RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm?

RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 10:08:47 PM)
FR There is not a direct relationship between Firearm ownership rates and violent crime in the U S. There is however a direct relationship between gang activity and violent crime. There is a direct relationship between the incidence of crack heads and violent. Even FD admitted that crime jumped exponentially when they moved into his area.

BitYakin -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 10:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You, on the other hand, are not like this. You believe - You need a gun... for defense. You think you are defenseless and a numpty if you don't have one. You need a gun... to deter would-be thieves and criminals. You don't believe anything less will do. You need a gun... to attack first. Because to do otherwise means they'll get the jump on you and you're dead. You need a gun... because... you can't think beyond the end of a muzzle. You can't comprehend a life without one. You need a gun... because the constitution and the law says you can and have the right to. And by golly, you'll exercise that right... just because you can, and will. You need to give back your mind reading certificate, wrong on every count. It is too late to talk about level headed gun owners you already declared all gun owners to be crazy. You have proved your motives, intentions and total gun mindset through many of your posts. *I declared that people like you, with your type of mindset, are crazy and irresponsible - not everyone.* We speak to quite a few people in the US and they don't react like you have described that you do. To quote our friend in NC, he said "that man is a nutter and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun". Wrong on every count?? I don't think so. I'm not the only one that has made such a comment and most of those similar comments have come from US posters. sorry but NO YOU DID NOT you said and I QUOTE "So wanting a deadly weapon like a gun is just crazy... and stupid... and unnecessary." I see no qualifier such as "like YOU" or LIKE THEM" or LIKE anyone, you made a FLAT BLANKET STAMENT that covers EVERYONE said they were CRAZY & STUPID if they wanted a gun..

BitYakin -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 10:41:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I stated, I didn't boast. I sensed a note of pride in your response rather than just a statement. That makes it a boast in my book. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If anything it was a complaint that I had to take such action. But there is no way you will accept that because nothing is important enough to change your mind. Nothing in this world is important enough to even contemplate taking another person's life unless you are a deranged lunatic. Unfortunately, it is so easily achieved when using a gun as opposed to anything else. And your stance is - shoot to kill, not disarm or injure.... kill. And don't say it isn't because you said that in this thread a few posts ago. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I am glad you escaped harm but the various people who pointed this out are right, you would be arrested for that here as surely as if you walked down the street with a shotgun on your shoulder. Yep. And I agree with that sentiment entirely... Surprisingly for you. But, I don't carry it around with me all the time. Unlike you, who seem to want/like to carry your firearm with you in public. we've seen your idea of SENSE, soooooo AAAAAAAANNNT judges say BULLSHIT! I beg to disagree, my children and now grandchildren are TOTALLLY worth killing to protect... you mess with MY CHILDREN, whether its spur of the moment or I have to HUNT YOU down I'll fucking kill you then call the cops and tell em what I did, and if I go to jail SO BE IT, but you will NEVER HARM another child EVER but its good to know you value the life of a thug/thief/rapist over your children's safety

BitYakin -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 10:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA

BitYakin -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 10:52:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml I am pretty sure you're wrong about that. DUHHHHH really? then pray tell what do YOU think her point was?

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:02:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA What do you remember him saying was the max speed limit in the US?

