Youngest hitman, only 15

[the_tyrant]

A teenage hitman who was caught on CCTV shooting a young mother dead was jailed for life with a minimum term of 20 years at the Old Bailey today.

Santre Sanchez Gayle, 15, was paid just £200 to carry out the murder of Gulistan Subasi – a fee he used to buy a gold Dolce and Gabbana beanie hat.

The boy, known by the street name Riot, will spend at least two decades behind bars after being convicted of the cold-blooded murder, described by a Judge Stephen Kramer as 'an efficient, ruthless and calculated execution'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390069/Schoolboy-hitman-Santre-Sanchez-Gayle-15-convicted-murder.html#ixzz1NMTCRVf4

[papa_smurf]

Saw this on evening news, absolutely shocking, but there is an alarming increase in gun/gang crime in central London.

[Feuer Frei!]

This crap makes me sick to the stomach!
Firstly, much much sadness goes out to that poor child that now has no mother.
Secondly, why the hell was the hit put on this woman?
Was it just a dare?
Regardless, once again, the big fish will get away, the person or people who gave the order for this abhorrant crime.
Not identified. I hope this 15-year old will give it up and name the trash that gave the order. Was this a random killing?

[CCIP]

Well, the suggestion is that her ex put the hit in for her, because he was afraid she'd take custody of the child.

[Hottentot]

Santre Sanchez Gayle, 15, was paid just £200 to carry out the murder of Gulistan Subasi – a fee he used to buy a gold Dolce and Gabbana beanie hat.

Words fail me. £200 for a human life and a kid, who will be (at least) 35 years old when he gets out of prison, probably with nothing to base his future life on (education, job, etc.) Even that hat is pretty worn out by then.

Waste.

[Skybird]

What are we shocked about? Is it really the age of the hitboy only? Or isn't it that it has happened amongst ourselves, in the middle of our living place?

In africa things like this happen almost every day in some countries. Boys 13 and 14 year olds not only shoot dead people and shoot in wars in which they have been taught to fight, but along with the older teens or young adult men stoned by drugs and testosteron mutilate and dismember helpless victims with machetes, even commit rape on mutilated women that they had cut of limbs or breasts themselves just seconds before. These conflicts often get encouraged and silenty supported by Western and Russian and Asian politics eyeing certain ressources, often rare ressouces needed for our hightech industries and that they hope to exploit more easily if the clan and civil wars continue or some evil faction dominates the conflict.

This hardly ever makes it to the news, and we comfortably refuse to take note of it, and when we boycott at least blood diamonds, we are thankful for the opportunity to have relieved our conscience. But when a young killer pops up in our homecountries, then suddenly we pretend "to care".

Do we really?

I think we really have to readjust our sensors.

[the_tyrant]

What are we shocked about? Is it really the age of the hitboy only? Or isn't it that it has happened amongst ourselves, in the middle of our living place?

In africa things like this happen almost every day in some countries. Boys 13 and 14 year olds not only shoot dead people and shoot in wars in which they have been taught to fight, but along with the older teens or young adult men stoned by drugs and testosteron mutilate and dismember helpless victims with machetes, even commit rape on mutilated women that they had cut of limbs or breasts themselves just seconds before. These conflicts often get encouraged and silenty supported by Western and Russian and Asian politics eyeing certain ressources, often rare ressouces needed for our hightech industries and that they hope to exploit more easily if the clan and civil wars continue or some evil faction dominates the conflict.

This hardly ever makes it to the news, and we comfortably refuse to take note of it, and when we boycott at least blood diamonds, we are thankful for the opportunity to have relieved our conscience. But when a young killer pops up in our homecountries, then suddenly we pretend "to care".

Do we really?

I think we really have to readjust our sensors.

we see this quite often
NIMBY, or not in my backyard

its like how they are building that new power plant in my town, I don't care because its in the other side of town, but if its built near my house, I will be protesting too!

[August]

I thought gun control was supposed to prevent these things from happening.

[CCIP]

I thought gun control was supposed to prevent these things from happening.

On the other hand, do you think that someone in that house owning a gun would've changed anything? This kind of attack isn't something you can defend from, really.

[August]

On the other hand, do you think that someone in that house owning a gun would've changed anything? This kind of attack isn't something you can defend from, really.

No it's not but according to popular gun control theory the murderer shouldn't have needed a shotgun.

[CCIP]

No it's not but according to popular gun control theory the murderer shouldn't have needed a shotgun.

Actually he probably didn't, either. How hard is it to kill a defenseless woman who opens the door carelessly?

[August]

Actually he probably didn't, either. How hard is it to kill a defenseless woman who opens the door carelessly?


