Simple Question

Simple Question (Full Version)

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

Message

jlf1961 -> Simple Question (10/3/2015 2:14:53 PM)
Why is it when conservative scream that all Muslims are terrorists with the goal of killing Americans do liberals take offense and say "only a small majority of Muslims are terrorists and we should not condemn the entire religion," when they themselves turn and say that anyone that wants to own a gun is a potential mass murderer? Liberals claim that if you remove guns from society, then the problem will go away, yet when you ask "How many people did Timothy McVeigh kill with a gun in Oklahoma City?" or "How many of Ted Kaczynski's victims died from a gun?" they scream it has no place in the argument. But it does have a place in the argument, since the discussion is on mass killings at a single event, or more accurately, brutal oft times bloody murder. I will even carry this a bit further, hypothetically speaking, lets say the complete ban of private gun ownership is achieved. How will you prevent the specs and instructions for the making of very effective firearms from being downloaded from the internet and people making the things in their basement? AK 47's are being made in the alleys of Pakastan, India and many other countries with very little in the way of machine tools. CNC machines are dirt cheap for the size needed to machine the receiver assemblies of many assault rifles, and the software needed to do that is freely available on the internet. In other words, if someone wants a gun, they will get one, and in many cases, a weapon capable of more damage. McVeigh used a truck bomb, an idea he got from the first attack on the world trade center. Extremists tried to bring down one of the towers with a van rented from Ryder packed with homemade explosives. The problem is not now nor has it ever been guns. The problem is with humanity. Through out its history, humans have been making more strides in how to kill each other than most other endeavors. The human creature is by its very nature intolerant, hateful, biased, cruel and seeks nothing more than to destroy. You doubt that? How many forests have been cut down for a freaking mall? Or a parking lot? How many groups of people have been uprooted from their homes and forced to move for some reason that could be as stupid as building a dam to make a lake? Or because one group of humans does not want the other group to have the land? Forget the fucking guns, its the problem with the people. You want to end mass killings and violence, fix the real problem. In my life I have watched people killed for the very simple reason that someone else wanted what the had, or even simpler for a worthless piece of ground, to keep someone from having anything to call their own. I have seen refugee camps blown to hell for "religious" reasons, and walked into places where people were just rounded up and killed because they belonged to a different tribe, same religion, same skin color, but a different group. Face reality, humans hate other humans, its clearly a genetic problem because no matter how "enlightened" people get, they still kill people for any reason they can come up with. Humans on this planet has reached critical mass, not in respect of resources, but simply there are too many of us. Don't buy that theory, look at the crime rates of small towns versus cities with populations of greater than 60 thousand. There are thousands of small towns in the US alone that have not seen a violent crime in close to a century, let alone a murder.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Simple Question (10/3/2015 2:31:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem is not now nor has it ever been guns. The problem is with humanity. Through out its history, humans have been making more strides in how to kill each other than most other endeavors. To a certain degree, I would agree with this. But have you stopped to think about who the majority of people are that commit violence with a gun?? I can think of mainly two sets of people - Americans - where they have the highest number of guns per capita than anywhere else on the planet and have regular massacres; And those at war, which appear to be some faction or other of the Islamic faith fighting another faction just because they follow a different version of the Qoran or holy book. If you removed those two groups, the world would be a more peaceful place... generally speaking.

Kirata -> RE: Simple Question (10/3/2015 2:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 But have you stopped to think about who the majority of people are that commit violence with a gun?? I can think of mainly two sets of people - Americans - where they have the highest number of guns per capita than anywhere else on the planet and have regular massacres; And those at war, which appear to be some faction or other of the Islamic faith fighting another faction just because they follow a different version of the Qoran or holy book. If you removed those two groups, the world would be a more peaceful place... generally speaking. Yeah, things would be ever so much better if we could "remove" Americans. K.

