Bad news out of Auburn; UPDATE: Football players shot, killed?

[XBAMA]

Ricky , anyone else , join me in a short Prayer ...

Dear God , please don't let Desmonte Leonard be a Alabama fan
thank you , in your name we Pray , Amen

 

[ALTideUp]

Okay. Why do I think guns are useless for defense? Unless an assailant gives you advanced notice that he is about to attack you or enter your home, he will have his gun on you before you can ready yours. If you actually follow the rules for safe keeping of a weapon you stand no chance of using your gun in effective self-defense. Hand guns are problematic precisely because they are highly effective OFFENSIVE weapons.

As for the absurd claim about cricket bats, sure, you can kill someone with an iron skillet too. But let me ask you this: your son or daughter is at the party where Desmonte Leonard shows up. You can arm him with a 9mm or a cricket bat. What's your call?  Don't insult our intelligence. No one in the world would choose a gun attack over a knife or bat attack, especially when, as was the case in Auburn, the defenders have both numbers and strength on their side.

As for the tired out saws about guns dont kill people and only criminals would have guns, blah blah blah, the fact is that guns make killers more effective at killing. The "people" in the "people do" part of the saying are way less likely to kill you without a gun.   The argument is made that we can control killers by imposing stiffer criminal penalties on people who kill others.  Why would anyone who makes that claim not also believe that illegal gun possession could also be suppressed with stiffer crimal pentalties. I believe in enforcing anti gun laws before someone gets dead, rather than enforcing laws for after someone gets dead.

The claim that 2.5 million people annually successfully defend themselves with a gun. There are approx 80 million gun owners in the US. So we are to believe that every year 1 in every 32 gun owners defend themselves with their weapon? Not buying that. As for murder rates, why not compare us to Canada and Britain? Canada is particularly instructive because hunting is a cherished activity there and there are no laws limiting the sporting use of firearms.

[Marshal Dillon]

Okay. Why do I think guns are useless for defense? Unless an assailant gives you advanced notice that he is about to attack you or enter your home, he will have his gun on you before you can ready yours. If you actually follow the rules for safe keeping of a weapon you stand no chance of using your gun in effective self-defense. Hand guns are problematic precisely because they are highly effective OFFENSIVE weapons.

As for the absurd claim about cricket bats, sure, you can kill someone with an iron skillet too. But let me ask you this: your son or daughter is at the party where Desmonte Leonard shows up. You can arm him with a 9mm or a cricket bat. What's your call?  Don't insult our intelligence. No one in the world would choose a gun attack over a knife or bat attack, especially when, as was the case in Auburn, the defenders have both numbers and strength on their side.

As for the tired out saws about guns dont kill people and only criminals would have guns, blah blah blah, the fact is that guns make killers more effective at killing. The "people" in the "people do" part of the saying are way less likely to kill you without a gun.   The argument is made that we can control killers by imposing stiffer criminal penalties on people who kill others.  Why would anyone who makes that claim not also believe that illegal gun possession could also be suppressed with stiffer crimal pentalties. I believe in enforcing anti gun laws before someone gets dead, rather than enforcing laws for after someone gets dead.

The claim that 2.5 million people annually successfully defend themselves with a gun. There are approx 80 million gun owners in the US. So we are to believe that every year 1 in every 32 gun owners defend themselves with their weapon? Not buying that. As for murder rates, why not compare us to Canada and Britain? Canada is particularly instructive because hunting is a cherished activity there and there are no laws limiting the sporting use of firearms.

Ah yes, typical liberal "logic." When you don't like the facts, you either ignore them or claim they are wrong, but you can never seriously challenge their authenticity. The study was conducted at Florida State by a professor of criminology. FSU has a very well-known & respected College of Criminology & Criminal Justice. The study was cited in a recent Supreme Court decision involving the gun ban in Wash., DC. Even Justice Stephen Breyer (Ted Kennedy liberal) said when D.C. initiated the gun ban in 1976, crime went up, but he still did not beleive the gun ban was totally responsible (apparently just a big coincidence). You forgot to challenge the FBI stats that show more robberies and other crimes more prevalent in states/cities with tough gun laws. An innocent oversight on your part, I'm sure. Right now, Chicago is under a HUGE violent crime wave which resulted in the National GUard being called in to help with the violent crime problem. Oh, did I mention, Chicago has a gun ban, just another meaningless coincidence, I'm sure. There are facts after facts about this issue, but liberals like yourself prefer to live in a world of denial to anything which contradicts your ideas on this issue. By the way, it's impossible to compare the USA to Canada or England due to the extreme difference in demographics. Blacks (12% of the US population) commit half of all murders in this country. Using your logic, we should ban black people from owning guns, right?


