independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 18th Nov 2017 11:44am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Harvard Study: More guns means more deaths!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 10 <123456789>Last »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 11/13/17 6:23am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:




since you're such a nitpicker on the exact grammer, puncutation and wording of this amendment, once again let me point out that it does not guarantee you the right to buy guns
just keep and bear.

so selling and buying could be made illegal TODAY and it still would be constitutional. Duh!
and the same is valid of course for backgroundchecks and registration

no, you do NOT have a constitutional amendment behind you. you have JACK SHIT. ZILCH. NOTHING

sure I do the courts have ruled several times that laws can not be made to circumvent a right or make undue or burdensome obstacles to such ...(such a poll tax or a grandfather tax)

just like a woman may have a right to an abortion but not to pay for one?


EDIT:

So no you can not add a $1000 tax or charge $100 for a bullet or any workarounds to create an effective ban on past, present, or future right to keep and bear arms.


[Edited 11/13/17 6:29am]

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 11/13/17 6:46am

poppys

OnlyNDaUsa said:


oh i have an argument but I do not NEED one I have a constitutional amendment... and if it was ever repealed there would be a war over it and I would If I was at all able KILL and DIE to get it back...

BombSquad said:


since you're such a nitpicker on the exact grammer, puncutation and wording of this amendment, once again let me point out that it does not guarantee you the right to buy guns
just keep and bear.

so selling and buying could be made illegal TODAY and it still would be constitutional. Duh!
and the same is valid of course for backgroundchecks and registration

no, you do NOT have a constitutional amendment behind you. you have JACK SHIT. ZILCH. NOTHING

sure I do the courts have ruled several times that laws can not be made to circumvent a right or make undue or burdensome obstacles to such ...(such a poll tax or a grandfather tax)

just like a woman may have a right to an abortion but not to pay for one?

EDIT: So no you can not add a $1000 tax or charge $100 for a bullet or any workarounds to create an effective ban on past, present, or future right to keep and bear arms.


Re bolded: This gun thing is all about a killing and dying fantasy - preferably others in the big "final battle". That's what it comes down to and it is so stupid. American terminal illness.

Kick the old-school joints. For the true funk soldiers.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 11/13/17 6:52am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:


oh i have an argument but I do not NEED one I have a constitutional amendment... and if it was ever repealed there would be a war over it and I would If I was at all able KILL and DIE to get it back...

sure I do the courts have ruled several times that laws can not be made to circumvent a right or make undue or burdensome obstacles to such ...(such a poll tax or a grandfather tax)

just like a woman may have a right to an abortion but not to pay for one?

EDIT: So no you can not add a $1000 tax or charge $100 for a bullet or any workarounds to create an effective ban on past, present, or future right to keep and bear arms.


Re bolded: This gun thing is all about a killing and dying fantasy - preferably others in the big "final battle". That's what it comes down to and it is so stupid. American terminal illness.

then just let it take its course maybe you will feel safer if you leave? I mean if it is terminal... and if a final battle comes I rather go out fighting than begging...

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 11/13/17 11:31pm

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

poppys said:


Re bolded: This gun thing is all about a killing and dying fantasy - preferably others in the big "final battle". That's what it comes down to and it is so stupid. American terminal illness.

then just let it take its course maybe you will feel safer if you leave? I mean if it is terminal... and if a final battle comes I rather go out fighting than begging...

sissy. a real man can fight without a fucking gun LOL
but this is just empty talk. since you said you do not own a gun, you will be begging not fighting. so you are just blowing hot air. as always

but in all seriousness, your P.A.R.A.N.O.I.A. is truly frightening, please seek help

[Edited 11/13/17 23:37pm]

I live in constant fear that Trump will deport my latina mother-in-law who lives at 1837 3rd street, LA 90023, blue house. she gets off work at 6
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 11/14/17 4:01am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

then just let it take its course maybe you will feel safer if you leave? I mean if it is terminal... and if a final battle comes I rather go out fighting than begging...

sissy. a real man can fight without a fucking gun LOL
but this is just empty talk. since you said you do not own a gun, you will be begging not fighting. so you are just blowing hot air. as always

but in all seriousness, your P.A.R.A.N.O.I.A. is truly frightening, please seek help

[Edited 11/13/17 23:37pm]

you are correct I do not own guns. And Like you Said you do not necessarily need one.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 11/14/17 5:35am

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

So much for gun lovers:

https://www.hsph.harvard....and-death/

We have open state borders. Guns can trickle down very easy. Especially to inner cities.


