11 Oct 2013, 11:04 am
zxy8 wrote:
skcuf wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
skcuf wrote:
Europe has naked weather women 
.
The fallacy with your "fact" is that you can't stop criminals from having guns. Remember how outlawing illegal drugs stopped all of the drug use...oh wait. It didn't. Even if all guns were banned and people decided to hand them over then criminals would still get their hands on them. This is also something that will never happen. If they tried to take the guns out of the hands of the gun owners there would be another revolution.
You've probably fallen into the propaganda that guns are responsible for the mass shootings such as at the movie theater in Colorado and the school in Conneticuit. If these areas were not in gun free zones then the shooters could have been brought down earlier and lives could have been saved.
The opposite argument would say that if gun laws were tighter then the shooters wouldn't have gone on the shooting sprees. However, the guy in Colorado had his apartment rigged to explode under certain circumstances. People always forget about explosives in these scenarios. If the movie theater had been bombed then there's a much higher chance that everyone in the theater would've been instantly killed without even having a chance to fight or run. Same thing with the school. All Adam Lanza had to do was toss one pipe bomb in each room and he would've killed many more than 26 people.
I'm sorry for swearing but it wasn't directed at you. That's how I speak and if I don't edit my typing before I hit submit you get the way I talk in my post
.The fallacy with your "fact" is that you can't stop criminals from having guns. Remember how outlawing illegal drugs stopped all of the drug use...oh wait. It didn't. Even if all guns were banned and people decided to hand them over then criminals would still get their hands on them. This is also something that will never happen. If they tried to take the guns out of the hands of the gun owners there would be another revolution.
You've probably fallen into the propaganda that guns are responsible for the mass shootings such as at the movie theater in Colorado and the school in Conneticuit. If these areas were not in gun free zones then the shooters could have been brought down earlier and lives could have been saved.
The opposite argument would say that if gun laws were tighter then the shooters wouldn't have gone on the shooting sprees. However, the guy in Colorado had his apartment rigged to explode under certain circumstances. People always forget about explosives in these scenarios. If the movie theater had been bombed then there's a much higher chance that everyone in the theater would've been instantly killed without even having a chance to fight or run. Same thing with the school. All Adam Lanza had to do was toss one pipe bomb in each room and he would've killed many more than 26 people.
I'm sorry for swearing but it wasn't directed at you. That's how I speak and if I don't edit my typing before I hit submit you get the way I talk in my post
Naked weather women? Is this a common thing?
Criminals will get guns. And yes there will be deaths, however if the everyday person did not have guns then there would be considerably less. It is easier to pull a trigger than it is to create a bomb.
No worries; no offence taken ^_^
It's easier to create a bomb than it is to actually hit something with a gun, unless it's a shotgun. Creating a bomb is not hard at all. You clearly know nothing about weapons or else you would've stopped talking. The time it takes to create a bomb vs the time and money it takes to learn to shoot a weapon are huge in difference.
Have you ever wondered why people do drive by shootings and never hit anything? It's because criminals don't know how to shoot. They see it done in movies and assume you just point and shoot. This is why less LEOs are killed by guns and more criminals are killed. Even the LEOs I've talked to are only required to shoot once each year. Many of them shoot more because they enjoy it...getting off topic.
Your entire "there will be considerably less deaths" theory is foolish and unsupported by facts. Guns are safe to have around if the people who have them are responsible with them. You've just fallen into a propaganda from people who think that it's safer without them.
If you're a criminal what is the main reason you avoid police? Because they have a gun. The fact that you KNOW they have a gun deters you from doing crime. Let's imagine that everyone in the world carried a gun. Would you attack someone if you knew they had the ability to kill you with the pull of a trigger? Or even if they didn't the person around the corner could stop you? Now let's think about a world without guns. A man is walking down the street and sees a woman alone. He's bigger, stronger, and faster than her. He knows this and because of this he rapes and murders her. He knew she had no way of defending herself against his superior strength.
How does this not make sense to you? You don't NEED a gun to kill someone. I know of at least 32 different ways to kill someone attacking me WITH MY BARE HANDS. This doesn't include the ability to pick up ANY object laying around and fight the attacker off. However, if someone pulls a gun on me, and I have a gun of my own I know I'll come out on top. I've trained with my gun and know how to use it much better than your average criminal.
