JSouthworth wrote:
You probably don't know about this, but before WW2 there was a small but visible minority of Americans who openly supported the Nazis. This was also the case in many European countries. Useful documentary video here;

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ;FORM=VIRE

By D-Day (the 6th of June 1944) the mass killings of Jews had peaked and the Nazis had in fact demolished some of the extermination camps;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka … ation_camp

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau7292

Undoubtedly, the liberation of concentration camps like Mauthausen in Austria by the US Army did save the lives of a large number of people including many Jews. That doesn't prevent right wing Jewish historians from accusing the Allies of complicity in the Holocaust on the grounds that they didn't bomb Auschwitz in an attempt to liberate the inmates.

Did you have a point here, or is this just a random data leak from your mental hard drive?

From 1776 to Gaza to Vietnam.

Is relevance - to - topic totally lost on you? Just asking.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19994374

Please ignore JS!  His comments have nothing to do with the subject of the thread.  Or, start posting in his threads and distract him.

OK, let's try it.

Focuspuller wrote:
"within Israel's borders"...." territories which the Israeli government claims to control."

Changing goalposts again?

I think you'll find that in most cases, the territories over which the government of a country claims control are the territories within it's borders.

JSouthworth wrote:

I think you'll find that in most cases, the territories over which the government of a country claims control are the territories within it's borders.

Reserving the right of response to a personal  reference:

"I think you'll find that in most cases...."

Bullshit. Changing to the "most cases" equivocation at this point constitutes "changing the goalposts."

" ...the territories over which the government of a country claims control are the territories within it's borders..."

Bullshit. You may have heard of India, a colony "controlled" by England.and NEVER considered within England's borders.

JSouthworth wrote:
Re: Modelphilia "And, no, my having owned a gun would not have done one damn thing to change anything about that entire event"

. . .  Unless of course you'd pulled it out and shot the creep, thereby potentially saving the taxpayer a few dollars...did you have any idea in advance that he was going to attack you?

No idea whatsoever!
Had I possessed a gun, been wearing it, and then tried to reach for it, my head would no longer be attached to my neck.

Focuspuller wrote:
Reserving the right of response to a personal  reference:

"I think you'll find that in most cases...."

Bullshit. Changing to the "most cases" equivocation at this point constitutes "changing the goalposts."

" ...the territories over which the government of a country claims control are the territories within it's borders..."

Bullshit. You may have heard of India, a colony "controlled" by England.and NEVER considered within England's borders.

What are you rambling about? This thread is about gun ownership and related laws. Stop trying to divert it into tedious arguments over definitions and points of logic.

JSouthworth wrote:
What are you rambling about? This thread is about gun ownership and related laws. Stop trying to divert it into tedious arguments over definitions and points of logic.

Yes Focuspuller, JSOUTHWORTH is criticizing you for diverting threads!  You know, your response to his posts hijacking the thread over to Israel / Gaza.  HAH!

And DON'T YOU DARE bring up (what he calls) "points of logic".  Southy HATES those...

Seriously, you just can't make this sh*t up.  Sadly.

JSouthworth wrote:
Undoubtedly, the liberation of concentration camps like Mauthausen in Austria by the US Army did save the lives of a large number of people including many Jews. That doesn't prevent right wing Jewish historians from accusing the Allies of complicity in the Holocaust on the grounds that they didn't bomb Auschwitz in an attempt to liberate the inmates.

On the 18th of February 1944 the RAF bombed Amiens prison to liberate some of the inmates but this was a conventional prison rather than a camp surrounded by electric fencing;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jericho

The main Auschwitz-Birkenau camp also had fences dividing it into sections internally, so it would have been difficult or impossible to bomb it in a way which would have allowed most of the inmates an opportunity to escape;

https://ihr.org/wp-content/uploads/imag … togno3.jpg

LightDreams wrote:

And DON'T YOU DARE bring up (what he calls) "points of logic".

I think the test you have to apply is whether what you're writing would be of any interest to someone who wasn't involved in the discussion.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think the test you have to apply is whether what you're writing would be of any interest to someone who wasn't involved in the discussion.

Says the man who posted that RIGHT AFTER posting this gem...

