Jump to content

Change Mode

News For Those Who Oppose The 2nd Amendment


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, I have seen those rates. And all they do is a blanket coverage without factoring all variables. Thus giving incomplete and inaccurate results.

 

Lets say for arguements sake...

The US has 69 murders in a year and Canada has 33 from firearms. That would be just over 2 times the number, yet they do not take into account the obvious population difference between the two countries. Even if such a study did take that into account, they are still omitting other murder device stats that would "balance" out the truth of total murders in comparison to each other.

A rate does incompass population, If for arguments sake the US had 1000 murders and Canada had 50 murders. And for arguments sake Canada's population is 30 Million and the US's is 200 Million (obviously not accurate, but just for this example).

 

1000/200,000,000 = 0.000005

50/30,000,000 = 0.00000166666667

 

Means, that a murder is just over 3 times as likely in the US. It is fairly simple math, all rates should use a very similar method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, if i made you feel uncomfortable in any way I am sorry and hope you accept my apology. If this topic does interest you, I would recommend reading that third link when ya have the time.

No worries. We're good! :)

 

I will read the link you posted, because I am interested in these things - from the perspective of an outsider looking in.

 

As I said earlier, it is a very emotive issue both inside and outside of the USA. It is highly unlikely that I would ever change my opinion, in the same way that your opinion is just as firmly established.

 

As for statistics, well, there are lies, damn lies etc :mrgreen:

 

I'm sure that there are facts and figures on both sides of the argument that could convincingly 'proove' both case. This being the case, I suppose it does simply come down to personal opinion.

 

Perhaps the discussion should focus more on the state of society and violent crime, rather than just the weapons used? It seems to be that if someone is going to mug, rob or kill then then they will do it, regardless of whether guns are legal or not. We should be addressing the reasons they want to do these things in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps the discussion should focus more on the state of society and violent crime, rather than just the weapons used? It seems to be that if someone is going to mug, rob or kill then then they will do it, regardless of whether guns are legal or not. We should be addressing the reasons they want to do these things in the first place.

:beer: :beer:

 

Absolutely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've never had a desire to own a gun. it puzzles me as to why people feel the need to own automatic assault weapons, armor piercing bullets etc...

 

sometimes i feel guns are just an extension of a mans :filtered:, and so if that's the case, there are a lot of people out there with little dicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've never had a desire to own a gun. it puzzles me as to why people feel the need to own automatic assault weapons, armor piercing bullets etc...

 

sometimes i feel guns are just an extension of a mans :filtered:, and so if that's the case, there are a lot of people out there with little dicks.

Automatic assault weapons?

 

First of all, what the heck is an assault weapon? Please tell me, nobody has been able to with any success.

 

Second.....automatic? You need a class three dealers license to have an automatic weapon. You make it sound like it is the goal of all people who suppoer their rights under the Second Amendment to own an automatic weapon. I have no idea why you would say that.

 

 

Lastly, John Holmes carried a gun. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

People using alcohol kills more people then people using guns don't believe check the stats so why don't you focus on that. Oh because it's not in your liberal agenda.

 

Explain to me drive thru liqour stores and daiquii stands, serving alcohol with dinner, and public bars. More than one drink an hour for the average size adult is illegal to drive. Focus on the truth and not the mush being fed to you by the liberal media.

Edited by gerrywhirl
Link to post
Share on other sites

i've never had a desire to own a gun. it puzzles me as to why people feel the need to own automatic assault weapons, armor piercing bullets etc...

 

sometimes i feel guns are just an extension of a mans :filtered:, and so if that's the case, there are a lot of people out there with little dicks.

First off, I have noticed that alot of you foreigners dont mind hunters and hunters having hunting rifles. You are aware that well over 90% of all hunting rifles use "armor piercing" bullets? The .270, .303, .223, and the like all will go through body armor.

 

As for automatic weapons, I do not really care to have one personally, however, my not wanting one should in no way be the dictate to prevent those who do want one to have one.

 

I find your :filtered: comment obscene, uncalled for and insulting. Just because we do not agree on whether or not people should have firearms, is no justification for such slanderous attacks. :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, really, try tellin that to Steven Seagal. An expert with a pistol, avid shooter and gun owner, very outspoken liberal, and by rumor very well endowed.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I forgot....master of Aikido....my favorite martial art.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

People using alcohol kills more people then people using guns don't believe check the stats so why don't you focus on that. Oh because it's not in your liberal agenda

Guns cause damage, that is their purpose. Whether it is for pleasure or to injure someone a bullet travelling at a high velocity will infact damage most things when it hits them. Alcohol is a beverage and despite popular belief its purpose is not to intoxicate people. Unless fired into the air a gun will cause damage and that is the best case scenario for a gun, that is when a gun IS used properly. When alcohol is used properly nothing happens, you have a few drinks at a social event with some friends and you sober up and drive home, that is the best case scenario for alcohol.

