US firefighters shot dead at blaze

[Jimbuna]

This is not what the US needs at this time or any other time for that matter....utterly senseless :nope:

US firefighters shot dead at blaze in Webster, New York


Two volunteer firefighters have been shot dead and two injured while responding to an emergency call in the town of Webster in New York state.
It appears the four were fired upon as they arrived at the scene of a fire early on Monday morning.
The blaze broke out just before 06:00 local time (11:00 GMT) and the shooting reportedly prevented firefighters putting it out for several hours.
A gunman has been found dead at the scene, local police say.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925

[Fubar2Niner]

Sickening :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

A gunman has been found dead at the scene, local police say.
Poetic justice if he burned to death, or at least died from smoke inhalation.

[Fubar2Niner]

Still too small a price to pay in my book Steve, better he bbq'd nice and slowly :arrgh!:

[STEED]

:nope:

[Jimbuna]

Poetic justice if he burned to death, or at least died from smoke inhalation.

Still too small a price to pay in my book Steve, better he bbq'd nice and slowly :arrgh!:

Most definitely....but still a crap xmas for a few more families this year and probably many more to come :nope:

[Fubar2Niner]

Very true Jim

[CaptainMattJ.]

i figured the nutjobs would come out once again on christmas eve/christmas. Nonsensical violence...:nope:

[TFatseas]

I'm a member of a forum with a lot of First responders/LEO's and apparently it was a domestic gone bad.

Car was set on fire, neighbor called 911 and when the firefighters showed up he opened fire on them.


SWAT made entry into the house and found him.

[Jimbuna]

And here's me and a few others hoping he was grilled slowly :shifty:

[AVGWarhawk]

Christmas brings out the best and sometimes presents us with the worst.

[BossMark]

Another sad day :nope:

[Platapus]

Webster, NY?

Crikey, I used to live there in the late 60's. It was the sleepiest of sleepy towns. The most excitement there was a dog barking and even he was whispering.

I guess a lot has changed since then. :nope:

When I located to DC, I was considering continuing my service as an EMT. I was told that it was customary for EMT's to provide their own bullet proof vest.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Unfortunately, shooting at EMTs is a popular past time in the Capitol. NOt surprising as DC is the toilet of the US.

Very sad to hear that this has spread to other more decent parts of the country.

What kind of (explicative deleted) would shoot a Fire Fighter while working?

[Fubar2Niner]

The worst kind mate :nope: To add don't think you're alone over there, same hienous behaviour happens here, Thankfully guns haven't been used thusfar, mainly bricks and other missiles. Unforgivable nonetheless.

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

[Jimbuna]

Webster, NY?

Crikey, I used to live there in the late 60's. It was the sleepiest of sleepy towns. The most excitement there was a dog barking and even he was whispering.

I guess a lot has changed since then. :nope:

When I located to DC, I was considering continuing my service as an EMT. I was told that it was customary for EMT's to provide their own bullet proof vest.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Unfortunately, shooting at EMTs is a popular past time in the Capitol. NOt surprising as DC is the toilet of the US.

Very sad to hear that this has spread to other more decent parts of the country.

What kind of (explicative deleted) would shoot a Fire Fighter while working?


Informative post...I saw the writing on the wall when I was issued with a 'stab proof' vest.

[Skybird]

Have just come back from meeting the family, and first thing I see online is this news.

:nope:

Sick.

[Jimbuna]

Have just come back from meeting the family, and first thing I see online is this news.

:nope:

Sick.

Agreed :yep:

[Tribesman]

I blame video games plus the media and his late mother for not spanking him.
I propose that the cure to this problem is to arm all firefighters or at least give every fire engine armed guards.

[TLAM Strike]

Poetic justice if he burned to death, or at least died from smoke inhalation.

Apparently he shot himself.

The suspect was one sick individual and should have probably never been released on parole, he had spent 18 years in prison for killing his mother with a hammer and had been on parole since the end of the 1990s. :nope:

This all happened within 15 minutes drive of where I live, and about 3 miles from my Aunt's house. :-?

[Gargamel]

A lot of my cousins live in Webster, and the rochester area in general.

I know this isn't an uncommon thing, attacking firemen. When I was in my fire training courses, they had taught us about meth labs that were booby trapped with steel pipes filled with 12g ammo. If the place caught fire, the ammo would cook off, spraying buck shot every where. This was to keep the fire dept from saving a building so it couldnt be investigated. They would also build punji pits right behind obvious entry points so we'd fall into them.

[Troublous_Haze]

Gathering and a living place of idiots - USA!

[Jimbuna]

A lot of my cousins live in Webster, and the rochester area in general.

I know this isn't an uncommon thing, attacking firemen. When I was in my fire training courses, they had taught us about meth labs that were booby trapped with steel pipes filled with 12g ammo. If the place caught fire, the ammo would cook off, spraying buck shot every where. This was to keep the fire dept from saving a building so it couldnt be investigated. They would also build punji pits right behind obvious entry points so we'd fall into them.

