RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ?

RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (Full Version)

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

Message

Kirata -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 7:55:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire I think I said before I am done in these types of threads Yet here you are again. K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 7:55:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Convening a convention runs the risk of changing the whole freakin government. Given the current state of affairs in the US, is that such a bad thing?? [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 7:57:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 240 years ago: Government tyranny Today: Self-defense So remind me: which tyrannical united states government has been deposed by an armed population since the declaration of independbesience? I always find it a bit odd that one gets used as a justification given that most of the people who whine about unconstitutional/unelected governments won't even leave the country in a snit, never mind do anything about a president shitting on the constitution and wiping his arse with the bill of rights afterwards. Unless I am mistaken, wasn't that part of the premise of the Whisky Rebelion and the Civil War The first was a protest against an unfavorable tax. The Federal Government did not attack until provoked. Then Geo Washington smitted mightily. The second was as you know for the sake of owning other humans. The United States did not form up its reserves until the Federal fort at Charlestown was besieged. In which case did the Feds act as tyrannical governments? I think in both cases they thhought that the govt was being tyrianical in the policies and went out to get rid of it thru the force of arms. And you base your conclusion on what definition of tyrannical in a representative government? Was Lincoln elected King?

WickedsDesire -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 7:58:06 AM)
MasterBrentCa mind woebegone to the rabies. Perhaps you were bitten by a mad dog, or perhaps you bit some sane dog causing it to turn most mad. My loins feel the latter but they do not boil with virulent strains f the mad rabies...granted they swell in search of wench Having a gun gives you a fighting chance to protect yourself from the bad guys. It's just that simple. Then thoust shall make it simple for me. How many fought of people with guns...and what does a few knife deaths, or few hundred mown down by a truck compare with your 40 000 Personally the stories i love best from America are 1. when a child blows its mums brains out from the back of a car, or more publicly in the supermarket 2. I wanted 2 spoons of muffins in my coffee... tey gae me one -snaps and goes on the rampage and so on it goes

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 7:58:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Convening a convention runs the risk of changing the whole freakin government. Given the current state of affairs in the US, is that such a bad thing?? [8\|] What would you envision as a replacement?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:02:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Convening a convention runs the risk of changing the whole freakin government. Given the current state of affairs in the US, is that such a bad thing?? [8\|] What would you envision as a replacement? Another party not scared of radical change - for better or worse. Let's face it, it can't get any worse than a 2-horse race where both parties aren't really wanted with the same-old rhetoric across the board.

KenDckey -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:02:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 240 years ago: Government tyranny Today: Self-defense So remind me: which tyrannical united states government has been deposed by an armed population since the declaration of independbesience? I always find it a bit odd that one gets used as a justification given that most of the people who whine about unconstitutional/unelected governments won't even leave the country in a snit, never mind do anything about a president shitting on the constitution and wiping his arse with the bill of rights afterwards. Unless I am mistaken, wasn't that part of the premise of the Whisky Rebelion and the Civil War The first was a protest against an unfavorable tax. The Federal Government did not attack until provoked. Then Geo Washington smitted mightily. The second was as you know for the sake of owning other humans. The United States did not form up its reserves until the Federal fort at Charlestown was besieged. In which case did the Feds act as tyrannical governments? I think in both cases they thhought that the govt was being tyrianical in the policies and went out to get rid of it thru the force of arms. And you base your conclusion on what definition of tyrannical in a representative government? Was Lincoln elected King? Remember I said the policies were considered tyrianical. Look at how many govt policies are considered tyrianical and ultimately overturned or upheld by SCOTUS. I don't have a number, but I would think they both rank in the hundreds and possibly thousands.

bounty44 -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nthrall Why do we never hear about people who have successfully defended themselves with their guns? ive posted some of those, and so have others. if you go looking online, you will indeed find them. if your question is indeed genuine as opposed to hidden sarcasm---"why indeed" is a good question.

