Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Massachusetts Bashing Victim: Head Trauma, Wired Jaw, Partially Blind & Deaf

“Two Gloucester brothers were arrested yesterday in the beating of a man outside a Gloucester bar Saturday morning, an attack that family and friends are calling a hate crime. Gloucester police charged Jonathan Chadwick, 23, and his brother William, 21, with aggravated assault and battery and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in the beating of Justin Goodwin, 33, of Salem. He was beaten outside Old Timer’s Tavern on Rogers Street at about 12:30 a.m. Goodwin, who underwent nearly 10 hours of surgery Sunday for severe head trauma at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was first transported to Beverly Hospital following the beating, said Anna Vaters, a close friend who communicated with Goodwin in the hospital yesterday through written notes. Goodwin suffered injuries to his jaw, nose, cheekbone, and eye sockets, family members said. He cannot see out of his right eye or hear out of his right ear. His jaw will be wired shut for about two months, family members said.” [Boston Globe]

By:           editor editor
On:           Apr 14, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 205 Comments
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      Any time someone promotes “gun control” for law abiding citizens, I will point them to this story.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 12:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @John Santos: Will you also point them to the arms crisis in Mexico?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      What does that have to do with self protection through responsible gun ownership, alec? Another dodge.

      Let’s hope these thugs don’t get off with a slap on the wrist.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 12:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: What does this story have to do with self-protection through responsible gun ownership? Are you saying people should be forced to carry guns to protect themselves? Another dodge.

      In reality, our lack of regulation has helped to supply the cartels with their weapons. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/26/kennedy.townsend.guns/

      “Gun control” is a vague term; what’s wrong with background checks, for example?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      What do drug cartels and violence have to do with responsible, legal gun ownership for self protection in the united states?
      You don’t really have a case here… You’re just trying to change the subject.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: My point is, you can’t simply point to these examples to oppose “gun control” and ignore the impact of an unregulated arms industry. The subject was changed by John, not me, as this story has nothing to do with gun control.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Alec:

      Yes, actually you can given that the arms industry isn’t unregulated, cartels and criminal organizations would find new ways of getting them even with more regulation, and opposing MORE gun control that would prevent, say, being able to protect oneself in public from bashers in this case with a firearm (which in some states is prohibited) and gun regulation are two separate issues.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      This story has bout as much to do with gun control as it does with prohibition. If all the bars were shut down it might have also prevented that beating, but you can’t make that assumption.

      As it is the U.S. has a lot freer gun laws that we do (you allow people to own handguns) and that didn’t seem to make much difference. From up here it looks like that just results in MORE people getting shot and killed.

      At the very least before you make this fellow a poster boy it might be good to know if he is in favour of gun control or not.

      Was he ever refused ownership of a handgun?
      Would he have even applied for one if it were legal in his atate?
      Does he have a closetfull of uzis back home? Did he actually have a gun on him but wasn’t able to get to it in time?

      We don’t know these things because it’s NOT part of the story.

      But I do know if that had happened to me I wouldn’t appreciate my situation being turned into a political football, particularly on an issue I disagree with.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 1:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin@BGFH
      Kevin@BGFH

      Wow, are some people here suggesting that people should carry loaded firearms to a bar?!?!? That seems like a monumentally bad idea. And some bars even check for weapons.

      So yeah, even if he owned a gun with a permit, I’d be surprised if he actually brought it to a bar.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @strumpetwindsock: @Kevin@BGFH:

      Thank you. Sanity.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      So this event has nothing to do with the right of people to defend themselves against attack? It can’t even be used as an example, apparently, to endorse protecting onself with a concealed firearm to prevent something similar from happening in the future. As usual, you people are light on solutions but heavy on criticism of proposed solutions. You’re useless, really.

      I don’t it’s a bad idea to bring a firearm to a gay bar given the number of severe bashings that are occurring. I think, rather, that it seems like a good idea over reconstructive surgery. At the very least, if publicized, it will give a group of bashers a second thought before targeting gay men. And until it happens to you effete boys, you keep advocating NOTHING.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      It is hard to believe we still have no hate crime bill passed! Probably about 25 or 30 years ago my friend Danny was beaten with a baseball bat while trying to save his friend from being beaten up by gay haters outside a bar. Danny spend the rest of his life paralyzed from the waist down, in a wheel chair. For years he took part in ad campaigns and told his story, some of you may remember him from the ads. That was a long time ago and not much has changed.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: As usual, you people are light on solutions but heavy on criticism of proposed solutions. You’re useless, really…And until it happens to you effete boys, you keep advocating NOTHING.

      Wow. We need to keep tabs on how many slightly homophobic, self-loathing stereotypes you employ on any given day.

      I guess this guy just deserved it because he wasn’t armed, huh? Will you be advising the rape victim to wear less skimpy clothing as well?

      So this event has nothing to do with the right of people to defend themselves against attack? It can’t even be used as an example, apparently, to endorse protecting onself with a concealed firearm to prevent something similar from happening in the future.

      He had the right to defend himself against an attack (although you do realize, do you not, that the right to self-defense is not absolute? With gun advocates one sometimes wonders….). It is difficult, however, to see any relationship to “gun control,” a vague concept (would requiring background checks, for example, have prevented him from obtaining a weapon? or are you simply opposed to laws that completely prohibit the possession of handguns?).

      I don’t it’s a bad idea to bring a firearm to a gay bar given the number of severe bashings that are occurring. I think, rather, that it seems like a good idea over reconstructive surgery. At the very least, if publicized, it will give a group of bashers a second thought before targeting gay men.

      Wellll….

      1) If handgun violence escalated as a result of more and more people bringing them to bars (the idea of mixing a sexually charged atmosphere, drinking (and drugging), and handguns has no appeal to me, and I don’t particularly like the idea of worrying about my own safety and the risk of firearm violence when I’m in public) would you still support such drastic measures?

      2) The penalty of significant prison time for murder (or even capital punishment) and assault is well publicized; that doesn’t stop these acts in the first place. Would it perhaps incentivize anti-gay attackers to arm themselves as well?

      Anyway….this story isn’t really about gun control.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      You’re a poor propagandist at that to confuse my use o”f effete boys” with something homophobic, or even self loathing. It makes no sense. Do you know how to think at all? Questioning your masculinity with your failure to provide reasonable solutions and criticize any offered is neither homophobic nor self loathing. It’s not even misogynistic, you idiotic tool.

      Next, you suggest that my claim that self defense might cut down on the severity and incidents of brutal homophobic hate crimes in the future is tantamount to victim blaming takes the cake for distortion. Are you a basher, alec? It seems like your preference is to DO NOTHING to prevent this from happening, and to encourage that trend in the future…which is seems amenable to the preferences of someone who enjoys gay bashing with impunity.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      As to 1., if…big if. That’s a deliberate mischaracterization of my suggestion, which was always about responsible gun ownership. Not intoxicated, emotionally charged people using fiearms.

      2. has nothing to do with my suggestion, either. We’re not talking about the inept justice system handling it (we’ve seen time and again gay bashers walk away from murders with relatively insignificant punishments to no punishment at all)–instead, a fatal cost of engaging in gay bashing might give people pause. I don’t read a lot of incidents of skinheads going to predominantly black clubs and committing hate crimes against black men in front of them. I wonder why that is…do you know?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s quite funny that you’d think that me characterizing you, alec, and a few other posters a effete boys translates to me saying that all gay men are effete boys because they’re gay men. Not only is that predicated on a poor grasp of the English language, but you’re not even gay, but bisexual…

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK: @TANK:
      Geez, I’ve been called a few things. “Effete boy” is not one of them, and you’d probably see how inaccurate is if you met me face-to-face, or if I took you out hunting and saw how far you could portage a canoe.

      Don’t make assumptions, about me, or about the abilities of effete boys.

      But excuse me for getting off-topic.

      Want to cut down on bashing crime? If the cops don’t do their job a good start might be street patrols in dangerous areas. Even better lighting or saferide programs would help too.
      The main thing to do is keep it organized, professional, coolheaded and legal.

      As to your proposal, do you actually think it is a good idea to discharge a firearm on a busy street? Bullets can travel a long way, and not necessarily hit their mark. There was a case up here in Canada a few months ago of a baby being hit through the wall of her house (she lived).

      If the best you can come up with is leaving it to the individual to defend his or herself then you have failed. Start handing out guns and you wind up having people shot by accident, shot because they can’t fire straight, or shot because someone takes their own gun away from them.

      As well, being armed may be okay for able-bodies people. I guess children, the blind, disabled, or people who just can’t shoot or refuse to carry guns are shit out of luck.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @strumpetwindsock: You’re wasting your time. He’s trolling. Pretty sure he only showed up to respond to me.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      And your skinhead bashing argument is a good one.

      I’d like to see how far that “self defense” argument would fly in some communities if it’s a black man shooting a white man in self defense.

      My guess is that he’d wind up getting the chair for doing his civic duty and standing up for his rights.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Rape whistles, strumpet? Just like car alarms prevent car thieves from jacking cars…

      Once again, I don’t suggest that people just purchase firearms without proper training on how to maintain and use them. Discharging a firearm on a public street is something that someone with proper training can perform (though is not optimal, and would not be the case in many gay bashing assaults given the time and location of those bashings) and does happen quite frequently.

      Using worst case scenarios to argue against gun ownership in general is about as sound as using a gay man who intentionally infects his partners with HIV to argue for making homosexual practices illegal.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Separate issue.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And that’s hilarious, alec. Strumpet’s wasting his time because you’re now accusing me of trolling…because I responded to your inane derailment and invalid sloppy reasoning to the first post. I don’t agree that your absurd, failed arguments are compelling…so I guess I’m trolling.

      This coming from someone who dissembles with every post, and is at home only when responding to a strawman.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      You’re the one who started this irrelevant tangent; now you want to try and tell me I’m off topic?

      Ask someone who’s not a white guy if it’s a separate issue.

      Anyway, your arguments aren’t making any sense at all. I’m done.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Ask someone who’s not a white guy if it’s a separate issue.

      The implication of my question was that racist skinheads don’t target and attack large groups of urban black men because they’re aware that they’d get killed if they were to. Capiche, Sancho? What does that have to do with the potential for a black man who acted in self defense by killing a skinhead to be unfairly convicted and sentenced to the death penalty because of a racist system of justice?