How warm, friendly and welcoming :o

[TLAM Strike]

Gathering and a living place of idiots - USA!

That post served absolutely no purpose, and has no business being made on the Subsim forums. :nope:

[Jimbuna]

Looks like Spengler took out at least seven houses intotal and one of his three weapons was the same make and calibre rifle as that used in the Newtown murders earlier this month :nope:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20842120

[August]

There are indeed monsters among us. :nope:

[TFatseas]

He was a convicted felon, who is not allowed to possess firearms, in a state that has an assault weapons ban.

Shows how well a AWB works don't it?


If anything, the question should be that why was that dirtbag let out of prison in the first place.

[Cybermat47]

Heard about this at Christmas :nope:

How the hell did he get the guns!? The brute had spent 17 years in jail for killing his grandmother, and 2nd Amendment or not, he didn't have a gun license :nope:

[Gargamel]

Turns out this is the Deptartment my uncle is on. Close friends with those guys.

RIP.

Hes ok, but the whole dept and town is rocked deeply.

[Jimbuna]

Turns out this is the Deptartment my uncle is on. Close friends with those guys.

RIP.

Hes ok, but the whole dept and town is rocked deeply.

Very understandable :yep:

[GT182]

I could not believe this when I read it the morning of the 24th. This was in part of my old haunts back in 72 to 74 when I worked in Rochester, at Eastman Kodak off of Lake Ave in their Polly Baryta department. I used to stop out in Webster to see friends, and used RT 250 to 104 to miss some traffic when heading up north to see family and friends in my home town of Massena.

It sure seems that more and more wackos are feeding off of previous wackos this year. I wish someone would make it stop.

[mookiemookie]

He was a convicted felon, who is not allowed to possess firearms, in a state that has an assault weapons ban.

Shows how well a AWB works don't it?


If anything, the question should be that why was that dirtbag let out of prison in the first place.



It sure seems that more and more wackos are feeding off of previous wackos this year. I wish someone would make it stop.

Exactly why I think the answer is expanding access to mental health care. If the wackos weren't wackos, they wouldn't be shooting people.

[Cybermat47]

If the wackos weren't wackos, they wouldn't be shooting people.

:yeah:

But what if a mentally healthy person gets dumped by their partner, gets angry, and has their pistol in an unlocked cupboard? :06:

[Sailor Steve]

:yeah:

But what if a mentally healthy person gets dumped by their partner, gets angry, and has their pistol in an unlocked cupboard? :06:


A mentally healthy person would find a healthy outlet. Otherwise they're not mentally healthy. The pistol is irrelevant.

[Cybermat47]

A mentally healthy person would find a healthy outlet. Otherwise they're not mentally healthy. The pistol is irrelevant.

Really? I've been beaten half to death by mentally healthy people. What if they had had access to firearms?

Although, when our hypothetical angry-healthy person is walking or driving to their ex's place, they probably would've calmed down.

Anyway, if the American people vote on wether or not to change the second amendment, the people's choice should determine it, not the government's.

[Stealhead]

It does not work out that way that would be mob rule everyone voting on an amendment they do it in some states and it is a joke of the highest proportions.Even if they did do that
gun rights would win I would say that there are more pro gun rights than anti gun rights people in the US and a good number that simply would refuse to see any amendment tampered with that would vote in support of gun rights.


The person that "beat you half to death" did not kill you did they? If their intent was to do so they would have and by you own experience you prove that a person can cause great harm with their bare hands so why not require that all hands be cut off?:03: Also what in the hell are you doing to be 13 years old and get beaten half to death by more than one person? You need to either stop socializing where you do that winds up in your getting a beat down or you need to learn some self defense.

A person doing something in anger or as a criminal act (knowing what they are doing) is not the same thing as a mentally ill person.Stop coming up with ideas of how someone might go nuts you sound as though you live in fear to me.

A guy wanting to kill his ex will likely do it if he commits to a plan the drive time will only give him more resolve or have no effect on him many people have driven to and away from murders.

[Sailor Steve]

Really? I've been beaten half to death by mentally healthy people. What if they had had access to firearms?
If they beat you half to death, they weren't mentally healthy.

Although, when our hypothetical angry-healthy person is walking or driving to their ex's place, they probably would've calmed down.
Using hypotheticals to support an argument only makes you look like you don't have any real arguments.

Anyway, if the American people vote on wether or not to change the second amendment, the people's choice should determine it, not the government's.
And again, you speak out on things you know less than nothing about. The Constition was specifically written so no one, neither government nor people, can change it on a whim. Any such change requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress, then ratification by 2/3 of the States.

The Constitution itself took months of debate to put into place, and many more months of arguments to convince the States to accept it. The New York ratification arguments for the Constitution were published in a paper called The Federalist, and are today contained in a volume known as The Federalist Papers. The arguments against were published in a variety of papers, and those that have survived are collected in a book called The Anti-Federalist Papers. If you haven't read and carefully studied both, you have no idea of what our Constitution means, and are in no position to say what should determine anything.