Right. So if gun control does what it's advertized to do then why did he need a shotgun and how did he obtain it?

[CCIP]

Right. So if gun control does what it's advertized to do then why did he need a shotgun and how did he obtain it?

Oh, well, duh. You don't even need to ask that. That's like saying drug control "works"...

Point is, with or without controls, this would've happened. With or without a gun, this probably also would've happened. The cause for it isn't availability or opportunity, the cause for this is socially inept, greedy and immoral people. And possibly the society which leaves such people on the street. This kid had half his family in jail for murder before him, as it is...

[Freiwillige]

Solution simple. Let him hang! In a public square.

There is no justice in this soft world anymore, Hell probably get a play station in his cell:nope:

[August]

Oh, well, duh. You don't even need to ask that. That's like saying drug control "works"...

Point is, with or without controls, this would've happened. With or without a gun, this probably also would've happened. The cause for it isn't availability or opportunity, the cause for this is socially inept, greedy and immoral people. And possibly the society which leaves such people on the street. This kid had half his family in jail for murder before him, as it is...

That's my point as well. Gun control does not stop gun crime.

[Jimbuna]

That's my point as well. Gun control does not stop gun crime.

Exactly....it never has and never will.

Here we see a clkassic example of how cheap a price a life can be if you find the right piece of vermin that is desperate enough for a few quid :nope:

May his starfish never know any piece.

[jumpy]

The point made was also that firearm ownership would not have prevented this crime either - debating ownership or control (ban) is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.
Unless of course you open your front door with the business end of a firearm... and who does that?
Civilised society continually forgets (or deliberately ignores) that humanity's default setting is barbarism.

[Freiwillige]

The point made was also that firearm ownership would not have prevented this crime either - debating ownership or control (ban) is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.
Unless of course you open your front door with the business end of a firearm... and who does that?
Civilised society continually forgets (or deliberately ignores) that humanity's default setting is barbarism.

Not true entirely. She should have known her ex was a dirt bag. She probably knew he was a threat. In the U.S. she could have bought a pistol for protection, got some training in defensive tactics and been very aware of her surroundings. Had those things happened this may have turned out differently. It may not have either. But it would increase the odds even if by a small percentile of her surviving that encounter.

[August]

The point made was also that firearm ownership would not have prevented this crime either - debating ownership or control (ban) is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.

[Freiwillige]

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.

Well put. :yep:

[Skybird]

Gun license and owining a gun do not offer your protection if a hitman is set on you, for any hitman competent in his business will strike you by surprise and by the means against which you cannot defend. But should we legalise explosives and mines because he may wire your carseat with explosives?

The debate in this thread is misled, and maybe intentionally so. Gun ownership for self defense in the very very big majority of cases makes sense only against random street crime, robbers, thieves, etc.

This case thus does not serve as an argument for general easing of gun ownership. the only thing that could have saved her when opening the door wouldjhave been reflexes and training in hand-to-hand combat, or reflexes combined with huge physical strength - and this most likely only if the hitman was not standing meters in front of the door.

If I were a assassin with a gun or rifle and you would be marked by somebody who hates you,. you can safely assume that you would be hit with me leaving you zero chance to react.

Preferred defense against assassination, are good intel, and body guards to control at least the vicinity around you. But intel is key for maximising chances to neutralise the surprising momentum of the attacker. But if the intended victim is not even aware of that it has been marked, then chances for defence are almost nil as long as the assassin is not a total idiot.

And as a reminder on that the balance of safety gained-versus-risks of gun ownership is not as linear and simple as some try to make it appear:

a meta-study (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183167)

[danasan]

Is this really about guns only?

I think, it is about growing brutality nowadays. There are so many cases of brutality done by youngsters, for example the subway cases in Germany. Sometimes ending in the dead, sometimes in the hospital...
And often for less than 200 pounds

[August]

First off this was done a 15 year old kid, not a "hitman".

Second I am not trying to make the case that gun ownership would have stopped this murder from occurring. I am only using it as a counterpoint to the claims that taking away legal gun ownership will somehow stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes.

[Howard313]

Age makes no difference, if he is evil enough to take a life for money then he is evil enough to rot in jail.

What a waste of good youth though :nope:

[Tribesman]

I thought gun control was supposed to prevent these things from happening.
It sure don't look like Kansas

according to popular gun control theory the murderer shouldn't have needed a shotgun.
Who is that strange figure?

So if gun control does what it's advertized to do then why did he need a shotgun and how did he obtain it?
Off to see the wizard.

Now what was it the strawman required?:har:

May his starfish never know any piece.
Don't you mean may it be ripped to pieces on a regular basis?