MercTech -> RE: Simple Question (10/3/2015 5:55:44 PM)
quote: But have you stopped to think about who the majority of people are that commit violence with a gun?? I can think of mainly two sets of people - Americans - where they have the highest number of guns per capita than anywhere else on the planet and have regular massacres; And those at war, which appear to be some faction or other of the Islamic faith fighting another faction just because they follow a different version of the Qoran or holy book. If you removed those two groups, the world would be a more peaceful place... generally speaking. The only thing special about violence with a gun is that it is an equalizer that makes a 90lb girl able to defend against a 250lb weight lifter. When you do away with the ability to defend one's person' you get the rule of the biggest and baddest.

thompsonx -> RE: Simple Question (10/3/2015 6:01:45 PM)
Why is it when conservative scream that all Muslims are terrorists with the goal of killing Americans do liberals take offense and say "only a small majority of Muslims are terrorists and we should not condemn the entire religion," when they themselves turn and say that anyone that wants to own a gun is a potential mass murderer? What a crock of shit...Very simply they do not. Just because you say so does not make it so. Show us your proof that "liberals" claim all gun owners are potential mass murderers. Not a liberal but "liberals"[8\|]

Termyn8or -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 12:16:55 AM)
I have heard that shit many a time Thomp, here and at the other place. If it isn't stated it is implied, "He WAS a law abiding citizen and then one day...". Yeah, so everyone has to give up their guns because one percent of one percent of people go off and do shit. Hospitals in this country kill ten times as many people as guns. And most gun killings are by cops, except like in Chicago, which is righting itself. Once one gang takes over the drug business there they will have peace. And if you think the government cares, think about this, the Taliban had the death penalty for growing poppies for opiate use. Now that our friends are in there raping little boys, the heroin has hit the streets at prices that make it profitable to cut it less so the product is so much better the people are ODing on it. And there is NO ENTITY THAT COULD EVER GET ALL THIS SHIT HERE EXCEPT THE US GOVERNMENT. And speaking of all the good works "we" are doing there, how does this grabya ? : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 “At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.” They were raping little boys. These are not Muslims, who are totally against homosexuality. They are like the "progressive" Saddam Heusein we installed in Iraq because it was convenient at the time. (and he was just fine with them until he switched to the euro) People sometimes call me "anti-American" but I say that is bullshit. I recognize and point out our problems. If nobody does that it will just get worse. The bottom line is this shit has to stop, and if we don't stop it, someone else will. That will not be pleasant. T^T

LadyPact -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 2:19:27 AM)
This is pretty much the point that I was trying to make on the other thread. I didn't do a great job of it, so let's see if I can mess up this thread, too. The category that folks are looking for isn't 'gun owner'. The category that folks should be looking for is "criminal". Some people do really horrible things to each other. You don't get to pick and choose who might do this or might do that based on their religion, where they live, or any other thing that's going on except what is going on between that person's set of ears. You don't get to blame other people who might share a category with an individual who does a hideous thing, such as penalizing all gun owners because some gun owners go out and do an evil thing. When something like this happens, most decent people have empathy for the families that had someone ripped away from them. We want to fix it, or prevent it, or try to do something. The guns honestly aren't the source of the problem. It's what certain people do with the guns that is the problem.

jlf1961 -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 2:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact This is pretty much the point that I was trying to make on the other thread. I didn't do a great job of it, so let's see if I can mess up this thread, too. The category that folks are looking for isn't 'gun owner'. The category that folks should be looking for is "criminal". Some people do really horrible things to each other. You don't get to pick and choose who might do this or might do that based on their religion, where they live, or any other thing that's going on except what is going on between that person's set of ears. You don't get to blame other people who might share a category with an individual who does a hideous thing, such as penalizing all gun owners because some gun owners go out and do an evil thing. When something like this happens, most decent people have empathy for the families that had someone ripped away from them. We want to fix it, or prevent it, or try to do something. The guns honestly aren't the source of the problem. It's what certain people do with the guns that is the problem. Like I said, the human race in general

LadyPact -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 3:11:23 AM)
I don't know if I'm ready to go for human race in general. Select humans on the other hand...

