10 Mar 2018, 5:14 pm
cberg wrote:
Raptor wrote:
cberg wrote:
It's everywhere, suggestions that we should arm everybody as if it will stop them being shot. Sure they may have a chance of stopping someone else being shot but there's a reason duels started with equal paces in the opposite directions. Duels frequently ended in neither party surviving.
The NRA's interest is in promoting guns as an alternative to bulletproofing, something they obviously don't do. There's a reason this is considered a freak occurrence:
The NRA's interest is in promoting guns as an alternative to bulletproofing, something they obviously don't do. There's a reason this is considered a freak occurrence:
You're confusing promoting the right to be armed with advertising.
You're taking your rights for granted. I'm not aware of any law saying we can't amend or strike amendments from the constitution.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Name anything 3/4 of the nation agree on? We are so divided. But anti gun people know it’s impossible and political suicide to even try so they don’t.
Amending the constitution is very serious and as such was made near impossible
Last edited by sly279 on 10 Mar 2018, 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
10 Mar 2018, 5:21 pm
10 Mar 2018, 5:25 pm
cberg wrote:
Raptor wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Raptor wrote:
That's classic nanny state for ya. You get more free stuff but they'll f**k you on the important stuff like defending your life.
No thanks!
No thanks!
Welfare and gun control are two completely separate issues. There are plenty of people who support welfare but oppose gun control. Orthodox Marxists for example.
You are also conveniently ignoring all the people who have died because they couldn't afford healthcare. That sort of thing kills more people than gun violence does.
Isn't it funny? Raptor doesn't care about the people who die because of global warming, military imperialism and hyper-capitalism, but he is concerned about a few people who may have been killed by gun control.
Your crocodile tears make you look like a fool.
That dreadful Raptor strikes again!
Whatever shall we do?!?!?
But....as long as Raptor's posts get you all wrapped around the axle (as evidenced by your replies) and your replies merely amuse Raptor then who's the fool, eh?
If you have to envisage us getting run over to amuse yourself that's a poor defence of your gun rights.
Wrapped around the axle means upset or confused, not run over.
And I don't think I need to defend my gun rights against you.
You're really grasping at straws...
Last edited by Raptor on 10 Mar 2018, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
10 Mar 2018, 5:29 pm
10 Mar 2018, 5:30 pm
10 Mar 2018, 5:41 pm
10 Mar 2018, 5:46 pm
sly279 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
cberg wrote:
Raptor wrote:
You're confusing promoting the right to be armed with advertising.
You're taking your rights for granted. I'm not aware of any law saying we can't amend or strike amendments from the constitution.
Gun rights are and have been regulated one way or another for over 100 years. We really don't have gun vending machines like your kind seems to believe.
Where do we stop when it comes to striking amendments from the constitution. Do you want to lose all of them over the course of several years when this freedom and that freedom are considered passé?
They just want to strike the ones they don’t care about that people they don’t care about like. That sums up American very nicely if it doesn’t effect them directly most Americans don’t care. They probably would care if gun owners got dragged off to some government “labor camp” unless it happen to their family or friends.
Remove the 2nd amendment they say but if someone suggest doing so to the 1st they freak out.
But we're the ones with the guns so it's them that'll be behind barbed wire and us walking perimeter with German shepherds and our AR-15's, and in the guard towers.
BTW; they don't like the 1st amendment either like they used to.
It seems freedom of speech can hurt someone's feelings.
10 Mar 2018, 6:26 pm
10 Mar 2018, 6:32 pm
Raptor wrote:
BTW; they don't like the 1st amendment either like they used to.
It seems freedom of speech can hurt someone's feelings.
It seems freedom of speech can hurt someone's feelings.
I actually agree with you here. I've actually been banned from several leftist sites for pointing this out.
One time, I got banned from a leftist site because I used the word "trigger" jokingly. Apparently that's "ableist".
10 Mar 2018, 6:59 pm
sly279 wrote:
Please look up violent death per 1,000 and then look up violent crimes and compare. Sorry if my loved one was stabbed to death tommorr I wouldn’t be like “ well thank god they weren’t shot to death thst could be worse” death is death. And higher violent crime is bad. 10,000 people a year out of 320,000,000. Is less then half of 1% it’s so minor. Compare thst to heart attacks, knifes, cars, swimming pools, medical mal practice, smoking, cancer, etc. guns aren’t even in the top ten causes of death
Heart disease: 633,842
• Cancer: 595,930
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
• Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
• Diabetes: 79,535
• Influenza and pneumonia: 57,062
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 49,959
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
I think us should include it’s territories
Anguilla: 27.66
British Virgin Islands:8.37
Cayman Islands:14.74
Montserrat:20.39
Bermuda:6.45
On to Europe
Russia:11.31
Lithuania:5.98
Ukraine:4.36
France 1.58
Belgium 1.95
Germany: 0.85
Quite a few European nations have similar or higher murder rates as the USA.
Violent crimes are hard to compare due to things we deem violent crimes uk doesn’t.