It wasn't a (quantitative) study, it was a literature review.

The statement "More guns means more deaths" can be easily dismissed and therfore is FALSE!

What would lead to more deaths; one person owning one million guns or 1 million people each owning a gun?

Correct would be: more gun owners leads to more deaths. And that's mainly due to the easy access to guns for sale/very limited restrictions to buying and owning a gun.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 11/14/17 9:13am

Dasein

TweetyV6 said:

2freaky4church1 said:

So much for gun lovers:

https://www.hsph.harvard....and-death/

We have open state borders. Guns can trickle down very easy. Especially to inner cities.


It wasn't a (quantitative) study, it was a literature review.

The statement "More guns means more deaths" can be easily dismissed and therfore is FALSE!

What would lead to more deaths; one person owning one million guns or 1 million people each owning a gun?

Correct would be: more gun owners leads to more deaths. And that's mainly due to the easy access to guns for sale/very limited restrictions to buying and owning a gun.


And what did the literature review of those quantitative studies indicate? And, how do you easily
dismiss the findings thereby making that particular claim (which is a simplification) false?

Your hypothetical question has no real bearing on this conversation: one person with a million guns
could kill one million people or one person; one million people with one million guns could kill one
million people or one person. The fact remains that because there are one million guns in each
scenario, there is a chance somebody, whether it be one person or one million, could be killed for
that is what the research tells us: there is a facilitative effect between the high numbers of guns
in the US and the high numbers of gun related deaths. Yet, if one person or one million people
couldn't have guns at all means the chances of one million or one person being killed by gun vio-
lence is significantly reduced.

Yet, I don't understand how you could ask that hypothetical but then make a correction on this.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 11/14/17 9:43am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The utter logic would be that all our guns would ensure less crime. That is a damned lie. Europe has gun crime but not like us.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 11/14/17 10:39am

gimmesomehornz

People who say they are "for gun control" in truth are not. They want people with guns to take away other people's guns. Their precious government can be armed to the teeth, but private citizens have to be completely disarmed. That is slavery.

" Most people don't want to talk about politics and religion. They say, 'Let's talk about something else.' "
~PrinceRogersNelson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 11/14/17 10:48am

morningsong

avatar

I'm all for taking away the bullets. I forget what country does that? People have all the guns they want, but the bullets are heavily regulated?

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 11/14/17 11:23am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

gimmesomehornz said:

People who say they are "for gun control" in truth are not. They want people with guns to take away other people's guns. Their precious government can be armed to the teeth, but private citizens have to be completely disarmed. That is slavery.

many of them do not even know what they want banned. They will say things that are so generic that they could apply to many other kinds of firearms as well. In the 80s the big boogyman was handguns... now it is assault rifles.

others are just liers that want most of the banned.

then there are the Jim Crow types that want to ban bullets or put a $100 per round tax or ban the sale. They do not see that all those ideas have been crushed each time they have been tried. When Democrats passed jim crow laws to stop people from voting... they were crushed. Odd how it is now mostly democrats that want to use the same loophole mindset to ban this civil right.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 11/14/17 11:24am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

morningsong said:

I'm all for taking away the bullets. I forget what country does that? People have all the guns they want, but the bullets are heavily regulated?

Jim Crow!

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 11/14/17 12:29pm

morningsong

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

morningsong said:

I'm all for taking away the bullets. I forget what country does that? People have all the guns they want, but the bullets are heavily regulated?

Jim Crow!



Jim Crow's not a country.


I've already come to the conclusion given everything that has happened with mass shootings over the past 10 or so years, that no act whatsoever is going to sway people about their constitutional right to bear arms. I think the entire argument has just become a waste of time. You make WalMart stop selling this that or the other, to have gun shows where individuals can sale what they want. It's the equivalent of a dog chasing it's own tail. Until someone gets smart enough about the constitution and what it truly stands for it'll just keep being watered down to a "I can do what I want" way of thinking that prevades everything. People need dental care not automatic weapons.



“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 11/14/17 12:39pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

morningsong said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Jim Crow!



Jim Crow's not a country.