MrRodgers -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 3:51:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact This is pretty much the point that I was trying to make on the other thread. I didn't do a great job of it, so let's see if I can mess up this thread, too. The category that folks are looking for isn't 'gun owner'. The category that folks should be looking for is "criminal". Some people do really horrible things to each other. You don't get to pick and choose who might do this or might do that based on their religion, where they live, or any other thing that's going on except what is going on between that person's set of ears. You don't get to blame other people who might share a category with an individual who does a hideous thing, such as penalizing all gun owners because some gun owners go out and do an evil thing. When something like this happens, most decent people have empathy for the families that had someone ripped away from them. We want to fix it, or prevent it, or try to do something. The guns honestly aren't the source of the problem. It's what certain people do with the guns that is the problem. Like I said, the human race in general Just as in another post, I argue it isn't just human nature. It is also their environment. Having a 200 year history of individual liberty and also in that history, the right to bear arms, has created a social culture of guns. From back in the day and even into the 20th century, people used guns for hunting for food and also as a hobby which has grown where hunting is now a hobby, guns no longer needed for food. The result, the citizens have depending on who you read...150 to 200 million guns. That culture has lead to another social/political compact that has also created given that a society as large and diverse as ours, a regime where it cannot be reasonably be assumed that society at all times...has that gun ownership under total control. If we must divide the question of gun ownership into the right left archetype, then the right wants the status quo and the left wants more control. Banning guns will not end the killings, more control might prevent at least a few. It's a question of whether society chooses to remain almost completely...slave to a culture. If society does, then the killings will be the price society pays for it.

KenDckey -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 5:19:53 AM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Guns per capita US Ranks Number 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Homicide per capata US Ranks Number 79 Homicide rate per capita for guns US Ranks Number 13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide Crime in the United States has been recorded since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after 1963, reaching a broad peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly in the United States,[1] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s Crime in ten largest metropolitan areas (2011) Violent Property New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA 406.0 1744.1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA 405.4 2232.7 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA > 304.8 2791.5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA 358.4 3498.5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA 550.8 3576.9 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 532.3 2747.3 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA 334.6 2386.0 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA 596.7 4193.3 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA 400.9 3552.0 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA 374.7 2109.0 (Added by me) Predominately Democratically controlled Cities. We are neither the best or the worst for violent crime. But even with the increase in guns the violent crime rate is dropping. I wish it would drop further. Edited to add don't you love the way that they compressed the columns