      You talk about my arguments not making sense…LOL!

      I don’t think discussions of self defense is an irrelevant tangent to curving gay bashings, which are on the rise… Especially in light of this story.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      @InExile: wow,sorry to hear :(

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:
      “I don’t it’s a bad idea to bring a firearm to a gay bar given the number of severe bashings that are occurring. I think, rather, that it seems like a good idea over reconstructive surgery.”

      @TANK:
      “As to 1., if…big if. That’s a deliberate mischaracterization of my suggestion, which was always about responsible gun ownership. Not intoxicated, emotionally charged people using fiearms.”

      Wait…I’m confused.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      So everyone who goes to a gay bar’s intoxicated and emotionally charged? I’d think that responsible gun ownership would entail abstaining from losing control while having a gun on your person.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Sam: No kidding. I’m also, apparently, “bisexual” again, and so have no cause to complain about his rather questionable use of the term “effete.”

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: Not everyone. But I’m guessing this guy was at least intoxicated. He was leaving a bar at 12:30 am.

      Or have you moved on from the topic of this post?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Instead of making a bunch of false accusations, attempt to prove them. But, your style of engagement is all about the baseless accusation, the incendiary and vacuous. You are an effete boy, and that has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      Have you? It’s debatable whether or not this guy was intoxicated.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And my point was never that if HE had a gun, this would have been averted.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:

      Oh, sorry. Thought that’s what you said here…

      @TANK:

      “So this event has nothing to do with the right of people to defend themselves against attack? It can’t even be used as an example, apparently, to endorse protecting onself with a concealed firearm to prevent something similar from happening in the future.”

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      Here’s another guy who thinks guns and bars go well together. He’s a peach of a guy…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Graf

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      What does that have to do with the contention (which wasn’t mine, sam, and hence the clause, “something similar from happening in the FUTURE”…get it?) that if he had a gun, this would have been averted? I never stated that, so this attempt is a complete failure…LOL! Do you know how to speak English?

      Next, if he were to have owned a gun, I would expect him to have a concealed weapons permit and further, not be intoxicated if he intended on bringing it with him…because I’m not advocating irresponsible gun ownership to curve the glut of brutal homophobic attacks that have been occurring nationwide… Where did I advocate irreponsible gun ownership?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      do you actually think it is a good idea to discharge a firearm on a busy street?

      Firing a weapon is rarely necessary. How often do the police shoot? Rarely. The sight of a gun will send people running. Secondly, the next time bashers confront an armed queer, they will think twice about doing that again, simply because they won’t know who has a gun. We all don’t have to carry a gun. I’d be happy to carry one for all of us, because it means that bashers will assume we all might have guns. I still remeber visiting my cousin in Florida. We were harrassed. My cuz pulls out his HK P2000 and told our attackers to hit the ground. When the cops came, all I heard was their “leader” telling the cops, “That fucking queer pulled a gun on me. He had a gun. Who gave those fucking queers guns?”

      Whether any of you like it or not, queer bashings will continue to happen, with or without hate crime laws. Living in Canada now, I don’t have a right to carry a gun, so I learned to defend myself in other ways. But I sure as hell have a gun to protect my home and property, and I do not begrudge any LGBTQ person their constitutional right to own a gun and defend themselves. Being a victim is endearing. Being a corpse is wrong. I don’t want to be endearing, or wrong.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Unless, which it seems–your belief amounts to ownership of a gun=irresponsible gun ownership. Well, we’ll just disagree then. People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.

      Or, perhaps you think that irresponsible gun ownership=making use of a concealed weapons permit in accordance with the laws of your state.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Oh spare me…. I know I said I was going, but…

      So now people should carry a gun because it will cure alcoholism and help them with anger management?

      I have had guns pointed at me three times – Twice by drunk men. One was a hunter, and the other was a border guard with an automatic rifle.

      Sorry man. Guns do not magically make people behave sensibly; quite the opposite. You are wrong.

      @TANK:
      No you can’t say that. He could easily have been hit over the head before he even had a chance to reach for it. Or he could have tried to use it, had it taken away from him and been murdered

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:
      “What does that have to do with the contention (which wasn’t mine, sam, and hence the clause, “something similar from happening in the FUTURE”…get it?) that if he had a gun, this would have been averted? I never stated that, so this attempt is a complete failure…LOL!”

      Oh. So what you’re saying is that your comments have nothing to do with the event that is the subject of this post?

      “Do you know how to speak English?”

      Ad hominem.

      “Where did I advocate irreponsible gun ownership?”

      Never said that you did.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I didn’t say that guns made people behave sensibly, though. I basically stated that people who do not behave sensibly while using a gun (e.g., getting intoxicated while having a gun on you) are not practicing responsible gun use and/or ownership. Get it yet?

      I guess everyone who has a concealed weapons permit and owns a gun points it at random people and shoot innocent bystanders. They also have anger management issues which preclude them from behaving responsibly…worst case scenarios don’t make your case.

      I agree. He COULD have been hit over the head, or murdered even with a gun… Which doesn’t make your case…

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I think the subject of this post involves gay men using self defense to protect themselves from violent gay bashing. SO yes, it does, sam…self defense and self protection of gay men do have something to do with a post in which a gay man was brutally gay bashed…

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No, it’s an honest question, sam. Do you know how to speak English? Do you have some kind of learning disability?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @John Santos:

      If you’re in Canada I am sure you are hearing about the inquiry into taser use. Cops talk like they need them when they are in fact just an excuse to practice bad policing. They tasered an 80-year-old in a hospital bed, and there are countless stories of tasering prisoners in their cells.

      Give a person a weapon – even a cop – and sooner or later it will be abused.

      Look at a country like Britain where a majority of police don’t even carry firearms.

      On the other hand look at some South American states where it hardly matters because the cartels are better armed than the police and military.

      The only thing more guns does is amp up violence and vigilantesism.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:

      “Unless, which it seems–your belief amounts to ownership of a gun=irresponsible gun ownership. Well, we’ll just disagree then.”

      I never said anything on the subject. But feel free to disagree anyway.

      “People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.”

      Ad hominem. Again.

      “Or, perhaps you think that irresponsible gun ownership=making use of a concealed weapons permit in accordance with the laws of your state.”

      I wasn’t aware of any state where carrying a concealed weapon into a bar was permitted by law. Is there one?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      See? Now cops aren’t fit to carry guns either, because of minority worst case scenarios! How about all of the good things (like saving lives) that cops do specifically because they are required to carry guns?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s not an ad hominem…that’s an argument type. I’m providing an argument to counter your inane accusations…if I’m insulting you (which isn’t my intention…I don’t think you’re all there, as it were), that’s just extra.

      Yes, there is. There is more than one, in fact.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Actually the post is about a poor fellow being beaten half to death and disabled.

      You hijacked the thread with the firearms issue.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No, the story is about the poor fellow being targeted because he is gay and beaten half to death and disabled. That is relevant to concerns about self defense and self protection for gay men to minimize or avert these types of things (once again, these types of things because the poor fellow this post is about who was targeted because he was gay and beaten half to death and disabled) from happening in the future to other gay men. Gay bashing is a pattern of behavior that concerns more than just this incident, right? In fact, the only reason it’s featured here is because it was a…gay bashing, right? Not because his name was, let’s say…john…are you with me so far? Did you know that many gay people are targeted and beaten up outside of or near gay bars and, actually, are murdered just because they’re gay, strumpet? It’s a real big problem…especially in the united states, where violent gay bashing is on the rise.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I hope we’re clear now about why concerns about the relevance of self protection and defense to minimize gay bashings or the damage done in them would be brought up and discussed on a post about a…violent gay bashing incident. Have we made the leap yet, or should I repeat myself so a few people can catch up?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Why is everything that debunks your position a “worst case” argument?
      Do you think that your own argument – if everyone carried guns the problem would be solved – isn’t the height of hyperbolae?
      I was merely giving two examples from the real world – that police don’t always have to carry weapons to do their job, and sometimes they can be armed to the teeth and it is not enough.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:
      “No, it’s an honest question, sam. Do you know how to speak English? Do you have some kind of learning disability?”

      Well, if it’s honest, I’ll answer. Yes and No, respectively.

      @TANK:

      “It’s not an ad hominem…that’s an argument type. I’m providing an argument to counter your inane accusations…if I’m insulting you (which isn’t my intention…I don’t think you’re all there, as it were), that’s just extra.”

      Oh. So this:

      “People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.”

      Is your counter argument to my suggestion that a man leaving a bar at 12:30am was likely intoxicated? Because that’s the only “accusation” I’ve made. Otherwise, I’ve just been quoting what you wrote and asking questions.

      @strumpetwindsock: Actually, it was “John Santos” who brought it up.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      It doesn’t “debunk” my position because it doesn’t even address it.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK


      Oh. So this:

      “People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.”

      Is your counter argument to my suggestion that a man leaving a bar at 12:30am was likely intoxicated? Because that’s the only “accusation” I’ve made. Otherwise, I’ve just been quoting what you wrote and asking questions.

      No, you see, that’s not an argument…and I countered that with my statement that we don’t know if he was drunk…and that his exact or probable state of intoxication was irrelevant to what I was saying.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      No. a story about a violent attack does not automatically lead to a gun control debate any more than a story about murder leads to a capital punishment debate.

      As I said way up this thread if it had been me attacked I would strongly resent someone exploiting my misery for their own agenda.
      Neither of us knows how the victim feels about this issue. He might have even been carrying a gun for all you know.

      And your snide comments about “keeping up”, understanding English and learning disabilities are really ignorant.

      If you have such a strong case why do you have to resort to personal attacks rather than just sticking to the argument?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: I think I’ve got it now. This post, about a guy who was bashed after leaving a bar (are we clear it’s a “gay bar?”), is relevant to your suggestion that “it seems like a good idea” to bring guns to gay bars because it could “avert these types of things…from happening in the future” even though your “point was never that if HE had a gun, this would have been averted.”

      Did I get that right?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      A story about a violent attack doesn’t necessarily lead to a conversation about gay bashing, either…yet, in this case, it does lead to such a conversation.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Sam:

      Ah… you’re right on that point.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      Close, but it’s more about the fact that responsible gun ownership can decrease potentially violent crimes against lgbt people at areas where gay bashings occur with frequency (near gay bars or in gay neighborhoods).