I've already come to the conclusion given everything that has happened with mass shootings over the past 10 or so years, that no act whatsoever is going to sway people about their constitutional right to bear arms. I think the entire argument has just become a waste of time. You make WalMart stop selling this that or the other, to have gun shows where individuals can sale what they want. It's the equivalent of a dog chasing it's own tail. Until someone gets smart enough about the constitution and what it truly stands for it'll just keep being watered down to a "I can do what I want" way of thinking that prevades everything. People need dental care not automatic weapons.



By Jim Crow, I mean that Idea is just like Jim Crow laws to stop people from voting or accessing other RIGHTS. You can not (in a free nation) pass laws to circumvent or put undue burdens on exercising rights.


And I agree... there is little point to trying to convince a gin grabber that gun rights should be protected and not taken away on some emotional appeal over a tiny % of people that misuse them.

Oh and there was a shooting at or near a school in California today... sad I think they said, several children, where shot... but again not a reason to take guns away.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 11/14/17 12:48pm

Dasein

gimmesomehornz said:

People who say they are "for gun control" in truth are not. They want people with guns to take away other people's guns. Their precious government can be armed to the teeth, but private citizens have to be completely disarmed. That is slavery.


There are tons of industrialized countries where guns are heavily restricted for private citizens
with defense departments fully armed yet no one complains. The only reason why jack-assed
Amurikkkans complain about the prospect of having their guns taken away from them is be-
cause they erroneously believe that bearing arms is an instrinsic and basic human right or a
basic right of citizenship borne out of their gun idolatry. I asked an Orger recently why he felt
the need to cling to his gun rights and he told me: "To protect what is mine; to protect my pro-
perty." Spoken like a true patriarch who understands himself only in relation to what he thinks
he owns, and spoken like a true paranoid who believes at any moment, some Black guy or
government baddie is gonna take his woman, rape him, and then expropriate any of his valued
belongings.

rolleyes

And, I'm assuming that people in these industrialized countries where they do not have the right
to bear arms do not imagine they are slaves, which is yet another goofy comparison you've made.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 11/14/17 12:59pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

gimmesomehornz said:

People who say they are "for gun control" in truth are not. They want people with guns to take away other people's guns. Their precious government can be armed to the teeth, but private citizens have to be completely disarmed. That is slavery.

(1) many of them do not even know what they want banned. They will say things that are so generic that they could apply to many other kinds of firearms as well. In the 80s the big boogyman was handguns... now it is assault rifles.

(2) others are just liers that want most of the banned.

(3) then there are the Jim Crow types that want to ban bullets or put a $100 per round tax or ban the sale. They do not see that all those ideas have been crushed each time they have been tried. When Democrats passed jim crow laws to stop people from voting... they were crushed. Odd how it is now mostly democrats that want to use the same loophole mindset to ban this civil right.


(1) Which was exactly the point of that ridiculous assault rifle thread of yours whereby you
wanted to show that those who want to ban assault rifles without understanding the difference
between assault rifles with rifles (as there isn't one or so you claimed) was grounds to dismiss
their argument altogether. I pointed out why this was flawed and patted myself on the back
for doing it so cogently, stank you smelly much.

(2) That would be me for I think meant to say "outliers". But even here, you are implying that
because we are outliers, then our argument is to be flatly dismissed, which is fallacious thinking
too.

(3) Who cares if "all those ideas" have been defeated each time? Does that mean those who do
advocate for such policies should stop looking to make the right to bear arms more restrictive?
And, your post has yet another flaw: you presume that political parties do not change over time
so to point out how the Democrats passed Jim Crow laws as if that is what the Democratic Party
would do today in 2017 ignores history. Tell me: how has the Republican Party changed over
time, eh?



 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 11/14/17 1:05pm

morningsong

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

morningsong said:



Jim Crow's not a country.


I've already come to the conclusion given everything that has happened with mass shootings over the past 10 or so years, that no act whatsoever is going to sway people about their constitutional right to bear arms. I think the entire argument has just become a waste of time. You make WalMart stop selling this that or the other, to have gun shows where individuals can sale what they want. It's the equivalent of a dog chasing it's own tail. Until someone gets smart enough about the constitution and what it truly stands for it'll just keep being watered down to a "I can do what I want" way of thinking that prevades everything. People need dental care not automatic weapons.



By Jim Crow, I mean that Idea is just like Jim Crow laws to stop people from voting or accessing other RIGHTS. You can not (in a free nation) pass laws to circumvent or put undue burdens on exercising rights.


And I agree... there is little point to trying to convince a gin grabber that gun rights should be protected and not taken away on some emotional appeal over a tiny % of people that misuse them.

