Yeah, that statement wasn't fair at all. I've known dozens of people that have bought firearms with absolutely no intention of ever pointing it at a human.
GUNS
Sort:
0
#1043
Well, for example, when my brother was young and starting his family, he bought a shotgun for home protection.
That was a noble intention, but still, it was purchased with the idea that it would be useful to kill someone in the future.
UnclePeet wrote:
Discouragement of govt overreach. An armed population is especially hard to control and force your will upon. The founding fathers knew this because they understood human nature. As long as there is a threat of an armed revolt it or resistance it makes the likely hood of any potential dictatorship very remote. In today’s world alone we need only look to Russia and Putin, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela to see authoritative governments abusing their people and violating basic human rights. There is no magic that says it cannot happen here also.
In closing owning a gun is a RIGHT. And as such NO REASON need be given as to why a person owns 1 or even 100.
Discouragement of govt overreach. An armed population is especially hard to control and force your will upon. The founding fathers knew this because they understood human nature. As long as there is a threat of an armed revolt it or resistance it makes the likely hood of any potential dictatorship very remote. In today’s world alone we need only look to Russia and Putin, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela to see authoritative governments abusing their people and violating basic human rights. There is no magic that says it cannot happen here also.
In closing owning a gun is a RIGHT. And as such NO REASON need be given as to why a person owns 1 or even 100.
the amount of stupid you write is mountain high. this 'argument' holds no water. it ASSumes that the u.s. government would like to become a dictatorship, but, they only don't do it because people have guns. do you hear yourself, or just the other voices in your head?
by the way, the last u.s. "leader" that wanted a dictatorship is the guy you love-45.
UnclePeet wrote:
I’m the one with the mental deficiency.
Good lord….
Good lord….
you said it.
UnclePeet wrote:
Why do you take the stats so seriously about gun deaths…while totally ignoring guns used in self defense stats?
At LEAST 100,000 and possibly much much more.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7
Nap.edu is not Fox News. “The National Academies Press (NAP) publishes the reports of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and medicine, providing authoritative, independently-researched information on important matters in science and health policy.”
If that is true and more than 100,000 people use guns in self defense legally why in the world would you say they have no practical value?
At LEAST 100,000 and possibly much much more.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7
Nap.edu is not Fox News. “The National Academies Press (NAP) publishes the reports of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and medicine, providing authoritative, independently-researched information on important matters in science and health policy.”
If that is true and more than 100,000 people use guns in self defense legally why in the world would you say they have no practical value?
maybe, just maybe, those of us that put forward statistical evidence we have read do it because we have corroborated it with other sources and, collectively, they tell the same story.
unlike you. this is from your link:
"A primary cause of this uncertainty is the disagreement over the definition of defensive gun use—in particular, whether it should be defined as a response to victimization or as a means to prevent victimization from occurring in the first place. There is also uncertainty regarding the accuracy of survey responses to sensitive questions and the related problems of how to effectively measure defensive gun use, the types of questions that should be asked, and the methods of data collection. These disagreements over definition and measurement have resulted in prevalence rates that differ by a factor of 22 or more."
if you think that is scientific evidence, i'm an astronaut.
speaking of sources, i noticed you never responded to the wp link, or, any of the embedded links about the cited studies.
UnclePeet wrote:
Try arguing the same “technology has changed” argument with the 1st amendment and see where that gets you.
congress is debating that now as it relates to the internet.
try to keep up.
Yeah my statistical evidence come from a respected .edu and yours was a blog from the Washington examiner.
From the CDC, dummy, you go ahead and link yours from MSNBC
“Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year”.
“Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year”.
UnclePeet wrote:
Yeah my statistical evidence come from a respected .edu and yours was a blog from the Washington examiner.
haha!! YOU were the one that used the washington examiner as a source! and i then showed it to be misleading, at best. i posted an article from the washington post with embedded links to studies that show your opinions are wrong.
try reading it before spouting off next time.
Remember people: to this scientific illiterate the CDC and nap.edu are not legit sources.
Another cuteness foreigner who learned everything about America from a book or the television.
