RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:09:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You honestly think that? According to people I speak to here, including relatives that lived through it, the Americans usually turned up late, did their bit, flirted with anything in a skirt, and fucked off as fast as they arrived. Nobody can remember the US actually writing anything constitutionally for any of the European countries. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Allies wrote the new constitutions for the Axis countries. And now you are claiming the US had virtually nothing to do with the victory? That is absurd. I made no such claim. I just trashed your claim that the US won us the war. If you think that, please tell me where I said it or even implied it. And no, the US did not write the constitutions for anyone except the conditions of the german surrender. They might have had some input or suggestions, but they didn't write one or dictate its content. And I do wish you'd use proper quotes. And yes, they do work for everyone else. ETA: if the button doesn't work, type it in manually or fix your problem.

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies?

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:18:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You just love to take cheap shots to misrepresent me don't you? You made the statement, not me. In fact, you gloated over it, and more than once I might add. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 50% in 20 years is not a slow drop. The UK and Australia did much more than that overnight. So I'd call that incredibly slow. And I didn't see in anything I read that it was as high as 50% nationwide. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD We wrote it for you. You honestly think that? According to people I speak to here, including relatives that lived through it, the Americans usually turned up late, did their bit, flirted with anything in a skirt, and fucked off as fast as they arrived. Nobody can remember the US actually writing anything constitutionally for any of the European countries. I guess that although the war in Europe was not our war but that we supplies the allies with everything they needed to fight it means nothing. I guess that the US completely fought the Japanese in the Pacific while fighting is Europe means nothing. I guess that the allies were down to nothing and about to be beaten on all fronts means the US was late even if we completely turned all of that around. And seriously, dude, if you're 18 to 20, your government is sending you to war. You first show up and stage in a country where all of the men are gone to war for years and the women were alone, you wouldn't chase skirts? Seem a little namby pamby to me. In all war the dominate males leave their genetic material behind. Britain did it all over the world until the empire was crushed in WWII.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:20:06 PM)
Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. But, this is a second amendment thread so back to that.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies? You can start with John Lot. You can research from there. In case you're not being sarcastic, "More Guns Less Crime" was a peer reviewed project John Lot did while an associate professor of economics at the University of Chicago.

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. But, this is a second amendment thread so back to that. Well here's hoping your grasp of the history of the 2nd Amendment is better than your grasp of WWII history!

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. Citation please?? It's also a gun rights debate too.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. Oh, the US did provide what Europe needed. But they paid for it. Yes indeed, they did.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:30:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But, since those laws were introduced, gun related deaths just plummeted through the floor and never rose again. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were already in the basement. Whislt that is true, compared to the previous levels (though nothing like in the US), they dropped considerably. 1.1 clear down to 1.0 when crime is dropping in the west is not dramatic, and not even approaching our drop of 50% ovr the same period, but live in your dream world if you want.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:32:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. But, this is a second amendment thread so back to that. Well here's hoping your grasp of the history of the 2nd Amendment is better than your grasp of WWII history! Hum, on December 31, 2006 Britain made its last payment to the US for debt from WWII, according to the BBC. I don't think any other country bothered. But, I don't know. To what aspect of history are you referring? A buddy of mines father was the second pilot to take off in the Berlin Air Lift. The first plane crashed on take off. So not only did we rebuild Europe and Japan, we pretty much supported them until they got on their feet. To what aspect of history to you disagree with me, or are you just making general idiot remarks?

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:32:28 PM)
I'm not being sarcastic. Oh you're referring to the paper in which Lot says quote: On the one hand, this indicates that right-to-carry laws do not always have the deterrent effects on crime that are envisaged by legislators and that the adoption of such laws is not without risk Fair enough. But, your statement that 100% of Peer Reviewed studies is utter bullshit right? For example - the Fordham Law Review - V73 Issue 2 - Guns, Crime and the Impact of State Right to Carry Laws (Donohue, J) Or... rather interestingly this paper (from the Journal of Legal Studies) the paper by Dan Black and Daniel Nagin which states that "John R Lott and David Mustard conclude that right-to-carry-laws deter violent crime. But our analysis of Lott and Mustard's data provides no basis for drawing confident conclusions..." That's not 100% is it? I mean, you're referring to a paper that was debunked. Ooops.