JSouthworth wrote:
On the 18th of February 1944 the RAF bombed Amiens prison to liberate some of the inmates but this was a conventional prison rather than a camp surrounded by electric fencing;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jericho

The main Auschwitz-Birkenau camp also had fences dividing it into sections internally, so it would have been difficult or impossible to bomb it in a way which would have allowed most of the inmates an opportunity to escape;

Which, of course, was ALSO right after he attacked Focuspuller for, what he called, diverting this ("It's Time To Make Gun Manufacturers Uncomfortable!") thread.



No one could ever accuse JSouthworth of being self-aware...


The others are right.  Nothing will be enforced, so It's time to just let JSouthworth ramble on, all by himself (with his audience of one). Sadly, for what used to be the MM forums.

Focuspuller wrote:
Sad. With the inexplicable capitulation and acquiescence of the moderators, between vanity threads and the hijacking of others, the forums are becoming one member's Personal Blog.

My guess is that all the mods now have microscopes and all are on the contest sites scanning each submission pixel by pixel.

rxz wrote:

My guess is that all the mods now have microscopes and all are on the contest sites scanning each submission pixel by pixel.

😂

Modelphilia wrote:
No idea whatsoever!
Had I possessed a gun, been wearing it, and then tried to reach for it, my head would no longer be attached to my neck.

You haven't given us much detail about the specifics of the incident, but in principle it would be possible to block or deflect a blow with one arm while reaching for a gun with the other. Ideally you would have shot him before he got close enough to swing at you. A lot has been written about the relative merits of different types of guns/calibers/holsters for concealed carry.

Blocking a baseball bat with your arm will result in a broken arm as can blocking a kick with your arm. You say this guy is a drunk, in that case it's perhaps a little surprising that he was able to surprise you.

Modelphilia wrote:
No idea whatsoever!
Had I possessed a gun, been wearing it, and then tried to reach for it, my head would no longer be attached to my neck.

Obviously YOUR fault for not being expert in the Southworth Martial Arts:

"...in principle it would be possible to block or deflect a blow with one arm while reaching for a gun with the other. Ideally you would have shot him before he got close enough to swing at you. A lot has been written about the relative merits of different types of guns/calibers/holsters for concealed carry."

See? You must be armed and in a defensive posture at all times and adept at using a firearm while being physically assaulted.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
https://www.kennedykrieger.org/stories/ … nal_issues

And your point in citing this article on Asperger's Syndrome was what?

JSouthworth wrote:
You say this guy is a drunk, in that case it's perhaps a little surprising that he was able to surprise you.

He had pre-planned his attack, while the aluminum bat was hidden from my view at the spot he had called me over to, and we were in the middle of a discussion. The entire attack took less than 3-seconds to execute, and was no doubt intended to kill me. I was very lucky to escape the intended result at all!

No matter where a theoretical gun would have been holstered, there would have never been enough time to observe the bat coming at my head, grab the firearm –while still dodging the bat(!)– and then aim and fire it in time to stop the blow from landing.  Unsurprisingly, my reality and your idealist mental gymnastics are quite different from one another.

Modelphilia wrote:
And your point in citing this article on Asperger's Syndrome was what?

-
Nuts.  I had several tabs open.  Copied and pasted the wrong one.

Though it is something that is suitable to be reminded of from time to time when dealing with the behavior of some people.  There are root causes.

The post was intended to be relative to the calls from Tom Cotton to take matters in our own hands when we are inconvenienced- or threatened with criminal circumstances.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 342700007/

And another tragic result when people do that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/video-sho … aboolafeed

Relative to the discussion because this is how some mass shootings start and how many more will start because of the continuing calls for political violence from the right.

Sometimes it is inconvenient to live in a free country where citizens have a right to protest.  Other citizens exercising their rights doesn't give people the right to pull the skin off of people or throw them over the side of bridges or to engage in questioning someone about certain events based on the hypotheticals in their mind- thus determining the correct cause of action- what would be ideal when those results would be horrendous and could result in criminal prosecution for murder rather than an action of self defense.  Having a gun at hand and a constant mind set of using it is more likely to result in tragedy.  Something some people without empathy do not get.

Let's remember the violence in the past when police and vigilantes met with protestors when we consider new laws that allow people to hit protestors with their cars.  Or what it meant for little girls in a church when adults set out to teach people lessons about remaining in their place.

