JamieDelarosa wrote:
Timas2725 wrote:
i have a sword and crusader helmet
I built a trebuchet for a school project. It was the A-bomb of its day. Time have changed,
Felt that. we gotta purge the heretics
GUNS
Sort:
Jan 22, 2021
0
#383
Some folks would be well served switching off all forms of media and living in a more peaceful headspace...
Strangemover wrote:
Some folks would be well served switching off all forms of media and living in a more peaceful headspace...
Would you like to join us. Brother?
Jan 22, 2021
0
#386
Timas2725 wrote:
Strangemover wrote:
Some folks would be well served switching off all forms of media and living in a more peaceful headspace...
Would you like to join us. Brother?
I walk this world alone, persevering and surviving. 'There is no truth, only human opinion.'
Indeed, someone should deep six this thread and end the misery. MexiMartini is probably having conniptions, assuming he has followed his thread, recently. Ha!
big iron... big iron
Jan 22, 2021
0
#389
Talk about guns "triggers" the emotionally weak. They need safe spaces.
Jan 22, 2021
0
#390
One of the best films ever made was "High Noon." One person, armed and able, can make a difference.
Baptistpatriot wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
... everyone should own one.
Felons, too?
Felons and other criminals will always have Guns legal or not,everyone else should too.
Funny that it doesn't seem to work that way anywhere but in the USA.
Criminals in Canada or in the UK very rarely have guns.
From the Wiki: "The United States has a gun homicide rate which is 25 times higher, an unintentional gun death rate which is 6 times higher, a firearm suicide rate which is 8 times higher, and an overall firearm death rate which is 10 times higher than the average respective rates of other high income nations." - those figures are "per 100,000", so they are already adjusted for population.
The high homicide rates are a result of this: major cities in the US such as NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, LA, San Fransisco, etc have much stricter gun control. Therefore, the only ones who have the guns are usually just the police and the criminals, because the criminals get them illegally. No legal gun control can stem the tide of illegal weapons, especially in so large a country as the US. And since the criminals in, say, Chicago outnumber the police by probably at least 2 to 1, and since the police cannot be everywhere at once, they cannot put a stop to outrages perpetrated on unarmed, defenseless citizens. Now, suppose thst those same citizens were armed and able to defend themselves. The outcome of such encounters would be quite different, and once the criminal elements realize that they are likely to meet armed citizens in their various burglaries, robberies, muggings, attacks, etc, they will realize that the risk is greater than the reward, and therefore the crime rate in general would go down. And if you want a good example of the results of an armed citizenry, just look at the gun homicide rate in Utah, and compare it to the gun homicide rate in Illinois.
sorry, baptist, but studies show that criminals typically do not want any interaction with those they are robbing. home invasions are planned for when the homeowner is away. also, if it is known there if are guns in the home, criminals are drawn to that home because of their value and that they can't be traced to the criminal.
you want us to "suppose" things, but seem to cling to theories on this issue instead of evidence. i get the impression you could write an op-ed for the national enquirer on this.
it is (unfortunately) normal that urban areas have more gun violence than rural areas. common sense dictates that there is more to steal, rob, and less chance of being found among a larger population, so your comparison of utah to illinois means nothing. for example: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state
the statistics and studies are all there, you just need to read them and allow yourself to see things from more than a singular angle.
Baptistpatriot wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
... everyone should own one.
Felons, too?
Felons and other criminals will always have Guns legal or not,everyone else should too.
Funny that it doesn't seem to work that way anywhere but in the USA.
Criminals in Canada or in the UK very rarely have guns.
From the Wiki: "The United States has a gun homicide rate which is 25 times higher, an unintentional gun death rate which is 6 times higher, a firearm suicide rate which is 8 times higher, and an overall firearm death rate which is 10 times higher than the average respective rates of other high income nations." - those figures are "per 100,000", so they are already adjusted for population.
The high homicide rates are a result of this: major cities in the US such as NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, LA, San Fransisco, etc have much stricter gun control. Therefore, the only ones who have the guns are usually just the police and the criminals, because the criminals get them illegally. No legal gun control can stem the tide of illegal weapons, especially in so large a country as the US. And since the criminals in, say, Chicago outnumber the police by probably at least 2 to 1, and since the police cannot be everywhere at once, they cannot put a stop to outrages perpetrated on unarmed, defenseless citizens. Now, suppose thst those same citizens were armed and able to defend themselves. The outcome of such encounters would be quite different, and once the criminal elements realize that they are likely to meet armed citizens in their various burglaries, robberies, muggings, attacks, etc, they will realize that the risk is greater than the reward, and therefore the crime rate in general would go down. And if you want a good example of the results of an armed citizenry, just look at the gun homicide rate in Utah, and compare it to the gun homicide rate in Illinois.