There were originally twelve amendments to the Constitution. Only ten of them were passed by Congress. Since 1791, when the first ten were ratified, seventeen more have been added. More than one hundred new amendments are proposed in Congress every year. Thirty three have passed Congress, including the twenty-seven existing Amendments. There are six more that have passed Congress but never been ratified by enough States to become law. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, passed in 1992, was actually one of the original twelve, which means it took 202 years to come into effect.

No, the people don't vote on Constitutional Amendments. It is put into the hands of our elected representatives to start the wheels in motion, and it is the elected legislatures of the States who are tasked with making it binding law.

[Stealhead]

You can read them here


Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/FedPapers/Federalist_Index.htm

Anti-Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm

[Cybermat47]

Using hypotheticals to support an argument only makes you look like you don't have any real arguments.

Wait, I thought you liked the 2nd Amendment! It really isn't good form to destroy someone's argument their argument is that your argument would mostly work!

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but I said if the American people vote on it. Then I voiced my opinion that wether or not a law is passed should be determined by the people.

[Cybermat47]

You can read them here


Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/FedPapers/Federalist_Index.htm

Anti-Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm

Thanks :up:

[Tribesman]

He was a convicted felon, who is not allowed to possess firearms, in a state that has an assault weapons ban.

It shall not be infringed.
If it shall not be infringed it shall not be infringed.
Do convicted felons no longer have freedom of reigion freedom of speech freedom of assembly, are they still allowed trial by jury can they have soldiers forced on them as lodgers do they lose the right to due process or become subject to cruel and unusual punishments?

It appears you want to infringe on peoples rights regarding the second amendment while trying to trumpet the second amendment as a holy script

[Sailor Steve]

Wait, I thought you liked the 2nd Amendment! It really isn't good form to destroy someone's argument their argument is that your argument would mostly work!
When you try to make a point by making up imaginary situations, it deserves to be demeaned, if not ignored.

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but I said if the American people vote on it. Then I voiced my opinion that wether or not a law is passed should be determined by the people.
And I tried to point out to you that no law is ever voted on by the populace. We elect a government to do that job for us, and we stay out of their way unless they start breaking pre-existing law, and then the courts step in. That's the way it works.

[Sailor Steve]

It shall not be infringed.
If it shall not be infringed it shall not be infringed.
Do convicted felons no longer have freedom of reigion freedom of speech freedom of assembly, are they still allowed trial by jury can they have soldiers forced on them as lodgers do they lose the right to due process or become subject to cruel and unusual punishments?

It appears you want to infringe on peoples rights regarding the second amendment while trying to trumpet the second amendment as a holy script
Nice way to change the subject completely, while ignoring the point of the person you're addressing. His point was that this guy got the guns in spite of all the existing restrictions, and while I agree that his post was a subject change itself, you ignored him completely so you could make your own little tirade.

As for firearms ownership by felons, Federal law considers that a convicted felon forfeits all rights, including the right to vote. I personally disagree with that, but that's another story. State law supercedes Federal law where the crime was tried by the State. Louisiana State law allows felons who have served their time, "Paid their debt to society" to have all rights restored.

I find it interesting how you bring up different angles, not so you can discuss the subject, but just so you can needle certain people.

And I see you've conveniently "forgotten" how to use that button again.

[Tribesman]

I find it interesting how you bring up different angles, not so you can discuss the subject, but just so you can needle certain people.

I think you are guessing wrong, in fact I know you are wrong on that count which is unusual since that is an absolute.

But hey if you want to discuss the points then please go ahead and try a proper response to the post you quoted
so take this......
As for firearms ownership by felons, Federal law considers that a convicted felon forfeits all rights, including the right to vote.
...and equate it to all those rights I put down for discussion, noting of course that you used the magic word "all" which of course must by its nature include all those listed I took from the bill of rights as well as all other rights from the associated documents of which the 2nd amendment is only a small part.

[Sailor Steve]

I think you are guessing wrong, in fact I know you are wrong on that count which is unusual since that is an absolute.
Then maybe you should stop doing that altogether. It puts you in the same category as the boy who cried "Wolf!"

But hey if you want to discuss the points then please go ahead and try a proper response to the post you quoted
so take this......
I would probably put it down to an unnecessary knee-jerk response. On the other hand he did have a point of sorts, which you did choose to ignore.

On the other hand I can't say for sure because once again you expect me to go look for myself, because you can't be bothered with proper forum procedures. You can't be that lazy, since using the quote button is easier than the way you do it, so I have to assume that you do it on purpose, which is tantamount to trolling.

...and equate it to all those rights I put down for discussion, noting of course that you used the magic word "all" which of course must by its nature include all those listed I took from the bill of rights as well as all other rights from the associated documents of which the 2nd amendment is only a small part.
Since you didn't address the post you challenged, but rather side-stepped it, in this case you deserve no discussion.