jlf1961 -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 7:24:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Just as in another post, I argue it isn't just human nature. It is also their environment. Having a 200 year history of individual liberty and also in that history, the right to bear arms, has created a social culture of guns. From back in the day and even into the 20th century, people used guns for hunting for food and also as a hobby which has grown where hunting is now a hobby, guns no longer needed for food. The result, the citizens have depending on who you read...150 to 200 million guns. That culture has lead to another social/political compact that has also created given that a society as large and diverse as ours, a regime where it cannot be reasonably be assumed that society at all times...has that gun ownership under total control. If we must divide the question of gun ownership into the right left archetype, then the right wants the status quo and the left wants more control. Banning guns will not end the killings, more control might prevent at least a few. It's a question of whether society chooses to remain almost completely...slave to a culture. If society does, then the killings will be the price society pays for it. I guess you missed a few points I mentioned. 1) Inter-tribal conflict in Africa, whole villages wiped out for no more reason than the fact it is a different tribe, many times using everything from guns to clubs to pull off the massacre. 2) Massacres between religious sects, especially in the Middle East, where strangely enough, many countries with very strict gunlaws seem to be having a major gun problem, in the hands of whatever sect of Islam that wants to destroy the other. 3) India, Hindu killing Punjabi and vice versa, again primarily not guns, just anything at hand makes a good enough weapon to kill another human being. Mass murder and mass killings are not, contrary to the liberal and foreign belief, a uniquely American problem. But lets blame guns, because it is cool and politically correct to do so. Lets also claim that it only happens in the US, again because it is cool and politically correct to do so. Lets forget the fact that the Swiss actually REQUIRE people to own guns and do not have the same problem, and I would hold up the much lower population of the country and a damn good reason. Lets also forget that before street gangs had ready access to guns, which have been available for the entire 20th century, switch blade knives made a easy and much more personal weapon. I will again point out, you take guns out of the equation, and people are still going to find a way to kill large numbers of people, and without the limit of a gun, a car bomb will do a lot more damage and take out a hell of a lot more people.... I think the American Embassy in Kenya kinda proved that point, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the recent bomb attacks on mosques around the middle east, etc. To be honest, Im kinda glad that these idiots haven't figured out what to do with diesel fuel and ammonia nitrate fertilizer. The fact the propane tank bombs that were found at Columbine did not go off is a blessing. It is not guns people, it is people. And considering the number of massacres in the news each week, the increasing number of suicide bombers in the news, and of course ISIS who came to have guns in countries where private ownership is illegal, kind of proves my point. Get it through your head, humans like to kill humans, and have been doing it since before the stone age, and technology has made it easier to do that. Why the hell do you think there is a concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Or a terrorist getting one into a major city? Personally, considering what I have seen first hand, I would convert a tractor trailer hauling Propane or LPG into a really big fuel air bomb and take out a hell of a lot more area. But thats just me, I like efficiency.

Lucylastic -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 8:03:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Guns per capita US Ranks Number 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Homicide per capata US Ranks Number 79 Homicide rate per capita for guns US Ranks Number 13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide Crime in the United States has been recorded since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after 1963, reaching a broad peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly in the United States,[1] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s Crime in ten largest metropolitan areas (2011) Violent Property New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA 406.0 1744.1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA 405.4 2232.7 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA > 304.8 2791.5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA 358.4 3498.5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA 550.8 3576.9 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 532.3 2747.3 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA 334.6 2386.0 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA 596.7 4193.3 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA 400.9 3552.0 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA 374.7 2109.0 (Added by me) Predominately Democratically controlled Cities. We are neither the best or the worst for violent crime. But even with the increase in guns the violent crime rate is dropping. I wish it would drop further. Edited to add don't you love the way that they compressed the columns erm, you might wanna use something different , cos your links are bad...US 79 what? oh and your figures are from 2011 There have been 140 odd mass shootings since then.

kdsub -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 8:21:46 AM)
Jeff I like you but you are full of it sometimes... forgive me. All that you say could be true except it has been proven wrong all over the world where reasonable enforced strict gun laws are in place. My little 300,000 city of St. Louis alone has twice the gun homicides in ONE YEAR than all of the United Kingdom... Strict Guns laws work and save lives... so your arguments are not supported by facts. I am not for the repeal of the second amendment...but lets not kid ourselves and think that our rights to guns protects ourselves and our families because they DO NOT... they put us all, kids included, at greater risk. Butch

MariaB -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 8:58:50 AM)
Clearly, less death is driven by less ownership 68% of deliberate injury or death has occurred with a gun in the US. The last projections done this year still show that more people are killed by guns in the US than killed in road traffic accidents (In fairness, road traffic deaths have dropped considerably). Forecasts predict that a population the size of Tampa will die from gun shot wounds in their own country over the next ten years...but gun ownership is dropping; especially pistols and shotguns. In the mid 70s-80s gun ownership was at an all time high and so were deaths by gunshot wounds. Something like 43% of households owned a gun. The percentage of ownership has now dropped to around 15% and as the guns became discarded, the percentage of those killed by a bullet has dropped considerably. When you say, "don't blame the guns" are you meaning, guns don't kill people, people do? The problem with that argument is, a gun is a made for one purpose, to specifically maim or kill people or animals. Its an impersonal weapon, meaning you don't have to get close or touch the person you want to kill. Pulling a trigger is easier than battering someone to death with a baseball bat and stabbings are messy. In the UK it is illegal to carry a lethal weapon on your person unless you have a special licence and getting one of those licences is pretty difficult. Even when someone has passed every check for a licence, they can't walk around with a loaded gun unless they are in designated hunting areas. That doesn't stop criminals arming themselves through the black market but even then, we rarely hear of a shooting on the news. If someone gets shot it makes the headlines of every broadsheet as well as the BBC. We don't find other ways to commit mass killings, unless you include the IRA. We don't have people walking into schools with knives or baseball bats to cherry pick victims. Humans do NOT like to kill humans. Humans are generally territorial beasts who have the ability to behave like apes when they get angry. Humans can be very unpredictable, just like any other animal and humans can be incredibly impulsive, especially when they are volatile from depression. These are the very reason the majority of humans shouldn't carry a gun.