Modelphilia wrote:

He had pre-planned his attack, while the aluminum bat was hidden from my view at the spot he had called me over to, and we were in the middle of a discussion. The entire attack took less than 3-seconds to execute, and was no doubt intended to kill me. I was very lucky to escape the intended result at all!

No matter where a theoretical gun would have been holstered, there would have never been enough time to observe the bat coming at my head, grab the firearm –while still dodging the bat(!)– and then aim and fire it in time to stop the blow from landing.  Unsurprisingly, my reality and your idealist mental gymnastics are quite different from one another.

You could have defeated his plan by simply refusing when he called you over. But it does look like attempted murder, I agree with you on that point.

JSouthworth wrote:
You could have defeated his plan by simply refusing when he called you over.

Sure, had I known he was planning to kill me! But, strangely enough, he never told me anything about it! What a dumb-ass response!

As it was, I was already planning to speak with him a few minutes later anyway, so my meeting with him a few minutes before I'd intended to was close to what I had already planned to do anyway. You, with your special sensory powers, would of course have known of his plan all along. Would that I had such amazing skills too.

Modelphilia wrote:

Sure, had I known he was planning to kill me! But, strangely enough, he never told me anything about it! What a dumb-ass response!

As it was, I was already planning to speak with him a few minutes later anyway, so my meeting with him a few minutes before I'd intended to was close to what I had already planned to do anyway. You, with your special sensory powers, would of course have known of his plan all along. Would that I had such amazing skills too.

You say that this guy is a drunk and a loon, you could have been a bit more suspicious. Does he have a history of this type of behaviour?

JSouthworth wrote:
You haven't given us much detail about the specifics of the incident, but in principle it would be possible to block or deflect a blow with one arm while reaching for a gun with the other. Ideally you would have shot him before he got close enough to swing at you.

You say this guy is a drunk, in that case it's perhaps a little surprising that he was able to surprise you.

You could have defeated his plan by simply refusing when he called you over.

You say that this guy is a drunk and a loon, you could have been a bit more suspicious. Does he have a history of this type of behaviour?

JSouthworth presenting a master class on victim blaming rather than holding the transgressor responsible. Is there an actual reason why you continue to attack this forum members actions?

JSouthworth wrote:
You say that this guy is a drunk and a loon, you could have been a bit more suspicious. Does he have a history of this type of behaviour?

GFY

Modelphilia wrote:

GFY

Would that be a yes or a no?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
https://apnews.com/article/college-stud … 82e43226e3

excerpts:
[i]"Waylon Kurts, of Montpelier, Vermont, who was then a student at St. Olaf College in Northfield, was charged last April with conspiracy to commit second-degree assault, conspiracy to commit threats of violence, making terroristic threats, and a less serious count of conspiracy to commit theft. Prosecutors alleged he was “planning a mass casualty event.”


The judge upheld an interesting interpretation of what constitutes the making of a terroristic threat.  I wonder how law enforcement would see a post where someone displayed a photo of multiple semi-automatic (and possibly automatic) weapons with the stated purpose of making people uncomfortable.  Would making terroristic threats then extend to simply carrying unconcealed weapons, albeit legally, along with wearing tactical gear in public.

Sometimes people write things on this site that could be interpreted as terroristic or even genocidal threats. For example;

"And if the Palestinians want to rape and murder hundreds of kids peacefully attending a music festival then the Palestinians are entitled to obliteration and death". (Gold Rush Studio).

Normally it would take more than verbal or written statements to convict a person on terrorist charges, there would have to be evidence of preparation to carry out a terror attack. Wearing camouflage pattern or paramilitary style clothing or personal equipment in public would not in itself imply terrorist intent, but in some places it can get you into trouble.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
...gun manufacturers... customers are fear filled addicts in search of manhood.

I've long said this same thing about the police. Glad to see you agree with me.

JSouthworth wrote:
Sometimes people write things on this site that could be interpreted as terroristic or even genocidal threats. For example;

"And if the Palestinians want to rape and murder hundreds of kids peacefully attending a music festival then the Palestinians are entitled to obliteration and death". (Gold Rush Studio).

Normally it would take more than verbal or written statements to convict a person on terrorist charges, there would have to be evidence of preparation to carry out a terror attack. Wearing camouflage pattern or paramilitary style clothing or personal equipment in public would not in itself imply terrorist intent, but in some places it can get you into trouble.