Maybe read this:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
or these
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... tates.html - Murder rates in USA
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html - Murder rates in the UK
In 2010 in the UK the murder rate per million people was 11.1 or 11.5. I can't really tell because they made this data look kind of stupid. Either way there were over 600 murders in the UK. The population of the UK is around 63 milliion as of 2011 (I couldn't find 2010 and it didn't seem like it was worth digging too deep) and around 307-310 million in the USA. There were just short of 13,000 murders in the USA. The percentage was much lower than that of the UK with around 4 kills per million people. And you're trying to tell me that guns cause a higher murder rate? Obviously having guns causes a higher murder rate WITH guns. But it lowers the murder rate overall...
The main reason for the murder rate increasing in the human population is because of overpopulation. If you cram millions of people into a few square miles obviously there are going to be some difficulties
Tl;dr, summary please.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/
Look at the above link and how America considerably has the highest gun amount per 100 people, and deaths per 100,000. These are the highest in the world.
Facts don't like
Summarized:
Easier to kill with bombs than guns.
Gun control facts (real not from ABC...You should be ashamed)
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Murder rates in the USA compared to the UK.
hesehttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.co ... tates.html - Murder rates in USA
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html - Murder rates in the UK
The UK has a higher murder rate over 11 to the USA's 4. Obviously there are going to be more deaths with guns if people can use guns. But they're not going to stop killing if they don't have a gun. They'll find another way.
People avoid police because they KNOW they have a gun. If everyone had guns no one would attack anyone. Women are often defenseless against men if they're both unarmed. Arm them both and they're on even playing field.
Overpopulation causes murder, not guns.
zxy8
Velociraptor
Joined: 2 Aug 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 484
Location: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
11 Oct 2013, 11:07 am
zxy8
Velociraptor
Joined: 2 Aug 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 484
Location: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
11 Oct 2013, 11:11 am
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Oct 2013, 11:12 am
11 Oct 2013, 11:14 am
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Liberalism started out by asserting that the individual had certain rights against the state. Then liberalism asserted the individual was above God and society. Now liberalism is asserting that the individual is above reality itself; it's all about what the individual liberal wishes to believe rather than facts and truth, which have become things to scorn. I can't help you, sir.
What are you on about. God doesn't exist, so yeah.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/
This link has the facts.
I just gave you the facts above, and straight from the UN. I just have to love it when an Aussie starts lecturing Americans on American news. I think you do your worship in front of a mirror with that narcissistic attitude, comrade.
When someone derails a discussion and adds personal attacks, you know the attacker has lost. People only do that when they have no good facts to add.
If you want some good facts - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... try-study-
Quit pointing fingers...You derailed my entire thread into a gun control thread
. Your "facts" are only presenting one thing. "More guns are used to kill people where the most guns are in the world and an extreme population." Obviously when there are 300+ million people to kill then there is going to be a lot of people that die. Add in the fact that there are a lot of guns and a lot of deaths will be caused by those guns. It doesn't change the fact that there is less crime in the USA than other countries. ESPECIALLY when you factor out cities.
11 Oct 2013, 11:16 am
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Oct 2013, 11:19 am
skcuf wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Liberalism started out by asserting that the individual had certain rights against the state. Then liberalism asserted the individual was above God and society. Now liberalism is asserting that the individual is above reality itself; it's all about what the individual liberal wishes to believe rather than facts and truth, which have become things to scorn. I can't help you, sir.
What are you on about. God doesn't exist, so yeah.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/
This link has the facts.
I just gave you the facts above, and straight from the UN. I just have to love it when an Aussie starts lecturing Americans on American news. I think you do your worship in front of a mirror with that narcissistic attitude, comrade.
When someone derails a discussion and adds personal attacks, you know the attacker has lost. People only do that when they have no good facts to add.
If you want some good facts - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... try-study-
Quit pointing fingers...You derailed my entire thread into a gun control thread
. Your "facts" are only presenting one thing. "More guns are used to kill people where the most guns are in the world and an extreme population." Obviously when there are 300+ million people to kill then there is going to be a lot of people that die. Add in the fact that there are a lot of guns and a lot of deaths will be caused by those guns. It doesn't change the fact that there is less crime in the USA than other countries. ESPECIALLY when you factor out cities.skcuf, good for you. But I think you are wasting time trying to talk sense into this liberal. They have been brainwashed by the schools to ensure that facts and truth roll off of them like water off of a duck's back. Again, liberals believe what they want.