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      Look at a country like Britain where a majority of police don’t even carry firearms.

      And when was the last time we had a riot in Canada? How often do we see people running wild in the streets, throwing fire bombs and trashing property in Canada?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: Now I’m totally confused.

      You said that what you’d said wasn’t ad hominem, but instead you were “providing an argument to counter your inane accusations.”

      So I was asking how the quote that I’d highlighted as ad hominem (“People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.”) countered any accusations I’d made.

      You do know what “ad hominem” means, right? A logical fallacy that involves attacking the person, instead of their argument?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      What kind of learning disability do you have?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: Perfect. That’s crystal clear.

      So, gun ownership rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other country. How many more of us need to buy guns before the gay bashings stop?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s a logical fallacy, that’s true. But it’s a type of argument. You’d have to know what an argument was…for that to make sense.

      (“People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.”)

      Not an argument…

      I countered your inane assertions not with that…which, once again, isn’t an “argument”…with:

      and I countered that with my statement that we don’t know if he was drunk…and that his exact or probable state of intoxication was irrelevant to what I was saying.

      What kind of learning disability?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      I don’t know the exact number, but more gay men than currently do own guns…or at least should start using them more often instead of being victimized.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      It’s not a fact at all. It’s your opinion.

      Universal gun ownership could also turn the place into a shooting gallery. The states ain’t switzerland, after all.
      And “responsible” is a bit of leap of faith; a look through any newspaper would dispel that myth.

      Also, do you mean everyone having guns, or just having enough guns so that you have the uneasy situation of everyone assumes everyone else might have guns – which I thought was already the situation in the U.S.?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      No, it’s a fact…I’m not advocating for universal gun ownership.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:
      I believe I already told you that I have no learning disability.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Well, it just seems like you do…because words awfully confusing to you, sam.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:
      “It’s a logical fallacy, that’s true. But it’s a type of argument. You’d have to know what an argument was…for that to make sense.

      (“People that can’t think often don’t attempt it, sam and alec…but moreso in your case, shouldn’t.”)

      Not an argument…”

      I didn’t actually say it was an argument. You did. See above.

      Regardless, I’m unclear why you don’t think an assertion that Alec and I “can’t think,” in the context of a debate of views, isn’t ad hominem. It seems rather elementary. And boring, at this point.

      @TANK:
      So, how does the fact that European nations with much lower rates of gun ownership also have lower rates of gay bashings fit into your theory?

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: Not words. Your words. Some might call that “user error.”

      Apr 14, 2009 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @John Santos:
      Not sure if you’re supporting or opposing my argument.

      No, we don’t have many riots here (the last attempted riot I know of was actually caused by the cops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow) but there are enough places in the developed world (Germany, France) where violent protests are commonplace even though police are armed.

      @TANK:
      Cut with the “he said she said”.
      Whether more handguns means safer streets is at best a contested issue – not a proven fact.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      Germany, France and Canada all have police forces who carry guns.

      Germany, France and Canada all have laws banning, or limiting citizens from owning guns.

      Germany, France and Canada all have anti-bias laws protecting LGBTQ citizens.

      Germany, France and Canada still have gay bashings.

      So what are you arguing in favor of, or against, strumpetwindsock? You claim America with liberal guns laws is dangerous. You argue that Germany and France with conservative gun laws are dangerous. So what exactly are you supporting? Hand holding and a chorus of Cum Baya? You’re welcome to wait and be a victim, but the fact of the matter is, strumpetwindsock, when it comes to us, the mentality of the average gay basher is, “What’s one more dead faggot?” If I were a gay in Iraq right now and I had a choice between a chorus of, “We Shall Overcome,” and an AK-47, I’d take the automatic weapon.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      http://www.pinkpistols.org/

      Not a terrible idea, in my opinion. If more of us were packing people would be significantly less likely to fuck with us.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @John Santos:
      Ah… I see.
      I thought from your last post you were arguing that there was less rioting in Canada than in England because we had armed police and they (for the most part) do not. You didn’t actually say what your point was.

      But what am I arguing for?
      I think that in developed countries people (non-police) should not be allowed to carry handguns in public. Period.

      I don’t think people should be allowed to keep handguns in their homes either.

      I am opposed to some parts of Canada’s long gun registry, but I am in favour of some gun control. I think if you live in the country, particularly if you have animals, it’s important to have a rifle; killing something without one is not pleasant, believe me.

      But I think having guns in cities only makes a bad situation worse.

      And you don’t need to talk to me about playing victim; I have managed to get myself of a few scrapes without killing anyone.
      On the other hand I’d be a bit worried about you strolling down the street with a machine gun. It might take care of the bashers, but you’d likely have a bit of collateral damage to explain for.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carpenoctem
      Carpenoctem

      all i have to say is don’t believe everything you hear and read….i know the goodwins and believe me when i tel you they are all trouble…12 kids maybe just maybe 2 of them are normal..(clean) and don’t associate with the others. and the article states 5 girls on Kalem…lol that is one big fat lie…she is a compulsive liar! And i know for fact, that old timers is a 1 person restroom for the girls, like i said kalem is a pathalogical liar…for most of Salem who know the Goodwins they know what there all about. very sad actually….but with all that said i do feel bad for Justin, he did not deserve that. Gay bashing terrible! This was a hate crime, these 2 boys that i just found out were also very known around gloucester will get what they deserve! Justin i hope your doing ok, i heard about the ventilator and you maybe on life support …may god be with you… i am so sorry …no one deserves this….

      Apr 14, 2009 at 9:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      Listen, SPED, you termed it an ad hominem. It’s an insult, not an argument. Ad hominems are argument flaws…because it’s an argument type.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      In europe, lower rates of gay bashing correspond to lower crime rates. I think you need to look to other more pressing factors than guns.

      Apr 14, 2009 at 9:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Now this may be your belief, but does it entail that people in countries where it is legal to own a handgun for personal use is legal? Cold war rationality? It appears to, and is thus not very good.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      , should not.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Don’t be silly.

      He asked me my position and I told him. I don’t think members of the general public should own handguns.

      Cold War rationality?

      Okay, your towering logic has just gone way over my head because I haven’t got a clue what you’re on about.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HYHYBT
      HYHYBT

      Speaking as generally as possible, in an attempt to stay out of arguments about hair-splitting preciesely people said and so forth…

      I’m all in favor of responsible gun ownership, self-defense, etc. But the largest part of being responsible with a gun is having good, fast judgement. Most people who go to bars drink. Drinking leads to poor judgement and slow thinking, so unless you’re definitely not going to be drinking you have no business taking a gun to a bar. So regardless of the law, the vast majority of people coming out of a bar are going to be either unarmed or irresponsible, and irresponsible people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      That’s not an argument, as and such, constitutes a draw with its contrary.

      I suppose you could say that guns are used to kill people, and therefore, guns shouldn’t be owned…but one can’t infer that because guns are used to killed people that guns should not be owned. Is/ought.

      I suppose you could say that if guns were banned for use by the general population, gun related homicides would decrease. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that, but what’s the justification? Gun related homicides are bad, and thus it’s good to try to limit a bad thing… But given that you’re far, far more likely to die of heart disease in the united states than of a gun related crime, it seems that the priority should be on banning unhealthy food if the goal is to prevent death. There are so many other things that claim more lives than guns (cars) in the united states, that it seems that if we’re going to rely on that justification, we need to prioritize and target the bigger killers, first.

      Why should responsible gun owners be punished for the actions of irresponsible?

      And no, I’m not advocating going to a bar with a gun and losing control. That’s not responsible gun ownership.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And it doesn’t matter if you think that the general population should not own firearms…that’s separate from the fact that they do and it’s legal in the united states. So what I’m asking is if you think that people should choose not to, and if you think it’s wrong for someone who, in a country like the u.s., owns a gun and has a concealed weapons permit.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bigjake75
      bigjake75

      WTF. THIS IS ONE FUCKED UP CONVERSATION. IM SORRY. YES, WE NEED TO SEE THAT THESE CREEPS ARE FUCKING PUNISHED. AND THIS IN MASS, ONE OF THE GAY FRIENDLIEST STATES. WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO. HOW ABOUT DISCUSSING WAYS WE CAN HELP ONE ANOTHER? JESUS…

      Apr 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Look, you are just being silly (though I still want to know what that nonsensical “cold war rationality” comment was all about).

      I’ll say it again: I don’t think the general public should carry handguns. I’m almost 50 and I have lived in some fairly dangerous communities, and I have never felt the need to carry a handgun to protect myself.
      Frankly I think it’s ridiculous. Do you want the rule of law or not? If someone had a handgun it gives them the authority to maim or kill (and none of this prevention bullshit – if you just carry a weapon to bluff

      It seems you are trying to bait me so you can turn this into a rant about the big bad Canadian trying to muscle in on U.S. freedoms.

      Fine. I’ll bite. I think it’s bad policy on the part of your government. I think it results in more crime, death and lawlessness in your country, and I also think it has a bad effect on our country (for all the talk of Canada being a pipeline for terrorists the opposite is actually true, IMO).
      I realize I have no influence over your laws, but I have every right to voice my opinion on them. The fact is there are a lot of Americans who agree with me.

      If you don’t mind my asking are you actually familiar with firearms? Do you own any and do you know how to use them? Do you know how far some rounds can travel and still have deadly force?

      I don’t know anything about handguns but I have used rifles plenty of times (22, 303) and shotguns. I would not even think of discharging one if I were within a mile or two of a house; it boggles my mind that anyone could consider it repsonsible to carry one on a city street.

      And here’s some responsible gun ownership for you:
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6121915&page=1

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      ooops..

      here’s the break in my third paragraph:
      if you just carry a weapon to bluff sooner or later someone is going to call you on it, or take it away and use it themselves.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @bigjake75: I think annihilating those who would attack us is a great way to help one another. If we start fighting back against our attackers with whatever force we deem necessary, sooner or later they’ll think twice about fucking with us in the first place. I’ll tell you right now that if someone ever decided they wanted to try to bash me or someone I cared about, they’d be in for a world of hurt, and they’d be very lucky if they could walk away from it by the time I was finished. I place no value on the life of a homophobe, much less a basher.