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:07:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Convening a convention runs the risk of changing the whole freakin government. Given the current state of affairs in the US, is that such a bad thing?? [8\|] What would you envision as a replacement? Another party not scared of radical change - for better or worse. Let's face it, it can't get any worse than a 2-horse race where both parties aren't really wanted with the same-old rhetoric across the board. Well, pshew man, you do not need a constitutional convention for that. There are four or five parties vying for the current presidential prize.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:09:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Nthrall Why do we never hear about people who have successfully defended themselves with their guns? ive posted some of those, and so have others. if you go looking online, you will indeed find them. if your question is indeed genuine as opposed to hidden sarcasm---"why indeed" is a good question. Yes, they can be found; but they are sooo few in number compared to the downside of tens of thousands on the other side of the fence. If the American media was as supportive of the 2nd as we are lead to believe, why aren't these events splashed across every media outlet in the country?? I'll tell you why: they are so few and far between that those stats are as rare as rocking horse shit.

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:14:36 AM)
quote: Remember I said the policies were considered tyrianical. Look at how many govt policies are considered tyrianical and ultimately overturned or upheld by SCOTUS. I don't have a number, but I would think they both rank in the hundreds and possibly thousands. SCOTUS does not reverse laws because they are tyrannical but because they are unconstitutional. Take a trip down skid row. I'm sure you will find any number of wine besotted, paranoid schizophrenic souls who hear voices telling them that this or that government policy is tyrannical.

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:21:22 AM)
quote: Guns are used for personal protection. The police a get there AFTER a crime has already been committed, not while the crime is in progress. So when you are staring down the barrel of a gun and only have seconds to live, the police are minutes away. But, you, quick draw McGraw, whilst staring down the barrel of a gun with only seconds to live can with clear eye and steady hand reach in, withdraw your weapon, and fire. What a HERO, Sir! We stand in awe next to your white horse and your faithful Indian companion.

Kirata -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:27:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Yes, they can be found; but they are sooo few in number compared to the downside of tens of thousands on the other side of the fence. And you know this how? Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Source: National Research Council K.

KenDckey -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Remember I said the policies were considered tyrianical. Look at how many govt policies are considered tyrianical and ultimately overturned or upheld by SCOTUS. I don't have a number, but I would think they both rank in the hundreds and possibly thousands. SCOTUS does not reverse laws because they are tyrannical but because they are unconstitutional. Take a trip down skid row. I'm sure you will find any number of wine besotted, paranoid schizophrenic souls who hear voices telling them that this or that government policy is tyrannical. tyranical vs unconstitutional is a difference of no distinction in my opinion I do believe everyone believes something or another is tyranical. Some even belive the Constitution itself is. I know a couple of them who still think we should be a part of the UK. LOL

RottenJohnny -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:39:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bondageerone WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? The fact that it keeps you Brits panties in a twist by itself is a good enough reason for me.

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:42:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Remember I said the policies were considered tyrianical. Look at how many govt policies are considered tyrianical and ultimately overturned or upheld by SCOTUS. I don't have a number, but I would think they both rank in the hundreds and possibly thousands. SCOTUS does not reverse laws because they are tyrannical but because they are unconstitutional. Take a trip down skid row. I'm sure yohaveu will find any number of wine besotted, paranoid schizophrenic souls who hear voices telling them that this or that government policy is tyrannical. tyranical vs unconstitutional is a difference of no distinction in my opinion I do believe everyone believes something or another is tyranical. Some even belive the Constitution itself is. I know a couple of them who still think we should be a part of the UK. LOL No distinction? You are really confused about American government and law. While you wander in your confusion be sure all those paranoid schizophrenics have guns.

vincentML -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:46:59 AM)
quote: The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. So, you really have no clue.[8\|]

Kirata -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:48:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 We can have guns just like the US. Brits can have guns just like in the U.S.? Whooosh. K.

MasterBrentC -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Guns are used for personal protection. The police a get there AFTER a crime has already been committed, not while the crime is in progress. So when you are staring down the barrel of a gun and only have seconds to live, the police are minutes away. But, you, quick draw McGraw, whilst staring down the barrel of a gun with only seconds to live can with clear eye and steady hand reach in, withdraw your weapon, and fire. What a HERO, Sir! We stand in awe next to your white horse and your faithful Indian companion. Oh don't you worry, I'm going to have my gun drawn long before that happens.

Kirata -> RE: WHY DOES THE U.S NEED GUNS ? (7/19/2016 8:51:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. So, you really have no clue.[8\|] Well actually, we do have a clue. That was the point you missed. Try to keep your focus on the words on your screen and ignore the voices coming from your lamp-socket. K.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875