[Freiwillige]

Gun license and owining a gun do not offer your protection if a hitman is set on you, for any hitman competent in his business will strike you by surprise and by the means against which you cannot defend. But should we legalise explosives and mines because he may wire your carseat with explosives?

The debate in this thread is misled, and maybe intentionally so. Gun ownership for self defense in the very very big majority of cases makes sense only against random street crime, robbers, thieves, etc.

This case thus does not serve as an argument for general easing of gun ownership. the only thing that could have saved her when opening the door wouldjhave been reflexes and training in hand-to-hand combat, or reflexes combined with huge physical strength - and this most likely only if the hitman was not standing meters in front of the door.

If I were a assassin with a gun or rifle and you would be marked by somebody who hates you,. you can safely assume that you would be hit with me leaving you zero chance to react.

Preferred defense against assassination, are good intel, and body guards to control at least the vicinity around you. But intel is key for maximising chances to neutralise the surprising momentum of the attacker. But if the intended victim is not even aware of that it has been marked, then chances for defence are almost nil as long as the assassin is not a total idiot.

And as a reminder on that the balance of safety gained-versus-risks of gun ownership is not as linear and simple as some try to make it appear:

a meta-study (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183167)

I have to disagree with you. Re-reading the story I disagree wholeheartedly.

If she was armed, trained and aware this would have never happened.

First...don't open the door for strangers especially when your psycho ex is in a child dispute with you. Learn to spot the danger instead of walking right into it.

Second upon not answering the door if the ASSassin tries to break in, you the defender have the advantage.

Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.

[August]

Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.

Well said.

[Feuer Frei!]

Not true entirely. She should have known her ex was a dirt bag.She probably knew he was a threat. In the U.S. she could have bought a pistol for protection, got some training in defensive tactics and been very aware of her surroundings. Had those things happened this may have turned out differently. It may not have either. But it would increase the odds even if by a small percentile of her surviving that encounter.
Roger that.
So if she would have done all those things above in your quote, she would have shot the hell out of that 15-year old kid and lived to see another day with her child.
How the hell can this be twisted to insinuate or allege that because she didn't do all those things that that is why she is dead?
Errm, ok.
And what guarantee is there that if she had been armed, that A) She would have had the gun on her at that very precise moment? B) What guarantee is there that she would have had a quicker reaction time than the 15-year old? C) If she did indeed have a quicker reaction time, what's to say she would have hit him? D) If she did indeed react quicker, what's to say the gun didn't mis-fire?
So you see, just because the almighty gun laws allow you to carry and defend yourself at home, doesn't guarantee you safety. Sure, sure, it increases the chance of you repelling an attack, but i'm arguing that your point that IF the woman had her own gun then that would or could have been a better outcome.
Unless i am mis-reading your post.
I hope i am.
As for your argument about her living in a false sense of security and with her especially unsafe circumstances?
It's a shame that that woman, and indeed all of us can't live day to day without ------- exes and 15-year old would-be-wanna-be assassins that don't give a ---- about life.
Yea, yea, the arguement about "get a reality check dood, the world is a cold harsh place" argument is tiring, neeext.
Pity her for living in a false sense of security and living in unsafe circumstances.
Pity her for not carrying a gun and taking self-defense classes (God knows what self defense classes would have done when someone stands there pulling a trigger from a shotgun).

[Freiwillige]

Well you can never guarantee your life, But if you could change the odds ever so slightly in your favor? Why wouldn't you?? I did say in my post it might have changed the outcome, might not. And by self defense training I meant with the firearm not karate, I am sure she did not have the 5 extra years to train in defense martial arts but gun defensive training is relatively quick.

I guarantee you that this 15 year old twit couldn't hit the broadside of a barn especially under return fire. You think he was so committed for a couple hundred bucks to kill someone he never met that he would risk his own selfish interests when being fired upon? He would soil his pants and flee like the punk he is. Anybody can shoot a gun, it takes practice and commitment to shoot one well. And now to answer your 4 points

A. (What if she didn't have her gun on her?) She should always have her gun on her if she knows there is a threat. But since she was at home all she had to do was retrieve her gun, yell out asking who it is without getting close to the door or opening it and if the response is not adequate take a defensive position in the home and phone the police while being prepared to defend yourself.

B. (What guarantee is there that she would have had a quicker reaction time than the 15 year old?) This isn't the wild west drawing at high noon. Following the above scenario she would be at the ready and have the advantage of knowing his whereabouts while he doesn't know hers. IF he decided to try and force entry he would be doing so into an unknown environment not knowing what direction his intended pray is located. The girl would know the direction of the attack and already be unloading in the general direction. Who do you suppose has the advantage there?