      As far as this gun control argument, I really only have one point to make. If we instituted a ban on guns for the general public, then criminals would be the only people who are armed. It would make the black market on firearms explode, and then how would we defend ourselves? I think, if anything, every GLBT person should get licensed to own and carry a gun anywhere they are legally permitted to in their particular state. It’s definitely something I intend to do when I’m able to afford it. Being armed won’t necessarily prevent you from getting bashed, but it sure does give you a leg up in the event that it happens.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @bigjake75:
      I think there were some suggestions up there, amongst all the blather.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Because every time you argue against it, you bring up anomalous cases, not representative of most gun owners in the u.s.

      And this “you’re being silly” line is beneath contempt. You either have a case to make for your belief or it’s an article of faith. If the latter, no one is obligated to listen to or take you seriously…and one wonders about those who would.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @vernonvanderbilt:
      I’d ask you the same question. Do you own a gun and do you know how to fire it?
      I doubt that anyone who was familiar with how they work would just say we should give everyone guns. It’s not as simple as that.

      And FYI, criminals do not have the run of the streets here in Canada. As it happens there is a nasty gang war going on in Vancouver right now, but usually outside of Toronto and Vancouver rifle crime is rare and handgun crime is hardly exists at all.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Even worse, vernon, if we instituted such a ban, criminals would be armed (of course), but just police and government officials, too…

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      Darwin award.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      …actually I’m wrong. I’m sure hard-core NRA members DO think everyone should be armed.

      And Tank, I think I stated my opinion and my case clearly. I think guns are too dangerous to carry in public places.

      Read some of your own comments and tell me again how contemptuous I am being.

      Anyway, I’d still like to know if you know how to fire a weapon.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But, you see, that’s just your opinion..there’s no argument for it. I don’t think there’s anything inherently dangerous about guns in public places. You can change that to mean something it doesn’t by introducing variables which speak past that…but that’s not relevant to the discussion.

      I suggest you read some of your own posts. This accusation of sillyness just underscores a lack of an argument coming from you. I have been patient and have requested something more than just an opinion from you, going so far as to provide you possible lines of reasoning to justify it…you have nothing but a belief upheld by an article of faith.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @strumpetwindsock: At present, no, I do not own a gun (I’m laid off and can’t afford such an expense). Yes, I do know how to fire one. My grandfather is a gun enthusiast and used to be a collector as well, so I grew up with guns and have fired them on many occasions.

      I didn’t advocate “giv(ing) everyone guns,” as you might notice. I advocated GLBT people getting licensed, which in my area, maybe everywhere, requires passing a training course. If they then choose to seek ownership of a firearm, that’s their prerogative. Either way, it is a good idea to know how to use one, because you never know when a situation will arise where that would be a useful skill. Do I think we should arm ourselves? Absolutely. But I think we should seek proper training first.

      @TANK: Yeah, and it’s pretty well documented that cops and government officials aren’t exactly friends of our community, much less the public at large.

      I tend to lean left on most issues, but I guess you could call me a moderate-right where guns are concerned. I don’t think Joe Schmoe down the road needs to own an AK-47 “for hunting” but I think handguns, rifles, etc. are perfectly reasonable.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: But, you see, that’s just your opinion..there’s no argument for it. I don’t think there’s anything inherently dangerous about guns in public places. You can change that to mean something it doesn’t by introducing variables which speak past that…but that’s not relevant to the discussion.

      Of course there’s nothing “inherently wrong” with guns in public places until you introduce “variables which speak past that” since the mere physical presence of guns isn’t the problem, but the presence of flawed human actors who operate the guns, which you cannot adequately control in the absence of gun regulations and restrictions on the ability to purchase, at a bare minimum. And of course there’s an argument for keeping guns out of public places; it increases the probability someone will use deadly force in the event of a confrontation.

      It would be funny if you weren’t being so rude.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But that argument speaks against unhealthy food and personal cars, too. Both of those increase the probability of death.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      You can’t adequately control them in the presence of the MORE STRINGENT gun regulations you seem to be in favor of (there is already background checks and gun regulation on the books).

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: Yes. It is a legislative judgment call. That’s why the test is “rationally related to a legtimate government purpose” and courts give quite a bit of deference. Even if the prohibition is underinclusive (not all people will use guns improperly) or overinclusive (they also didn’t ban X, Y and Z that increase the probability of death), it doesn’t matter.

      Now you’re just being silly. Prohibiting guns because of the fear of escalating gun violence does not mean I have to address minimally related issues. You refused to address the problem of self-defense for racial minorities because you considered it a “separate issue,” and that’s at least related to the use of guns. Stop being silly.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And lastly, one of those variables isn’t the the mere existence of people, for there’s nothing inherently wrong with people in conjunction with guns in public. And my point is about responsible gun ownership, not what the probability is derived; irresponsible gun ownership. I assume you’re not relying on cases where police have taken out people in hostage situations, and using that, for it similarly evades the point.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Alec:

      Unless you can show the statistic in which most (even a bare majority) of gun owners use their guns irresponsibly, then what legitimate government interest is being maintained over, say, the cost of healthcare from heart disease directly related to unhealthy lifestyle choices? IF you can’t provide even that, then you’re clearly not making an argument based on any rational interest at all.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Now you’re dissembling again, alec.

      1. Racism in the judicial system which unfairly gives harsher penalties to racial minorities than racial majorities who commit the same crime is NOT related to a racial minority who uses a gun to protect himself from attack. There is simply no inferential link between them, and only a person with severe brain damage or learning disability…or, in your case, AGENDA, would try to obsfucate to somehow make himself seem like he’s making sense when the fact of the matter couldn’t be more clearly the opposite.

      2. It does mean you have to address minimally related issues (and they’re not minimally related) if the underlying rationale is the SAME. And it is THE SAME.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s ironic, too, that you’d say that you’re not obligated to address so called minimally related issues when you think that gun control is directly related to racism in the american legal system.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      You know, I disagree with your argument, but I acknowledge you are trying to make one, however tenuous.

      Your tactic of pretending to not see arguments put in front of you, (and discount those you just don’t like), is, as I said, silly. You use the language of logic without it’s structure.

      There is a wealth of argument in favour of gun control, and I think you are aware of it. I know there are arguments pro and con, but am I imagining this?:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

      Frankly I don’t need any evidence other than the fact that some bullets can travel a mile and kill. That alone makes guns, in my opinion, something too dangerous to be used in public.

      If you want to talk about illogical faith maybe you should look at some Americans’ irrational feeling that they have to own guns in order to keep themselves safe, and that their right to own guns trumps any notion of public safety.

      How is it that other countries around the world have not fallen into chaos even though no other developed nation (even switzerland, which has mandatory ownership in some cantons) has a level of gun ownership as high as the U.S.?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      It seems you bring every argument down to your theoretical argument of “responsible gun ownership”.

      Of course if no one actually fired a gun there would be no problem with them. But look at the real world and your argument falls apart.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: So your position is that it’s not ad hominem because it’s not part of your argument, it’s just a random insult inserted into the midst of a debate of ideas. Should we dub this the “I’m an asshole, not an idiot” defense?

      Still, I think most people would acknowledge that personal attacks on another’s intelligence, in the context of a debate on issues, would be implicitly ad hominem.

      @TANK: But TANK, you’re the one who said bringing guns to gay bars would lower the rate of gay bashings, not me. I don’t need to look anywhere. I’m just asking you to defend your assertion in the face of the evidence against it.

      Which you did. Your defense, however, raises a greater question: If European countries have lower crime rates AND lower gun ownership rates than the U.S., doesn’t that support the notion that there is a direct relationship between gun ownership and crime? Given that, why would the incidence of gay bashings have an inverse relationship with the rate of gun ownership? Are gay bashings some special form of crime not subject to the rules that seem to govern other forms of crime?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s not a tactic. If that’s now your argument, it’s not compelling for reasons I already gave. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that guns shouldn’t be controlled at all. The fiction of no regulation… It’s the extent.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s not implicitly ad hominem IF it’s not an ARGUMENT. It wasn’t an argument, and reasoning which was not ad hominem to counter your ridiculous claims was there. Drop it, already. You got owned again, sam. You get owned a lot.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      As does yours. If one simple minded child from des moines shoots its little head off because its equally retarded pappy forgot to lock it up or keep it out of reach and use, then guns should all be banned.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: You’re being silly again. Silly, silly Tank:

      Racism in the judicial system which unfairly gives harsher penalties to racial minorities than racial majorities who commit the same crime is NOT related to a racial minority who uses a gun to protect himself from attack. There is simply no inferential link between them, and only a person with severe brain damage or learning disability…or, in your case, AGENDA, would try to obsfucate to somehow make himself seem like he’s making sense when the fact of the matter couldn’t be more clearly the opposite.

      Oh no the evil agenda! Of course it is related, because it is not solely “harsher penalties” (sentencing) that we are talking about, but the problems racial minorities face when they’re caught up in the justice system period. Self-defense is a credibility issue for jurors. A person who claims self-defense can still be prosecuted, and their fate is in the hands of twelve strangers. And yet you claim this is completely unrelated to self-defense using guns, but eating a Big Mac is.

      I don’t think you understand how “rational basis” works. The UN study indicates sixty-five percent of US homicides involve gun violence; compared, for example, to England & Wales at 8%, or Canada at 34%. Our homicide rate is 4.55 per 100K, compared to slightly over 1 per 100K in those countries. I can easily take a look at those figures and determine that the harder we make it to obtain firearms and use them in high population areas, the more difficult it will be for people to use them to commit homicides. And there’s no reason I need to address fast food, cancer and all the other problems in the world. It is a policy choice to be evaluated on its own merits.

      It’s ironic, too, that you’d say that you’re not obligated to address so called minimally related issues when you think that gun control is directly related to racism in the american legal system.

      Again, my point was that I didn’t need to address the separate issue of unhealthy foods and car accidents to argue for gun control. But since you’re arguing that guns should be used for self-defense and we should encourage it, there are additional factors to consider, and the prospect of minority defendant self-defense claims is one of them. But you devolve into silliness.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: Rational interest doesn’t require any statistics. Simply that a reasonable person would find that a law could promote a legitimate government interest. It doesn’t have to actually do so, it just has to seem like it would. Law, not logic.

      Also, the government has no responsibility to set any law to promote their interests. So their is no duty for the government to regulate “unhealthy lifestyle choices.” Just the ability for them to do so if they so choose. They don’t have to do it.