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. But, this is a second amendment thread so back to that. Well here's hoping your grasp of the history of the 2nd Amendment is better than your grasp of WWII history! Hum, on December 31, 2006 Britain made its last payment to the US for debt from WWII, according to the BBC. I don't think any other country bothered. But, I don't know. To what aspect of history are you referring? A buddy of mines father was the second pilot to take off in the Berlin Air Lift. The first plane crashed on take off. So not only did we rebuild Europe and Japan, we pretty much supported them until they got on their feet. To what aspect of history to you disagree with me, or are you just making general idiot remarks? Well it didn't fucking PAY then did it... it LENT money. Do you understand the difference between lending someone something vs paying for something for them? Sheesh. This is GED level stuff here.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:39:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies? As I pointed out earlier there have ben 28 major studies on this 18 after revealing sources and methodology underwent peer review. These studies all showed a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws. 9 studies with the same transparency and review showed it to be a wash. 1 study, done by the Brady Bunch, refused to reveal sources or methodology and refused peer review was the only one to show negative effects of ccw laws.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. But, this is a second amendment thread so back to that. Well here's hoping your grasp of the history of the 2nd Amendment is better than your grasp of WWII history! Hum, on December 31, 2006 Britain made its last payment to the US for debt from WWII, according to the BBC. I don't think any other country bothered. But, I don't know. To what aspect of history are you referring? A buddy of mines father was the second pilot to take off in the Berlin Air Lift. The first plane crashed on take off. So not only did we rebuild Europe and Japan, we pretty much supported them until they got on their feet. To what aspect of history to you disagree with me, or are you just making general idiot remarks? Well it didn't fucking PAY then did it... it LENT money. Do you understand the difference between lending someone something vs paying for something for them? Sheesh. This is GED level stuff here. Let's see, your house burns down, I rebuild it and tell you to pay me back when you can. Sure, call it a loan. I'm sure between you and the IRS that's all good. But, who built your house. Who got your family taken care of and fed? Who kept your family warm? Not the terminology of the finances. I'm really just going to have to disagree with you on Lot. Leftist have tried to debunk the work for years and I see very little honest work doing so.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:42:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. Citation please?? It's also a gun rights debate too. Marshall plan among other things, are you really that ignorant?

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies? As I pointed out earlier there have ben 28 major studies on this 18 after revealing sources and methodology underwent peer review. These studies all showed a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws. 9 studies with the same transparency and review showed it to be a wash. 1 study, done by the Brady Bunch, refused to reveal sources or methodology and refused peer review was the only one to show negative effects of ccw laws. There you go again Bama. Quit being reasonable about facts. You know the left isn't.

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:43:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies? As I pointed out earlier there have ben 28 major studies on this 18 after revealing sources and methodology underwent peer review. These studies all showed a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws. 9 studies with the same transparency and review showed it to be a wash. 1 study, done by the Brady Bunch, refused to reveal sources or methodology and refused peer review was the only one to show negative effects of ccw laws. So the statement that 100% of peer reviewed studies show a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws is bullshit then?

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:44:51 PM)
[Ed for (my) poor spelling] quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies? As I pointed out earlier there have ben 28 major studies on this 18 after revealing sources and methodology underwent peer review. These studies all showed a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws. 9 studies with the same transparency and review showed it to be a wash. 1 study, done by the Brady Bunch, refused to reveal sources or methodology and refused peer review was the only one to show negative effects of ccw laws. There you go again Bama. Quit being reasonable about facts. You know the left isn't. Can we agree on a definition of 100%. Here in lefty land we're living in the belief that 100% means "all of them". Do you have a different definition?

Moonhead -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh, as an aside, the US then paid to rebuild Europe. Citation please?? It's also a gun rights debate too. Marshall plan among other things, are you really that ignorant? If you think that your country paid for that, rather than getting the money back, then you're a lot more ignorant than he is. We were paying off the Marshall plan loans until 2006.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA All peer reviewed studies show that when the ability to carry guns is changed the nature of violent crime changes. More guns generates less rapes and muggings and increase property theft. Fewer guns available to people make violent crime go the other way. It makes sense if you are a criminal who suspects a victim may be armed that you're going to steal his car rather than confront him. Same for rapes. This is genuinely interesting. Do you really mean "all" peer reviewed studies. I mean... 100% of them? Could you post links to a couple of these studies? As I pointed out earlier there have ben 28 major studies on this 18 after revealing sources and methodology underwent peer review. These studies all showed a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws. 9 studies with the same transparency and review showed it to be a wash. 1 study, done by the Brady Bunch, refused to reveal sources or methodology and refused peer review was the only one to show negative effects of ccw laws. So the statement that 100% of peer reviewed studies show a relative drop in crime as a result of ccw laws is bullshit then? And yet peer reviewed studies overwhelmingly support our side of the debate.

Page: << < prev 39 40 [41] 42 43 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02