C. (If she did indeed have a faster reaction time what makes you think she would hit him?) Well she has been training in defensive firearm usage including hitting a target. He probably being a 15 year old scum bag has not. He thinks like most gang members that having a gun is enough. And even if she did not hit him he would almost certainly flee seeing as how his defenseless victim is anything but a defenseless victim.

D. (Even if she did draw faster whats to say the gun doesn't misfire?) How many guns have you been around? Do they misfire? Sure but not as often as to make that anything but the most remote of possibility's. Especially if she had a revolver and it was new (Most likely scenario for a new to guns woman who wants to learn immediate defense) In that case if it did misfire then another squeeze of the trigger solves that.

[Tribesman]

Feurfrei the best way to show their stance as just plain silly is to use a well known example.
Say for example the soccermum who became an icon for gun nuts when she insisted on exercising her right to open carry at her kids soccer games because her life may be under threat at any moment and it was vital that she had a gun on her person at all times and always be ready to fight off the unexpected attacker
Someone just walked up to her in her own house and blew the contents of her skull all over the computer monitor and terminated her web-chat.
I suppose it can be said that her gun meant....
Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.

[Skybird]

I have to disagree with you. Re-reading the story I disagree wholeheartedly.

If she was armed, trained and aware this would have never happened.

First...don't open the door for strangers especially when your psycho ex is in a child dispute with you. Learn to spot the danger instead of walking right into it.

Second upon not answering the door if the ASSassin tries to break in, you the defender have the advantage.

Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.
You just confirm almost everything I saidl, especially about intel ("being aware"), and reflexes. And face it, most people do not become victim of targetted or random crime, and most people want to spend their lives in ways that do not remind them every minutes of the day they were living in a warzone.

But if you do, I recommend you try to move out there. Becoming a paranoid or fighting the villains off your doorstep every day is no way to live.

[DarkFish]

That's my point as well. Gun control does not stop gun crime.And nobody here says it does.
The point of gun control is to make it *harder* to get a gun and use it to shoot people. It's impossible to completely get rid of guns.

Right. So if gun control does what it's advertized to do then why did he need a shotgunHe didn't. I'm quite sure he could have done it with a knife as well. He could have run her down with a car. He could have poisoned her. Heck, he could even have done the job with a baseball bat.

The point is, using knives or baseball bats or poison is harder than using a gun. You need to get closer to the victim, and you are less likely to fatally wound him. Because you need more skill and courage to kill someone without a gun, people are less likely to kill. In the case of a hitman, like here, it wouldn't matter. Hitmen kill anyway. But with normal people, it does matter. Don't believe that? Why don't you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate? Note especially how Western Europe has the lowest rate in the world.

[August]

And nobody here says it does.

Lots of people say that. Heck you say it right in your post.

Note especially how Western Europe has the lowest rate in the world.

I noted it. I also note the three paragraphs of disclaimers right before it which you seem to have missed:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants for the years from 2000 onwards. The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.[1] The legal definition of "intentional homicide" differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia. Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.[3][4]
Another problem for the comparability of the following figures is that some data includes attempts and other doesn't. This values may differ highly in some countries. For example, in Germany about 3 of 4 homicides are attempts.[5]


Apples and oranges.

[DarkFish]

Lots of people say that. Heck you say it right in your post.Nope, I say it helps to get *less* gun crime. Not that it *stops* gun crime.

I noted it. I also note the three paragraphs of disclaimers right before it which you seem to have missed:Would that alone explain that the US rate is 4.33 times higher than the average European rate?
For example, Germany has a homicide rate of 0.86. The US has 5, nearly 6 times higher. Even if the Germans did include homicide attempts, and the US number is with attempts included (it doesn't mention), the US number would still be much higher.

[Tribesman]

Darkfish, you will notice that augusts claims about gun control ands its aims are strawmen.

[Sailor Steve]

You need to get closer to the victim, and you are less likely to fatally wound him. Because you need more skill and courage to kill someone without a gun, people are less likely to kill.
But that's also true for the victim. If a big bruiser attacks me with a bat I'm pretty much screwed, unless I have a gun.

Darkfish, you will notice that augusts claims about gun control ands its aims are strawmen.
Coming from the person who rarely posts any real arguments at all, just statements like this one.

[Tribesman]

Coming from the person who rarely posts any real arguments at all, just statements like this one.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Do you contend that Augusts position is an accurate one?
If not then it is simply a strawman so all the real arguement needed is just pointing that out. After all he managed to not only build a false arguement to knock down he then went and plainly changed what Darkfish said so he could make the same false arguement again.
In addition you seem to miss the soccer mum whose death pretty well dents several other claims being made.

[jumpy]

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.