Likewise some countries say a mass shooting is 9 or more for example, USA defines it as 4 or more.anit gun people define it as 0 or more(wish I was joking)
Again I fount think the people killed or their families are much happy they weren’t killed by a gun but something else instead. I know I wouldn’t be. Doubt the victims fsmikys from nice France are like well it’s ok they weren’t shot. Dead is dead, death is bad regardless of how it’s done. We’d stilk have the murder rate we do if we banned and collected all guns in th USA. The USA is just more violent.then us or France we have entirely different demographics then you all. We also have a Bunche of cartel run dug making countries right below us who smuggle drugs up and fight with each other here, unlike yiu all. Imagine if uka had Afghanistan right on its border instead of ocean. Bet your murder rates would go up.
I thought this thread was about curiosity but now I see it’s about pushing gun control. Sad. I’d hope you were legitimately trying to explore and understand gun owners.
If you’d like to get back to thst I’m here,
Heart disease: 633,842
• Cancer: 595,930
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
• Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
• Diabetes: 79,535
• Influenza and pneumonia: 57,062
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 49,959
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193
I think us should include it’s territories
Anguilla: 27.66
British Virgin Islands:8.37
Cayman Islands:14.74
Montserrat:20.39
Bermuda:6.45
On to Europe
Russia:11.31
Lithuania:5.98
Ukraine:4.36
France 1.58
Belgium 1.95
Germany: 0.85
Quite a few European nations have similar or higher murder rates as the USA.
Violent crimes are hard to compare due to things we deem violent crimes uk doesn’t.
Likewise some countries say a mass shooting is 9 or more for example, USA defines it as 4 or more.anit gun people define it as 0 or more(wish I was joking)
Again I fount think the people killed or their families are much happy they weren’t killed by a gun but something else instead. I know I wouldn’t be. Doubt the victims fsmikys from nice France are like well it’s ok they weren’t shot. Dead is dead, death is bad regardless of how it’s done. We’d stilk have the murder rate we do if we banned and collected all guns in th USA. The USA is just more violent.then us or France we have entirely different demographics then you all. We also have a Bunche of cartel run dug making countries right below us who smuggle drugs up and fight with each other here, unlike yiu all. Imagine if uka had Afghanistan right on its border instead of ocean. Bet your murder rates would go up.
I thought this thread was about curiosity but now I see it’s about pushing gun control. Sad. I’d hope you were legitimately trying to explore and understand gun owners.
If you’d like to get back to thst I’m here,
It upset me a bit, Sly, that you think my thread is only about pushing gun control
It was started from a genuine curiosity, a sort of "I can see there is a cultural difference thing going on here and I want to understand" thought.
If I seem to be pushing gun control it's because I was feeling baffled at people who equate the individual freedom to own a firearm with a societal benefit. Because when I looked at the figures, I could not see any benefit at all from high levels of gun ownership in terms of reduction in death or violence, on a societal basis.
I'd like to keep engaging with you on this, I'm not the sort of person who will dogmatically be pro- or anti- gun ownership, I just like to understand the arguments on both sides. So I've had a look through the above figures in your post, but I'm a little confused, because you haven't given me the figures from US to compare. I think the essence of what you're saying is that the US is more violent in general, and that firearm-related deaths are a low proportion of total deaths.
I think the point goes both ways, though. Just as, if a member of my family was killed by a knife, the institution of gun controls would not be a consolation, equally if a member of my family were killed by a gun, I could rightfully be upset that stricter gun controls were not present. If I felt like arguing the case, I would probably go into more depth and compare violent deaths by each method, I would probably point out the prevalence of suicides by firearm, and so on, but that's not my agenda.
What I'm actually more interested in is whether there is a perception of a high level of violence in the US, a general level of personal insecurity, which is affecting people's attitude towards gun ownership. That's sort of what I as getting at with my post about baseball bats and pepper spray, and your post seems to be heading down the same path.
Not quite sure what I'm trying to get out of this thread, I just find there seems to be a huge difference between my thoughts towards gun ownership and the prevailing views of many US citizens, and I get that there is a cultural difference, and I'm genuinely trying to understand.
10 Mar 2018, 7:22 pm
I'm now thinking of it a bit like the nuclear arms race.
The world would probably be a safer place if no countries had nuclear weapons at all. The anti-gun lobby are maybe like the anti-nuclear lobby, trying to get rid of them entirely.
But because we live in the real world, it's actually hard to get an agreement to completely disarm, and as long as some countries have nuclear weapons (people have guns), others feel the need to follow suit. I'm hypothesising that some people (not all) own a gun out of a fear for their own security.
I guess I'm sort of looking at it from the point of view of a small country with no nuclear weapons at all. There's a temptation to say "hey, look at us, we're fine without nuclear arms, you'd be better off like us".
And your argument is kind of like "actually, most people are being killed by conventional weapons, not nuclear." Which may be true, but doesn't get to the crux of why we have nuclear at all.
Not sure exactly what I'm trying to say, here 
Comments?
10 Mar 2018, 7:40 pm
10 Mar 2018, 8:21 pm
MrsPeel wrote:
I'm now thinking of it a bit like the nuclear arms race.
