Another "responsible" gun owner (ex-military no less) goes crazy and kills a bunch of innocent people. "Eight people were killed and one remained in critical condition after a gunman opened fire in a packed hair salon in a small California beach town, police said." "Local media reports said the gunmen was ex-military and had multiple weapons and was wearing body armor at the time of the shooting." No big surprise though: "Multiple shootings are an all-too-familiar occurrence in the United States: only last week a gunman killed three people at a quarry in California's Silicon Valley, while three were also killed in Carson City, Nevada in September." http://www.sknvibes.com/news/newsdetails.cfm/45885 http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201110/3338549.htm?desktop
"A crazed gunman who shot dead eight people in an upmarket beauty salon in California ... " Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Orange-county-hair-salon.html#ixzz1bDCcItyE "Crazed" indeed. "The alleged shooter, who lives locally, was thought to have been wearing body armour during the attack. When officers raided his car they found multiple weapons, police said." "Multiple weapons"? Hmmm, is he one of those "responsible" gun owners? Or did he steal them from an irresponsible one?
So basically your argument is using one insane man to define the sanity of nearly 100 million other people? Do I smell fail?
So basically, you assumed I was making an argument when in fact I was merely reporting some news and asking some objective questions? The smell of fail indeed
when you editorialize,you go beyond just 'asking questions' And most of our country is ex military in one form or another, besides, apparently it was seeing a co-worker cut in half and killed in a boat accident that started his demons
What's your point? Is it that California's strict gun control policies failed yet again? That's a real shocker. What's no big surprise? That eight people were gunned down by a guy in the state with the strictest gun control laws in the nation? True, there is certainly no surprise there. Many more people were killed recently in Oslo, Norway, so I fail to see the point here. This statement is nothing more than pure biased nonsense.
Nope, it's actually nothing more than fact: "Multiple shootings are an all-too-familiar occurrence in the United States: only last week a gunman killed three people at a quarry in California's Silicon Valley, while three were also killed in Carson City, Nevada in September." Facts. Simple.
This: Another "responsible" gun owner went crazy and killed a bunch of innocent people. And this: The gunmen was ex-military and had multiple weapons.
How do you know he obtained those firearms legally? He already was using body armour that is illegal in the state of California, so he was already a criminal before even firing his first shot. Do you think "responsible" gun owners murder 8 people and wound many others? You have a sick definition of "responsible." Clearly he was set on murdering lots of people. So what? Should we ban the military now? The guy in Olso had "multiple weapons too. So did the Columbine killers. What's your point?
Nope. An out of context fact is, in fact, BIASED. The statement does not mention the recent Olso masacre and it omits the fact that California has the strictest gun laws in the nation, more comparable to European countries than to others states like Lousiana, Texas, and Utah.
That's because the statement is specifically about the US: "Multiple shootings are an all-too-familiar occurrence in the United States: only last week a gunman killed three people at a quarry in California's Silicon Valley, while three were also killed in Carson City, Nevada in September." Try to keep up please.
I did. Again, there are no statements clarifying whether or not the firearms were obtained via legal means.
YES! The statement clearly singles out the USA where it really should not, inasmuch as a much larger massacre occurred recently in Oslo. The fact is that multiple shootings not involving gang members are rare in the USA, just as they are rare in Norway.
Which is exactly why I asked these questions: "Hmmm, is he one of those "responsible" gun owners? Or did he steal them from an irresponsible one? " I never said he obtained the firearms legally.
Obviously there was nothing sinister or biased. That's why you titled the thread "Ex-Military Nutjob Has Bad Hair Day" and then make your first statement a very sarcastic comment ("Another "responsible" gun owner (ex-military no less) goes crazy and kills a bunch of innocent people.") Do you really believe the BS that you are spewing out there?
Again, the first sentence in your OP reads, "Another "responsible" gun owner (ex-military no less) goes crazy and kills a bunch of innocent people." Clearly this indicates sarcasm. By opening your argument with such a statement, you clearly add a bias to your questions. Thus, your question is a loaded BS question ("Is he one of those "responsible" gun owners? Or did he steal them from an irresponsible one?") since you already answer the question yourself in the first sentence of your OP. I recall several months ago where you had illegitimate complaints regarding a potential loaded question that I had written. I find it ironic that it is YOU that do know what a loaded question is. Let me refresh you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
And your solution is to take away our guns? Get rid of our rights? What? In other news today thousands among thousands of gun owners didn't shoot anyone.