MrRodgers -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 10:00:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Just as in another post, I argue it isn't just human nature. It is also their environment. Having a 200 year history of individual liberty and also in that history, the right to bear arms, has created a social culture of guns. From back in the day and even into the 20th century, people used guns for hunting for food and also as a hobby which has grown where hunting is now a hobby, guns no longer needed for food. The result, the citizens have depending on who you read...150 to 200 million guns. That culture has lead to another social/political compact that has also created given that a society as large and diverse as ours, a regime where it cannot be reasonably be assumed that society at all times...has that gun ownership under total control. If we must divide the question of gun ownership into the right left archetype, then the right wants the status quo and the left wants more control. Banning guns will not end the killings, more control might prevent at least a few. It's a question of whether society chooses to remain almost completely...slave to a culture. If society does, then the killings will be the price society pays for it. I guess you missed a few points I mentioned. 1) Inter-tribal conflict in Africa, whole villages wiped out for no more reason than the fact it is a different tribe, many times using everything from guns to clubs to pull off the massacre. 2) Massacres between religious sects, especially in the Middle East, where strangely enough, many countries with very strict gunlaws seem to be having a major gun problem, in the hands of whatever sect of Islam that wants to destroy the other. 3) India, Hindu killing Punjabi and vice versa, again primarily not guns, just anything at hand makes a good enough weapon to kill another human being. Mass murder and mass killings are not, contrary to the liberal and foreign belief, a uniquely American problem. But lets blame guns, because it is cool and politically correct to do so. Lets also claim that it only happens in the US, again because it is cool and politically correct to do so. Lets forget the fact that the Swiss actually REQUIRE people to own guns and do not have the same problem, and I would hold up the much lower population of the country and a damn good reason. Lets also forget that before street gangs had ready access to guns, which have been available for the entire 20th century, switch blade knives made a easy and much more personal weapon. I will again point out, you take guns out of the equation, and people are still going to find a way to kill large numbers of people, and without the limit of a gun, a car bomb will do a lot more damage and take out a hell of a lot more people.... I think the American Embassy in Kenya kinda proved that point, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the recent bomb attacks on mosques around the middle east, etc. To be honest, Im kinda glad that these idiots haven't figured out what to do with diesel fuel and ammonia nitrate fertilizer. The fact the propane tank bombs that were found at Columbine did not go off is a blessing. It is not guns people, it is people. And considering the number of massacres in the news each week, the increasing number of suicide bombers in the news, and of course ISIS who came to have guns in countries where private ownership is illegal, kind of proves my point. Get it through your head, humans like to kill humans, and have been doing it since before the stone age, and technology has made it easier to do that. Why the hell do you think there is a concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Or a terrorist getting one into a major city? Personally, considering what I have seen first hand, I would convert a tractor trailer hauling Propane or LPG into a really big fuel air bomb and take out a hell of a lot more area. But thats just me, I like efficiency. Your original strawman, I've never in my life ever heard or read that liberals claim that if you remove guns from society, 'the problem will go away.' However, I've heard and read liberals, independents and moderates say if it wasn't for the gun culture in the US and the ease with which people do acquire guns directly as a result, the US would have far fewer killings and far fewer mass killings...with guns. It is a second premise to then distinguish between bombings vs guns with a desire to kill as many people as one might, which is different aspect of human nature and not nearly as easy in 'finding a way to kill people' as it is with guns. I ask for people to get it through their head...the gun culture uniquely in the US and the ease with which crazies are able to obtain them directly as a result, makes it far too easy for the crazies to kill large numbers of people. (Colorado movie theater massacre is just one glaring example)

