Looks like City Council Member Leslie LeCuyer just learned a lesson about how FUBAR gun laws are in this country.
Even though she’s a self-described gun enthusiast, LeCuyer later suggested the city put up a sign forbidding guns from the premises like those found near the doors of so many businesses around the state. She was shocked to learn that, legally, the city couldn’t.
People sometimes come to City Hall angry, she pointed out.
“Our decisions can impact people: Whether or not they can build onto their home, whether they can put up a building on their property,” she said. “That’s what we put our name on the line to do. But we don’t put our name on the line to be killed … People have to do these jobs. We don’t want it to be so unsafe that no one will do it anymore.”
Well, it's not like someone is going to charge into a city hall and shoot up the place. Especially when there are good guys with guns who always save the day, right?
Ah well, Leslie can rest comfortable knowing that there are armed civilians there to protect her from bad guys.
16 comments:
So someone 'might have' had a gun during the meeting and there was no incident. Had guns been banned, would that have made a difference? No, there was no incident, gun or not. Had guns been banned, would someone determined to cause harm stop because of that law? Most Likely no. So in effect, you are promoting more laws that do effectively nothing?
In your link, how would banning guns have prevented something similar to shooting at Kirkland? oh, right...it wouldn't have. I don't understand your continued thought process on restricting or banning guns in places which has proven time and again to not work. Do you think the law is some kind of real shield against crime and criminal activity? Wasn't shooting someone illegal in Missouri?
And this comment is priceless: "But we don’t put our name on the line to be killed … People have to do these jobs. We don’t want it to be so unsafe that no one will do it anymore.” Really? Not one incident in Minnesota yet she is fearful of being killed?!
Notice: QUIT and let someone else do the job. There are plenty of unemployed who will probably jump at the chance to get a .gov job.
Especially when there are good guys with guns who always save the day, right?
Strawman alert!!!!
Stop arguing things people don't say, argue what they actually say.
Dishonest? Ignorant? Illiterate?
http://www.texasfred.net/archives/19441
Another voice in my head:)
Yes, that is a fucking voice in your head you illiterate moron. Can you not fucking read?
Your own fucking statement says "good guys with guns who always save the day"
That modifier changes the entire premise to something COMPLETELY different from what you linked to.
Fucking moron.
Right, what was I thinking?
http://gunssavelivesday.com/
Guns save lives every day.
/=
Guns always save every life.
Those two statements are not the same.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
/=
A good guy with a guns always stops a bad guy with a gun.
Those two statements are not the same.
Even a ritalin addled sixth grader jacked up on mountain dew is capable of reading what you linked and comparing it to what you've said and seeing the two do not equal each other.
If you want to be considered an intelligent adult you should probably consider acting like it. Unless you prefer to be treated like the moron you are acting like.
So, they only sometimes save lives and other times they don't. It sure seems like these folks are saying that more guns is the answer,though. and there is no exception.
Even the sometimes saving lives part I don't really buy. Consider the possibility of you being shot with your gun and me being shot with mine. I don't own one. Who has the greater chance of being shot? You do.
Nikto has talked about his frequently on here but statistics show that the more guns there are, the worse it is. So, even the notion of guns saving lives is completely ridiculous.
So if a guy with a knife is in your house threatening to kill your wife do you call:
A) The local librarian
or
B) The police (i.e. a good guy with a gun)?
Consider the possibility of you being shot with your gun and me being shot with mine.
So? Your point that there is a possibility that I could be shot with my gun makes it more likely that I could be murdered than you? Or that supposed higher likelihood somehow negates the actual higher possibility that I can use my gun to defend myself while you cannot at all? That's poor logic and Nitko's BS uses the same such poor logic.
So, even the notion of guns saving lives is completely ridiculous.
Except actual facts show otherwise....
but statistics show that the more guns there are, the worse it is
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
Again, though, you are obfuscating....
The contention you made can easily be answered with what I asked you at the top of this post -
Who do you plan on calling if you are threatened by a bad guy with a gun? Answer that truthfully and you will be saying that even you will call on a good guy with a gun. So the rest of your crap is just that - crap.
Well, what's crap is how likely you think that there will be a guy with a knife in my house. How did that happen so fast? What's the likelihood of that happening?
Certainly it's possible but it's not anywhere as likely as me being injured by my own gun. More likely, I will die from one of these causes.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Americans are afraid of all the wrong things. This especially includes you, GD. Maybe you live in bad neighborhood and the gun really is for protection. But if you have people breaking in to your house all the time and threatening you with knives, it might be time to move. If not, you need to get your head around the notion that not everyone is coming to gin you.
Oh, and to answer your question, I wouldn't have time to call anyone so I would probably defend myself and my family as best that I could in that unlikely situation. Again, though, I'd rather worry about things more likely to happen.
Note to the Terminally Obtuse: banning guns at City Hall doesn't make anyone safer. Someone deranged enough to shoot someone at a city council meeting is not going to be stopped or deterred by a silly sign. ("Oh deary me, I was going to murder those people, but it's a gun-free zone! Oh noes! Whatever can I do except go home and pout! Like Adam Lanza did.")
http://www.texasfred.net/archives/19441
And which poster is that here?
Americans are afraid of all the wrong things.
Yes you are.
Well, what's crap is how likely you think that there will be a guy with a knife in my house. How did that happen so fast? What's the likelihood of that happening?
Certainly it's possible but it's not anywhere as likely as me being injured by my own gun. More likely, I will die from one of these causes.
No. You are more likely to be threatened by a person with a weapon than you are to be injured with your own gun.
I wouldn't have time to call anyone so I would probably defend myself and my family
What a fucking bullshit answer Mark. You know damn well you would call a guy with a gun to help you when you need it. You give that evasive answer to avoid admitting that the same statement you ridicule is the same course of action you would take.
We are told NOT TO judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics."
BUT on the other hand, We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
How is that supposed to work.....??????
--Roger
Because apparently in Markadelphia's world, the stink of hypocrisy and double-standards are sweet scents in the nose of the Lord(s). (plural added because it really isn't clear exactly what Markadelphia believe in other than, "It's pleasing to me at this very minute, but may change fundamentally in the next few minutes depending upon political needs of the moment."
You know, if he's not lyin' he's not tryin'.
Post a Comment