I think you misunderstand or are confusing the issue with an understandably american idea of gun ownership (no slur from me there, ok)... the concept of "restricting private gun ownership eliminating the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime" is not a question here; the issue of pro/anti firearms ownership has no bearing on the case. It's a moot point to argue either way, since banning firearms or allowing them would have made no difference to the outcome - rabid little **** would have killed her with an illegal firearm anyway, so what use is that argument here in the UK?

I'm not convinced a firearm would have helped her, unless it was ok to open the door every single time pointing a gun at whoever might have been behind it, be it granny smith, the postman or her killer. Such behaviour, to my mind at least, is entirely paranoid and not the best proponent of firearm ownership.
Hearing a noise in the house and reaching to the pistol on the bedside table to protect you and yours is another matter, so I'll concede the point that in that instance a firearm would have been a valid tool of defence.

I'm opposed to current firearms legislation here in the UK, for the simple reason that most of the recent (last 20 years) changes have been somewhat ill-considered knee jerk reactions to nutters loosing the plot and blowing random people away. The result being to deprive many sensible people of a sporting hobby - most gun crime in the UK is related to illegal firearms, not the legally held ones, such as are left now.
This is why your argument does not seem valid to me. Crazy immoral people with do bad things, things which legislation cannot prevent or moderate, add to that our attitude to the use of firearms over here and we are clearly arguing cross purposes. That is why I say it is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.

[Sailor Steve]

Do you contend that Augusts position is an accurate one?
I'll start with his original statement.

I thought gun control was supposed to prevent these things from happening.
A perfectly valid observation. Gun-control advocates claim that denying guns to everyone means that gun crimes will be stopped. Here is a society with strong gun controls, and a 15-year-old boy killed someone with a shotgun. Where is the strawman?

I don't necessarily agree with, or even understand his argument about the killer needing a shotgun, but I don't see the strawman there either.

That's my point as well. Gun control does not stop gun crime.
His stated point, and I do agree. Argue against it if you like. I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right, but it is my belief, and according to August it is also his belief, and the point he's trying to make. So again, where is the strawman?

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.
A positive case made for his argument. He may or may not be right, but he clarifies his argument and attempts to make his point. Where is the strawman?

Second I am not trying to make the case that gun ownership would have stopped this murder from occurring. I am only using it as a counterpoint to the claims that taking away legal gun ownership will somehow stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes.
Here he restates his point, and adds a disclaimer concerning what he is not trying to prove. Strawman?

It sure don't look like Kansas

Who is that strange figure?

Off to see the wizard.

Now what was it the strawman required?:har:

Don't you mean may it be ripped to pieces on a regular basis?
Here we have a set of irrelevant jabs intended to minimize August's points, while not actually addressing or countering them; basically a trolling attack that serves no purpose other than to antagonize.

I think we've found our strawman.

[Tribesman]

Gun-control advocates claim that denying guns to everyone means that gun crimes will be stopped.
Thats false twice, or even three times if you look.

Here is a society with strong gun controls
Are you kidding?

Then you go on to passages I didn't quote.
But anyway lets deal with some
His stated point, and I do agree.
I agree, gun control does not stop gun crime, but only an idiot would claim it did so putting that up as a position to oppose is pure bull.
Effective gun control may reduce gun crime but the only way to stop gun crime is to make gun crime legal.

A positive case made for his argument. He may or may not be right, but he clarifies his argument and attempts to make his point. Where is the strawman?

Its in the wording again, he builds a false claim to argue against.
In this case "eliminates"
In each instance he is taking it to absolutes to make a "good" case to stand against but each time is instead making a "false" case to knock down.

Here we have a set of irrelevant jabs intended to minimize August's points
No, there you have 4 jabs which minimize augusts points and a response to Jims funny about prison "recreation" activities

If you look at the Darkfish exchange you can see it clearly, he takes a position and changes it in the same way so he can knock it, classic strawman

[claybirdd]

I'm with August and Freiwillige on this one. And yes I do answer my door with a pistol, it is just out of view of the person at my door.

[Tribesman]

And yes I do answer my door with a pistol,
living in fear of every knock on the door, how sad:nope:

[claybirdd]

Yes it is. In the past 10 years ive had my home broken into twice. Once down in Alabama while on vacation and the other 2 years ago here in Tennesse. The latest time a woman knocked on my door asking if she could use the phone due to car trouble. Mind you I live in a rural area. As soon as I cracked the door I was hit in the face with a shotgun butt and then zip-tied up while my home was ransacked. You have no idea how hard and painful it is to squirm over to a phone, knock off the reciever and dial 911 with your nose which is broken so badly that the bone is off to the side. I tell you this I will not be caught off guard again.