      All of which ignores the Second Amendment issues (in your first example) and significant personal liberty issues (in your second). Even if there is overwhelming evidence that gun ownership is, on the whole, bad for society, I don’t think the framers gave us a whole lot of room to get rid of them. Without a constitutional amendment, anyway.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Not that that was my only argument (nor the only example of irresponsible gun use there is out there)… but the example I posted took place at a gun range with the boy’s father and an instructor standing by.

      Do you still maintain that training and registration are infallible checks against the gdeadly power of guns?

      @TANK: Are you actually saying that over half of gun owners would have to shoot someone or “behave irresponsibly” before you would even consider it a problem?

      You still haven’t told me about your own weapons experience yet.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: I’ll drop it if you’ll stick to defending your totally unsupported assertions instead of just calling people names and denigrating them. Even if you refuse to recognize your attacks as “ad hominem,” which most honest people would, I hope you can see that being insulting to people just because you don’t have a good case to make just makes you look desperate.

      FYI:

      “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

      Alec and I made assertions/arguments. You replied by attacking the sources of the argument (Alec & I). Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

      Own that, trollboy.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Oh no the evil agenda! Of course it is related, because it is not solely “harsher penalties” (sentencing) that we are talking about, but the problems racial minorities face when they’re caught up in the justice system period.

      And what does being caught up in the justice system and subsequent problems racial minorities face when so caught up have to do with white supremacists not targeting large groups of urban black men for fear of lethal reprisal? Well?

      Self-defense is a credibility issue for jurors. A person who claims self-defense can still be prosecuted, and their fate is in the hands of twelve strangers.

      Law and order sound effect…IRRELEVANT.

      And yet you claim this is completely unrelated to self-defense using guns, but eating a Big Mac is.

      No, I’m saying that if the rationale for banning gun ownership by the public at large is in any way based upon public safety and welfare and death rates and healthcare costs, then the same rationale can be used to ban a host of things including unhealthy food, and making exercise mandatory. In a country that doesn’t have universal healthcare, it’s a joke to argue for banning guns over that, first, based on some misguided interest in the public good.

      I don’t think you understand how “rational basis” works.

      I don’t think you understand how words can be used in sentences to be meaningful. Rational basis is ad hoc, then; and while most law is, you simply can’t use the ad hoc, terribly flawed argumentation style of the legal system to make a public ethical case. The law and ethics are rarely, if ever, linked (but most good supreme court decisions rely on good “ethical reasoning” rather than citing precedent). We’re not talking about the artificial little game (procedures) and buzz words created by jurists to justify a host of fallacious ad hoc reasoning. We’re talking about making an ethical case; not a case relevant to this procedural loophole and paraconsistent with this document or protocol. I’m not denying that you can’t make the legal case for banning or introducing more regulation around gun ownership; you can’t make the moral one, though. Here’s a hint: it’s not citing the opinion of someone else that corresponds with your own…or an articial method that you can use to somehow give your opinion more legitimacy.

      The UN study indicates sixty-five percent of US homicides involve gun violence; compared, for example, to England & Wales at 8%, or Canada at 34%. Our homicide rate is 4.55 per 100K, compared to slightly over 1 per 100K in those countries. I can easily take a look at those figures and determine that the harder we make it to obtain firearms and use them in high population areas, the more difficult it will be for people to use them to commit homicides.

      And? The extent is what’s being argued for.

      And there’s no reason I need to address fast food, cancer and all the other problems in the world. It is a policy choice to be evaluated on its own merits.

      But you do if the ultimate concern and motivation for the regulation is public safety and well being…which it is. These social ills are far greater than handgun violence, and claim more lives and cost billions more dollars. A homicide’s just a dead person killed by someone until a judgment that it’s wrong, and further that it’s “illegal” comes into the picture.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      And a reasonable person is last refuge of the coward. Anything can and has been justified through reasonable person beliefs, and attitudes.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      Then you don’t know how to read, for clearly I did more than just insult you. And to be honest, it was deserved. Schmuck.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      In fact, these reasonable person (if he were to exist…) would be so full of inconsistency that he’d not be able to function…historically, anyway.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: That’s a rather stunning indictment of the American legal system, which routinely uses rational basis for constitutional claims. Cowards, all of ‘em.

      Though I agree with you on the second point…rational basis has for far too long justified the government withholding rights from LGBT individuals, among many others.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Who knew that a pack of angry bisexuals (excluding strumpet, who, as far as I know, isn’t) would be so quick to take out their frustrations on me.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: Hmmmm…not much. Mostly you insult people, change the topic and/or wander off down blind alleys, rather than actually engage in discussion. So, I ask again:

      If European countries have lower crime rates AND lower gun ownership rates than the U.S., doesn’t that support the notion that there is a direct relationship between gun ownership and crime? Given that, why would the incidence of gay bashings have an inverse relationship with the rate of gun ownership? Are gay bashings some special form of crime not subject to the rules that seem to govern other forms of crime?

      @TANK:
      “I’m not denying that you can’t make the legal case for banning or introducing more regulation around gun ownership; you can’t make the moral one, though.”

      How about this: Guns are a tool, the only purpose of which (for most guns at least…not talking about hunting rifles here) is to kill people. Killing people is morally wrong. Therefore we should ban guns.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK: I think a good sign of frustration is that you insult random people in the comments section of a blog. I’m just having fun while in the midst of a boring project.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Don’t you mean patriotism? …the last refuge of scoundrels (read:cowards) I mean.

      Samuel Johnson said it, I believe.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Guns are a tool, the only purpose of which (for most guns at least…not talking about hunting rifles here) is to kill people. Killing people is morally wrong. Therefore we should ban guns.

      Invalid.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pornotension
      Pornotension

      I want my children’s anthology of Inane Tank Rants ready for purchase this holiday season. Ad hoc ad hominem strawman bullshit ready for burning.

      He’s a bit like a gay Travis Bickle without the sense of humor, good common sense, and love of humanity.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      If European countries have lower crime rates AND lower gun ownership rates than the U.S., doesn’t that support the notion that there is a direct relationship between gun ownership and crime?

      Not necessarily. If there’s a positive correlation with the introduction of the regulation and gun related violence/crime, possibly. It could just be that on average, european countries have lower crime rates because of more homogeneity, more developed infrastructure, and less wealth disparity. But it’d have to be significant to justify those measures.


      Given that, why would the incidence of gay bashings have an inverse relationship with the rate of gun ownership?

      Because some types of crime can decrease as a result of gun ownership will not impacting overall crime rates.

      Are gay bashings some special form of crime not subject to the rules that seem to govern other forms of crime?

      Well, hate crimes are different…different incentives, players, etc.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: It could just be that on average, european countries have lower crime rates because of more homogeneity, more developed infrastructure, and less wealth disparity. But it’d have to be significant to justify those measures.

      While I agree that correlation doesn’t show causation, I don’t need a perfect fit to argue for gun bans or tighter restrictions “”it’d hae to be significant to justify those measures”). What I do know is that guns make it easier to kill people; it is much easier to kill another human being with a gun than it is to kill him with a knife. For that reason alone, I can justify more regulation.

      Because some types of crime can decrease as a result of gun ownership will not impacting overall crime rates.

      There’s no indication, or reason to believe, really, that victims of hate crimes would be more likely to employ self-defense measures than ordinary victims of theft, assault, rape, etc. There shouldn’t, in theory, be much of a difference, and according to your logic all crimes should decrease by opening up the floodgates of gun use and ownership.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @TANK:

      There’s a non-argument for you. Got schooled and couldn’t handle it, huh?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Sam:

      I don’t need to provide an argument that an argument’s invalid, sloppy joe.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Sam: I guess it wasn’t “ethical.” Although it seemed like it was to me. But you have to cosider other variables, or something…until you can’t because Tank says so.

      Really, it is amazing. Do you still have a learning disability or did he withdraw that ad hom-, excuse me, “insult” earlier upthread and I just missed it?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Pornotension:
      Let’s not forget Travis Bickle was actually quite soft spoken.
      Also, he actually knew how to handle a gun, and how much power it has.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      There’s no indication, or reason to believe, really, that victims of hate crimes would be more likely to employ self-defense measures than ordinary victims of theft, assault, rape, etc.

      Hate crimes aren’t ordinary crimes, and hate victims aren’t ordinary victims. Though they can involve theft and/or rape, that’s not the defining characteristic.

      There shouldn’t, in theory, be much of a difference, and according to your logic all crimes should decrease by opening up the floodgates of gun use and ownership.

      No, hate crimes have different incentives than other crimes. There’s nothing according to any argument I made for you to base that conclusion.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      pornotension is a self loathing queer I previously eliminated from serious consideration. Shouldn’t you be on freerepublic decrying the gay agenda?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: Hate crimes aren’t ordinary crimes, and hate victims aren’t ordinary victims. Though they can involve theft and/or rape, that’s not the defining characteristic.

      So what is it about hate crimes that makes victims more likely to use guns in self-defense? You’ve offered nothing. Just pure speculation.

      No, hate crimes have different incentives than other crimes. There’s nothing according to any argument I made for you to base that conclusion.

      The threat of guns and self-defense using guns is lethal force. You believe that those motivated by economic considerations (theft) or addictions and pathologies (rape, theft by a drug addict, etc.) are less likely to respond to the disincentive of lethal force than those motivated by hatred of certain classes of people? Why?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      So what is it about hate crimes that makes victims more likely to use guns in self-defense? You’ve offered nothing. Just pure speculation.

      That was never my contention.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      Not necessarily. If there’s a positive correlation with the introduction of the regulation and gun related violence/crime, possibly.

      What regulation? What are you talking about?

      It could just be that on average, european countries have lower crime rates because of more homogeneity, more developed infrastructure, and less wealth disparity.

      True…could be…

      But it’d have to be significant to justify those measures.

      What measures? What are you talking about? I thought we were discussing the efficacy of bringing guns to gay bars as a tool to prevent gay bashings.

      Because some types of crime can decrease as a result of gun ownership will not impacting overall crime rates.

      Only if those crimes were so small in number as to be insignificant, or if the decrease was very small, or if there was a corresponding rise in other types of crime. Which may or may not be the case here.

      It seems to me that you’re saying that you think it would help deter gay bashing if people brought guns to bars, but you don’t really have evidence. Just a hunch. Is that right?

