illegal guns to make things more safe...

Trying to stop law abiding citizens having legal guns for their own protection only makes law abiding citizens less safe...

Fine in theory. But you don't even know who the bad guy is, and who the good guy is.

All citizens are law abiding citizens...until they are not. Give 'em a gun and chances are 50-50 they will turn out not to be law abiding citizens.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:29 pm

Nonsense!

Your arguments are getting more and more daft...

by Original Quill Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Nonsense!

Your arguments are getting more and more daft...

Nice line, but you--who can't speak English--probably don't understand the arguments. You dropped out of the substantive conversation in the middle of this morning, and now you are harping on form and style...and repeating your lack of comprehension. As ole Nat sang: "Good-bye, no use leading with our chins / This is where our story ends...

Maybe you need some sleep.

by JulesV Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:40 am

People should not be routinely armed, not even if they are ''the good guys''. That's no way to live. Shocked

My God what happened to civilisation? So, 50 odd yrs after mankind walked on the moon, planet earth should become one big wild west frontier, with nearly everyone swaggering around with guns? Absurd!

by Tommy Monk Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:A criminal with an illegal gun is a bad guy.

The focus should be on removing criminals and removing their illegal guns to make things more safe...

Trying to stop law abiding citizens having legal guns for their own protection only makes law abiding citizens less safe...

Fine in theory. But you don't even know who the bad guy is, and who the good guy is.

All citizens are law abiding citizens...until they are not. Give 'em a gun and chances are 50-50 they will turn out not to be law abiding citizens.

Do you really think half the usa population are criminals who just haven't committed crime yet...?

Our leftie labour govt (1997-2010) had a similar negative view of the british people...

And Jules... you ask 'what happened to civilisation'...?

What example of 'civilisation' are you talking about?

by Original Quill Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:38 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Fine in theory. But you don't even know who the bad guy is, and who the good guy is.

All citizens are law abiding citizens...until they are not. Give 'em a gun and chances are 50-50 they will turn out not to be law abiding citizens.

Do you really think half the usa population are criminals who just haven't committed crime yet...?

After they kill someone with the gun they just happen to have, they become criminals by definition. It happens frequently with the so-called 'good guys' that have guns. That's the reason why I showed you that article about the Tulsa murder. Stanley Majors was just a 'good guy'--or so he thought--who felt he was ridding the world of a criminal.

Now he'll likely receive a needle.

by Major Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:23 am

The police did right to prevent him causing death or maiming.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:51 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Do you really think half the usa population are criminals who just haven't committed crime yet...?

After they kill someone with the gun they just happen to have, they become criminals by definition. It happens frequently with the so-called 'good guys' that have guns. That's the reason why I showed you that article about the Tulsa murder. Stanley Majors was just a 'good guy'--or so he thought--who felt he was ridding the world of a criminal.

Now he'll likely receive a needle.

He was not a good guy at all... he was a convicted criminal who was banned from owning a gun...!!!

Why do you keep trying to ignore these important facts...?

by Original Quill Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

After they kill someone with the gun they just happen to have, they become criminals by definition. It happens frequently with the so-called 'good guys' that have guns. That's the reason why I showed you that article about the Tulsa murder. Stanley Majors was just a 'good guy'--or so he thought--who felt he was ridding the world of a criminal.

Now he'll likely receive a needle.

He was not a good guy at all... he was a convicted criminal who was banned from owning a gun...!!!

You make me laugh, the way you keep repeating yourself. The point is: HE THINKS HE IS THE GOOD GUY!!

You don't seem to understand: the world is not only you. It's not only your opinion that matters. When the NRA sends out a message--good guys will have guns to shoot bad guys--it's a message to everyone and no one thinks he is the bad guy; everyone sees himself as the good guy, shooting the bad guy.

But with everyone shooting everyone else, thinking the other guy the bad guy, they all turn into bad murderers, making them all the bad guy. Promoting guns, promotes murders, which turns everyone into a bad guy.

Tommy Monk wrote:Why do you keep trying to ignore these important facts...?

Why do you fail to follow the logic? 'Good' and 'bad' are not who we are, but what we do. After one does the act, then the judgment comes. When you go out and tell everyone to commit murder, as the NRA messaging does, then you are telling the public to do 'bad guy' things. Then the judgment comes.

Stanley Majors, in the Tulsa story, was thinking he was the good guy, killing AARABS...he probably still does. That is the dumbed down version of RW thinking. He thinks he is justified in committing murder because he thinks he is defending Our way of life. It's what any good guy would do, in his mind.

But we see his warped mind, and think him the bad guy. Even you tommy, as you constantly rail against Muslims so irrationally, would otherwise agree with him...but you suddenly see Majors as a bad guy because he committed murder. But he is precisely the person whom the NRA advised to go out and commit murder.

You're not a bad guy until you do bad things. The NRA counsels everyone to do bad things. That is the point.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:59 pm

Your example of a criminal with an illegal gun just reinforces my point that law abiding citizens would be better off armed themselves to protect themselves from criminals with illegal guns.