joether -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom The gun "problem" is not uniquely American. The problem is very unique in the world. A nation with a high amount of firearms that are easy to obtain is unheard of in any other industrial or second world nation. Most nations with high amounts of firearms are in some form of destruction and ruin. There is very little if any 'central government'; and what government exist is composed of warlords and dictators. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom First of all, what matters are murder and violent crime rates, not the weapon. Actually it does matter what was used on the offensive and defensive. If your going to argue firearms, what sort of firearm was used? If we are talking melee with an external weapon....what weapon? Was the person trained or not? These are factors that would be understood to arrive at a better understanding of things. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom If crime rates soar, as they did after the Brits banned handguns, leaving citizens defenseless, how exactly is that civilized? You would have to show evidence that the two are connected. Got a source? There are plenty of reasons why a crime rate would soar. And there are plenty of reasons why a crime rate would diminish. If America is so safe with all its guns, why is the crime rate still high? Yet after every big name, rated 'M' video game is released, the rate diminishs? Guess playing Battlefield, Call of Duty and Planetside 2, gets most to work out their aggression instead of taking it out on other people. A side note. When people/kids get angry at the video game? Seems to be tied to the player losing at something when they feel they should have won. A dodge behind what one thought was a kill, turned out to be bullets that turn corners in mid flight..... Lag....it kills in FPS's.... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom If people are attacked with baseball bats instead of guns and have no guns with which to defend themselves and are not martial artists capable of wielding knives or bats like nunchuka, who wins? The thugs. I've been in this position. I won. Your full of shit. You assume a huge amount of things based on no evidence nor reality. Terrain plays a factor in engagements. So does improvised objects. So do other people that are nearby and come running when someone screams "HEEELLPPPP!!!!". You would have to set up a situation in which the defender has no chance. But then, I could equally set up a situation in which you could have a platoon of US Army Rangers backing you up.....and...still lose! quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom As many have pointed out, violent crime in the US is down while gun ownership is up. Actually there are many factors involved. But to the 'low information voter' I could see where your coming from. We just got done with a REALLY bad recession. Yet, unlike past recessions, this one did not have the same characteristics. There was an abundant amount of systems in place to help people out. Unemployment was extended, and each state was given funds from the Fed to shore up industries that were spiraling out of control. Other organizations and groups, pitched into help those on hard times. And EVERYONE with family and friends knew one or more people that lost their job, house, health, and/or bank account/savings. And your one of the people whom was against all of that....so.....FUCK YOU, YOUR PLAN FAILED! Obama got a second term in office! Each of the states was given funds form 2009-2010 through the ARRA. Those with health problems were able to start accessing better health care options starting in 2010. Congress came through with unemployment extensions until the GOP/TP won the mid terms in 2010. And there were more good people then selfish people in America that chipped in to help. In the local level, about thirty people and myself kept donating food to the local pantries. Working at those pantries. And giving those people a shoulder to cry on when their stress level simply tore them down. We have connections, and got those people some help through various organizations an agencies both private and government. What did your selfish ass do? NOTHING.....BECAUSE YOU HATE AMERICA. You voted for the party that was and still is, trying to undermine this nation. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom There are many demographic reasons for crime in the US. NH, which is primarily middle-to-upper-middle class and which has no substantive ghettos to speak of, has an incredibly low violent crime rate (and high gun ownership, to boot). Its funny how much bullshit you have here. New Hampshire has the population of just 1/6th that of Massachusetts. As a percentage, there are just as many rich, middle class, and poor people in New Hampshire than there is in Massachusetts. There are plenty of ghettos in New Hampshire. Just like any other state in America. The crime rate for New Hampshire is not much different from Massachusetts. You know what is curious about the two states that share a common border? Folks in Mass have a variety of firearm laws, yet are pretty relaxed about things. In New Hampshire, people need guns to feel safe, even when there is nothing to threaten them. A guy I know who used to live in Massachusetts moved up to New Hampshire due to a company shift. While at his home, he showed me his gun. I didn't think much of it. He said he felt he needed to get one because of all the crazy people in his neighborhood. And he lives in a decent neighborhood (middle class). The guy has three college degrees, and did the research. But he said that the sensation in both states is very different. I suppose there could be an interesting psychological study to be had here... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Anyone who followed the war crimes between the Hutus and the Tutsis knows that even genocide is possible without a lot of guns. Just machetes. So are concentration camps during Germany in 1944..... Or the Klan in America in the previous century.... Or some guy name 'Khan' and his 'horse warriors' raping and pillaging across Asia 'once upon a time'. Atomic Bombs seem to kill lots of people..... What are you arguing here again? Oh that's right....nothing useful... Moving on.... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Australia saw an increase in violent crime following its gun bans, too. This isn't rocket science. If you give thugs impunity to attack, what precisely to do you think they're going to do? Disarmament is impunity. Get your facts checked. Since you didn't understand the history nor the evidence, I would have to say that rocket science is just not your field of study.... Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change.