      My hunch is that getting guns into bars will result in more gun related-deaths. I have no evidence either. Just a hunch.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pornotension
      Pornotension

      @TANK:

      Yep, that’s me alright. You got my number. I should be on freerepublic. (Incidentally, you didn’t so much eliminate me from our previous conversation so much as scream schizophrenically in an inconsolable way until I realized there was no point in attempting to engage your ideas in a way that didn’t end with an accusation of being “self-loathing.” (You should invest in a new lexicon to do battle with: this whole “strawman” “ad hominem” “ad hoc” “self-loathing” thing doesn’t really cut it in the real [not theoretical] world.)

      Apr 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I will “speculate” (which is all you’re doing) that it may be that people motivated by addiction, for example, are more desperate to get drugs than people motivated solely by hate; and subsequently have less control. Additionally, those motivated by hate (on average) are more likely to respond to negative incentives because they simply have a lot more to lose, and the payoff (entertainment) comes at a higher price…it’s an easy way to pass the time for many of these people, and fun for them…concern for self preservation may eliminate that paltry incentive.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Pornotension:

      Is that the world you live in? Are there worlds now? LOL! Put the meth pipe down, you obnoxious idiot.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @Alec: Nope. I’m still a bisexual with a learning disability.

      Re: my ethical argument. Yeah, I had a friend like that once. When confronted with a situation where he couldn’t win, he’d just refuse to keep going and say that he was the winner anyway.

      It was usually a board game. I haven’t seen him since second grade.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pornotension
      Pornotension

      @TANK: Again, you make 100% falsified, unsubstantiated, yet (for some reason) WHOLLY convenient assumptions about me (just as you do with anyone who disagrees with you) that enables you dismiss us out of hand and further support the delusion that yours is the only way of thinking that is correct. It’s OK, though: everyone needs someone to talk to, even if that person is only yourself. Keep us posted on the growth of your militia, though; sounds like a fascinating project.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK:

      Hate crimes aren’t ordinary crimes, and hate victims aren’t ordinary victims.

      So what does that mean? You’ve argued that offenders will be more response to disincentives (because the “entertainment value” of “hate” is too low in light of costs). Of course, the problem is that “hate” is not necessarily the motivation; sometimes gay men are attacked because of perceived vulnerability; ditto women, racial minorities, etc. Thus, the drug addict, the theif and the random hater can all easily commit a hate crim. That would suggest your disincentive argument is a litle shaky. Additionally, how rational are people who are driven by hate? Are they likely to respond as much to incentives not to engage in asocial behavior, or are they operating out of passion?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Alec:

      Those reasons are also true. And if the perception were altered, then it seems that the incentive would be diminished.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      That’s very convenient, actually. *Poof* and he’s gone.

      Maybe you can tell me how you do that trick

      …right after you tell me if you actually know anything at all about firearms.

      Have you ever been in a room when one went off by accident? I have. It might make you realize the real thing doesn’t work quite the same as they do in video games.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Guns are a tool, the only purpose of which (for most guns at least…not talking about hunting rifles here) is to kill people. Killing people is morally wrong. Therefore we should ban guns.

      On purely formal grounds, you can’t argue that because something is a fact (and I dispute the fact you’re attributing to guns that it’s primary purpose is to KILL people rather than to prevent people from being killed through their threat), then it should be that way….that because something is a certain way, it ought be that way. THere’s no inference to be had. THus it’s invalid.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      The US is a cesspool of bigotry directed against LGBT folks, minorities and working people. US society uses these bigotries to divide and conquer. Only the looter rich, the ones who wrecked our standard of living profit.

      American society is infested with bigoted thugs waiting for an excuse to commit mayhem. They’re empowered and emboldened by cults and by bigots like Obama, who say we’re not entitled to be treated like citizens and get married. “Gawd’s in the mix.”

      Combating violence isn’t a personal question solved by gun ownership. It’s a political question solved by mass action, and in our case that should take the form of self defense groups, aka, militias. That, in the absence of a mass fascist movement, brings violence to a dead stop. The history of the trade union movement and the fight against racism provide many examples.
      This link is about the fight of the Lumbee nation against the KKK. http://www.redheart213.com/thelumbeestorybydeanchavis.html
      This link is about the fight of the Lowndes County Freedom Party’s fight against the KKK. http://www.yearoftheblacksmith.com/xn/detail/u_bornallah

      Our own movement could help put an end to these brutal attacks and murders by forming self-disciplined groups for self defense. The question of arms is simply a question of the severity of the situation.

      Additionally we should insist that our legal defense groups cover our backs as well as sue those involved in hate crimes. We should press for the passage of the hate crimes bill ditched by the Democrats and for a hate speech bill crafted along the lines of those in England and Canada.

      The discussion over the question of gun control in this context is a side issue. That’s a question that looks to the past and we have to look to the future. It’s been done to death by three blowhards with massive ego problems, TANK, Alec and Strumpet. True to form they’ve scratched this issue until it gangrenous without providing any answers.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Oh no…no…bill perdue…I take back everything. If there’s even the remotest possibility that my and bill perdue’s opinions could by in synch, then they simply aren’t my opinions.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @TANK: LOL! Exactly funny the biggest bigot on here is always railing against bigotry. He is a fundamentalist who has said people who believe differently then him should actually die. Like most religious fanatics he is batshit crazy.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Oh Bill, thank the Lord you’re here. Finally, a voice of reason.

      Actually if those self defense groups aren’t armed vigilantes then I completely agree, even if I don’t agree with your analysis. I think I mentioned it about a third of the way down the page.

      As a matter of fact most universities and even some neighbourhoods I know of have community patrols because the cops aren’t on the ball and aren’t trusted. Of course none of them carry guns.

      But I was trying to find out if TANK actually had any familiarity with the subject (perhaps he’s recounting his military career as we write).

      I should also ask, TANK, if you’ve ever had a gun pointed at you?

      And have you ever had to kill anything bigger than a goldfish, or been in a situation where an animal or person was killed violently?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @TANK: don’t worry, tankie, I have nothing in common with right wing Obamabot zionists.

      @getreal:
      Here’s what a real bigot sounds like, the one who wants to getevenwithgaymen.

      http://www.queerty.com/morning-goods-colter-johnson-20090203/

      http://www.queerty.com/michael-lucas-takes-on-black-porn-stars-not-in-that-way-20090327/

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @TANK:

      Although that was a funny comment..

      Just thought I’d say extremists (you and bill), tend to agree on a lot-it’s a fine line between right and left wing extremism, in so much as extremists will simply pick anything to be extreme about…

      Regardless of content..

      :)

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      How am I an extremist? For pointing out why other’s reasoning’s faulty and flawed? Blah blah blah. You can blow it out of your ass. And you, to the contrary, rarely have anything to say that’s informed…ever, in fact. Nor can you argue a point.

      Bill, I know that the local anarchist brunch you’ve been complaining about for the past week didn’t have denture friendly foodstuffs…and was held in the basement of a local baptist church…but get over it.

      And strumpet, that is irrelevant. Though bill’s your senior by about a decade, I’m sensing a love connection.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: It is interesting that many people on a thread commenting that it is pedophilia to lust after underage people is creepy and to complain about age of consent laws is suspicious. The fact that the idea that people should not sleep with 15 year old so offends you that you have harped on it for 3 months leads me to believe that must disagree with me. Bill it is wrong to sleep with children. If it makes you angry that I have posted that too bad. The fact that you are so angry that someone dared to voice a normal and legal opinion makes many people on here wonder about your own activities. I have seen many people express discomfort for your seeming obsession with a very normal thread. If the concept that someone who seeks to sleep with children is a pedophile angers you so much what does that say about you and your desires? Doth protesth to much. I’m not going to get dragged into this dialogue with you. If you are this angry about the illegality of grown people sleeping with kids I have no doubt the authorities will catch up with you. I would bet months of standing up for pedophilia on a website has got you on a couple of watch lists already.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Sorry Tank… What’s irrelevant?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      can you picture bill heading up a gay milita? Good lord…”I’m the general, you racist bigoted pig! And I say we can’t do anything until the situation in el salvador is formally acknowledged by the u.s.!”

      And the outfit! ROTFL!

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Whether or not I’ve had a gun pointed at me, or own one, or know how to use one. It’s irrelevant to this discussion, gramps.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      I don’t believe with an eye for an eye it is barbaric and against my values but one wonders is jail time to good for these two men? They clearly tried to kill this man for no reason. They should try them for attempted murder and then charge them Federally these men should never see the light of day again. Justin Goodwin and his family will be in my prayers.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @TANK: It’t common for blowhards like tankie to get upset when found to be politically challenged.

      Nor is it uncommon for them to toss a little mud in the vain hope that we’ll forgive their ignorance. It doesn’t.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @getreal: They clearly tried to kill this man for no reason. It wasn’t for no reason, it was because they were acting like christers, like bigots who want to get even with gay men.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @TANK: When certain people attack you on this thread it means you are making your point so they feverishly try to derail the thread talking about anything but the matter at hand. Theey just want to cut and past the same rambling posts that never have anything to do with the articles. Don’t let the fundamentalist win!

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: And that is no reason to kill someone you fundamentalist kook. As there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, or being Jewish (you always say you hate “zionists”) it is no reason to kill someone and should add years and years to someone sentence. You never even read people posts you just want to pontificate and insult.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: You even think gay rights activists are homophobes if they are against pedophilia. When a good part of your day is spent standing up for pedophilia it is time to get help before you end up behind bars. You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with it and it is insulting that you keep trying to merge gay men with pedophiles it is absolutely typical of a fundamentalist and an insult to LGBT people.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Wow, this is amusing.

      Here I thought you were some NRA wingnut, though I started to get suspicious when you mentioned the AK-47.

      In fact, it seems you’ve never even fired a gun. Sounds like if you actually had to defend yourself you might just accidentally shoot yourself in the head. This “effete boy” from gun control hell has more guns and gun experience than the “proud of his Second Amendment” American.

      Know what… when you have been threatened with a gun, or spent a bit of time in the presence of drunken idiots with guns, then you can speak with a bit of authority. Until then, I am sorry but you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

      *Poof*

      You’re gone.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I didn’t mention the AK-47, old timer. you’re confused ;).