jlf1961 -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 10:08:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB Humans do NOT like to kill humans. Humans are generally territorial beasts who have the ability to behave like apes when they get angry. Humans can be very unpredictable, just like any other animal and humans can be incredibly impulsive, especially when they are volatile from depression. These are the very reason the majority of humans shouldn't carry a gun. Look, through out history, there has been one and only one area of development that has seen the most emphasis, that being the tools of war. Does the fact that private gun ownership in most countries of the middle east mean anything when you see groups like ISIS with guns? They did not buy the damn things at walmart, or the UK equivalent. Private gun ownership was illegal in Palestine under British control, so just where did the guns the Jews used against the British and Arabs come from? While quite a few were smuggled in, an equal number of things like the sten guns were made inside British controlled Palestine, along with a shit ton of ammo. I guess the IRA was not using illegal guns in Northern Ireland to fight the occupation? People point to the US and say that is what private gun ownership gets you. Jesus Christ, look at countries where private gun ownership in any form is illegal and the number of gun related deaths. Thailand and Mexico are good examples. Now as I said earlier in this thread, there are hundreds of thousands of small towns across the US with populations of less than 10 thousand were a gun related crime has not happened in decades. There is one such town about 5 miles from my front door, the last gun related crime was in 1962, and you cant swing a dead cat without hitting half a dozen people owning more than four guns. Look at the places in the US where gun related crime is epidemic and look at the population. Clearly there is some correlation between insanely high population densities and people killing each other. Hell, just look at this: Gun violence in the United States by state

Musicmystery -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 10:18:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Why is it when conservative scream that all Muslims are terrorists with the goal of killing Americans do liberals take offense and say "only a small majority of Muslims are terrorists and we should not condemn the entire religion," when they themselves turn and say that anyone that wants to own a gun is a potential mass murderer? Well, it's because: 1) it's true that "only a small majority of Muslims are terrorists and we should not condemn the entire religion," 2) it's not true that "liberals take offense" when simply pointing out reality, and 3) it's not true that "they themselves turn and say that anyone that wants to own a gun is a potential mass murderer." Thanks for playing. But this problem exists only in your imagination. Would you now like to have a real discussion about something actually happening?

Lucylastic -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 10:22:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Why is it when conservative scream that all Muslims are terrorists with the goal of killing Americans do liberals take offense and say "only a small majority of Muslims are terrorists and we should not condemn the entire religion," when they themselves turn and say that anyone that wants to own a gun is a potential mass murderer? Well, it's because: 1) it's true that "only a small majority of Muslims are terrorists and we should not condemn the entire religion," 2) it's not true that "liberals take offense" when simply pointing out reality, and 3) it's not true that "they themselves turn and say that anyone that wants to own a gun is a potential mass murderer." Thanks for playing. But this problem exists only in your imagination. Would you now like to have a real discussion about something actually happening? Facts??? oh gawd dont give away the facts.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Simple Question (10/4/2015 10:30:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ...Clearly there is some correlation between insanely high population densities and people killing each other. Hell, just look at this: Gun violence in the United States by state Then explain the very first two entries on that list jlf??? Alabama Pop.density: 94.65, Gun ownership 51.7%, Gun murders (per 100k): 2.8 Alaska Pop.density: 1.264, Gun ownership 57.8%, Gun murders (per 100k): 2.7 The only correlation I can see for almost identical gun murders is the ratio of gun ownership, not population density.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625