 

Guns are meant to cause damage while alcohol is not. You point is moot just like other conservatives will attempt to mention cars in the same category as guns. Cars are meant for transportation, that is their main purpose, a secondary purpose could be to run someone over. With guns though their main purpose is to cause damage in whatever form, even skeet shooting when it hits the clay pigeon it blows it apart, causing damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of alcohol absolutely is intoxication. It is an intoxicant. Regardless of legal definitions that is a fact. Driving while intoxicated is another matter. You seem to fail to recognize the seriousness of alcohol consumption outside the context of driving. That is a grave error that many make. Any amount of "social" alcohol consumption is a risk. Alcohol decreases inhibitions and that leads to all sorts of trouble, in addition to the fact that it effects judgement, coordination, and balance, even in small amounts of consumption. Quite simply the only reason to consume it is for the intoxicating effect, so your explanation on the matter is just flat out incorrect.

 

Some will say "But I drink it because it makes me feel......" Or "I drink it because it is fun." That is precisely and exactly speaking about the intoxicating effects of alcohol.

 

 

 

You are demonstrating a real lack of knowledge by continuing to pursue your course on firearms.

Firing a gun into the air? I can't believe you even mentioned that but I simply MUST comment on it as a matter of public safety.

 

Fot those not acquainted with firearms, firing a gun into the air is absolutely not an acceptable or safe action. It is dangerous and a number of people die every year because of it not to mention the property damage it causes.

 

Please ignore the statement "Unless fired into the air a gun will cause damage" It is more than a misleading thing to say, it is wrong and dangerous.

 

As for the clay pidgeons, their sole purpose is to be destroyed by gun fire. Citing their destruction is hardly a foundation for your arguments.

 

 

 

 

Note: I don't have a problem with somebody expressing their opinion as I am free to express my own, but when that opinion is blatantly wrong to the point of endangering lives it is my duty to correct it.

 

The matter of firing a gun into the air is not a matter of opinion. It is a dangerous act and against the rules of safe firearms handling.

 

In general one should not fire a gun unless there is a specific target and that target is in sight. Special combat conditions that call for things like suppressive fire are special circumstances of armed combat.

 

 

 

 

In addition, the effects of alcohol are clear regardless of the quantity consumed or the activities one engages in while consuming it. It is an intoxicant and that should be understood. Consuming it increases risk to your person and those around you.

 

Regarding drinking and driving. The laws regarding intoxication actually are accepting a certain amount of risk by tolerating ANY alcohol at all in the blood stream. It does not imply that it is safe to drive if one is below the legal limit or that it is as safe as having had no alcohol at all.

 

Under no circumstances is driving with any amount of alcohol in the blood stream as safe as driving with none. It is a simple fact that the law and society have accepted a certain level of risk as legal.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Chopdoc. Police have not used the "warning shot" practice for a couple of decades now, because of the blatant dangers it poses on unsuspecting citizens. Those bullets fired in the air have to come down somewhere.

 

I also agree about alcohols purpose. All through history its purpose has been to intoxify the body for the euphoric feeling one gets from the effects of alcohol on the nervous system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have proved that alcohol's purpose is to intoxify, however that does not disprove that guns sole purpose it to cause damage.

No, it has not.

 

 

The burden is on you to prove that it is. And I don't believe you can. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Heck, the gun isn't even a very efficient means of killing. I can prove that too.

 

How is that?

 

 

Ponder that while I am away. I have a date and will be back late or in the morning. ;)

 

 

 

EDIT: Although I understand that you are very passionate about your view of the purpose of guns and you want to use that as an argument against guns, I think there are some much more effective arguments out there that are more easily supported. Maybe even some arguments that have not been made yet.

 

I understand why you feel the way you do about the purpose though. I just don't think it is correct or can be proven or even well supported.

 

I respect your feelings about guns and encourage you to do some investigation and reading on the matter, maybe even take a firearms safety course (they are non-political, just safety courses) so that you might be able to present a more effective argument for what you believe in.

 

I really encourage you. If for no other reason than the fact you are passionate about it.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the only person that provided sound evidence in the form of stats comparing Canada's anti-gun policies to the US pro-gun policies and it quite evident that having guns readily acessible causes more homicides PER CAPITA and in general creates a more violent society.