Oh and there was a shooting at or near a school in California today... sad I think they said, several children, where shot... but again not a reason to take guns away.



Hone, I live in one of the safest large cities in America, (murder numbers are low per population) they still have detectors setup to trianglate where gunshots are coming from so the police can get to the scene faster (they don't work well though), that's the reality of gun ownership. When you have to lay your babies on the floor waiting for whatever "celebration" is going on to be over. When you've have to step over someone's bloodstain from a shooting, just going to the corner store. I am not in need of the lastest media driven shooting incident, it's my everyday life.


And I do take offense to someone using something that was governmently designed to keep an entire group of people from enjoying full citizenship as a means of justifying the lack of owning one unneccesary item.

[Edited 11/14/17 13:09pm]

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 11/14/17 1:21pm

RodeoSchro

avatar


Five killed in California shooting spree; schoolchildren injured as shots fired at elementary school.


Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 11/14/17 3:31pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

omg, cannot take it.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 11/14/17 3:52pm

morningsong

avatar

I've grown quite numb.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 11/14/17 3:55pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Right, it is awful.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 11/14/17 5:05pm

Dasein

The gun advocate who endures yet another mass shooting resulting in the deaths of innocents
related to gun violence yet says: "Yep, this sucks but it's still not enough to get me to give up
my gun worship" is an arrant moral failure.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 11/14/17 5:28pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

The gun advocate who endures yet another mass shooting resulting in the deaths of innocents
related to gun violence yet says: "Yep, this sucks but it's still not enough to get me to give up
my gun worship" is an arrant moral failure.

do you know how wars are won?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 11/14/17 6:41pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:

The gun advocate who endures yet another mass shooting resulting in the deaths of innocents
related to gun violence yet says: "Yep, this sucks but it's still not enough to get me to give up
my gun worship" is an arrant moral failure.

do you know how wars are won?


Wait . . . there's another civil war in the United States of America so that I must shoot innocents
with my assault rifle? When was war declared on non-combatants living in the US? Because, all
I want to do is shoot into crowds of innocent kids at school; innocent people in a church; and inno-
cent people going to a concert because I have no clue as to how wars are won - even prior to the
advent of gunpowder.

What the fuck are you talking about, dude? Nobody is saying guns can't achieve a means to an
end, especially when it comes to fighting an enemy who wishes death upon you. But, to ask me
if I know how wars are won so that you can keep tongue kissing your pistols at night because you
think the right to bear arms is more important than not being able to fight off innocent kids at
school; innocent people in church; and innocent people attending a music concert with the ability
to wield a weapon that keeps cowards at a safe distance from being engaged in a struggle for
freedom is the most fatuous thing I've ever read at the Org in my fourteen years of posting here.

Congratulations: we are now all dumber for reading your post.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 11/14/17 10:38pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Dasein said:

TweetyV6 said:


It wasn't a (quantitative) study, it was a literature review.

The statement "More guns means more deaths" can be easily dismissed and therfore is FALSE!

What would lead to more deaths; one person owning one million guns or 1 million people each owning a gun?

Correct would be: more gun owners leads to more deaths. And that's mainly due to the easy access to guns for sale/very limited restrictions to buying and owning a gun.


And what did the literature review of those quantitative studies indicate? And, how do you easily
dismiss the findings thereby making that particular claim (which is a simplification) false?

Your hypothetical question has no real bearing on this conversation: one person with a million guns
could kill one million people or one person; one million people with one million guns could kill one
million people or one person. The fact remains that because there are one million guns in each
scenario, there is a chance somebody, whether it be one person or one million, could be killed for
that is what the research tells us: there is a facilitative effect between the high numbers of guns
in the US and the high numbers of gun related deaths. Yet, if one person or one million people
couldn't have guns at all means the chances of one million or one person being killed by gun vio-
lence is significantly reduced.

Yet, I don't understand how you could ask that hypothetical but then make a correction on this.


OMG. eek

In a population of 1 million people, chances are very high that you have a small group of people who have mental issues and/or a "low trigger pull threshold"

Yes, hypothetically 1 person could kill 1 million people with (a) gun(s).
I leave it up to you to estimate the rate of success in achieving that.

Other point is, that if people want to kill other people by means of a fire arm, they will succeed anyhow. Of course, having a low threshold to obtain guns has a catalytic effect, but even if guns would be banned, people would still be able to get a gun anyhow.