Feel free to report me to whoever you want.

I take deep umbrage at people who rape and murder kids at music festivals and if you don't like that then boo hoo.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Feel free to report me to whoever you want.

I take deep umbrage at people who rape and murder kids at music festivals and if you don't like that then boo hoo.

Unlike threats of genocide, objection to the killing of innocent people is a normal reaction. You can't say that they deserved to die for attending a music festival. HAMAS weren't aware of the festival before they started their attack, according to the Israeli military.

Some of the festival attendees were apparently killed by fire from IDF helicopters;

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231 … -7-report/

Israel is not a safe place to visit, regardless of what the Israeli government would like you to think. There was no security on October 7, there wasn't any before that, and there isn't any now.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
"Deputies responding to a disturbance call at a Florida apartment complex burst into the wrong unit and fatally shot a     U.S. Air Force airman who was home alone when they saw he was armed with a gun, an attorney for the man’s family said Wednesday.

Fortson was on a Facetime call with a woman at the time of the encounter.

According to Crump, the woman, whom Crump didn’t identify, said Fortson was alone in his apartment when he heard a knock at the door. He asked who was there but didn’t get a response. A few minutes later, Fortson heard a louder knock but didn’t see anyone when he looked through the peephole, Crump said, citing the woman’s account."

https://apnews.com/article/police-shoot … f2a4f1a83d

Cops go to the wrong address.  The cops do not announce who they are and stay out of sight.  The cops burst in, look through a window and see a person legitimately holding a firearm to defend his life and property, considering that there had just been unidentified people at his door, causing him to be concerned about his own safety, so they shoot and kill him.

The cops will eventually be found to be justified because they feared for their lives.  All events prior will not be relevant.  Their mistakes, their failure to identify themselves will not be relevant.

And people in this country think it is a good idea for law abiding citizens to have a gun constantly on their person or within reach? 

In addition to police incompetence, swatting puts people in grave danger.  How much more danger is the armed citizen subject to when someone seeks to harm them by phoning in a false claim of domestic violence or criminal activity?

Gun companies and gun extremists are selling the people a lie.

I know your a master at statistics.

What's the ratio between police getting the wrong address or swatting, compared to actual home invasions where a homeowner needed a gun to defend him or herself?

Not challenging you, just curious.

Kevin Fair wrote:
I know your a master at statistics.

What's the ratio between police getting the wrong address or swatting, compared to actual home invasions where a homeowner needed a gun to defend him or herself?

Not challenging you, just curious.

When on earth did Kevin Fair suddenly become a fan of statistical facts???

As this thread as already thoroughly covered, the stats related to guns in the U.S. make it crystal clear that life is so much more dangerous in the U.S. than in any other major western democracy.  And it's not even close.

Whether that's the stats on how you are far more likely to be killed by a gun, or how your children are far more likely to die by a gun shot when there's a gun in the house, to how you are far more likely to get shot when someone "loses it" (in an argument, etc) when they have easy access to a gun, how you are far more likely to die as a result of a violent attack (gun versus knives or fists, etc), how children are far more likely to get shot while in American schools, or how you are far more likely to get shot when someone mistakenly thinks you are a threat because you knock on the door of the wrong house (and "they are defending themselves"), etc, etc.

The "STATS" related to guns in the U.S. are the very LAST THING that Kevin has EVER wanted to hear about.

LightDreams wrote:

When on earth did Kevin Fair suddenly become a fan of statistical facts???

As this thread as already thoroughly covered, the stats related to guns in the U.S. make it crystal clear that life is so much more dangerous in the U.S. than in any other major western democracy.  And it's not even close.

Whether that's the stats on how you are far more likely to be killed by a gun, or how your children are far more likely to die by a gun shot when there's a gun in the house, to how you are far more likely to get shot when someone "loses it" (in an argument, etc) when they have easy access to a gun, how you are far more likely to die as a result of a violent attack (gun versus knives or fists, etc), how children are far more likely to get shot while in American schools, or how you are far more likely to get shot when someone mistakenly thinks you are a threat because you knock on the door of the wrong house (and "they are defending themselves"), etc, etc.