      The rest is pure speculation. but let’s say it’s true (and it isn’t)…guess I can’t say that it’s bad to be on fire unless I’ve been engulfed in flames.

      And did you just call me a poof? You homophobe!

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Wow who knew that was all it took to get rid of Bill Perdue was letting him know his pro-pedophilia posts probably put him on some law enforcement/government watch lists. I can just imagine Bill feverishly deleting files from his computer. Well at least now we can discuss the subject matter.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Perdue’s vanquished by complete sentences and rationality. It might have had something to do with being late for a certain meeting of a certain group….that begins with N…and ends with AMBLA…

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @TANK: LOL!

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Oh right…
      John again. I forgot he was the friendly one who didn’t spend all his time hiding behind his first year rhetoric textbook.

      And no TANK, I didn’t call you a poof. I said you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and it’s true.

      But here’s a parting bit of advice…
      you should watch your mouth and learn a bit of respect before you wind up old AND stupid … or before some tough old man takes offense and beats the shit out of you.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      What are you talking about? So anyone who gets into the debate about gun ownership needs to

      a. own a gun

      b. have had a gun pointed at her

      and,

      c. know how to use gun owned

      ? That it, old timer?

      And what’s with the implicit threat? Yikes…you don’t wanna get all worked up and have to go to hospital, now do you? Just take your pills.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @getreal: Last I checked, not all Jews identified as Zionists. Also, and I can’t believe you’re making me defend him, but you came in here rambling on about pedophilia and NAMBLA and as near as I can tell it a) has nothing to do with the topic and b) he didn’t bring it up and c) it is in poor taste, at a minimum, to insinuate pedophilia.

      @Bill Perdue:

      Our own movement could help put an end to these brutal attacks and murders by forming self-disciplined groups for self defense. The question of arms is simply a question of the severity of the situation.

      Leave it to the Marxist to propose a vigilante group. While the “question of arms is simply a question of the severity of the situation,” I’d hardly trust a group of revenge thirsty queers to police the streets on the look out for homophobic violence. I know you’ll inevitably condemn this as “reformist,” but how about working to correct injustices within the system instead of constituting Revolutionary People’s Courts, huh?

      Additionally we should insist that our legal defense groups cover our backs as well as sue those involved in hate crimes. We should press for the passage of the hate crimes bill ditched by the Democrats and for a hate speech bill crafted along the lines of those in England and Canada.

      We have a First Amendment that prohibits the kind of hate speech prohibitions in Europe and Canada, not all jurisdictions have hate crimes laws and not all that do recgnize it as a cause of action for civil lawsuits, and we *should* press for passage of the hate crimes bill…by working with the Democratic Party to do so. Gee whiz Bill you *can* be rational. :-)

      The discussion over the question of gun control in this context is a side issue. That’s a question that looks to the past and we have to look to the future. It’s been done to death by three blowhards with massive ego problems, TANK, Alec and Strumpet. True to form they’ve scratched this issue until it gangrenous without providing any answers.

      I actually agree that gun control isn’t really related to the issue of hate crimes. Just following the conversation started by someone else.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      No, TANK.

      In fact I accept a person’s position on this issue as valid based on how he or she feels – even if I disagree with it.

      You’re the one who was insistent on discounting any argument you felt was based on – how did you put it – opinion and articles of faith.

      I just figured I’d put you to your own test, and from the sounds of it you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Your argument is based on your faith (fine – I respect that), some rather sketchy theory and no experience whatsoever.

      So yes, you have an opinion, but you certaily do not speak from any position of authority.

      And I can hardly be making threats since you can be as insulting and outrageous as you want online without having to worry about the consequences.

      On the other hand, if you have the guts to talk like this to people in the real world (which I doubt) it is only a matter of time before some old guy gives you a lesson in manners.

      Just a bit of friendly advice, kid.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Alec: They aren’t of curse but he has express hatred toward Jews in general any person of faith be they Christian, Jewish, muslims etc. he has said should be guillotined.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @TANK:

      “How am I an extremist? For pointing out why other’s reasoning’s faulty and flawed? Blah blah blah. You can blow it out of your ass. And you, to the contrary, rarely have anything to say that’s informed…ever, in fact. Nor can you argue a point.”

      Course you are hun.

      Whatever you say.

      Hugz..

      :)@getreal:

      No the ‘dude with a tude’(so stole that from a Queerty commenter today), is NOT always saying something right.

      He is just plain boringly tenacious and won’t quit!

      This is how most politicians and people in so called respectable careers have been able to full the ‘lay man’, that incessant need to argue at all costs to their dying breath.

      And if you’re not too bright, this is how these pricks get away with so much..

      TANK would make a GREAT salesman. Or a Lawyer. Or a pastor. Or a politican.

      Bang, bang, bang, bang!

      Urgh.

      We all have our kicks I guess..

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Alec: I mean of course. He is a fundamentalist who I have seen repeatedly post that any believers should be put to death he is just as hateful in many of his posts as the craziest violent homophobe. He will then turn around and talk abut bigotry and hate speech with no apparent knowledge that when he spouts hate speech it is equally wrong.. He daily rails against zionist and has spoken terribly about Jews in general as well. He posts that the only real pedophiles are priests and if a gay man wants to sleep with underage kids it is homophobic to call it pedophilia. He often posts pro-pedophilia and attacks anyone who voices opposition for months.Don’t take my word for it over time read his posts and it will become clear he is a wackjob at best and truly dangerous in a number of ways at worst.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @TANK:

      At least his ‘old’ as you say!

      What’s your excuse?

      You’re going to kill yourself with all these anger and uptight stressful activity!

      Maybe you should think about seeing someone to..erm..calm you down..so you can argue effectively without crying your eyes out and insulting people..

      Diddums!

      ‘You’re old!’

      ‘You’re just fat’

      ‘You’re dumb’

      Blah, blah.. Suzie the lil ol whiner that whined herself to a heart attack!

      xoxo

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @getreal: Ok. I assumed he was fairly anti-religious (he’s a Marxist, after all…or so he says). Did not realize he took it quite that far. And believe me, I know he says crazy stuff all the time. There’s not really any way that I know of to search his comments, but you’ve been reading his comments here longer than me and almost certainly know him better. It just seemed out of left field to me.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Alec: I can totally understand my posts today were an accumulation of months of crazy abusive posts from him. When they got genocidal and anti-Semitic and pro-pedophilia I started posting back at him. He gets unbelievably abusive and weird. I would not want to look like I was coming out of left field just attacking someone apropos of nothing. I really should not bother addressing it but certain things should not be posted uncontested.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 8:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I actually agree that gun control isn’t really related to the issue of hate crimes. Just following the conversation started by someone else.

      Which is ironic for when it was proposed as a suggestion to curve incidents of hate crimes in the gay community, you turned it into a debate about gun control.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I think ironic’s too strong a word, as it implies a level of accident I wouldn’t attribute to what you did. Disingenuous is better.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: Yes….gun control isn’t related, because the use of guns for self-defense isn’t really related. But someone else suggested gun control was somehow related….hmmm….

      No. 1 · John Santos
      Any time someone promotes “gun control” for law abiding citizens, I will point them to this story.

      Posted: Apr 14, 2009 at 12:00 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]

      Wait a minute now….

      Which is ironic for when it was proposed as a suggestion to curve incidents of hate crimes in the gay community, you turned it into a debate about gun control.

      Can you read? Or did you simply choose not to read the post I responded to, before you came in?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      To repeat…

      Self defense and protection is completely relevant topic of discussion in response to a story about a gay man who was brutally beaten by two thugs because he was gay. If you can’t see that, then you’re a sad sort.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: To repeat…Tank is a willful liar, apparently:

      “Tank” says :

      Which is ironic for when it was proposed as a suggestion to curve incidents of hate crimes in the gay community, you turned it into a debate about gun control.

      First post about “gun control” here:

      No. 1 · John Santos
      Any time someone promotes “gun control” for law abiding citizens, I will point them to this story.

      Posted: Apr 14, 2009 at 12:00 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]

      Do you care to admit that you were lying, Tank? Or is it just second nature for you at this point?

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I wasn’t lying. Perhaps you didn’t understand the reason for the initial post was to suggest that one arm themselves with a handgun for self protection, and to stop criticizing gun ownership because of incidents like the one detailed. For your story to work, the OP was not suggesting that people use guns to protect themselves with, which isn’t likely. You opposed that, and decided to turn this into a discussion about gun regulation and control based on that opposition; which is the option for self protection under consideration.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK: My point is, you can’t simply point to these examples to oppose “gun control” and ignore the impact of an unregulated arms industry. The subject was changed by John, not me, as this story has nothing to do with gun control.

      QED. You’re disingenuous.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: Who was the first person who used this as an example to attack gun control? Me? No. THAT was what I was criticizing, before you interjected with your easily refutable talking points. And then, over a hundred comments later, you lied about it. Case closed. Tank is a liar. And you are still lying:

      You opposed that, and decided to turn this into a discussion about gun regulation and control based on that opposition; which is the option for self protection under consideration.

      In reality, first comment (that I was replying to, before you interjected):

      No. 1 · John Santos
      Any time someone promotes “gun control” for law abiding citizens, I will point them to this story.

      Posted: Apr 14, 2009 at 12:00 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]

      So you have lied multiple times now. At this point, you have no excuse for it being accidental, since you keep repeating it. You are a liar and not a very good one, I might add. Please continue, though; it amuses all of us. You’re like some non-Marxist version of Bill Perdue.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I haven’t lied multiple times. If you’re suggesting that the original post had nothing to do with arming onself with a gun for self protection to avert incidents like the one detailed in the story, you’re either deliberately obtuse, or actually…obtuse.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Alec: “Leave it to the Marxist to propose a vigilante group.” Or Sam Adams and the Minutemen.

      Speaking of Sam did you know he was writing about you when he said

      “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

      Do you mean to say the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, the Lumbee Nation and the Deacons for Defense were vigilantes? You’re just wrong in the head if you condemn them as vigilantes. I guess you forgot why they were formed, which was to defend their communities from the KKK, run by Democrats and christers.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @getreal: aka, getsevenwithgaymen

      “I mean of course. He is a fundamentalist who I have seen repeatedly post that any believers should be put to death ”

      “but he has express hatred toward Jews in general any person of faith be they Christian, Jewish, muslims etc. he has said should be guillotined.”

