A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

YAY 2nd AMENDMENT

Posted: Mar 13, 2016

Customer with concealed carry permit fatally shoots ax-wielding attacker at 7-Eleven

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/14/customer-with-concealed-carry-permit-fatally-shoots-axe-wielding-attacker-at-7-eleven.html

Customer with concealed carry permit fatally shoots ax-wielding attacker at 7-Eleven

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/14/customer-with-concealed-carry-permit-fatally-shoots-axe-wielding-attacker-at-7-eleven.html

;

Excellent! I love a happy ending! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Thank you Citizen! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Nice shot! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Another law abiding Republican takes out another CRIMINAL democrat!

Boo-hiss - You know what happens when you assume?

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm a concealed-carry Democrat and I'm not alone. I would've done the same thing to the ax-man, regardless of political party.

I'm really uncomfortable with this post. - Quite a bit of violent ill will.

[ In Reply To ..]

This is one incident - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
that had a good outcome but does not justify the over 300 million guns privately owned in this country. For example - more people have been killed by toddlers with guns than have been killed by terrorists in this country last year. A little research will show there are more bad outcomes than good ones when citizens pack weapons.

You ought not make such broad statements. The effects of gun ownership - are much too complex.

[ In Reply To ..]
Ownership up, homicides down.

Ownership up, gun-related accidents also up - but by a much lower percentage than the rise in gun ownership (14% vs 20.6%, respectively). Interesting, no?

Ownership up, violent crimes thwarted by citizens with guns also up, numbers of lives saved (including children) unknown but obviously up also. Interesting, no? What's the value of those thousands of lives saved? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Yeah, I thought you had no answer.

Gun laws tightened, gun-related crimes rise. Not occasionally - EVERY time.

...etc. I could go on for another page.

Your so-called research sucks - although to be fair it appears that you really didn't do any. Whether "crappy researcher" or "non-researcher" is a preferable conclusion I will leave up to you.

EDIT TO NOTE: True research begins with an OPEN mind. Anything else is totally bogus. Set aside your OBVIOUS bias and you might impress me. Until then, not so much.

EDIT TO NOTE: Criminals BY DEFINITION do not obey gun laws nor are they deterred in the least bit from obtaining them.

Get it? Good!

Wow! Pretty impressed with yourself aren't you? - oldtimer

[ In Reply To ..]
.

No. I'm impressed with how much factual information is available - if you care and know how to look.

[ In Reply To ..]
Has nothing to do with me.

MTs are very good at researching, Thank you very much. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Related to the job perhaps, otherwise no better than average. - Thank you very much.

[ In Reply To ..]
I teach a 9-hour course in library and online research at a local library. I know.

I'd be happy to give you one of the course challenges but I have no way of knowing that you did the work yourself.

The only fact you need - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
is the number of gun deaths in the US compared to other countries with similar socioeconomic status.

The U.S. has higher rates of homicides from guns than Pakistan. At 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people, the U.S. rates aren’t much lower than gun homicide rates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5.2 deaths per 100,000 people). Annually, the U.S. has about two fewer gun homicide deaths per 100,000 people than Iraq, which has 6.5 deaths per 100,000.

Thanks - that made me chuckle. It might be the - only fact you need (and that one is misleading)

[ In Reply To ..]
...but I don't need to reduce social issues to the level of absurdities in order to think about them. If you do, have at it. I'd love to hear your "one question" approach to immigration, to poverty, to healthcare, to globalization, etc. There must be some mighty enlightening stuff there, I bet.

Here are a couple of gun ticklers for you:

1. Why do the Australian police still wear sidearms more than a decade after passing one of the most draconian gun laws in the world, literally confiscating the firearms of law-abiding Australians?

Okay - if you said Australia still has a problem with gun crime, you got it right...leading logically to the next question:

2. If gun laws - and even nationwide confiscation - leave guns in the hands of criminals, whose responsibility - both morally AND legally - is it to protect yourself from violent crime - yours, or the police? Be careful here...the answer, meaning what the COURTS have said, will surprise you.

Okay - if you said that the police have no obligation to protect any particular citizen, but rather society at large, you're right - and that leaves who? You, that's who. Sorry, but that's the simple reality of things. While we can pass our responsibility off to the police in some matters - but wait. We need to go on to question #3.

3. On average, how long does it take to commit a crime of violence from the moment of first encounter?

I'll let you find that but get you started with robberies, the most common crime committed in conjunction with gunshot victims - less than 2 minutes, start to finish. With that under your belt, let's move on to question #4, which I can't answer for you.

4. What is the average response time of YOUR police department on urgent calls? The crime analysis unit or patrol commander's office will know - call them up and ask them. Whatever the time is, that is measured from the time that they're notified, not when the crime begins - and you ain't gonna be notifying anyone about anything until after the crime is over (if you can).

So now you're beginning to get it. Not just one question, I'm afraid, but do follow Einstein's advice in the future. He said we should certainly make explanations as simple as possible, BUT NOT MORE SO.