[DarkFish]

If you look at the Darkfish exchange you can see it clearly, he takes a position and changes it in the same way so he can knock it, classic strawmanExactly. August is making a case against a point no one argues by twisting my words. And Steve seems to join him in doing so.

[Armistead]

This crap makes me sick to the stomach!
Firstly, much much sadness goes out to that poor child that now has no mother.
Secondly, why the hell was the hit put on this woman?
Was it just a dare?
Regardless, once again, the big fish will get away, the person or people who gave the order for this abhorrant crime.
Not identified. I hope this 15-year old will give it up and name the trash that gave the order. Was this a random killing?


Hopefully when he's taking it up the tailpipe he'll work a better deal and give up the people.

[Tribesman]

Exactly. August is making a case against a point no one argues by twisting my words. And Steve seems to join him in doing so.
Only to a certain extent, he is perhaps taking a view that might be expressed by some extreme fringe of the brady bunch and dressing that up as a real arguement people are making, but that is like taking Fred Phelps as an example of mainstream christian theology.

Yes it is. In the past 10 years ive had my home broken into twice.
So you do live in fear.
Well so much for guns making you safe as surely in rural Tennesee people would expect every home to be armed so would never dream of taking a chance on a home invasion.
But if your gun is hidden from view behind the door do you think you can get a good shot in if you are going to be smashed in the face as soon as the door is cracked? After all you are going to have to look through the crack first ain't ya to see if you is supposed to be shooting or not.

[STEED]

Bring back Hanging.

You take a life you forfeit yours end of. I know it will not stop gun/knife crime but it will be a saving in money to the tax payer.

[Tribesman]

I know it will not stop gun/knife crime but it will be a saving in money to the tax payer.
Given your countries record on wrongful convictions you would have to have an even more long running and expensive appeals process than the Americans have so it would cost you much more to the tax payer not less.

[Sailor Steve]

And Steve seems to join him in doing so.
This is the first time I've even addressed you in this thread, so it's kind of hard for me to be "joining" anybody in "twisting" anything. I don't even support August in everything he says. My only point in all of this is that Tribesman doesn't even address the issue; his only purpose seems to be to mock and criticize.

[Tribesman]

This is the first time I've even addressed you in this thread
Unfortunately you jumped in to support a strawman August set up when he changed the words Darkfish had used

My only point in all of this is that Tribesman doesn't even address the issue
Pointing out that August is setting up fake positions to argue against is addressing the issue.
I raised plenty of points to address the issues and non issues raised
But here is one issue just for you which you already ignored.
Do you honestly think the UK has strong gun controls?

[Sailor Steve]

Unfortunately you jumped in to support a strawman August set up when he changed the words Darkfish had used
I didn't address Darkfish. I supported August against your insipid diatribe. Anything more is you creating your own strawman, as I said before. Also you manage to ignore what I said about not fully agreeing with August. But you only see what you want to see.

Pointing out that August is setting up fake positions to argue against is addressing the issue.
I raised plenty of points to address the issues and non issues raised
But here is one issue just for you which you already ignored.
And I specifically addressed the post in which you said nothing but nonsense.

Do you honestly think the UK has strong gun controls?
I honestly don't know, but a great many US gun-control advocates point to the UK as a shining example of how it should work, which is what August addressed in his first post.

[Freiwillige]

Quite often the argument against the gun owners of America is that were afraid. Living in fear hiding behind our guns. For some that may be true. I own a gun so I don't have to be afraid. Just remember that 33,000,000 legal gun owners didn't murder anybody today.:O:

[Tribesman]

I didn't address Darkfish. I supported August against your insipid diatribe.
as easy as 1,2,3

Nope, I say it helps to get *less* gun crime. Not that it *stops* gun crime.
Looks like someone had set up another false arguement
Darkfish, you will notice that augusts claims about gun control ands its aims are strawmen.
looks like somone points it out again.
Coming from the person who rarely posts any real arguments at all, just statements like this one.
looks like somone jumping in quoting me in relation to what Darkfish wrote.

So take it back a stage further.....
And nobody here says it does.
The point of gun control is to make it *harder* to get a gun and use it to shoot people. It's impossible to completely get rid of guns.
Is Darkfish saying august arguements are strawmen:yep:
And I specifically addressed the post in which you said nothing but nonsense.

Ah you mean the one where I took 3 of august arguements and had a laugh at his misrepresntations.