the evidence is out there. you just need to look at it instead of keeping your singular view.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state
Baptistpatriot wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
Baptistpatriot wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
the whole point of my satirical post about flamethrowers is that people pretend to know what is good for them, and, sometimes, it is the government that needs to tell you you are crazy.
consider seatbelts. a government mandate that *gasp* infringes on your rights! the reason is that the general public is sometimes too stupid to realize what is needed for safety. we see this today with some not wearing masks. today, though, we realize seatbelts are necessary, and there has been an incredible push on airbags and crumple zones in vehicles in the last two decades.
for safety.
where has the progress been on gun safety? trump banned bump stocks, and that's a good thing, but, nothing else is done about automatic weapons. i can't imagine a hunter using an ar to hunt deer.
If you were to read the Constitution, you might find out that the Founders never intended for the government to control or dictate to the people what was right and wrong. Government by the people, set up by the people, for the people, with the citizenry deciding, not the government. I don't need "big brother" looking over my shoulder telling me what I can and can't do. The government doesn't know best, shocking as that may seem. The government is only here to see that our rights as human beings, as clearly outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are not infringed upon. Not to tell us what those rights are. And before you get started in this discussion on "automatic weapons" let me tell you that an AR is not an automatic weapon. That is a common misconception. An automatic weapon fires a continuous stream of bullets for as long as the user holds the trigger, or until the gun is empty. ARs are semi-automatic tools. In order to make ONE bullet come out of the end of the barrel you have to press the trigger ONCE. You CANNOT fire a continuous stream of bullets downrange by just holding down the trigger, because ARs are mechanically incapable of being fired in such a manner. The reason ARs are always being slammed is because they look so "scary". So, before anyone is qualified for debate on the subject of firearms, they must first understand certain very basic, simple facts regarding firearms.
how condescending of you!
you certainly make many assumptions.
allow me to remind you that the 2nd amendment is not absolute, and it is quite arrogant of you to come here claiming to be mr. know-it-all about what the founders intended (are you related to jamie?)
as far as what i know about the gun issue, you again make assumptions. try reading the mountain of statistical evidence on homicides, mass shootings, and suicides before you make insane proclamations about how guns are mainly used for self defense (I noted that in your 95% statement you did not include a link, or, evidence of any kind).
you also make this crazy argument that government is basically worthless, and that people know what's best for them. ha! what about the seatbelts and masks i mentioned? speed limits? anti-discrimination laws? search and seizure? hell, there are even laws that dictate how many people maintain their homes!
in every one of the instances i mentioned, it was the will of the people that made the government enact/change laws, so don't tell me/us that it is government overreach.
First of all, my 95% thing was only in regard to guns drawn in self defense, and I stated that in those circumstances only 5% resulted in fatalities! I was not speaking bout all incidents regarding guns as a whole. No, I'm not related to jamie. No, the government doesn't know best. Here is just one example of the government overstepping their authority; gross overuse of executive orders. But that is getting into politics. My point was that if you don't know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic tool, you shouldn't enter the debate. In other words, if you don't know basic firearms classification, how can you safely guard the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Side note, stupid people most always think that intelligent people sound condescending. Just a thought.
again, you assume. are you aware that classifications of weapons are different from state to state?
if you think i'm so stupid, provide evidence to back up your claims.
i will. i have.
Baptistpatriot wrote:
9xave wrote:
Don’t trust ANYONE with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other...
You liberals always talk about defending minorities, but you also slam gun owners and especially gun-owning Christians. Food for thought.
now the true colors are showing. i just read this, but i bet the term "libtard" is upcoming...
Jan 23, 2021
0
#395
AlCzervik wrote:
Baptistpatriot wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
Baptistpatriot wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
the whole point of my satirical post about flamethrowers is that people pretend to know what is good for them, and, sometimes, it is the government that needs to tell you you are crazy.
consider seatbelts. a government mandate that *gasp* infringes on your rights! the reason is that the general public is sometimes too stupid to realize what is needed for safety. we see this today with some not wearing masks. today, though, we realize seatbelts are necessary, and there has been an incredible push on airbags and crumple zones in vehicles in the last two decades.
for safety.
where has the progress been on gun safety? trump banned bump stocks, and that's a good thing, but, nothing else is done about automatic weapons. i can't imagine a hunter using an ar to hunt deer.