Are you always this condescending? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Not at all, but we have far too many people in this country - who will not or cannot analyze issues properly.

[ In Reply To ..]
...which simply means thoroughly and objectively. "All you need (to analyze the gun issue) is one fact."

OMG.

Here's just one article for you - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Of course you will probably disparage my source.

Link did not work - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
But if you google "Good Guy with a Gun Myth" you can find it.

Trading articles - we could do it all day, but that isn't - research.

[ In Reply To ..]
You fell into the common trap - going out and finding support for a position, instead of forming your position based on a thorough analysis of the issue.

The analysis comes first, and then the position. In the reverse, it's just a sham, and intellectually dishonest.

We are entitled to our opinions and this is becoming - a personal attack IMHO

[ In Reply To ..]
I looked at your posts and frankly they are no more conclusive or well proven than old and burned out's to my reading. I wonder why you are attacking her "analysis" when you provide none of your own? Why do you feel she is deserving of such derision?

You have not proven at all that YOU have done all the "analysis" you claim she did not. Also, your previous post (I presume it is, as there is the same misplaced venom against poor old old and burned out):

"Your so-called research sucks - although to be fair it appears that you really didn't do any. Whether "crappy researcher" or "non-researcher" is a preferable conclusion I will leave up to you.

EDIT TO NOTE: True research begins with an OPEN mind. Anything else is totally bogus. Set aside your OBVIOUS bias and you might impress me. Until then, not so much.

EDIT TO NOTE: Criminals BY DEFINITION do not obey gun laws nor are they deterred in the least bit from obtaining them.

Get it? Good!"

Angry much? Misdirected anger much?

The laughable thing is you saying "set aside your OBVIOUS bias" and what is extremely obvious is that you have an obvious bias as well, of the yay guns variety.

First of all, this kind of harsh put-down is certainly undeserving of anyone on this list, and also there is no reason for it that I can see.

You are also not proving your point. Just because you supposedly teach a course doesn't mean you are unbiased and nothing you have said has proven that, in fact the opposite.

I cannot imagine anyone lasting through your class if they have any opinions other than your own.

The class isn't about opinions, which is precisely the point - that has escaped you entirely. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

First of all - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
I am not "poor" old and burned out and I'm not disturbed by the attack.

Just because I have not posted a long defense of my position doesn't mean I don't have one. Everyone, unless it's a newborn, comes to a set of statistics with preconceived ideas. Any two people can look at statistics and interpret them differently. It seems to be a characteristic of many on this board, when someone has a different opinion to say things like, "I teach a class" or "I am a statistician" or "My husband analyzes these data for some organization" etc. One poster claimed to have read every word of the 2,000 page ACA to justify her position. It doesn't make your opinion any more valid than mine.

I see you realize it as an attack, but sorry for - the "poor"

[ In Reply To ..]
I was just attempting to point out how personal the attack was and how demeaning it was to your posts for no apparent reason. I wasn't feeling sorry for you at all and I wasn't attempting to even defend you.

I simply wanted to point out that the attacks were way out of line to your posts and used an unfortunate adjective.

I'm in favor of a total ban on firearms. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Of course, we need to do this wisely. We can establish 3 phases.

Phase #1: It's pretty obvious that the first group to be targeted would be those who use firearms to commit crimes. Remove all firearms in the possession of criminals, insane, etc, PROVE THAT YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER LETHAL WEAPONS USED BY CRIMINALS...then move to phase #2.

Phase #2: Citizens must be protected from the use or threat of unwarranted deadly force by government. This was a foundational consideration of the founding fathers, and remains evergreen. Remove all firearms from police agencies. If you've done job #1, they should't need them, now should they? PROVE THAT YOU HAVE DONE THAT...then move to phase #3.

Phase #3: Threats to law-abiding citizens have been largely eliminated, so now - and ONLY now - you can justifiably take the firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Okee-dokee. I'm fine with that plan, except you liberals couldn't even make it through step #1, now could you? You can't even keep 124 released illegals from committing 138 murders in 2015. Yes, that disgusting and scandalous fact is correct.

Well, I will never be someone who swallows the oxymoronic suggestion that criminals and the police are the only ones who have the ability to take care of themselves.

WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE JUST MINUTES AWAY. As a former cop, I can testify to the absolute truth of that statement, and I strongly support the right of any law-abiding citizen to protect themselves and their families - and not just at home.

Well stated and factually correct. - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Also, thank you for your service to the community!

It was my privilege. I got to meet a lot of fantastic people - "ordinary" citizens who weren't.

[ In Reply To ..]
People who came out and volunteered on searches. People who helped me push a disabled car out of the roadway. People who attended an accident victim in one car while I took care of one in the other car. People who voluntarily reported information that led to solving crimes. People who participated in Neighborhood Watch. People who went with me on ride-alongs simply because they wanted to know more about what we did.

So many wonderful people, really.

You would fail at phase one because it is impossible!! - get real !! nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

It was a bit tongue in cheek, but serious about how the - order of confiscation would HAVE to go.