joether -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA What do you remember him saying was the max speed limit in the US? Depends on the state. But I've seen guys with their trucks and 'NRA' sticker doing 70 mphs in a 55 mph speed zone. So much for that 'Honest and Law Abiding' crap..... An if you were better informed, you would know that each of the states sets its own speed limits.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:24:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA What do you remember him saying was the max speed limit in the US? Depends on the state. But I've seen guys with their trucks and 'NRA' sticker doing 70 mphs in a 55 mph speed zone. So much for that 'Honest and Law Abiding' crap..... An if you were better informed, you would know that each of the states sets its own speed limits. This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a conversation without knowing what is going on. We are talking about one of FDs stupid blanket statements. It has nothing to do with what I know, btw I have seen people with Obama stickers speeding and running stop signs, so what does that prove other than lots of people speed, HINT NOTHING

BitYakin -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:41:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Australia saw an increase in violent crime following its gun bans, too. This isn't rocket science. If you give thugs impunity to attack, what precisely to do you think they're going to do? Disarmament is impunity. Get your facts checked. Since you didn't understand the history nor the evidence, I would have to say that rocket science is just not your field of study.... Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. except she didn't say murder or homicide she said violent crime, making your link irrelavant

joether -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:49:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA What do you remember him saying was the max speed limit in the US? Depends on the state. But I've seen guys with their trucks and 'NRA' sticker doing 70 mphs in a 55 mph speed zone. So much for that 'Honest and Law Abiding' crap..... An if you were better informed, you would know that each of the states sets its own speed limits. This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a conversation without knowing what is going on. We are talking about one of FDs stupid blanket statements. It has nothing to do with what I know, btw I have seen people with Obama stickers speeding and running stop signs, so what does that prove other than lots of people speed, HINT NOTHING No, does seem I jumped in at a good time. You left the safety of the topic on the sub-thread here. That opens you up to what I stated. No one cares if 'grandma got nailed for speeding' and there is an Obama sticker on the bumper. Its a bit different if your bumper stickers states 'honest and law abiding citizen' and 'NRA' and get nailed for speeding. Should we penalize someone's ability to obtain a firearm or keep owning their firearm for one speeding violation of 104 mph in a 30 mph? Probably not, but, their car might be impounded....

BitYakin -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 11:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA What do you remember him saying was the max speed limit in the US? Depends on the state. But I've seen guys with their trucks and 'NRA' sticker doing 70 mphs in a 55 mph speed zone. So much for that 'Honest and Law Abiding' crap..... An if you were better informed, you would know that each of the states sets its own speed limits. this has nothing to do with actual laws, it has to do with his PERCEPTIONS of how things are in the USA he once claimed he hated the usa cause we weren't allowed to drive over 30 or 40 MPH, then went onto tell us about this "friends" who NEVER drove above 30 MPH or some other idiotic speed...

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 12:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. No different to shooting to kill. In most cases, shooting to wound/disable gives you many more 'targets' than a shoot-to-kill option. And that's why I dislike your perception on guns. Shooting is just not necessary at all, in any situation. Period. But having a shoot-to-kill mindset is just ridiculous and downright dangerous. We often have discussions on guns and healthcare with our Vet friend and his family in NC. I have even repeated some posts from these forums for his amusement. He, his wife, and both his daughters (and husbands) all own and use guns. None of them have your attitude to their use and he calls you 'a nutter' - his words, not mine. would these be the same friends who have NEVER DRIVEN OVER 30 MPH HAHAHAHAHAHA What do you remember him saying was the max speed limit in the US? Depends on the state. But I've seen guys with their trucks and 'NRA' sticker doing 70 mphs in a 55 mph speed zone. So much for that 'Honest and Law Abiding' crap..... An if you were better informed, you would know that each of the states sets its own speed limits. This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a conversation without knowing what is going on. We are talking about one of FDs stupid blanket statements. It has nothing to do with what I know, btw I have seen people with Obama stickers speeding and running stop signs, so what does that prove other than lots of people speed, HINT NOTHING No, does seem I jumped in at a good time. You left the safety of the topic on the sub-thread here. That opens you up to what I stated. No one cares if 'grandma got nailed for speeding' and there is an Obama sticker on the bumper. Its a bit different if your bumper stickers states 'honest and law abiding citizen' and 'NRA' and get nailed for speeding. Should we penalize someone's ability to obtain a firearm or keep owning their firearm for one speeding violation of 104 mph in a 30 mph? Probably not, but, their car might be impounded.... A Does this mean that Obama supporters aren't expected to obey the law? B It wasn't about safety it was about FD saying stupid things