The "STATS" related to guns in the U.S. are the very LAST THING that Kevin has EVER wanted to hear about.

Ask a legitimate question and LeftDreams storms in again.

Instead of an answer, it's the same liberal skating around the answer bull shit.

Kevin Fair wrote:
Ask a legitimate question and LeftDreams storms in again.

Instead of an answer, it's the same liberal skating around the answer bull shit.

-
The bullshit being shoveled is from you.  Why are conservatives unwilling to look up the information and develop an argument to support their positions?  It is the same head in the sand approach they take to most things when the right wing fear machines stoke the lies with fears and worse case scenarios?  You don't skate around answers, you outright ignore the questions- dodge, duck and cover.  Is this why educated people tend to be liberal? [4]

The statistics remain the same as they have been.  A person with a gun in the house is far more likely to die at the hands of someone they know than a stranger.  The statistics are also complicated by states that use different definitions or refuse to release data, like when LE kills someone.


Let's say that of the 3,713,000 burglaries in the US, 7.2% percent are also the victim of violent crime.[1]  A person who is constantly armed in the home is defending himself against one in 14 events.  But in every event, should you call the police, you are going to be met by armed officers who are trained to shoot first and get the facts later.  And they are going to keep on shooting because they have no reason to flee or duty to flee.

"The analysis found that overall, when injuries occurred, police responses initiated by a call to emergency dispatchers were 46 percent more likely to end with a fatal shooting injury than incidents where an officer was already on scene. Calls to police to check on the well-being of individuals were 74 percent more likely to be associated with fatal injury than police responses to an incident where shots had already been fired. This includes wellness checks that did not explicitly involve threats or harm before an encounter with police."[2]

If you are walking around town with a visible firearm, what are people likely to report?  Maybe, a man with a gun?  The cops aren't going to take that seriously?

Now, Jonathan Turley, a notorious twister of circumstances to fit his perceptions, pointed out that the FBI said a good guy with a gun only stops about 7% of shootings, but he admits to cooking the books to get more favorable numbers.  Turley came up with a whopping 35% by leaving out the gun free zones and only considering those places where there was a good guy with a gun.  The crime rate overall was not studied.  Why?  Because he is a conservative with a cause? 

Turley does not mention the people who have been a good guy with a gun getting shot by the cops on various scenes?  Why?  He does not mention the incidents like the airman in Florida or Breana Taylor.  Why?

Roughly 75% of people killed with guns are killed by people they know. [1] So, the question is, if people killed in their own home because they have a gun and have done nothing except pick the gun up because they have become fearful of an intruder, because of the right wing propaganda machine, and they represent a minority of confrontations, what percentage of people killed by responding cops is an acceptable risk, when the probability of dying in a crime committed by a stranger is already low?  Please provide and cite statistics and offer rational arguments.


[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U … 1498-1.pdf
[2] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/study … atch-risks
[3] https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju … -the-hype/
[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … ed-adults/


BTW, I am happy to read lightdreams' views.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U … 1498-1.pdf
[2] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/study … atch-risks
[3] https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju … -the-hype/
[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … ed-adults/


BTW, I am happy to read lightdreams' views.

Your links.

[1]   Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.

[2]  Firearm research often focuses on fatalities, as they are listed as the cause of death and reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Currently, there is no database that consistently and reliably tracks nonfatal firearm injuries for the general population. As for shootings by police, reporting by law enforcement agencies to the federal government’s data systems is voluntary, and death certificate inclusion of law enforcement involvement is inconsistent. Researchers say this makes official reporting unreliable. The researchers undertook this study to get a fuller picture of shootings by police.


[3]  Records of media reports that I have compiled since the beginning of 2021 show police have noted in 33 cases in which a concealed handgun permit holder stopped what appeared to be a mass murder in the making. But few of these heroic cases have gotten national news attention. 

The Nashville police chief, who got a look at the murderer’s entire manifesto, noted that the murderer originally targeted another location but decided against that “because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security.” The Buffalo mass murderer last year wrote in his manifesto that “areas where [concealed carry weapons] are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.” 

[4]  College? You seen what’s going on in schools lately? I agree with you 100% majority are liberals. Don’t they have classes so you can figure out what pronoun you are?

For the record that link was from 2016, and the study was 2 years prior to that.

Yeah...I know he makes you happy.