[ In Reply To ..]
In other words, no confiscation at all, precisely because phase #1 is impossible. You don't START with stage #3 as some would like to do - it would be disastrous.

Similar Messages:

Mar 16, 2016
1. One attacker thwarted by "good guy with gun." 2. Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new studypublished in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year. Sounds like a good trade-off to me! ...

May 17, 2011
Check out this link. Apparently, it is now okay in Indiana for police officers to illegally enter someone's residence and the homeowner is not allowed to resist. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana is thinking about running for President. It will be interesting to see if this comes up in debates if he does run. Indiana is a very conservative state. Who's next? http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/new-court-ruling-on-illegal-entry-could-have-last ...

Jun 08, 2013
I will emphasize some sentences/parts of sentences so no one can mistake the meaning of this report: This amendment was supposed to "sunset" at the END OF 2012. They voted to extend it in Dec. 2012 for another 5 years WITH NO CHANGES from the 2008 amendment. Please note that the FISA Amendment of 2008 and the very FIRST bill did not allow warrantless searches, nor did they allow for the unlawful searches of all persons inside the U.S., only those who contacted, or were contacted, by perso ...

Jan 24, 2014
http://www.storyleak.com/are-you-living-in-fourth-amendment-exclusion-zone/ Major cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and even Houston have been declared by the Department of Homeland Security to be within the official 100 mile ‘border’ of the United States, subjecting 197 million citizens to electronic belonging searches without any suspicion. It all started in 2008, when the DHS declared that certain ‘border control agents’ could search the ele ...

May 20, 2014
I think the key to the 2nd amendment is "well-regulated," though I assume none of us by any means represent a militia. I also find it interesting that the original included an exception for conscientious objectors: In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arm ...

Jul 08, 2015
And it happens hundreds of times every year. This incident just happens to be "high-profile." Remember: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Remember also that the only people who obey gun LAWS are the LAW-ABIDING. ...

Dec 22, 2009
By Stephen C. WebsterMonday, December 21st, 2009 -- 7:35 pm Over the unexplained objections of 30 Republican Senators, an anti-rape amendment authored by Senator Al Franken (D-MN) became law Monday with President Obama's signature on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. The provision was sparked by the gang-rape of a 19-year-old Kellogg, Brown & Root employee by her coworkers in Iraq. After returning to the United States, Jamie Leigh Jones found she couldn't sue th ...

Jan 08, 2011
During the 2010 midterm elections, Republican senate nominee Sharron Angle of Nevada said that "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies." Lest her reference be too subtle for dummies, she immediately added, "I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." In March 2009, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) said she wanted the residents of her state "armed and dangerous" over President Obama's plan t ...

Sep 29, 2012
Trying to post again. Just can't stay away from this board. LOL Dearborn Muslims rally against the First Amendment Led by a newspaper publisher, Muslim activists will call for putting limits on American free speech at a Dearborn rally this evening. You can't make this stuff up. Nearly a decade after Dearborn's streets celebrated America for bringing down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelc ...

Jul 21, 2013
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/11/airport-settles-with-fourth-amendment-flasher/ ...

May 22, 2016
. ...

Mar 28, 2016
they got was NO. People saying they need to tote them guns. Talk about a shootout at the O.K. Corral. ...

Jun 19, 2013
The NRAâ��s best known slogan is â��If possession of guns becomes a crime, then only criminals will have guns.â�� Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, however, called the gun lobbyâ��s interpretation of the Second Amendment: "one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that Iâ��ve ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armiesâ��the militiasâ��woul ...

Dec 12, 2016
He runs CNN and HBO. He's a Democrat donor and fundraiser and producing all those shows on CNN and HBO that promotes leftist thinking. And he says it's the "Democrats that attack the First Amendment." He's talking about Hillary wanting a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It's amazing! ...

Dec 04, 2009
By Daniel TencerWednesday, December 2nd, 2009 -- 9:20 pmSome Republican senators are taking heat for voting against an amendment that would allow employees of military contractors to sue their employers if they are raped at work -- and they want the Democratic senator who wrote the amendment to help them fight off the bad publicity. In October, 30 Republicans voted against Sen. Al Franken's amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would de-fund contractors who prevent their ...

Jun 28, 2011
For all those strict adherents to the Constitution, take note of Section 4: Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. It would seem this brings into question the fundamental constitutionality of the imposition of a debt ceiling statute, which naturally is trumped by the Constitution. Look for th ...

Oct 23, 2016
I would never be able to explain my vote to my children down the road if I voted for more of what we've had for 8 years. ...

Apr 09, 2011
and this bill DID NOT ELIMINATE BIG OIL SUBSIDIES. I am reading through it and comparing it with the IRS Code that it applies to, so I won't be able to make any large explanations/comparisons today but noticed that even if the amendment would have passed, it would NOT have gone into affect until after December 31, 2011. Also, the little bit I did get through so far would not have eliminated oil subsidies from what I see with a quick glance, it would have changed the "gross ...