 

[BAMAWV]

That was one motivated murderer. If any bleeding heart liberal thinks additional gun laws would have stopped that guy, you must have rocks in your head. I promise he was already violating a slew of gun possession laws before he ever pulled the trigger. The only thing that may have saved a life or two is someone else in the crowd carrying a weapon. One gun in the hands of a criminal-- 50 people unarmed-- that seems to be the odds libs want you to face. You never really see anyone decide, "Hey, lets go rob the gun show"!

[Jamos]

I guess my question about all of this is who started the fight, who hit who first.

It's sad that three people died but who actually initiated the fight with the first lick to cause these three people to die. 

[gottfriedsucks]

Okay. Why do I think guns are useless for defense? Unless an assailant gives you advanced notice that he is about to attack you or enter your home, he will have his gun on you before you can ready yours. If you actually follow the rules for safe keeping of a weapon you stand no chance of using your gun in effective self-defense. Hand guns are problematic precisely because they are highly effective OFFENSIVE weapons.

As for the absurd claim about cricket bats, sure, you can kill someone with an iron skillet too. But let me ask you this: your son or daughter is at the party where Desmonte Leonard shows up. You can arm him with a 9mm or a cricket bat. What's your call?  Don't insult our intelligence. No one in the world would choose a gun attack over a knife or bat attack, especially when, as was the case in Auburn, the defenders have both numbers and strength on their side.

As for the tired out saws about guns dont kill people and only criminals would have guns, blah blah blah, the fact is that guns make killers more effective at killing. The "people" in the "people do" part of the saying are way less likely to kill you without a gun.   The argument is made that we can control killers by imposing stiffer criminal penalties on people who kill others.  Why would anyone who makes that claim not also believe that illegal gun possession could also be suppressed with stiffer crimal pentalties. I believe in enforcing anti gun laws before someone gets dead, rather than enforcing laws for after someone gets dead.

The claim that 2.5 million people annually successfully defend themselves with a gun. There are approx 80 million gun owners in the US. So we are to believe that every year 1 in every 32 gun owners defend themselves with their weapon? Not buying that. As for murder rates, why not compare us to Canada and Britain? Canada is particularly instructive because hunting is a cherished activity there and there are no laws limiting the sporting use of firearms.

[gottfriedsucks]

Okay. Why do I think guns are useless for defense? Unless an assailant gives you advanced notice that he is about to attack you or enter your home, he will have his gun on you before you can ready yours. If you actually follow the rules for safe keeping of a weapon you stand no chance of using your gun in effective self-defense. Hand guns are problematic precisely because they are highly effective OFFENSIVE weapons.

As for the absurd claim about cricket bats, sure, you can kill someone with an iron skillet too. But let me ask you this: your son or daughter is at the party where Desmonte Leonard shows up. You can arm him with a 9mm or a cricket bat. What's your call?  Don't insult our intelligence. No one in the world would choose a gun attack over a knife or bat attack, especially when, as was the case in Auburn, the defenders have both numbers and strength on their side.

As for the tired out saws about guns dont kill people and only criminals would have guns, blah blah blah, the fact is that guns make killers more effective at killing. The "people" in the "people do" part of the saying are way less likely to kill you without a gun.   The argument is made that we can control killers by imposing stiffer criminal penalties on people who kill others.  Why would anyone who makes that claim not also believe that illegal gun possession could also be suppressed with stiffer crimal pentalties. I believe in enforcing anti gun laws before someone gets dead, rather than enforcing laws for after someone gets dead.