We see that here, in the Netherlands, where we had a couple of shootings lately (with AK47's) whilst it is forbidden (with very few exceptions) to own a gun.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 11/15/17 5:38am

Dasein

TweetyV6 said:

Dasein said:


And what did the literature review of those quantitative studies indicate? And, how do you easily
dismiss the findings thereby making that particular claim (which is a simplification) false?

Your hypothetical question has no real bearing on this conversation: one person with a million guns
could kill one million people or one person; one million people with one million guns could kill one
million people or one person. The fact remains that because there are one million guns in each
scenario, there is a chance somebody, whether it be one person or one million, could be killed for
that is what the research tells us: there is a facilitative effect between the high numbers of guns
in the US and the high numbers of gun related deaths. Yet, if one person or one million people
couldn't have guns at all means the chances of one million or one person being killed by gun vio-
lence is significantly reduced.

Yet, I don't understand how you could ask that hypothetical but then make a correction on this.


OMG. eek

In a population of 1 million people, chances are very high that you have a small group of people who have mental issues and/or a "low trigger pull threshold"

Yes, hypothetically 1 person could kill 1 million people with (a) gun(s).
I leave it up to you to estimate the rate of success in achieving that.

Other point is, that if people want to kill other people by means of a fire arm, they will succeed anyhow. Of course, having a low threshold to obtain guns has a catalytic effect, but even if guns would be banned, people would still be able to get a gun anyhow.

We see that here, in the Netherlands, where we had a couple of shootings lately (with AK47's) whilst it is forbidden (with very few exceptions) to own a gun.


What do you mean, "OMG"?

You are not being thorough with your hypothetical: in a population of one million people who each
have one gun totalling one million guns (which is almost the gun/person ratio here in the USA),
research indicates you're going to have a high number of gun related deaths and gun violence. So,
don't make it seem like in a group of one million people, those with mental health issues or a "low
trigger pull threshold" are going to automatically cause innocent people to die without mentioning
the presence of guns.

How many guns are in the Netherlands? We have about three hundred million here in the US. How
many people are in the Netherlands? We have three hundred twenty million here in the US. How
many gun related deaths or cases of gun violence do you have in the Netherlands? There were more
than 38,000 gun deaths last year; 36,000 in 2015, and about 33,500 each year between 2011 and
2014 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yes; I agree that a criminal is probably going to get his hands on a gun even if guns are banned.
But, that doesn't mean that we sit on our asses and do nothing about it: realizing that a criminal
is going to make every effort to obtain a firearm does not mean that we don't ban all guns or make
it harder to obtain them anyways.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 11/15/17 5:43am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

It is sad and a little scary that some have come to believe that 99% must be punished for the actions of the 1%! Sick really.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 11/15/17 5:52am

TweetyV6

avatar

Dasein said:

Yes; I agree that a criminal is probably going to get his hands on a gun even if guns are banned.
But, that doesn't mean that we sit on our asses and do nothing about it: realizing that a criminal
is going to make every effort to obtain a firearm does not mean that we don't ban all guns or make it harder to obtain them anyways.


And with that I also agree.
Please don't get me wrong, I fully agrre with banning guns.
I think that this 2nd amendment thing is crazy.

I just objected against the statement made in the OP that more guns mean more deaths, which isn't correct.

More gun-owners means more deaths. Definately.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #148 posted 11/15/17 5:56am

TweetyV6

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It is sad and a little scary that some have come to believe that 99% must be punished for the actions of the 1%! Sick really.


What punishment? Denied of easy access to guns?
And do you realy NEED guns?

What if you wouldn't own a gun? Can't sleep? Can't get an erection? lol

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #149 posted 11/15/17 6:03am

poppys

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It is sad and a little scary that some have come to believe that 99% must be punished for the actions of the 1%! Sick really.

What is really sick is the vocabulary being used here to prop up unlimited gun purchase and use, even for the mentally ill and people on no-fly lists. Slavery - they really want to take all our guns/freedom. Jim Crow - they want restrictions on firearms or ammunition. And Gun Grabber - or as Only so eloquently put it recently, "grab em by the gunners" (paraphrasing his hero). It must be intentional, twist loaded words to make gun devotees the oppressed ones.

Kick the old-school joints. For the true funk soldiers.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 10 <123456789>Last »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Harvard Study: More guns means more deaths!