If you were to read the Constitution, you might find out that the Founders never intended for the government to control or dictate to the people what was right and wrong. Government by the people, set up by the people, for the people, with the citizenry deciding, not the government. I don't need "big brother" looking over my shoulder telling me what I can and can't do. The government doesn't know best, shocking as that may seem. The government is only here to see that our rights as human beings, as clearly outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are not infringed upon. Not to tell us what those rights are. And before you get started in this discussion on "automatic weapons" let me tell you that an AR is not an automatic weapon. That is a common misconception. An automatic weapon fires a continuous stream of bullets for as long as the user holds the trigger, or until the gun is empty. ARs are semi-automatic tools. In order to make ONE bullet come out of the end of the barrel you have to press the trigger ONCE. You CANNOT fire a continuous stream of bullets downrange by just holding down the trigger, because ARs are mechanically incapable of being fired in such a manner. The reason ARs are always being slammed is because they look so "scary". So, before anyone is qualified for debate on the subject of firearms, they must first understand certain very basic, simple facts regarding firearms.
how condescending of you!
you certainly make many assumptions.
allow me to remind you that the 2nd amendment is not absolute, and it is quite arrogant of you to come here claiming to be mr. know-it-all about what the founders intended (are you related to jamie?)
as far as what i know about the gun issue, you again make assumptions. try reading the mountain of statistical evidence on homicides, mass shootings, and suicides before you make insane proclamations about how guns are mainly used for self defense (I noted that in your 95% statement you did not include a link, or, evidence of any kind).
you also make this crazy argument that government is basically worthless, and that people know what's best for them. ha! what about the seatbelts and masks i mentioned? speed limits? anti-discrimination laws? search and seizure? hell, there are even laws that dictate how many people maintain their homes!
in every one of the instances i mentioned, it was the will of the people that made the government enact/change laws, so don't tell me/us that it is government overreach.
First of all, my 95% thing was only in regard to guns drawn in self defense, and I stated that in those circumstances only 5% resulted in fatalities! I was not speaking bout all incidents regarding guns as a whole. No, I'm not related to jamie. No, the government doesn't know best. Here is just one example of the government overstepping their authority; gross overuse of executive orders. But that is getting into politics. My point was that if you don't know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic tool, you shouldn't enter the debate. In other words, if you don't know basic firearms classification, how can you safely guard the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Side note, stupid people most always think that intelligent people sound condescending. Just a thought.
again, you assume. are you aware that classifications of weapons are different from state to state?
if you think i'm so stupid, provide evidence to back up your claims.
i will. i have.
It has nothing to do with classification of weapons by state. I'm talking about the mechanical workings of different types of firearms. Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regard to that, and you have not desire to it seems, I'm not going to bother explaining it.
Jan 23, 2021
0
#396
AlCzervik wrote:
Baptistpatriot wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
... everyone should own one.
Felons, too?
Felons and other criminals will always have Guns legal or not,everyone else should too.
Funny that it doesn't seem to work that way anywhere but in the USA.
Criminals in Canada or in the UK very rarely have guns.
From the Wiki: "The United States has a gun homicide rate which is 25 times higher, an unintentional gun death rate which is 6 times higher, a firearm suicide rate which is 8 times higher, and an overall firearm death rate which is 10 times higher than the average respective rates of other high income nations." - those figures are "per 100,000", so they are already adjusted for population.
The high homicide rates are a result of this: major cities in the US such as NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, LA, San Fransisco, etc have much stricter gun control. Therefore, the only ones who have the guns are usually just the police and the criminals, because the criminals get them illegally. No legal gun control can stem the tide of illegal weapons, especially in so large a country as the US. And since the criminals in, say, Chicago outnumber the police by probably at least 2 to 1, and since the police cannot be everywhere at once, they cannot put a stop to outrages perpetrated on unarmed, defenseless citizens. Now, suppose thst those same citizens were armed and able to defend themselves. The outcome of such encounters would be quite different, and once the criminal elements realize that they are likely to meet armed citizens in their various burglaries, robberies, muggings, attacks, etc, they will realize that the risk is greater than the reward, and therefore the crime rate in general would go down. And if you want a good example of the results of an armed citizenry, just look at the gun homicide rate in Utah, and compare it to the gun homicide rate in Illinois.
the evidence is out there. you just need to look at it instead of keeping your singular view.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state
Note that I used the word homicide. Not a generalization of gun-related deaths.
Jan 23, 2021
0
#397
Look everyone I am posting in to many topics I am cutting down on my post, so I am leaving this thread. It has been a good one, bye.
i have a sword and crusader helmet
I built a trebuchet for a school project. It was the A-bomb of its day. Time have changed,