 

How can I prove that a gun causes damage? It is a lead object being rapidly displaced, it sure as hell isn't going to bake a cake or refrigerate something. It is obvious that it has the sole purpose of causing damage. Why in the :filtered: would I want to or even have to prove that? Anyone with any common sense would not even debate that. You may very well have a strong point but I sure as hell cannot see it when you keep on disputing the fact that guns cause damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the only person that provided sound evidence in the form of stats comparing Canada's anti-gun policies to the US pro-gun policies and it quite evident that having guns readily acessible causes more homicides PER CAPITA and in general creates a more violent society.

 

How can I prove that a gun causes damage? It is a lead object being rapidly displaced, it sure as hell isn't going to bake a cake or refrigerate something. It is obvious that it has the sole purpose of causing damage. Why in the :filtered: would I want to or even have to prove that? Anyone with any common sense would not even debate that. You may very well have a strong point but I sure as hell cannot see it when you keep on disputing the fact that guns cause damage.

You don't have to prove a gun causes damage. You have to prove it is the sole purpose. That was your statement.

 

 

I edited an above post for you, please read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the only person that provided sound evidence in the form of stats comparing Canada's anti-gun policies to the US pro-gun policies and it quite evident that having guns readily acessible causes more homicides PER CAPITA and in general creates a more violent society.

 

How can I prove that a gun causes damage? It is a lead object being rapidly displaced, it sure as hell isn't going to bake a cake or refrigerate something. It is obvious that it has the sole purpose of causing damage. Why in the :filtered: would I want to or even have to prove that? Anyone with any common sense would not even debate that. You may very well have a strong point but I sure as hell cannot see it when you keep on disputing the fact that guns cause damage.

Repeat after me...

 

Inanimate objects can not dictate how people act and treat other people.

 

As I have shown in other posts, while our gun murders are higher, your knife and other device murders are higher than ours. Does that mean you need to have a ban on bats, clubs knives, tire irons, and etc ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeat after me...

 

Inanimate objects can not dictate how people act and treat other people.

 

As I have shown in other posts, while our gun murders are higher, your knife and other device murders are higher than ours. Does that mean you need to have a ban on bats, clubs knives, tire irons, and etc ?

It would probably be an effective way of reducing our homicide rate even lower, however they objects all have practical purposes and injuring people and objects are all secondary to their main purposes. Anything can be used as a weapon so you cannot go banning everything, but you may as well ban those objects that are meant to harm.

 

I would feel very safe with a stash of grenades in my house, maybe even some concealed grenades on my belt when I go to the mall. Would this be legal in the United States?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably be an effective way of reducing our homicide rate even lower, however they objects all have practical purposes and injuring people and objects are all secondary to their main purposes.  Anything can be used as a weapon so you cannot go banning everything, but you may as well ban those objects that are meant to harm.

 

I would feel very safe with a stash of grenades in my house, maybe even some concealed grenades on my belt when I go to the mall.  Would this be legal in the United States?

So, according to you, inanimate objects should be banned based on your perceived main purpose of the object. As has been posted, many purchase firearms for home defense, especailly since the SC stated time and again that the police have no obligation to save a persons life or to even stop a crime. People, such as myself, purchase firearms for collecting and target shooting, note that means the main purpose is a recreational sport, not the wonton destruction of a human.

 

As for grenades, according to our forefathers, grenades should be obtainable. However, that being said, the moment you injure an innocent person, you lose and become a criminal.

 

Take knives for instance, what is your feeling on survival knives?

Edited by aeromaestro
Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is;

how many firearms/vehicles/knives/fertilzer&kerosene/baseball bats/tireirons/hammers/gasolinecans/antidepressants&medications/animal poisons/extroduing body parts/teeth/bodilyfluids/ etc are used to hurt people or property due to/under the use of alcohol or other mood altering substances legal or illegal.

 

The list of objects to kill, maim, and hurt for the wrong purpose are endless.

 

 

If you could ban one thing what would it be? The object or the substance that is almost always involved in the abuse of the object.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a collection of hunting knifes which I use for hiking and camping trips, I have no real personal problem with them but I could certainly see where they would be considered a risk and if they were deemed illegal then I would destroy my collection.

 

Even when a gun is used in recreation it is still being used to destroy something. That is its purpose, a gun is a detterant because it can cause harm but being a detterant is not a purpose.

 

As for objects being banned, I think objects with the sole purpose of causing destruction and or bodily harm should be illegal. There is no need for people to walk around with bazooka's in our somewhat civilized society and it is proven that the threat of guns is not even an effective detterant.

 

Even in target shooting the target is still harmed by the bullet. That being said the targets purpose is to be shot at but that still does not detract from the purpose of the gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...