yoink 321 #26 February 6, 2013 Quote Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. Fewer guns equates to fewer murders with guns. Thought experiment time - imagine a world without ANY guns. Would there be less murders with them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #27 February 6, 2013 Watch this video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=39e_1360125919 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #28 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes that's what I said ll The US has a problem with gun violence. Guns kill more Americans than terrorism kills people worldwide. No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. You might want to check the statistics on gun ownership and murder rate in developed (first world) nations before making a claim like that. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #29 February 6, 2013 I expecte emotion You followed through but just to respond Not allowing swooping could save maybe 1 life or injury. Swooping needs to end Small canopies kill All canopies need to be 210 or larger The deaths need to stop If it save just one life or injury it is worth it Difference between my points about skydiving and your points about guns? My suggestions will work Your about guns will have no effect as admitted by Biden and Obama"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes that's what I said ll The US has a problem with gun violence. Guns kill more Americans than terrorism kills people worldwide. No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. It is already known he wants to ban guns by default"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #31 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes that's what I said ll The US has a problem with gun violence. Guns kill more Americans than terrorism kills people worldwide. No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. You might want to check the statistics on gun ownership and murder rate in developed (first world) nations before making a claim like that. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read for yourself. I wrote "FIRST WORLD" nations, you know, kind of like us. Not Belarus and Moldovia and Russia. Try Canada, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Sweden, France...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #32 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes that's what I said ll The US has a problem with gun violence. Guns kill more Americans than terrorism kills people worldwide. No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. You might want to check the statistics on gun ownership and murder rate in developed (first world) nations before making a claim like that. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read for yourself. I wrote "FIRST WORLD" nations, you know, kind of like us. Not Belarus and Moldovia and Russia. Try Canada, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Sweden, France... Did you even bother to read it? It's quite clear that you are only relying on your prejudice. More countries were included. But you only read enough to satisfy your prejudice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #33 February 6, 2013 https://docs.google.com/file/d/1rduJhkGYWK672Ye7TdvY1J4fzhyhYQXCktuHd6EpAu6hcM_lcb6AqZIaxVX0/edit If you don't like the first one here is another one from Austria. Unless you are too caught up in your own prejudice to read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #34 February 6, 2013 QuoteFirst, you have a burning desire to disarm the peasants. Then, you use an emotional event or series of events to get people upset. You channel that emotion toward your own ends. The peasants are one step closer to being totally disarmed. Eventually, your children will rule their children despite all the 'democracy' nonsense. That is indeed the australian experience. In his autobiography John Howard stated that the Port Arthur massacre was NOT the genesis of his weapons ban. He stated he had always believed that guns should not be available to civilians and he saw the Port Arthur massacre as providing him the 'opportunity' to carry out his wishes...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #35 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. Fewer guns equates to fewer murders with guns.NO, it does not. Because if true, MORE guns would then mean MORE murders WITH guns. Guns ownership has increased for many years yet the rate goes down. Try again Thought experiment time - imagine a world without ANY guns. Would there be less murders with them? Of course But there would be more with sticks, clubs and knives. And fact is, overall gun crime has decreased for years The frequency of mass murders with guns have been decreasing since 1993"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #36 February 6, 2013 QuoteWatch this video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=39e_1360125919 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #37 February 6, 2013 QuoteFirst, you have a burning desire to disarm the peasants. Then, you use an emotional event or series of events to get people upset. You channel that emotion toward your own ends. The peasants are one step closer to being totally disarmed. Eventually, your children will rule their children despite all the 'democracy' nonsense. So where we're you when the Bush administration used that same play book to invade a country? Lots of people have gotten extremely wealthy off the death of peasants, while there was no risk to America. Americans with guns are a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq ever was and Al Qaeda will