crazyml -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 12:15:05 AM)
I have no idea, but no literate person could have drawn the inference you did from her words. Which tells us more about you than it does her. DUHHHH

joether -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 12:29:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Australia saw an increase in violent crime following its gun bans, too. This isn't rocket science. If you give thugs impunity to attack, what precisely to do you think they're going to do? Disarmament is impunity. Get your facts checked. Since you didn't understand the history nor the evidence, I would have to say that rocket science is just not your field of study.... Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. except she didn't say murder or homicide she said violent crime, making your link irrelavant If your being intellectually honest, its bullshit, and you know it! If your being intellectually honest and its not bullshit, your an idiot. So either your bullshitting, or your an idiot......which is it? She talked about violent crime. The article talks about violent crime. Unless your going to have us all believe that 'Death by Firearms' is not a violent way to go? And its ALSO, and ILLEGAL thing to do to someone. So death by a firearm, that is illegal and violent, WOULD BE A VIOLENT CRIME!

joether -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 12:40:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin this has nothing to do with actual laws, it has to do with his PERCEPTIONS of how things are in the USA You can perceive all you want, that your not breaking the speed limit while driving. Unfortunately, the police officer pulling you over has the dash camera and evidence to say you did 104 mph in a 30 mph area. That's not perception, that's reality. Perception of things in the USA? Most Americans could not list one item that is found in the 1st amendment. Gallup.com did a survey and found like 90% of Americans couldn't identify any of the five items found in the 1st. 8% could name one of them. 1.4% could name 2-3. 0.003% could name all five. Lets try that perception.....Name 'Em without looking it up. Its a good thing laws are written down instead of being left to people's memory.... Lets try the other nine amendments on the Bill of Rights, and see how you do? quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin he once claimed he hated the usa cause we weren't allowed to drive over 30 or 40 MPH, then went onto tell us about this "friends" who NEVER drove above 30 MPH or some other idiotic speed... Actually, in dense neighborhoods in most states, one can not exceed 30 mph. Even on open stretches of road (i.e. one house per quarter mile) there are postings for 40 mph. So he would be correct in that viewpoint. Now there is the posted speed limit and 'traffic'. People that feel the posted speed limit is 'an advisement'. No, its the posted speed limit by law. How does a law come into existence? Please tell me I don't have to explain...THAT....concept....

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 1:03:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You, on the other hand, are not like this. You believe - You need a gun... for defense. You think you are defenseless and a numpty if you don't have one. You need a gun... to deter would-be thieves and criminals. You don't believe anything less will do. You need a gun... to attack first. Because to do otherwise means they'll get the jump on you and you're dead. You need a gun... because... you can't think beyond the end of a muzzle. You can't comprehend a life without one. You need a gun... because the constitution and the law says you can and have the right to. And by golly, you'll exercise that right... just because you can, and will. You need to give back your mind reading certificate, wrong on every count. It is too late to talk about level headed gun owners you already declared all gun owners to be crazy. You have proved your motives, intentions and total gun mindset through many of your posts. *I declared that people like you, with your type of mindset, are crazy and irresponsible - not everyone.* We speak to quite a few people in the US and they don't react like you have described that you do. To quote our friend in NC, he said "that man is a nutter and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun". Wrong on every count?? I don't think so. I'm not the only one that has made such a comment and most of those similar comments have come from US posters. sorry but NO YOU DID NOT you said and I QUOTE "So wanting a deadly weapon like a gun is just crazy... and stupid... and unnecessary." I see no qualifier such as "like YOU" or LIKE THEM" or LIKE anyone, you made a FLAT BLANKET STAMENT that covers EVERYONE said they were CRAZY & STUPID if they wanted a gun.. So put that into context of what was said before.... let me remind you from post#41- And it was a conclusion to Bama's comment - "The problem with stopping stupid people is the folks who think that wanting a gun proves you are stupid" To which I replied - "And in an awful lot of cases, that would be correct - and proven by the daily gun deaths and mass slaughters." And if you could comprehend English instead of spin and stuff taken out of context, that response is saying that I think Bama (and a lot of other people) are stupid for wanting guns because of their attitude and outlook. And my finale concluded with - "Many people, even in the US, can live their lives without a gun and not wanting one. It has also been proven that to carry a gun is more likely to get you injured or dead. " followed by that last line of - "So wanting a deadly weapon like a gun is just crazy... and stupid... and unnecessary." Now... add that to my earlier comments to Bama in post#21 - "Your antagonistic outlook makes you a dangerous person to own and carry a gun. Your 'attack first' and confrontational attitude means you do not carry responsibly either. You are a delusional gun nut. I wouldn't trust you with a crayon, let alone a gun!!" Put it all together, in the right order, and you get a comment and opinion on Bama - not a blanket statement for everyone. It just proves that you either can't read or you didn't read the whole thread and jumped to a moronic conclusion... as usual. ETA: quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin he once claimed he hated the usa cause we weren't allowed to drive over 30 or 40 MPH, then went onto tell us about this "friends" who NEVER drove above 30 MPH or some other idiotic speed... IF you were paying attention, I said the max speed limit I came across was 55mph. I never claimed that the US max speed was that; only that it was the max I'd seen. And yes, my friends that I sat shotgun with never went over 30mph even in the 55mph limit. I can't help that - it's what they do. If you go faster.... bully for you. It's not how they choose to drive. Foot-in-mouth syndrome much??? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin but its good to know you value the life of a thug/thief/rapist over your children's safety I don't hold such a view and I never claimed such nonsense. Your words, your spin. Not mine. Foot-in-mouth again or is it head-up-ass this time???