I honestly don't know
What do you think of Jumpys posts or Jims?
Jumpy has a good point, it was silly rushed legislation brought in after a couple of occasions when people who should already have been banned from holding firearms went mad, stupid populist knee jerk legislation.

a great many US gun-control advocates point to the UK as a shining example of how it should work
Which legislation are they pointing at ? England and wales, scotland or the 6. Are these people pointing at legislation they havn't got the faintest idea about?
Its funny really from another angle as many pro gun advocates point to Ireland as a really good example of the troubles caused when a country bans firearms. It matters not to them that the country hasn't banned firearms or that nearly all of the gun violence they are on about is in another state..... which also hasn't banned guns:yep:

which is what August addressed in his first post
Which was the first strawman. the aim is reduction as prevention is impossible

[Sailor Steve]

Is Darkfish saying august arguements are strawmen:yep:
Did I not say I wasn't addressing Darkfish? You keep trying to twist what I say to be what you want it to be about.

Ah you mean the one where I took 3 of august arguements and had a laugh at his misrepresntations.
Having a laugh is all well and good, but you attempted to do so by being rude and insulting rather than funny, and you failed.

What do you think of Jumpys posts or Jims?
Jumpy has a good point, it was silly rushed legislation brought in after a couple of occasions when people who should already have been banned from holding firearms went mad, stupid populist knee jerk legislation.
Irrelevant, as I was only addressing your attack. Even if you were right about August you stooped to mockery and insult rather than argument, which demeans you more than him. In a lot of cases your posts are intelligent and to the point, and I'm usually the one who defends you against charges of trolling. Not this time.

Which legislation are they pointing at ? England and wales, scotland or the 6. Are these people pointing at legislation they havn't got the faintest idea about?
That's the point. American gun-control advocates don't point to any legislation. They just point out that Britain has better gun control that the US, and they have a lower gun crime rate. The latter is true, and US gun-control people use it to show that we need better gun control. When something like this happens we on the other side tend to jump on it. Right? Wrong? Arguing points? Yes to all three, and discussion is a good thing. Trolling isn't.

Its funny really from another angle as many pro gun advocates point to Ireland as a really good example of the troubles caused when a country bans firearms. It matters not to them that the country hasn't banned firearms or that nearly all of the gun violence they are on about is in another state..... which also hasn't banned guns:yep:
So what are the gun laws in Ireland? England? I looked up a couple and they seem fairly restrictive by my standards, but while I have my beliefs I don't claim to know everything.

Which was the first strawman. the aim is reduction as prevention is impossible
And as I said before, not a strawman at all. We get told a lot here that if we only banned guns this kind of thing would be contained, "lessened" if you like. Of course when a 15-year-old obtains a gun illegally it makes me wonder who is truly responsible. In Los Angeles they like to claim that the gangs are better armed than the cops. True? I'm not sure. Part of the claim is that they have fully automatic weapons, which are difficult for anyone to obtain, let alone minors.

My bottom line is that I don't necessarily agree with August, and there is no one here, myself included, who has not posted the wrong thing in the wrong place. I'm not saying that happened here, but If you think so you're well withing your rights to say so. If you wanted to counter each of his points with the "strawman" claim I wouldn't have said anything. My problem wasn't with what you said, but how you said it. You may claim he doesn't deserve any better, but the rest of us certainly do. Your attack served no purpose other than to demean a fellow member, so I'm going to stand by my "Troll" comments.

[Tribesman]

Did I not say I wasn't addressing Darkfish?
Can you not follow the simple 1,2,3. If you don't want to address what darkfish wrote then don't quote an exchange involving what he wrote.

Having a laugh is all well and good, but you attempted to do so by being rude and insulting rather than funny, and you failed.

An imaginary alternate reality complete with a man of straw is perfect for the purpose, the other made to measure one is Donkey Oaty.

Irrelevant, as I was only addressing your attack.
Yet you said you didn't know, so I asked about two British posters who had already commented on the subject as perhaps their local knowledge might give you some leads.

Even if you were right about August you stooped to mockery and insult rather than argument
No I put forward the arguement that his points were strawmen.
Try these two for size...."Speed limits are supposed to prevent traffic accidents, accidents still happen so speed limits don't do what they are meant to do."
"The policeman said I failed to stop at the stop sign but I applied the brake to slow down so he is wrong"
Do they need any return comment beyond stating that they are false arguements? One of them even manages to equal his getting three wrongs in one line

That's the point. American gun-control advocates don't point to any legislation.
Which advocates? Surely someone who is advocating legislation has some legislative proposals in mind or some examples of other legislation.
What you have there Steve is the unthinking extreme fringe of the Brady bunch which is for a gun control position like quoting Jerry Falwell in a topic about the causes of terrorism.

They just point out that Britain has better gun control that the US, and they have a lower gun crime rate.
"Better" is such a subjective word that it doesn't fit at all. Plus of course the "gun crime" rates can not be directly compared.