[Cybermat47]

When you try to make a point by making up imaginary situations, it deserves to be demeaned, if not ignored.

I was actually showing some support for the 2nd Amendment: In other words, supporting your argument! :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

It shall not be infringed.
If it shall not be infringed it shall not be infringed.
Do convicted felons no longer have freedom of reigion freedom of speech freedom of assembly, are they still allowed trial by jury can they have soldiers forced on them as lodgers do they lose the right to due process or become subject to cruel and unusual punishments?

It appears you want to infringe on peoples rights regarding the second amendment while trying to trumpet the second amendment as a holy script

What's with the repeat. What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?

It is to my understanding that convicts may have all those things including a firearm if they have fulfilled their debt to society. Probation rules or additional measures by a judge not withstanding.

[Jimbuna]

Stop the repetition :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.

There are also states where you might be able to legally carry a gun, even though you have been convicted of a felony, if a certain amount of time has passed since you finished serving your term of probation or incarceration. Plus, in the vast majority of states that restrict the possession of guns by felons, juveniles who have been convicted of crimes that would have been felonies had they been adults at the time of conviction are also prohibited from carrying guns. Thus, there are many variations in the exact details of the laws that restrict felons from carrying guns from state to state, but, despite the nature of the state law at issue, the bottom line is that federal law always prohibits felons from possessing guns.

In some states, there are procedures by which a felon could attempt to regain eligibility for a gun permit and/or to legally carry a gun. Federal law states that if a felon has his or her civil rights restored by the state in which he or she was convicted of the felony, then a felon might become eligible to carry a gun, subject, of course, to any state law restrictions on felons possessing guns.



http://felonyguide.com/Felony-Gun-Laws.php

[Sailor Steve]

I was actually showing some support for the 2nd Amendment: In other words, supporting your argument! :doh:
I appreciate it, but "What if this, what if that?" doesn't support or help anything.

[Tribesman]

Then maybe you should stop doing that altogether. It puts you in the same category as the boy who cried "Wolf!"

Yoohoo, you are the one who made an assumption and ran with that assumption.
So that puts you in the category of someone who thought he heard wolf.

I would probably put it down to an unnecessary knee-jerk response. On the other hand he did have a point of sorts, which you did choose to ignore.

The point was nonsense, it was also not accurate, it was not ignored.
Plus the last bit was way off topic.

Since you didn't address the post you challenged, but rather side-stepped it, in this case you deserve no discussion.
So questions don't deserve an answer?




What's with the repeat. What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat? What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?What's with the repeat?

Well Warhawk shall I repeat it again if you appear to have missed it.

It is to my understanding that convicts may have all those things including a firearm if they have fulfilled their debt to society.
You certainly missed it didn't you.
Which of all those things do they lose on conviction?

Probation rules or additional measures by a judge not withstanding.
Terms and conditions apply eh?

Terms and conditions apply to NYs AWB too don't they which comes nicely full circle.

[Sailor Steve]

No linkee, not talkie.

[Tribesman]

No linkee, not talkie.
yes dear:doh:
Can you link to what you are refering to with your "No linkee, not talkie." post as it is very hard to follow what your words refer to and I cannot put them in context without you posting what words you may be refering to plus another link which shows what those words were on about and another link to what words those refered words words were refering to, or in this case even who you are refering to.

Now I could assume that you are refering to the previous post which of course would refer to the earlier post which would go back to the initial post which you objected to that of course refered to someone elses post.
But after your display of getting assumptions badly wrong maybe I shouldn't assume like you did:yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

No linkee, no talkee.

[Tribesman]

No linkee, no talkee.

To whom do you refer, you have no quote, I cannot be sure you are not just making it up.

[Cybermat47]

I appreciate it, but "What if this, what if that?" doesn't support or help anything.

Well Steve, I had to go into 'what if' land, because I do not know any Americans who have tried to shoot someone by walking to their place, and if I looked up 'American man tries to shoot someone by walking to their place', I'd probably find nothing but conspiracy theories talking about Hitler being a Jew and causing 9/11, or bizarre Japanese porn :doh:

[Sailor Steve]

yes dear:doh:

To whom do you refer, you have no quote, I cannot be sure you are not just making it up.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. Many months ago I asked you to start using the quote button. You said at that time that you didn't have one. Only a few days ago you showed that you did know exactly how to do it, then you stopped using it again. This means that you are either intentionally not using it, or you are using it but going back and removing the link manually. In either case doing it intentionally means that you are intentionally being a jerk.

The point of using it isn't so the addressee can verify what he said, but so he can see why he said it, i.e. what he was responding to. This helps him remember his intent and respond accordingly without having to go back through the thread and find it again.

So if you really can't figure out the quote function then you're stupid, and we already know you're not stupid. This means you must be doing on purpose, and as I said, if that's the case then you're doing it just to be a jerk. I don't talk to jerks, hence "No linkee no talkee".