The world would probably be a safer place if no countries had nuclear weapons at all. The anti-gun lobby are maybe like the anti-nuclear lobby, trying to get rid of them entirely.
But because we live in the real world, it's actually hard to get an agreement to completely disarm, and as long as some countries have nuclear weapons (people have guns), others feel the need to follow suit. I'm hypothesising that some people (not all) own a gun out of a fear for their own security.
I guess I'm sort of looking at it from the point of view of a small country with no nuclear weapons at all. There's a temptation to say "hey, look at us, we're fine without nuclear arms, you'd be better off like us".
And your argument is kind of like "actually, most people are being killed by conventional weapons, not nuclear." Which may be true, but doesn't get to the crux of why we have nuclear at all.
Not sure exactly what I'm trying to say, here Comments?
The world would probably be a safer place if no countries had nuclear weapons at all. The anti-gun lobby are maybe like the anti-nuclear lobby, trying to get rid of them entirely.
But because we live in the real world, it's actually hard to get an agreement to completely disarm, and as long as some countries have nuclear weapons (people have guns), others feel the need to follow suit. I'm hypothesising that some people (not all) own a gun out of a fear for their own security.
I guess I'm sort of looking at it from the point of view of a small country with no nuclear weapons at all. There's a temptation to say "hey, look at us, we're fine without nuclear arms, you'd be better off like us".
And your argument is kind of like "actually, most people are being killed by conventional weapons, not nuclear." Which may be true, but doesn't get to the crux of why we have nuclear at all.
Not sure exactly what I'm trying to say, here
Comments?Apparently you're suggesting that simply because things are difficult we should not attempt change.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
10 Mar 2018, 8:32 pm
sly279 wrote:
cberg wrote:
sly279 wrote:
cberg wrote:
It's everywhere, suggestions that we should arm everybody as if it will stop them being shot. Sure they may have a chance of stopping someone else being shot but there's a reason duels started with equal paces in the opposite directions. Duels frequently ended in neither party surviving.
The NRA's interest is in promoting guns as an alternative to bulletproofing, something they obviously don't do. There's a reason this is considered a freak occurrence:
The NRA's interest is in promoting guns as an alternative to bulletproofing, something they obviously don't do. There's a reason this is considered a freak occurrence:
So if I’m in a mall and a person is shooting up people and I shoot him before he gets to me didn’t I stop him from shooting me? If I pull my gun before a mugger pulls his and stop him didn’t I stop him from shooting me. Most all from is people ruining up to you guns a blazing they conceal it til the last min, another example I’m in a dinner a guy comes in to rob the place when he turns away I shoot him. Again I stopped him from shooting or or others. No having a gun isn’t a guarantee that you won’t gwt shot or thst your stop the bad guy, but not having a gun pretty much guarantees you won’t stop them. Just like having a fire extinguisher doesn’t mesn yiu be able to start a fire, but if s fire starts you’re going be dam glad you have one.
Everyone's a quick draw.What part about anything I said had to do with quick draw? Do you need to be fast to pull your gun and shoot someone who’s face ing away from you threatening others? Do you need to draw quick while at a mall and someone starts shooting next few stores over ?
Do you need to draw quick if you’ve nocited a guy wearing a black hoodie has been following your alone for quite a while gaining ground on you?
Nope no you don’t. It also doesn’t take very long to pull my gun. You seem to thlike no every single possible situation is 1/2 foot close with the guy already having his gun on you but most aren’t. You’ll have plenty of time to take cover pull your gun and give warnings to the bad guy.
Watch some self defense videos. They train to practice for many possible situations of which your imagined one is just one of many.
I practice to draw in a way that works for both close destance and if they further away
Here’s another example a guys knocked you down and is wailing on your. I’d try holding him back with one arm while pulling my other. I’m not match for most people so they’d beat me to death otherwise.
This is just paranoid man, and a vote of no confidence in yourself. I don't think you're as weak as you said, I don't think guns make people any stronger and I definitely don't think you've any right to threaten to shoot me just because of my black hoodie.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
10 Mar 2018, 8:34 pm
Raptor wrote:
cberg wrote:
Raptor wrote:
You're confusing promoting the right to be armed with advertising.
You're taking your rights for granted. I'm not aware of any law saying we can't amend or strike amendments from the constitution.
Gun rights are and have been regulated one way or another for over 100 years. We really don't have gun vending machines like your kind seems to believe.
Where do we stop when it comes to striking amendments from the constitution. Do you want to lose all of them over the course of several years when this freedom and that freedom are considered passé?
Considering the gag order perpetrated on Stormy Daniels I'd say we're pretty damn close to loosing the 1st amendment.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
10 Mar 2018, 8:36 pm
In response to SPiderpig,
I guess if I followed the analogy, I would say that we still live under the threat of nuclear catastrophy as long as there are nuclear weapons out there. Sort of like warring families maintaining peace by stockpiling weapons. It might work for years, up until one of them loses their head.
But I really hadn't intended getting into a disarmament argument, now this whole train of thought is upsetting me and I wish I hadn't gone there 
Can someone change the subject? Maybe get back to the topic? Show me some more pictures of your guns / other weapons and tell me why you keep them. No judgement.