[Sailor Steve]

Can you not follow the simple 1,2,3. If you don't want to address what darkfish wrote then don't quote an exchange involving what he wrote.
Did August twist Darkfish's words? That's between them, and you if you care to get involved. Did I twist Darkfish's words? No, I did not.

An imaginary alternate reality complete with a man of straw is perfect for the purpose, the other made to measure one is Donkey Oaty.
It's only perfect in your confused world. To the rest of us it's trolling.

Yet you said you didn't know, so I asked about two British posters who had already commented on the subject as perhaps their local knowledge might give you some leads.
Which is why I said "I don't know". I'm willing to learn, which is why I asked.

No I put forward the arguement that his points were strawmen.
You put forth no argument at all, you merely mocked, adding nothing to the conversation. That looks like trolling to me.

Try these two for size...."Speed limits are supposed to prevent traffic accidents, accidents still happen so speed limits don't do what they are meant to do."
"The policeman said I failed to stop at the stop sign but I applied the brake to slow down so he is wrong"
Do they need any return comment beyond stating that they are false arguements? One of them even manages to equal his getting three wrongs in one line
Yes, they do need return comment. While it's obvious to me they are false I would still feel the need to show why. To counter them with irrelevant jokes involving well-know fictional characters and nothing else isn't argument, it's trolling.

Which advocates? Surely someone who is advocating legislation has some legislative proposals in mind or some examples of other legislation.

What you have there Steve is the unthinking extreme fringe of the Brady bunch which is for a gun control position like quoting Jerry Falwell in a topic about the causes of terrorism.
Now you're actually making some sense, and you're right. My "advocates" are usually the ones you described, but here they are legion, and they are loud, and they are scary, at least to me. On the other hand, the Brady bunch, as you wittily called them, have gotten legislation passed, and it is dangerous legislation.

"Better" is such a subjective word that it doesn't fit at all. Plus of course the "gun crime" rates can not be directly compared.[/QUOTE]
But when pro-gun advocates say the same thing they are told that they're mincing words, and yes the rates can be compared. True or not, that's what we live with here, and that's what we respond to.

[Tribesman]

Did August twist Darkfish's words?
Hmmmm...thats a hard one, I wonder if it was written down somewhere

Did I twist Darkfish's words? No, I did not.
Who said that?
Lets see some important words....."just statements like this one"
statements like what one? ah of course the one you quote when you said "this one."
So that was an exchange following from where darkfish noted that august was plainly and undeniably changing what Darkfish had written to make a false position to knock just like he earlier had set up some more strawmen to tilt at, it is even funnier when that particular exchange followed another challenge that August was simply setting up strawmen and he proved it himself by doing it to the challenge.

You put forth no argument at all
Saying an arguement is a false one is putting forward an arguement, August kindly proved that arguement correct just before you stepped in.:yep:

It's only perfect in your confused world. To the rest of us it's trolling.

:rotfl2:

Which is why I said "I don't know". I'm willing to learn, which is why I asked.
Which is why I asked which is why you asked which is why I asked which is why you asked....... would you like to follow that particular exchange back?

Yes, they do need return comment
You think so?
While it's obvious to me they are false I would still feel the need to show why
Do you really feel it is needed to fully explain the obvious?
Maybe you had a point, perhaps augusts strawmen arguements were not completely plain to see even though they were obvious, but then again your comment came after he had put a false arguement in plain lettering and it was shown to be undeniably so.:yep:

To counter them with irrelevant jokes involving well-know fictional characters and nothing else isn't argument, it's trolling.

That is a matter of perception.

Now you're actually making some sense, and you're right.
Sorry, correct that please.
Though on a return to an earlier item which people seem to want to avoid. Do you think the much publicised soccer-mom really put a hole in that particular pro gun arguement when she went and got her head blown off?



My "advocates" are usually the ones you described, but here they are legion, and they are loud, and they are scary, at least to me.
Empty vessels, you will also find that the broadcast voices at gun nut weekly appear wide spread and very loud but are the fringe and are unable to produce any real sense.

On the other hand, the Brady bunch, as you wittily called them, have gotten legislation passed, and it is dangerous legislation.

Now that is interesting, would you take a few examples andsay it is more dangerous than the legislation it replaced, less dangerous than the legislation or more or less dangerous than no legislation.

yes the rates can be compared
No, for starters they would cover a different set of laws and different socio/eco conditions plus both would have a different way of counting plus as the UK figures are the ones mentioned here they have heavily changed the way the data is recorded in Britain several times over the past two decades so you are unable to determine trends over the time and match them to the changes in firearms legislation.