As far as I'm concerned you are the biggest and best troll this forum has ever seen. You constantly dance all around the line, but you're so good at it you manage to only cross it very rarely. This is just another example of that behavior.

[Sailor Steve]

Well Steve, I had to go into 'what if' land
No, you didn't have to. You chose to because you wanted to say something but didn't know quite how to say it. That's the time to stop talking and start thinking.

[Platapus]

So what was the topic of this thread again?

[Sailor Steve]

So what was the topic of this thread again?
"More people shooting more people", which in modern parlance means "why Americans should/shouldn't be 'allowed' to own guns", which in netspeak translates to "Why your opinion is just an opinion but mine is hard truth".

You're welcome.

[Tribesman]

Many months ago I asked you to start using the quote button. You said at that time that you didn't have one.
I am afraid you are very mistaken, many months ago for the second time you said I was deliberately removing peoples names from my responses.
I replied that I posted replies using the rather obvious post reply button which is at the bottom of every topic.

This means that you are either intentionally not using it, or you are using it but going back and removing the link manually. In either case doing it intentionally means that you are intentionally being a jerk.

Errrr I have answered your allegation twice already.

So what was the topic of this thread again?
If I wanted to respond to this line by platapus in the same topic would that require a whole new post if I didn't use the post reply button?

This means you must be doing on purpose, and as I said, if that's the case then you're doing it just to be a jerk.
Your logic is faulty and your assumptions are way off again.

[Sailor Steve]

I am afraid you are very mistaken, many months ago for the second time you said I was deliberately removing peoples names from my responses.
I replied that I posted replies using the rather obvious post reply button which is at the bottom of every topic.
Reply Using Quote button, at the bottom right corner of every post. Try using it. It actually helps. Now you know.

Not that you care.

Your logic is faulty and your assumptions are way off again.
The next time I say "No linkee, no talkee", we'll see what your repy is. Then we'll know exactly who is on and who is off.

[Tribesman]

I repeat I am afraid you are very mistaken, many months ago for the second time you said I was deliberately removing peoples names from my responses.



Your logic is faulty and your assumptions are way off again.

[Jimbuna]

No linkee, not talkie.

Not onlinee so cannot talkie :doh:








*Skypewisee

[Jimbuna]

Not onlinee so cannot talkie :doh:








*Skypewisee



So offline I go :-?

[Cybermat47]

No linkee, no talkie.

And its not spam, because Steve did it! I swear, Neal! Keep away from the keelhaul button! Neal! NOOOOOO-

[Jimbuna]

No linkee, no talkie.

And its not spam, because Steve did it! I swear, Neal! Keep away from the keelhaul button! Neal! NOOOOOO-

Please try to control yourself young man :hmm2:

[Cybermat47]

Please try to control yourself young man :hmm2:

Yes sir.

[Jimbuna]

Yes sir.

Hehe :)

[Sailor Steve]

Just barely saw your message (been busy). I'm here now. :sunny:

[Jimbuna]

Just barely saw your message (been busy). I'm here now. :sunny:
I'm only here to tidy up a few loose ends but we will speak tomorrow my friend :up:

[Tribesman]

And its not spam, because Steve did it! I swear, Neal! Keep away from the keelhaul button! Neal! NOOOOOO-
The funny thing is that this is a repeat performance, no matter how many times it is explained Steve will still go full circle and refuse to accept the simple truth and will insist that it really must be something else as the truth is too simple and there must be more to it than that.

[Sailor Steve]

The funny thing is that this is a repeat performance, no matter how many times it is explained Steve will still go full circle and refuse to accept the simple truth and will insist that it really must be something else as the truth is too simple and there must be more to it than that.
No, I've asked you to do one simple thing that everyone on this forum does but you, and you keep refusing to do it. Have you noticed that even young Cybermat, annoying as he can be sometimes, uses that 'Reply With Quote' button? But you refuse to. The simple truth is that you like playing your little games.

[Cybermat47]

The funny thing is that this is a repeat performance, no matter how many times it is explained Steve will still go full circle and refuse to accept the simple truth and will insist that it really must be something else as the truth is too simple and there must be more to it than that.

:06:

[Tribesman]

No, I've asked you to do one simple thing that everyone on this forum does but you, and you keep refusing to do it.
No steve you have repeatedly made claims that are simply not true, every time we go through it then shortly afterwards you make the same sort of claim again.

The simple truth is that you like playing your little games.
The simple truth is when you open a topic it starts on the page where it was last read, when you read a topic to the end there is a reply button.
Easy eh simple to follow so far?
The simple truth is I pick up where I last read and continue till the end of what has been posted then sometimes post a reply.
Simple eh, easy to follow isn't it?

The fact that you repeatredly attempt to make it out as something else shows that you have a problem there, the fact that your claims have previously hit the ridiculous levels where you alledged I was using the "reply with quote" button and then deleting all the details of the person I was quoting show that you are really going to great lengths to make up a "truth" to fit your vision instead of accepting the simple truth.