Your waffle is becoming quite desperate now...

lol!

by Original Quill Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Your example of a criminal with an illegal gun just reinforces my point that law abiding citizens would be better off armed themselves to protect themselves from criminals with illegal guns.

So they could all be the criminals?

Tommy Monk wrote:Your waffle is becoming quite desperate now...

They say most such emotional utterances are about oneself. Feeling a bit insecure, are we tommy? Good...that means the ideas are sinking in, even if you are a bit embarrassed.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:20 pm

You couldn't be more wrong... you are making yourself look a bit silly...

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Plenty of law abiding citizens already have guns either on their person or under the counter of their business workplace etc... they don't pull them out willy nilly to threaten other law abiding citizens with...

In a city near me recently, a guy went to threaten his wife at her gym with a gun. One of the trainers got his own gun and started telling the guy to drop his. Instead, the guy shot and killed the trainer.

He should have phoned the police instead.

Yeah, he would have had a better chance of surviving -- which pretty much undercuts your entire argument that law-abiding citizens should carry weapons more. It's always a better bet to try to get to safety and call the police.

by 'Wolfie Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:14 pm

LOOK AT several of those mass shootings in the USA over the last couple of years -- in picture theatres, shopping malls or university campuses, in "concealed carry" states where there was sure to be some armed citizens in the vacinty, somewhere (?).

AND YET, not one of those big, brave "patriotic/law abiding/nationalistic" NRA goons had the backbone or gumption to deal with the situation..

SAYS A LOT, really, about the fantasy and fallacy of the claims from the pro-concealed-carry lobbyists and supporters. Police in milwaukee shoot an armed suspect who was fleeing ftom them and people protest and riot against it - Page 2 2113235493

Police in milwaukee shoot an armed suspect who was fleeing ftom them and people protest and riot against it - Page 2 2113235493

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:45 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

He should have phoned the police instead.

Yeah, he would have had a better chance of surviving -- which pretty much undercuts your entire argument that law-abiding citizens should carry weapons more. It's always a better bet to try to get to safety and call the police.

I said from the start that if more law abiding citizens had guns then it would be much less likely that a criminal would try anything... and I said people should not go rushing in were they don't know what's happening but should seek safe cover and call police...

Your example you said the trainer guy went away and got his gun and then returned to confront the bad guy... he should have called police...

by Original Quill Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Your example you said the trainer guy went away and got his gun and then returned to confront the bad guy... he should have called police...

If you are saying guns should never be involved, I would agree with you.

But you aren't saying that. You are saying that people should run and get their guns, to settle all things. That's a disqualifier.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:09 pm

I have said the opposite in the quote you just posted...

by Original Quill Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I have said the opposite in the quote you just posted...

Are you still trying, tommy? Today, you failed at the gate. Go back to bed. Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I have said the opposite in the quote you just posted...

Are you still trying, tommy? Today, you failed at the gate. Go back to bed.

Here is the quote of what I said to Ben most recently... and that you replied to...

Tommy Monk wrote:Your example you said the trainer guy went away and got his gun and then returned to confront the bad guy... he should have called police...

And your reply...

Quill wrote:
If you are saying guns should never be involved, I would agree with you.

But you aren't saying that. You are saying that people should run and get their guns, to settle all things. That's a disqualifier.

I don't know where you are getting your claims from... it is clear that I didn't say what you claim... in fact it is clear I said the opposite by saying the trainer guy in bens example case should have called the police!!!

And all through this thread I've said that people should seek safe place of cover and call police!!!

You have twisted throughout this whole thread... starting off defending a criminal with an illegal gun who was shot by police while he was trying to escape from arrest and was also reportedly trying to shoot at the police trying to catch him...

Then you try to say that another dangerous convicted criminal with an illegal gun who attacks, shoots and kills one of his neighbours... WAS A GOOD GUY!!!

And while you also seem to praise the fact that the innocent law abiding victim didn't have a legal gun of his own by which he could have used for his own protection in self defence against the attacker, and which could very well have saved his life!!!

And it was only 6.00-7.00pm here earlier when I was posting... it is not even 11pm yet here now!!!

lol!

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:44 pm

Tommy, it's obvious that you think the threat of being shot by a "good guy with a gun" would lower crime and gun deaths. But you completely contradicted yourself when you recommended that people not use their guns and instead call the police.

Guns aren't criminal kryptonite -- their mere presence doesn't prevent crime. Your scenario depends upon not only a lot of people owning guns, but being proficient in using them to kill or cripple criminals -- like the police generally are.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:23 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, it's obvious that you think the threat of being shot by a "good guy with a gun" would lower crime and gun deaths. But you completely contradicted yourself when you recommended that people not use their guns and instead call the police.

Guns aren't criminal kryptonite -- their mere presence doesn't prevent crime. Your scenario depends upon not only a lot of people owning guns, but being proficient in using them to kill or cripple criminals -- like the police generally are.

You're getting desperate now...

You deliberately misrepresent what I've said to make the straw man contridiction argument above...

by Sponsored content