ever be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #38 February 6, 2013 QuoteI have asked this question in one form or another in multiple threads. Always ignored So, I will start this thread and try it this way Preface Obama and many others have admitted openly that if all the proposals made so far had been in place, none of them would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting So I ask Why implement any of them? Tell me what good they would do! If just one or a few of them would have worked, which ones? What is the end game? Inform the rest of us please If there is not an answer for any of these questions then billvon, you will have to say the banners are the ones pushing gun sales. Most understand MONEY. And most people understand the politics of getting votes. States are broke and they want more money. What better way to collect more money than to charge more fees to gun buyers and they have a lot of support from the anti gun as they'd rather have you pay more taxes as they don't need a gun. While at it, since a gun buy is right behind house, car, college tuition, refrig, simply increase the sales tax too. How will this end up: you'l be allowed to buy guns but it's going to cost more to buy them and KEEP them according to the rights you have. It's also going to take longer to get the gun after you've ordered it. And to not comply with rules will cost you legal fees, and fines and maybe even jail time for giving your kid a 38 while on your death bed--- more money for the lawyers and state coffers. Hope this answers: how all this will end up. Good luck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #39 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteI have asked this question in one form or another in multiple threads. Always ignored So, I will start this thread and try it this way Preface Obama and many others have admitted openly that if all the proposals made so far had been in place, none of them would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting So I ask Why implement any of them? Tell me what good they would do! If just one or a few of them would have worked, which ones? What is the end game? Inform the rest of us please If there is not an answer for any of these questions then billvon, you will have to say the banners are the ones pushing gun sales. Most understand MONEY. And most people understand the politics of getting votes. States are broke and they want more money. What better way to collect more money than to charge more fees to gun buyers and they have a lot of support from the anti gun as they'd rather have you pay more taxes as they don't need a gun. While at it, since a gun buy is right behind house, car, college tuition, refrig, simply increase the sales tax too. How will this end up: you'l be allowed to buy guns but it's going to cost more to buy them and KEEP them according to the rights you have. It's also going to take longer to get the gun after you've ordered it. And to not comply with rules will cost you legal fees, and fines and maybe even jail time for giving your kid a 38 while on your death bed--- more money for the lawyers and state coffers. Hope this answers: how all this will end up. Good luck! I have to agree that your explination is closer to the goal than reducing murder with guns is"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #40 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteFirst, you have a burning desire to disarm the peasants. Then, you use an emotional event or series of events to get people upset. You channel that emotion toward your own ends. The peasants are one step closer to being totally disarmed. Eventually, your children will rule their children despite all the 'democracy' nonsense. So where we're you when the Bush administration used that same play book to invade a country? Lots of people have gotten extremely wealthy off the death of peasants, while there was no risk to America. Americans with guns are a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq ever was and Al Qaeda will ever be. Says the dude that doesnt even live in this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigbearfng 9 #41 February 6, 2013 Now it is about time for the straw master kallend to ask why we all want loonies and fellons to get guns Uh oh!!! You called Kallend a name! You might get banned! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites regulator 0 #42 February 6, 2013 That should do it. In general, a fallacy is an error of reasoning, used, often intentionally, to win an argument. You’ll find that the pseudoscience pushing crowd love logical fallacies because, frankly, they are so easy to use. And they work so well, because it shifts the argument from evidence and facts to rhetoric and disinformation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #43 February 6, 2013 Quote Now it is about time for the straw master kallend to ask why we all want loonies and fellons to get guns Uh oh!!! You called Kallend a name! You might get banned! Nope. But I do wonder about your spelling. www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Quaalude 0 #44 February 6, 2013 Quotewww.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/ Quote: "Some studies have found that murder rates are higher where guns are more prevalent." Just "some"? In other words, there are also places where guns are more prevalent with LOWER crime rates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #45 February 6, 2013 Damn John, you really enjoy being where you're not welcome. A LOT. Have you ever stalked a person, or just web forums? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #46 February 7, 2013 Well, we are still here Now we even have Biden on tape admitting (what those who think already know) that any or all of the proposals by Obama or anybody else, will not reduce gun deaths or mass murders So, I will still ask, why then do it? Why pass and inforce laws that will not succeed? Well?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #47 February 7, 2013 But they will succeed. They just don't succeed in accomplishing the stated goals. The previous AWB did not change anything after 10 years but to drive up prices and annoy citizens. That was widely acknowledged when it was allowed to lapse. Another AWB is clearly not intended to reduce crime. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result... Legislators aren't crazy. They're just liars.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #48 February 7, 2013 Succeed at what?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #49 February 7, 2013 Incremental elimination of private ownership of firearms. Taxation of a constitutionally protected activity to discourage it and bypass the law. You will note that the federal government has neatly bypassed the 10th amendment. Quartering of troops isn't really a problem anymore. But if you get rid of that pesky 2nd...the others kind of lay down and die, don't they?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #50 February 7, 2013 QuoteIncremental elimination of private ownership of firearms. Taxation of a constitutionally protected activity to discourage it and bypass the law. You will note that the federal government has neatly bypassed the 10th amendment. Quartering of troops isn't really a problem anymore. But if you get rid of that pesky 2nd...the others kind of lay down and die, don't they? Do you remember when Obama said this in 08? Quote"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." This follows right where your comments lead This part of this speech has been removed from the copy on Pres websight Now, is anyone aware of the billions of ammo ordered by DHS?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
bigbearfng 9 #41 February 6, 2013 Now it is about time for the straw master kallend to ask why we all want loonies and fellons to get guns Uh oh!!! You called Kallend a name! You might get banned! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #42 February 6, 2013 That should do it. In general, a fallacy is an error of reasoning, used, often intentionally, to win an argument. You’ll find that the pseudoscience pushing crowd love logical fallacies because, frankly, they are so easy to use. And they work so well, because it shifts the argument from evidence and facts to rhetoric and disinformation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #43 February 6, 2013 Quote Now it is about time for the straw master kallend to ask why we all want loonies and fellons to get guns Uh oh!!! You called Kallend a name! You might get banned! Nope. But I do wonder about your spelling. www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quaalude 0 #44 February 6, 2013 Quotewww.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/ Quote: "Some studies have found that murder rates are higher where guns are more prevalent." Just "some"? In other words, there are also places where guns are more prevalent with LOWER crime rates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #45 February 6, 2013 Damn John, you really enjoy being where you're not welcome. A LOT. Have you ever stalked a person, or just web forums? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #46 February 7, 2013 Well, we are still here Now we even have Biden on tape admitting (what those who think already know) that any or all of the proposals by Obama or anybody else, will not reduce gun deaths or mass murders So, I will still ask, why then do it? Why pass and inforce laws that will not succeed? Well?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #47 February 7, 2013 But they will succeed. They just don't succeed in accomplishing the stated goals. The previous AWB did not change anything after 10 years but to drive up prices and annoy citizens. That was widely acknowledged when it was allowed to lapse. Another AWB is clearly not intended to reduce crime. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result... Legislators aren't crazy. They're just liars.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #48 February 7, 2013 Succeed at what?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #49 February 7, 2013 Incremental elimination of private ownership of firearms. Taxation of a constitutionally protected activity to discourage it and bypass the law. You will note that the federal government has neatly bypassed the 10th amendment. Quartering of troops isn't really a problem anymore. But if you get rid of that pesky 2nd...the others kind of lay down and die, don't they?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #50 February 7, 2013 QuoteIncremental elimination of private ownership of firearms. Taxation of a constitutionally protected activity to discourage it and bypass the law. You will note that the federal government has neatly bypassed the 10th amendment. Quartering of troops isn't really a problem anymore. But if you get rid of that pesky 2nd...the others kind of lay down and die, don't they? Do you remember when Obama said this in 08? Quote"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." This follows right where your comments lead This part of this speech has been removed from the copy on Pres websight Now, is anyone aware of the billions of ammo ordered by DHS?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