subrosaDom -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 1:15:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom The gun "problem" is not uniquely American. The problem is very unique in the world. A nation with a high amount of firearms that are easy to obtain is unheard of in any other industrial or second world nation. Most nations with high amounts of firearms are in some form of destruction and ruin. There is very little if any 'central government'; and what government exist is composed of warlords and dictators. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom First of all, what matters are murder and violent crime rates, not the weapon. Actually it does matter what was used on the offensive and defensive. If your going to argue firearms, what sort of firearm was used? If we are talking melee with an external weapon....what weapon? Was the person trained or not? These are factors that would be understood to arrive at a better understanding of things. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom If crime rates soar, as they did after the Brits banned handguns, leaving citizens defenseless, how exactly is that civilized? You would have to show evidence that the two are connected. Got a source? There are plenty of reasons why a crime rate would soar. And there are plenty of reasons why a crime rate would diminish. If America is so safe with all its guns, why is the crime rate still high? Yet after every big name, rated 'M' video game is released, the rate diminishs? Guess playing Battlefield, Call of Duty and Planetside 2, gets most to work out their aggression instead of taking it out on other people. A side note. When people/kids get angry at the video game? Seems to be tied to the player losing at something when they feel they should have won. A dodge behind what one thought was a kill, turned out to be bullets that turn corners in mid flight..... Lag....it kills in FPS's.... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom If people are attacked with baseball bats instead of guns and have no guns with which to defend themselves and are not martial artists capable of wielding knives or bats like nunchuka, who wins? The thugs. I've been in this position. I won. Your full of shit. You assume a huge amount of things based on no evidence nor reality. Terrain plays a factor in engagements. So does improvised objects. So do other people that are nearby and come running when someone screams "HEEELLPPPP!!!!". You would have to set up a situation in which the defender has no chance. But then, I could equally set up a situation in which you could have a platoon of US Army Rangers backing you up.....and...still lose! quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom As many have pointed out, violent crime in the US is down while gun ownership is up. Actually there are many factors involved. But to the 'low information voter' I could see where your coming from. We just got done with a REALLY bad recession. Yet, unlike past recessions, this one did not have the same characteristics. There was an abundant amount of systems in place to help people out. Unemployment was extended, and each state was given funds from the Fed to shore up industries that were spiraling out of control. Other organizations and groups, pitched into help those on hard times. And EVERYONE with family and friends knew one or more people that lost their job, house, health, and/or bank account/savings. And your one of the people whom was against all of that....so.....FUCK YOU, YOUR PLAN FAILED! Obama got a second term in office! Each of the states was given funds form 2009-2010 through the ARRA. Those with health problems were able to start accessing better health care options starting in 2010. Congress came through with unemployment extensions until the GOP/TP won the mid terms in 2010. And there were more good people then selfish people in America that chipped in to help. In the local level, about thirty people and myself kept donating food to the local pantries. Working at those pantries. And giving those people a shoulder to cry on when their stress level simply tore them down. We have connections, and got those people some help through various organizations an agencies both private and government. What did your selfish ass do? NOTHING.....BECAUSE YOU HATE AMERICA. You voted for the party that was and still is, trying to undermine this nation. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom There are many demographic reasons for crime in the US. NH, which is primarily middle-to-upper-middle class and which has no substantive ghettos to speak of, has an incredibly low violent crime rate (and high gun ownership, to boot). Its funny how much bullshit you have here. New Hampshire has the population of just 1/6th that of Massachusetts. As a percentage, there are just as many rich, middle class, and poor people in New Hampshire than there is in Massachusetts. There are plenty of ghettos in New Hampshire. Just like any other state in America. The crime rate for New Hampshire is not much different from Massachusetts. You know what is curious about the two states that share a common border? Folks in Mass have a variety of firearm laws, yet are pretty relaxed about things. In New Hampshire, people need guns to feel safe, even when there is nothing to threaten them. A guy I know who used to live in Massachusetts moved up to New Hampshire due to a company shift. While at his home, he showed me his gun. I didn't think much of it. He said he felt he needed to get one because of all the crazy people in his neighborhood. And he lives in a decent neighborhood (middle class). The guy has three college degrees, and did the research. But he said that the sensation in both states is very different. I suppose there could be an interesting psychological study to be had here... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Anyone who followed the war crimes between the Hutus and the Tutsis knows that even genocide is possible without a lot of guns. Just machetes. So are concentration camps during Germany in 1944..... Or the Klan in America in the previous century.... Or some guy name 'Khan' and his 'horse warriors' raping and pillaging across Asia 'once upon a time'. Atomic Bombs seem to kill lots of people..... What are you arguing here again? Oh that's right....nothing useful... Moving on.... quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Australia saw an increase in violent crime following its gun bans, too. This isn't rocket science. If you give thugs impunity to attack, what precisely to do you think they're going to do? Disarmament is impunity. Get your facts checked. Since you didn't understand the history nor the evidence, I would have to say that rocket science is just not your field of study.... Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. Your entire post is wrong, but in regard to violent crime rates in MA vs. NH (and btw, ME and VT, which also have essentially no gun restrictions): look at this 2009 chart http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2010/11/is_mass_really_1_in_violent_cr.html (scroll down to see it) In other words, for murder and all violent assaults (except rape), MA crime rates are multiples higher than NH's. In other words, I was correct, you were wrong.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 1:59:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom In other words, I was correct, you were wrong. So you managed to nit-pick one tiny little bit of his post. Whoopee!! [:D] And you countered it with 5-year old info? [8\|] It also clearly states: "As shown, Massachusetts is below average in homicide, forcible rape and robbery. In fact, the homicide rate in Massachusetts is lower than all urban states in the Northeast; only Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have lower homicide rates." - And - "Of course, were the four violent crime categories weighted by their severity, Massachusetts would enjoy a relatively low ranking, certainly not anywhere near the top of the list." It concludes with - Among the nine states in this corner of the U.S., Massachusetts ranks second (behind New Jersey) in terms of the percentage of population living is urbanized areas. Any attempt to compare Massachusetts to other states without taking this into account is seriously flawed. In the final analysis, I would concur with the authors of the Massachusetts Health Council report that more needs to be done in terms of violence prevention. Yet, let's not be misled by seriously flawed statistics as a foundation. That would make your conclusion and statement incorrect. Ergo: wrong!! In fact, it completely undermines your emphatic sense of triumph. Also, it is only a personal blog, not actual real facts. "This blog is not written or edited by Boston.com or the Boston Globe. The author is solely responsible for the content." Do you actually READ the sites you link to?? What about the rest of it? [8D] Got no answer?? [:-] Then he was right: "Your full of shit."

DaddySatyr -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/6/2014 3:39:46 AM)
I think every American aught to disarm ... as soon as we have every machete from the Muslim world and pansy-ass Europe stops looking at us like their private military. Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125