[Sailor Steve]

The fact that you repeatredly attempt to make it out as something else shows that you have a problem there, the fact that your claims have previously hit the ridiculous levels where you alledged I was using the "reply with quote" button and then deleting all the details of the person I was quoting show that you are really going to great lengths to make up a "truth" to fit your vision instead of accepting the simple truth.
You're right. I was wrong in that allegation. We all now know that you simply refuse to use the 'Reply With Quote' button. The end result is still the same. You make people go back and look up the context when you could make it easy by using that button. This makes you a jerk.

Since you intentionally make difficult what could be easy, I'm back to the same old thing - No link, no reply.

Since you will never do that, I don't have to worry about it anymore. Goodbye.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Gentlemen, I don't want to interrupt your arguing too much. However I would also appreciate if you Tribesman would use "reply with quote" as it makes figuring out context easier. This is especially true when replying to Skybird's posts as they tend to be rather lengthy.

[Tribesman]

You're right. I was wrong in that allegation.
And the other allegations.

Since you intentionally make difficult what could be easy
Yet another incorrect allegation, there is no intention as you describe.
You keep on going on about my intentions which you are making up yourself.

However I would also appreciate if you Tribesman would use "reply with quote" as it makes figuring out context easier.
But Kraznyi that would not get your quote in this post, that would require another button again so I would have to hit multi quote multi quote then post reply

[Sailor Steve]

You keep on going on about my intentions which you are making up yourself.
Either you're too stupid to figure it out, or you do it on purpose. There are no other choices, and it's obvious you're not stupid, especially since you did use it once. Your denial is hollow.

All you have to do to fix this is to use the 'Quote' button.

But Kraznyi that would not get your quote in this post, that would require another button again so I would have to hit multi quote multi quote then post reply
And other people do that all the time as well. Why can't you?

[Tribesman]

So Firefighters and firearm regulation.
2 questions
Should the young lady be charged with accessory to murder?
Would registration of firearms and regulation of all gun sales have prevented in any way her turning two of the murderers weapons over to a convicted felon?

[August]

This makes you a jerk.

I could have told you that a year ago. You have far more patience for his trolling than I do. :salute:

[Takeda Shingen]

Tribesman, all anyone is asking you to do is use the quote button when replying like everyone else does. I don't know if it is an evasive thing or you just have to be a special snowflake, but it's really getting very silly.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, all anyone is asking you to do is use the quote button when replying like everyone else does.
I am afraid that is not the case Takeda, all some people are saying is that the use of the post reply button is done with some nefarious intention.

[TLAM Strike]

So Firefighters and firearm regulation.
2 questions
Should the young lady be charged with accessory to murder?
Not sure exactly what the NYS penal code says but normally unless she knew the guns were going to be used in a crime then no, she can't be. She can only be charged with violating firearms regulations by purchasing them for someone who couldn't legally own them.

Would registration of firearms and regulation of all gun sales have prevented in any way her turning two of the murderers weapons over to a convicted felon?
No law can prevent someone from breaking the law. She lied when she purchased the .223 and shotgun from Gander Mt. breaking the law, and she broke the law again by giving them to a felon.

[Platapus]

The simple solution is to simply not reply to his posts. :|\\

[Sailor Steve]

I am afraid that is not the case Takeda, all some people are saying is that the use of the post reply button is done with some nefarious intention.
I've admitted I was wrong about that, and apologized.

All I'm asking now is that you use the 'Quote' button like everyone else.

[breadcatcher101]

Flood tubes one and two...

[Tribesman]

No law can prevent someone from breaking the law. She lied when she purchased the .223 and shotgun from Gander Mt. breaking the law, and she broke the law again by giving them to a felon.
That does not answer the question.
Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected?


All I'm asking now is that you use the 'Quote' button like everyone else.
I will try and avoid using the post reply button when I post a reply, but don't be surprised if I read to the end of a topic and hit the button as it just means I read to the end of the topic and hit the button, no more and no less.

[TLAM Strike]

That does not answer the question.
Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected? In theory never. Until those firearms are caught being used in a crime or you or someone else tells the authorities that you have broken the law no one would know. No regulation would prevent someone from breaking the regulation.

[Tribesman]

In theory never.
Read it again, then try again as the answer is "in theory rather quickly"

[TLAM Strike]

Read it again, then try again as the answer is "in theory rather quickly"

How? If you own a legal item and sell it illegally there is no record of the transfer and the only people who know of it are the buyer and the seller. Unless one of those two individuals demonstrates by action or statement that an illegal action has taken place law enforcement does not know a crime has been committed.

It's Schrodinger's Gun, until that weapon is used illegally an outside observer will not know the state of the weapon: the gun is both legal and illegal at the same time.

[Oberon]

It's Schrodinger's Gun

I knew that Jarmin was up to no good!

Oh wait...