The claim that 2.5 million people annually successfully defend themselves with a gun. There are approx 80 million gun owners in the US. So we are to believe that every year 1 in every 32 gun owners defend themselves with their weapon? Not buying that. As for murder rates, why not compare us to Canada and Britain? Canada is particularly instructive because hunting is a cherished activity there and there are no laws limiting the sporting use of firearms.

you seem to be assuming that all murders are gun related and any suggestion otherwise is false 

yes, if criminals didn't have guns they wouldn't use guns to kill, but if someone wants to kill someone else and they don't have a gun, there are lots of ways to do it....and if you are going to respond to my post then why not respond to all the points? specifically the point that if you had more gun control laws that the only people that would obey the laws would be the non criminal/thug type.  the type of person that would kill someone is not going to turn his gun in.  secondly if guns were illegal....you know like drugs are...people could still get guns illegally just like people get illegal drugs very easily I might add.  I'm sure you are a swell guy, but you seem to not have a lick of common sense on this subject.

[gottfriedsucks]

I guess my question about all of this is who started the fight, who hit who first.

It's sad that three people died but who actually initiated the fight with the first lick to cause these three people to die. 

short answer...thugs bein thugs.

the most consistent story I have heard is that the shooter was hittin on one of the football player's girlfriend....one boy hit him in the face and one of the players hit him and his "homie" upside the head with beer bottles from behind and then the little thug pulled out his gun and started shooting.  a guy called finebaum yesterday and said he knew about 10 people at the party and they all pretty much told that story which was the same story that was told by the shooter's friend that called finebaum on Monday.

They was keepin it real.

[Leroy]

[Chechem]

I guess my question about all of this is who started the fight, who hit who first.

It's sad that three people died but who actually initiated the fight with the first lick to cause these three people to die. 

short answer...thugs bein thugs.

the most consistent story I have heard is that the shooter was hittin on one of the football player's girlfriend....one boy hit him in the face and one of the players hit him and his "homie" upside the head with beer bottles from behind and then the little thug pulled out his gun and started shooting.  a guy called finebaum yesterday and said he knew about 10 people at the party and they all pretty much told that story which was the same story that was told by the shooter's friend that called finebaum on Monday.

They was keepin it real.

What's the girl look like?

[rueben]

I guess my question about all of this is who started the fight, who hit who first.

It's sad that three people died but who actually initiated the fight with the first lick to cause these three people to die. 

short answer...thugs bein thugs.

the most consistent story I have heard is that the shooter was hittin on one of the football player's girlfriend....one boy hit him in the face and one of the players hit him and his "homie" upside the head with beer bottles from behind and then the little thug pulled out his gun and started shooting.  a guy called finebaum yesterday and said he knew about 10 people at the party and they all pretty much told that story which was the same story that was told by the shooter's friend that called finebaum on Monday.

They was keepin it real.

What's the girl look like?

Hotter than a two dollar pistol!!!

[Jamos]

Well then I'm guessing that the two guys that hit on the girl are the same in size as the two that hit them with their fist and a beer bottle. 

[Marshal Dillon]

They interviewed on TV one of the guys who admitted to being in the fight. His last name was Vines. He stated that he and his friend named Pitts got in the fight with the shooters. Vines stated he punched one guy in the face and Pitts hit the other with a beer bottle. Pitts was killed but Vines never got a scratch. Fate is very fickle. Two guys who did nothing are killed and another is shot in the head and fighting for his life at UAB. Sad.

[gottfriedsucks]

Well then I'm guessing that the two guys that hit on the girl are the same in size as the two that hit them with their fist and a beer bottle. 

according to Woosy's homie (woosy is the shooter's nickname) he is about 5' 9" and 140lbs.

[Jamos]

Well then I'm guessing that the two guys that hit on the girl are the same in size as the two that hit them with their fist and a beer bottle. 

according to Woosy's homie (woosy is the shooter's nickname) he is about 5' 9" and 140lbs.

The point I'm trying to make out of this is that if the first punch had not been thrown, no one would have died and most of all, the dude that hit the other with the beer bottle is what brought the gun out. A good lawyer will definitly pursue self defense for the two that crashed the party and I'm not siding with these two at all but all of this could have been prevented by a single phone call to the police to remove the two party crashers from the premiss.

Jealousy, booze, drugs, and big egos can be a deadly formula which we all have now witnessed at that fateful party.

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...