Another cuteness foreigner who learned everything about America from a book or the television.
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
Yeah, that statement wasn't fair at all. I've known dozens of people that have bought firearms with absolutely no intention of ever pointing it at a human.
dozens? ok. but, llama's point is valid. especially for the blokes that say they have a gun for self defense. that means you're ready to kill another for whatever way you (they) define home invasion. remember the st. louis couple that drew firearms on people walking down the street? they thought they were within their rights. they pleaded guilty later.
Why don’t you CRY about it you weakling pacifist?
UncleFeetInMouth wrote:
Remember people: to this scientific illiterate the CDC and nap.edu are not legit sources.
Another cuteness foreigner who learned everything about America from a book or the television.
Another cuteness foreigner who learned everything about America from a book or the television.
every. time. you. post, your foot goes further in mouth.
you write that i would post a link from msnbc.
you write that i would say the above sources are illegitimate.
you write that i am a foreigner (as if that would matter).
not once have you responded to the bs i call you out on. you ignore that your argument is weak and resort to strawmen. you can't even remember which opinion piece you have posted!
I think we can all agree that America isn’t the greatest country in the world. After listening to the Uncle peet it sounds pretty lawless. The fact the population needs to own a gun to protect themselves from the government, from foreign invaders, from drug addicts, from their neighbours. It sounds terrible.
A pacifist isn’t a weakling. It’s a person who exercises his right not to use his strength to hurt other people. You seem to think if you can shoot someone in the back then you should shoot them in the back. I know which of those two sounds like the cowardly weakling.
A pacifist isn’t a weakling. It’s a person who exercises his right not to use his strength to hurt other people. You seem to think if you can shoot someone in the back then you should shoot them in the back. I know which of those two sounds like the cowardly weakling.
You continue to feel safe in a country that can jail you for teaching your DOG to do a nazi salute and steal your $ if you call a man pretending to be a woman what he is: a man.
I’m sure you’re safe long term.
It’s not like you murder us Europeans go on a genocidal rampage every so often now is it?
I mean you only held the world at the tip of a sword for a THOUSAND YEARS I guess you haven’t got your fill of massacre and rape.
I’m sure you’re safe long term.
It’s not like you murder us Europeans go on a genocidal rampage every so often now is it?
I mean you only held the world at the tip of a sword for a THOUSAND YEARS I guess you haven’t got your fill of massacre and rape.
You are the epitome of white privileged.
Your coddling white privilege allows you to live as FAR AWAY from violent areas as possible while pretending you won’t fight back if someone breaks into your home and rapes your daughter.
You WOULD fight back…you’re just too weak to do so and you’ve cone yo grips with it
Your coddling white privilege allows you to live as FAR AWAY from violent areas as possible while pretending you won’t fight back if someone breaks into your home and rapes your daughter.
You WOULD fight back…you’re just too weak to do so and you’ve cone yo grips with it
Al your opinion is a JOKE you know NOTHING about Americans or why they do the things they do.
You’re like a swimming master who’s never jumped in a pool talking about it as if your words carry authority.
What you know about American gun law you can scrawl onto the head of a pin and still have room for the star spangled banner.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
You’re like a swimming master who’s never jumped in a pool talking about it as if your words carry authority.
What you know about American gun law you can scrawl onto the head of a pin and still have room for the star spangled banner.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Peet, your ranting again.
There is a difference between defending your family and sticking a bullet in a mans back for refusing to ‘freeze’ while your pointing a gun at him.
Defending yourself or your family doesn’t need to end with a killing. It is such a shame you have to live in such fear all the time.
Dum dum.
There is a difference between defending your family and sticking a bullet in a mans back for refusing to ‘freeze’ while your pointing a gun at him.
Defending yourself or your family doesn’t need to end with a killing. It is such a shame you have to live in such fear all the time.
Dum dum.
Saying that most guns are bought with the intention of killing someone is not only an ignorant statement, but it also vilifies and slanders law abiding gun owners. That statement is simply not true, and is based in bigotry and prejudice, which is brought on by lack of knowledge.