Schrodinger, not Schroeder...my bad... :oops:

[Platapus]

It's Schrodinger's Gun, until that weapon is used illegally an outside observer will not know the state of the weapon: the gun is both legal and illegal at the same time.

"When I hear about Schroedinger's gun, I reach for my cat." - Steven Hawkings.

:D

[Tribesman]

How? If you own a legal item and sell it illegally there is no record of the transfer and the only people who know of it are the buyer and the seller.
Read it again.

To refresh your memory.
1.Would registration of firearms and regulation of all gun sales have prevented in any way her turning two of the murderers weapons over to a convicted felon?
2.Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected?

Try again.

Now as a contrast try and compare that to the NRA idiots database proposals which are so seriously hobbled they would give you the "In theory never.".

[TLAM Strike]

Read it again.

To refresh your memory.
1.Would registration of firearms and regulation of all gun sales have prevented in any way her turning two of the murderers weapons over to a convicted felon?
2.Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected?

Try again.

Now as a contrast try and compare that to the NRA idiots database proposals which are so seriously hobbled they would give you the "In theory never.".
We are going in circles. No form of registration or regulation is going to prevent someone from giving something to someone else. I don't know what laws they have in Ireland but unless they specify that a deputy must be stationed with your legally owned firearm 24/7:365 there is nothing to prevent you from giving it to someone else.

Dawn Nguyen was legally allowed to purchase the firearms after undergoing her NICS background check. It wasn't discovered that she broke the law by giving the weapons to a felon till 3 years later when they were used in a crime. No piece of paper was going to stand between Nguyen and Spengler blocking the transfer of those weapons.

[Tribesman]

We are going in circles.
That is because you are not reading what is written.
Plus you show there is another element......

I don't know what laws they have in Ireland
So you are argueing without the faintest idea what you are argueing for or against which contributes to you running in circles

No piece of paper was going to stand between Nguyen and Spengler blocking the transfer of those weapons.
So are you saying the NRA proposal is a very silly idea?
I agree, the NRA proposal is a very silly idea, unless of course they have other bits of paper to go with the piece of paper they want.

BTW
Dawn Nguyen was legally allowed to purchase the firearms after undergoing her NICS background check.
She was not legally allowed which is why she is charged with the illegal purchase for which she can face 5 years in prison.
If she was legally allowed it wouldn't be a false declaration and she wouldn't be up on a felony charge for the purchase would she.

[TLAM Strike]

So you are argueing without the faintest idea what you are argueing for or against which contributes to you running in circles Well then fill me in, what law does Ireland have that prevents someone from illegally transferring firearms? What law prevents the physical act of transferring them?


So are you saying the NRA proposal is a very silly idea?
I agree, the NRA proposal is a very silly idea, unless of course they have other bits of paper to go with the piece of paper they want. Which NRA proposal? There have been several lately.

I'm skeptical of any proposal to regulate the ownership or sale of firearms beyond crazy things like MGs or ATs, because it is so easy to circumvent.


She was not legally allowed which is why she is charged with the illegal purchase for which she can face 5 years in prison.
If she was legally allowed it wouldn't be a false declaration and she wouldn't be up on a felony charge for the purchase would she. It would be impossible for anyone to know that she was going to use her legal right to purchase a firearm to transfer it in an illegal way. No law, registry or slip of paper would prevent her from doing that.

[Tribesman]

Well then fill me in, what law does Ireland have that prevents someone from illegally transferring firearms? What law prevents the physical act of transferring them?

Registration and renewal, you can of course illegally transfer them, but you will be caught very quickly.

Which NRA proposal? There have been several lately.

A list of nuts:yep: which is of course useless without lots of other lists.

It would be impossible for anyone to know that she was going to use her legal right to purchase a firearm to transfer it in an illegal way.
She would have known.

No law, registry or slip of paper would prevent her from doing that.
Registration and renewal would have told her that she was going to get caught if she went ahead with the illegal transfer, the knowledge that you will definately get caught is a good way of preventing some people doing silly things like that.

[TLAM Strike]

Registration and renewal, you can of course illegally transfer them, but you will be caught very quickly.

Every three years apparently, three years is a long time to commit a crime(s). So between the the time that Spengler committed the crime and the time Nguyen purchased the guns would have been equal to the time Ireland requires for renewal of registration. So a Irish type registration would have reduced the window for this crime to be committed by zero.


A list of nuts:yep: which is of course useless without lots of other lists. Police already have lists of people convinced of violent crime regardless if metal illness is a factor or not, the problem is that it is difficult for police to insure that they do not break the law by committing once legal acts now denied to them as felons.

This database (the NCIC) is already used to prevent the direct sale of firearms to criminals (via the NICS).

So the problem isn't regulations or list it's the criminals.


She would have known. So? Is she law enforcement? Would she have turned herself in for breaking the law? Of course the criminals know the law is broken, but they are fine with it because they are criminals who break the law.