11 Oct 2013, 11:27 am
Thelibrarian wrote:
skcuf wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Liberalism started out by asserting that the individual had certain rights against the state. Then liberalism asserted the individual was above God and society. Now liberalism is asserting that the individual is above reality itself; it's all about what the individual liberal wishes to believe rather than facts and truth, which have become things to scorn. I can't help you, sir.
What are you on about. God doesn't exist, so yeah.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/
This link has the facts.
I just gave you the facts above, and straight from the UN. I just have to love it when an Aussie starts lecturing Americans on American news. I think you do your worship in front of a mirror with that narcissistic attitude, comrade.
When someone derails a discussion and adds personal attacks, you know the attacker has lost. People only do that when they have no good facts to add.
If you want some good facts - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... try-study-
Quit pointing fingers...You derailed my entire thread into a gun control thread
. Your "facts" are only presenting one thing. "More guns are used to kill people where the most guns are in the world and an extreme population." Obviously when there are 300+ million people to kill then there is going to be a lot of people that die. Add in the fact that there are a lot of guns and a lot of deaths will be caused by those guns. It doesn't change the fact that there is less crime in the USA than other countries. ESPECIALLY when you factor out cities.skcuf, good for you. But I think you are wasting time trying to talk sense into this liberal. They have been brainwashed by the schools to ensure that facts and truth roll off of them like water off of a duck's back. Again, liberals believe what they want.
I know. I'm just trying to figure out how they ignore facts...I'm hoping this discussion will give some insight.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Oct 2013, 11:34 am
skcuf wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
skcuf wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Liberalism started out by asserting that the individual had certain rights against the state. Then liberalism asserted the individual was above God and society. Now liberalism is asserting that the individual is above reality itself; it's all about what the individual liberal wishes to believe rather than facts and truth, which have become things to scorn. I can't help you, sir.
What are you on about. God doesn't exist, so yeah.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/
This link has the facts.
I just gave you the facts above, and straight from the UN. I just have to love it when an Aussie starts lecturing Americans on American news. I think you do your worship in front of a mirror with that narcissistic attitude, comrade.
When someone derails a discussion and adds personal attacks, you know the attacker has lost. People only do that when they have no good facts to add.
If you want some good facts - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... try-study-
Quit pointing fingers...You derailed my entire thread into a gun control thread
. Your "facts" are only presenting one thing. "More guns are used to kill people where the most guns are in the world and an extreme population." Obviously when there are 300+ million people to kill then there is going to be a lot of people that die. Add in the fact that there are a lot of guns and a lot of deaths will be caused by those guns. It doesn't change the fact that there is less crime in the USA than other countries. ESPECIALLY when you factor out cities.skcuf, good for you. But I think you are wasting time trying to talk sense into this liberal. They have been brainwashed by the schools to ensure that facts and truth roll off of them like water off of a duck's back. Again, liberals believe what they want.
I know. I'm just trying to figure out how they ignore facts...I'm hoping this discussion will give some insight.
I'm not sure of your age, but when I was a kid back in the seventies, the "Dare to Dream: It can come true if you really want it to" tee shirts were all the rage. This is the liberal position on reality: If they don't like it, they wish it to be untrue, and in their minds that's what happens. I think it is also the case that guns are Politically Incorrect, and the Deformed Church of Political Correctness is the official religion of liberals worldwide. You might as well try to convince a fundamentalist Christian that evolution is real, or that the virgin birth didn't occur. In both cases, we're talking about articles of faith rather than reason.
11 Oct 2013, 11:40 am
Thelibrarian wrote:
skcuf wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
skcuf wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
zxy8 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Liberalism started out by asserting that the individual had certain rights against the state. Then liberalism asserted the individual was above God and society. Now liberalism is asserting that the individual is above reality itself; it's all about what the individual liberal wishes to believe rather than facts and truth, which have become things to scorn. I can't help you, sir.
What are you on about. God doesn't exist, so yeah.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/
This link has the facts.
I just gave you the facts above, and straight from the UN. I just have to love it when an Aussie starts lecturing Americans on American news. I think you do your worship in front of a mirror with that narcissistic attitude, comrade.
When someone derails a discussion and adds personal attacks, you know the attacker has lost. People only do that when they have no good facts to add.