      “He daily rails against zionist and has spoken terribly about Jews in general as well.”

      “He posts that the only real pedophiles are priests and if a gay man wants to sleep with underage kids it is homophobic to call it pedophilia. He often posts pro-pedophilia and attacks anyone who voices opposition for months.”

      Prove it. Or STFU. People are getting a little tired of your ourtrages antigay bigotry. We know that it stems from your superstitious ignorance but your obvious and unlimited hatred of gay men isn’t winning you any converts. Every time you spew bigotry and hatred against us links to the above posts and other posts will appear. Count on it.

      By the way, how many gay men have you converted? In both senses of the word. Are any of them ex-gay yet? Perhaps you’re just not as alluring as you think.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: The original post said “gun control.” You lied, and stated that I began the debate about gun control. You are a liar. Simple. And you repeated it multiple times, and are now attempting to change the subject. That’s what your version of troll does.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Alec:

      Oy…you’re tedious. Yes, the OP did use the term “gun control”. Very good. Now what was the implication? What did it mean? It meant that one should use a gun for self protection. It couldn’t be more clear…you, on the other hand, decided to turn this into a broader discussion of the unregulated arms industry, and also your opposition to using handguns for self defense. To then accuse me of lying based on that is…well, it’s not very intelligent or honest.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue:It is interesting that many people on a thread commenting that it is pedophilia to lust after underage people is creepy and to complain about age of consent laws is suspicious. The fact that the idea that people should not sleep with 15 year old so offends you that you have harped on it for 3 months leads me to believe that must disagree with me. Bill it is wrong to sleep with children. If it makes you angry that I have posted that too bad. The fact that you are so angry that someone dared to voice a normal and legal opinion makes many people on here wonder about your own activities. I have seen many people express discomfort for your seeming obsession with a very normal thread. If the concept that someone who seeks to sleep with children is a pedophile angers you so much what does that say about you and your desires? Doth protesth to much. I’m not going to get dragged into this dialogue with you. If you are this angry about the illegality of grown people sleeping with kids I have no doubt the authorities will catch up with you. I would bet months of standing up for pedophilia on a website has got you on a couple of watch lists already.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: Gay men and pedophiles are not the same thing you sicko fundamentalist. Gay men have sex with other gay men pedophiles have sex and support sex with children. And gay men can’t be converted because they are born that way. Any and all pedophiles belong in jail and if that pisses you off who cares! Most pedophiles are actually straight men you homophobic fundamentalist.

      You even think gay rights activists are homophobes if they are against pedophilia. When a good part of your day is spent standing up for pedophilia it is time to get help before you end up behind bars. You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with it and it is insulting that you keep trying to merge gay men with pedophiles it is absolutely typical of a fundamentalist and an insult to LGBT people.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Let’s not allow this creep to derail a conversation about hate crimes. It is not about Bill Purdue’s sexual and legal problems.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 10:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @getreal: The only comment about pedophilia (in a discussion about hate crimes) is by getsevenwithgaymen. She has zero luck converting gay men to her superstitious cult or seducing them into being ex-gay. To get even she says we recruit children and that we’re solely responsible for HIV/AIDS.

      Unsurprisingly that’s the same agenda as Dobson. Both are ugly bigots.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: Only an idiot like you would think someone can be converted. Homosexuality is how a person is born not a religion they can change. Most people on here have read your months of crazy posts equating being gay with being a pedophile it is wrong and sick and self-loathing homophobia to cover up your serious and illegal sexual problems or as TANK put it your Nambla membership.

      The only one trying to convert anyone is you that is why you introduce those anti-pedophilia threads into every discussion if someone does not agree with you. Because by your own admission you were “bothered” by clergy and only priests can be pedophilies but you say it is normal for everyone else. Sick and wrong

      Why don’t you take your pro-pedophilia agenda to another site no one is going to be converted here and you won’t scare me away.

      To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is bigotry and since homosexuality is not wrong there is no reason or possibility of people being converted. I’m black I can’t be converted into white and neither can straight or gay people.People are born how they are supposed to be born and that is God’s plan.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: You and Dobson are flip sides of the same coin.

      You both believe in violence and oppression of anyone who believe differently than you.

      You both believe gay people can be converted (stupid and ridiculous)

      You both believe gay men and pedophiles are the same thing (sick and statistically not true most pedophiles are STRAIGHT MEN).

      You both resort to blatant lies when your hypocrisy and bigotry are revealed.

      I’m starting to think you are the same person. I don’t even believe you are a gay man it would be impossible for anyone to be this self-hating and homophobic if they were actually gay. Like a lot of people on this site I realize you are full of sh*t that is why you turn every discussion into a gay stereotype fest. You may try to push people around and run off allies but it won’t work no matter what. So go to the NAMBLA website and push your Man boy love agenda there. After 3 months of you championing pedophilia I’m not letting you get away with it anymore.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      So run ad hide you homophobic fundamentalist I have months of your anti-Semitic, homophobic, pro-pedophilia posts. That is why when you post the threads people are not on your side because you make up all your accusations whereas all mine can be linked. Go push your violent anti-Semitic pedophilic agenda elsewhere. Or go away like your other posting name Charles Mueller I noticed you stopped posting under his name because he was so hated.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @getreal: “Or go away like your other posting name Charles Mueller I noticed you stopped posting under his name because he was so hated.”

      Mueller wasn’t hated by anyone but you. There are probably some good meds for the kind of symptomatic paranoia and compulsive hatred of gay men that you present. See a doctor, and I don’t mean a sprit healer.

      Every time you spew bigotry here you’ll be challenged by me or some one else. There’s no room for a bigot like you here.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: The only one who hates LGBT people is you. YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!Every time you spew bigotry here you’ll be challenged by me or some one else. There’s no room for a bigot like you here.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 11:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Bill Perdue: So run ad hide you homophobic fundamentalist I have months of your anti-Semitic, homophobic, pro-pedophilia posts. That is why when you post the threads people are not on your side because you make up all your accusations whereas all mine can be linked. Go push your violent anti-Semitic pedophilic agenda elsewhere. Or go away like your other posting name Charles Mueller I noticed you stopped posting under his name because he was so hated.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 11:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      It’s always refreshing to see mature discussion here as opposed to the usual sniping, bickering, and name-calling. I feel really good about the state of the queer family now. We’re like a beautiful rainbow of glittery gumdrops shining over a magical land of polka-dotted unicorns and fruit punch rivers. I might just overdose on love if I’m not careful.

      Apr 15, 2009 at 11:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • judge not
      judge not

      IM IN FACT A HOMOSEXUAL AND IVE BEEN BEST FRIENDS WITH THE CHADWICKS SINCE WE WERE IN PAMPERS…THE ONLY THING THE CHADWICK BROTHERS ARE GUILY OF IS PROTECTING A FEMALE WHO WAS BEING CHOKED BY SOME STRUNG OUT JUNKIE.I ADMIT THAT THE OTHER MEN INVOLVED TOOK IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL THATS IRRELEVANT.THERE WAS WITNESSES WHO SAID THE CHADWICKS ONLY HIT HIM ONE-TWO TIMES YOU CAN PLAY THE GAY CARD ALL YOU WANT BUDDY.BUT AS A GAY MAN AND BEST FRIEND OF THE CHADWICKS ILL TELL YOU THAT IT WASNT A ”GAY BASHING”..ALSO AS A GAY MAN ALL I HAVE TO DO WHEN I GET INTO A BAR FIGHT IS TELL THE COPS IT WAS A HATE CRIME TO GET BACK AT A MAN,,IF I EVER CHOKED A FEMALE YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DO ALOT WORSE TO ME,.FREE THE CHADWICKS AND LOCK UP THE WOMEN BEATING JUNKY

      Apr 16, 2009 at 1:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      The important thing is that we as a national community must put pressure on the district attorney this is not an assault but an attempted murder not just to target the men who perpetrated this horrible crime but to send a message that hate crimes are monstrous and will be prosecuted to the full extent off state and federal law. The victim and his family are in my prayers.

      Apr 16, 2009 at 3:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ak80213
      ak80213

      @John Santos:
      What makes you think that Mr. Goodwin is a law abiding citizen? I happen to know that he is not.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 12:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trevor Hitchin
      Trevor Hitchin

      I had my head bashed for 15-20 minutes by 6 LAPD Officers in the backroom of a Hospital, a major one. I had to have corrective eye surgery and corrective ear surgery and have been victim to a crushed spinal cord and dislocated jaw for 18 years now from the attack- along with serious ptsd.

      The attack was so brutal that I am not the same person, everything changed that day… something happens though in a near-death experience that the mind cannot process. What I want to say is regardless of why, this man’s life will never be the same and for what???

      Only this past Sunday did I force my jaw back into place – it was as if an old 50s General Electric refridgerator had just locked shut – I heard a locking sound and for the first time ever, feel relaxed, as if I had been suffering 18 yrs to come to that point, the awareness of my thoughts, my body, my higher intuitive intellegence. The I that did not include my body (perhaps some on this planet have called the soul?) was ‘touched’ by the ‘hand’ of God/Sprit/Divine Light. How could I talk about what I didn’t remember?

      The injury was permantly debilitating but just imagine what is going on through my head. I couldn’t talk about it, I had NO memory of the attack until I read about it in the hospital records 18 yrs later. I had my share of chriopractors tell me I should be in a wheelchair, that I had a Christopher Reeves C-2 and was lucky to even be able to breath. I thought they were just ‘chiropractors’, what do they know….

      So I hope the modern therapies for PTSD will help this guy, as being ‘awake and aware’ is such a beautiful experience. What a reminder of the human mind/brain’s capability to protect itself, and also how sensitive our own electrical systems are and that obstruction in one area can cause a lifetime of nearly unbearable pain / that of the mind. Have compassion for this state as so many veterns (of all Countries) are returning to their lives and struggling with the horrors of what was….

      my .02, thanks for reading.

      Sep 15, 2009 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trevor Hitchin
      Trevor Hitchin

      just realized this was tagged by hate crime and trauma and posted on a ‘gay’ site. Cool but I found ya’ll with trauma search terms and it is sad that people are still assaulted for their gender, race or orientation. What a nation of haters the US has become. There is no time for anything but compassion to possitive energy toward your fellow human – we are all on this ball together. peace.

      Sep 15, 2009 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.