Registration and renewal would have told her that she was going to get caught if she went ahead with the illegal transfer, the knowledge that you will definately get caught is a good way of preventing some people doing silly things like that. No it would have told her she would need to get the guns back for a day in three years (assuming you need to present the guns at the renewal). Or she could have reported the guns lost, stolen or destroyed before her registration renewal or after it had lapsed.

[Tribesman]

So a Irish type registration would have reduced the window for this crime to be committed by zero.

No since the guaranteed detection of Nguyens crime may have prevented her from commiting that crime in the first place.

Police already have lists of people convinced of violent crime regardless if metal illness is a factor or not
Do they also have a list of other things needed to match against those lists as they all pretty useless unless they are combined and comprehensive.

This database (the NCIC) is already used to prevent the direct sale of firearms to criminals (via the NICS).

So it doesn't cover sales like this one, or gun fairs or second hand sales or sales where the dealer is not registered.
Bloody big pile of holes isn't it.
Criminals love easy ways to get around restrictions don't they and you wish to kindly keep all the holes for the criminals to use.

So?
So your statement doesn't stand does it.

Is she law enforcement?
No she is a criminal, criminals are not supposed to be able to buy guns under your current regulations are they, that means your current regulations don't work.

No it would have told her she would need to get the guns back for a day in three years
Ah..... so she would have had to go up to a convicted murderer and ask him to simply hand over his illegal weapons to her...right:doh:

Or she could have reported the guns lost, stolen or destroyed before her registration renewal or after it had lapsed.
Nice way for her to give up her right to ever own guns again isn't it, plus a nice way to tell the police there are some guns they should be looking for.
Hey she could just have invited some extra criminal charges on herself for good measure.


So the problem isn't regulations or list it's the criminals.

If the only problem is criminals there should be no regulations on anything.

[u crank]

My mind is turning to jello..o...o.

[TLAM Strike]

No since the guaranteed detection of Nguyens crime may have prevented her from commiting that crime in the first place. How is it guaranteed detection of a crime. All she does is not possess the gun anymore. Unless there is evidence that she did something illegal with it there is nothing to make a criminal case over.


Do they also have a list of other things needed to match against those lists as they all pretty useless unless they are combined and comprehensive. They have a list of felons who are not allowed under US law to own firearms. There is no list of "people who probably shouldn't have a gun because we think they might do something bad with it someday", and making such a list would be difficult, biased and ridiculous.


So it doesn't cover sales like this one, or gun fairs or second hand sales or sales where the dealer is not registered.
Bloody big pile of holes isn't it.
Criminals love easy ways to get around restrictions don't they and you wish to kindly keep all the holes for the criminals to use. Yes it did cover Nguyen's purchase. She perchased the rifle and shotgun at Gander Mt. a sporting goods store (I've been to the store she purchased them at). She was subject to a criminal background check.


No she is a criminal, criminals are not supposed to be able to buy guns under your current regulations are they, that means your current regulations don't work. No regulation will prevent one from lying.


Ah..... so she would have had to go up to a convicted murderer and ask him to simply hand over his illegal weapons to her...right:doh: Apparently she new him well enough to purchase firearms for him. We don't know if she knew what his crime was (he was in jail before she was even born).


Nice way for her to give up her right to ever own guns again isn't it, plus a nice way to tell the police there are some guns they should be looking for.
Hey she could just have invited some extra criminal charges on herself for good measure. How is it illegal to lose something or have something stolen? Unless they find the person with the weapons and they confess there is no evidence. Heck she could just say she sold them at a gun show in another state.



If the only problem is criminals there should be no regulations on anything. No laws and regulations are not to prevent most crimes (especially violent ones), they are to establish procedures for convicting offenders. You can regulate away all guns but there will still be people who break those regulations and commit crimes with guns; look at Chicago, guns are regulated almost out of existence there, and there was 500 gun related murders there last year.

[Tribesman]

How is it guaranteed detection of a crime. All she does is not possess the gun anymore.
How does she no longer possess the gun?

They have a list of felons who are not allowed under US law to own firearms. There is no list of "people who probably shouldn't have a gun because we think they might do something bad with it someday", and making such a list would be difficult, biased and ridiculous.

You are missing the important list.
It happens to be the list the loons at the NRA are opposed to.

Yes it did cover Nguyen's purchase.
If it covered her purchase she wouldn't be up on charges over the false declaration would she.

No regulation will prevent one from lying.

So you had better abolish all regulatuions then.

Apparently she new him well enough to purchase firearms for him.
So you are saying she was a willing criminal who deliberately broke the law to aid another criminal.
I thought your laws meant criminals can't buy guns.

How is it illegal to lose something or have something stolen?
Errrr ....you said she could just lie to the police about her firearms, how is that not a crime?
Heck she could just say she sold them at a gun show in another state.

Not under the laws you are objecting to as all guns and all gun owners are covered.

No laws and regulations are not to prevent most crimes (especially violent ones), they are to establish procedures for convicting offenders.
Your logic is missing a step.You seem to think there are only people and criminals as two distinct uninterchangeable groups.