If you want some good facts - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... try-study-
Quit pointing fingers...You derailed my entire thread into a gun control thread
. Your "facts" are only presenting one thing. "More guns are used to kill people where the most guns are in the world and an extreme population." Obviously when there are 300+ million people to kill then there is going to be a lot of people that die. Add in the fact that there are a lot of guns and a lot of deaths will be caused by those guns. It doesn't change the fact that there is less crime in the USA than other countries. ESPECIALLY when you factor out cities.skcuf, good for you. But I think you are wasting time trying to talk sense into this liberal. They have been brainwashed by the schools to ensure that facts and truth roll off of them like water off of a duck's back. Again, liberals believe what they want.
I know. I'm just trying to figure out how they ignore facts...I'm hoping this discussion will give some insight.
I'm not sure of your age, but when I was a kid back in the seventies, the "Dare to Dream: It can come true if you really want it to" tee shirts were all the rage. This is the liberal position on reality: If they don't like it, they wish it to be untrue, and in their minds that's what happens. I think it is also the case that guns are Politically Incorrect, and the Deformed Church of Political Correctness is the official religion of liberals worldwide. You might as well try to convince a fundamentalist Christian that evolution is real, or that the virgin birth didn't occur. In both cases, we're talking about articles of faith rather than reason.
True...I've not had any luck with any of these issues. Of course, I've only tried online. I have swayed people in discussions before on most things. Matters of faith are pretty much impossible to change a person's opinion, but this is a matter of fact. TBH I think zxy gave up. After the third posting of an article that states nothing except the obvious to a small child he either went to scour the internet for more facts to support his argument or gave up.
BTW...I don't know if I can be considered conservative or not. I consider myself a responsible citizen who votes on logic more than emotion. Like in the last election where I wrote myself in because it seemed the best option...
Oh and I'm 23 years old. 24 in November.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Oct 2013, 11:44 am
11 Oct 2013, 11:55 am
Why are people talking about guns? This thread was about spelling mistakes. 
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Oct 2013, 11:59 am
LogicalMolly wrote:
Why are people talking about guns? This thread was about spelling mistakes.
Molly, that is an excellent question. You would have to ask those who introduced the topic why they did so, and apparently they are gone now. My position is that our rights as Americans are worth defending no matter the venue. Having said this, I was happy discussing grammar.
Did you have something in mind?
11 Oct 2013, 12:30 pm
Thelibrarian wrote:
LogicalMolly wrote:
Why are people talking about guns? This thread was about spelling mistakes.
Molly, that is an excellent question. You would have to ask those who introduced the topic why they did so, and apparently they are gone now. My position is that our rights as Americans are worth defending no matter the venue. Having said this, I was happy discussing grammar.
Did you have something in mind?
Let's talk about who versus whom!
Me versus I is also a common one...
Most people appear to think that it sounds more "formal" to say "whom" and "I" than "who" and "me," so they like to show off by using those words, even in a context when it is actually incorrect to use them.
Example: "the taxi driver drove my friend and I to the restaurant." Face palm.
"I am crazy about the man whom loves me." Another face palm.
(When I travel by taxi, the driver does not drive I. He drives me).
Here is another one to rant about: people saying "myself" when they really mean me. Example:
"If you have any problems, you can bring them to my colleague or myself."
(When people come to me with their problems, they don't bring them to myself. They bring them to me).
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Oct 2013, 12:35 pm
LogicalMolly wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
LogicalMolly wrote:
Why are people talking about guns? This thread was about spelling mistakes.
Molly, that is an excellent question. You would have to ask those who introduced the topic why they did so, and apparently they are gone now. My position is that our rights as Americans are worth defending no matter the venue. Having said this, I was happy discussing grammar.
Did you have something in mind?
Let's talk about who versus whom!
Me versus I is also a common one...
Most people appear to think that it sounds more "formal" to say "whom" and "I" than "who" and "me," so they like to show off by using those words, even in a context when it is actually incorrect to use them.
Example: "the taxi driver drove my friend and I to the restaurant." Face palm.
"I am crazy about the man whom loves me." Another face palm.
(When I travel by taxi, the driver does not drive I. He drives me).
Here is another one to rant about: people saying "myself" when they really mean me. Example:
"If you have any problems, you can bring them to my colleague or myself."
(When people come to me with their problems, they don't bring them to myself. They bring them to me).
I can do pretty well actually with I and me. I had problems with me and myself until my English teacher employee told me to use me instead of myself unless me would be clunky.
I do have big problems with who and whom though. To compensate, I always try to put whom before a preposition, so I know it's right.
How about you?
