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

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml [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? How about all that he was aware of?

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml 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 believe that 100% means "all of them". Do you have a different definition? Of course in a debate when the only source of negative negative crime statistics comes from one looney left organization that won't allow peer review, I think it's all good. But, I understand the temptation of the looney left to follow Saul Alyinski's advice to ridicule instead of argue. So let's see, 100 percent means the same consensus of scientists the looney left will listen to on global warming. Just those that agree with me and back my argument.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. We could have just let you wait till you had the money to rebuild in which case you may still not have recovered.

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Marshall plan among other things, are you really that ignorant? Totally fair point. And one that really justifies a statement like "America made a tremendous contribution to the rebuilding of Europe post WWII", although it might be more accurate to say "Both sides of the political spectrum in the USA saw it as in the USA's long term interests to make a significant contribution to the rebuilding of Europe, notably in the face of fears about the threat of communisim". It certainly does not justify a statement like "America then paid to rebuild Europe". It's that whole "issue" some people have with the concept of "All" vs "Some".

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:53:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. That's why I said the US didn't pay for it. We borrowed the money. We paid it back.... with interest. No balance owing. It means in the end the US paid jack shit and profitted from it. I think you'll find some other countries had similar loans from the US, including the enemy.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. Again, your house burned through no fault of mine. I rebuilt it and told you to pay when you could...a lot differently than Europe inflicted on Germany after WWI I might add...a pretty good deal for you. Which apparently you begrudge now..

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:54:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: 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. Of course in a debate when the only source of negative negative crime statistics comes from one looney left organization that won't allow peer review, I think it's all good. But, I understand the temptation of the looney left to follow Saul Alyinski's advice to ridicule instead of argue. So let's see, 100 percent means the same consensus of scientists the looney left will listen to on global warming. Just those that agree with me and back my argument. So.... if you have 18 strawberries that are really juicy, but you have 9 that aren't all that juicy. Does that mean that 100% of the strawberries are really juicy?

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:55:59 PM)
Actually... I think we still owe a fair bit from WW1.... but hey.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. That's why I said the US didn't pay for it. We borrowed the money. We paid it back.... with interest. No balance owing. It means in the end the US paid jack shit and profitted from it. I think you'll find some other countries had similar loans from the US, including the enemy. I'll have to go back and look but I think I said as an aside the US rebuilt Europe. Now, in order to score some point, your saying we didnt pay for it because unlike what you did to Germany after WWI, we let you reimburse us over sixty years. Hum, a small point being grasped for at best.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 1:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Again, your house burned through no fault of mine. I rebuilt it and told you to pay when you could...a lot differently than Europe inflicted on Germany after WWI I might add...a pretty good deal for you. Which apparently you begrudge now.. We don't begrudge the loan. What we do begrudge is the lender crowing that they saved the day and paid for the rebuild as if it was a gift and not repaid. Big difference. Actually, the lender (the US treasury) doesn't think like that; only certain types of misinformed citizens.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:00:38 PM)
Okay, I did say paid to rebuild. Let's change that to rebuilt Europe and Japan.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:18:23 PM)
FR Fox has some info on what's being paid for, war wise... even back to the Civil War. World War I, which ended 94 years ago, continues to cost taxpayers about $20 million every year. World War II? $5 billion. Compensation for WWII veterans and families didn't peak until 1991 — 46 years after the war ended — and annual costs since then have only declined by about 25 percent. Korean War costs appear to be leveling off at about $2.8 billion per year. There are 10 living recipients of benefits tied to the 1898 Spanish-American War at a total cost of about $50,000 per year. The Civil War payments are going to two children of veterans — one in North Carolina and one in Tennessee— each for $876 per year.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:20:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA ...unlike what you did to Germany after WWI, we let you reimburse us over sixty years. Hum, a small point being grasped for at best. After what WE did to germany??? "U.S. policy in post-war Germany from April 1945 until July 1947 had been that no help should be given to the Germans in rebuilding their nation, save for the minimum required to mitigate starvation."

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:22:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA ...unlike what you did to Germany after WWI, we let you reimburse us over sixty years. Hum, a small point being grasped for at best. After what WE did to germany??? "U.S. policy in post-war Germany from April 1945 until July 1947 had been that no help should be given to the Germans in rebuilding their nation, save for the minimum required to mitigate starvation." Little problem with the dates there, don't ya think?[8\|]

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:29:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA ...unlike what you did to Germany after WWI, we let you reimburse us over sixty years. Hum, a small point being grasped for at best. After what WE did to germany??? "U.S. policy in post-war Germany from April 1945 until July 1947 had been that no help should be given to the Germans in rebuilding their nation, save for the minimum required to mitigate starvation." Little problem with the dates there, don't ya think?[8\|] Beats admitting that they and the French wrote a treaty, over Wilsons objections, so harsh that it virtually assured WWII.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:29:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA ...unlike what you did to Germany after WWI, we let you reimburse us over sixty years. Hum, a small point being grasped for at best. After what WE did to germany??? "U.S. policy in post-war Germany from April 1945 until July 1947 had been that no help should be given to the Germans in rebuilding their nation, save for the minimum required to mitigate starvation." Little problem with the dates there, don't ya think?[8\|] I just quoted Wiki. If it's wrong, tell them, not me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II

thompsonx -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:29:25 PM)
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. If one were to go to google they could be disabused of such childish opinions. Would you hazard a guess as to what percent of the soviet unions war supplies came from the u.s.? Would you hazard a guess as to when 90 percent of those supplies showed up? I guess that the US completely fought the Japanese in the Pacific Once again a trip to google land could reveal the ignorance of this opinion. 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. I am pretty sure that the battle of moscow took place before pearl harbor. For those ignorant of the battle of moscow it put about a quarter million german soldiers in body bags and shattered for all time the myth of german invincibility. 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. I never saw that in the news. I am pretty sure we would have noticed that sort of thing. I remember when the papers spoke of independence for india but that was much later.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA ...unlike what you did to Germany after WWI, we let you reimburse us over sixty years. Hum, a small point being grasped for at best. After what WE did to germany??? "U.S. policy in post-war Germany from April 1945 until July 1947 had been that no help should be given to the Germans in rebuilding their nation, save for the minimum required to mitigate starvation." Little problem with the dates there, don't ya think?[8\|] I just quoted Wiki. If it's wrong, tell them, not me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II He said WWI, not WWII

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:31:51 PM)
FR Can we get back on subject.

crazyml -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 2:31:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Beats admitting that they and the French wrote a treaty, over Wilsons objections, so harsh that it virtually assured WWII. There's no denying that, although I think you're being kind when you say "virtually".

Page: << < prev 40 41 [42] 43 44 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02