To be interpreted as meaning that you are name calling instead of reading and replying to substance.
There is no better way to acknowledge that you are ignorant of the topic.
You would have been better of saying nothing.
I'd shoot you in the kneecap too if you were trespassing and refused to leave! Then again I'd shoot you in the kneecap just for my amusement.
Report: British Crime Rates Manipulated to Seem Lower Since Gun Ban
Authored by Dr. Paul Gallant, Dr. Joanne D. Eisen, Alan J. Chwick, and Sherry Gallant, and published at AmmoLand , the report shows that as recently as 2008 "one in three [Brits] had been a victim of crime, or knew someone who had been." Also in 2008, "nearly half [of survey respondents] knew of someone in their community who had been a victim in the last year."“Published at Ammoland”? It’s home page says it is “Shooting Sports News” – follow the link. A gun magazine? Talk about a stacked deck. This isn’t a scholarly study, it’s a commercial gun mag article with an axe to grind. The question is hopelessly broad and loose-ended. It measured ‘all people who “knew” someone who had been a victim of crime?’ If one guy on an assembly line floor had someone run a key down the side of his car and the whole floor heard about it, 100% of the floor is effected by crime by that definition. Ditto if one secretary in an office had someone steal her cell phone, or one student at school had his bike stolen. Typical right wing gun manipulation. Reading this hyperbole makes me feel embarrassed being a shooter. It might be sufficient to preach to the choir with, but to be effective its got to be honest enough to convince members of the general public who have a modicum of intelligence. They don't want to be BS'd. Getting caught BS'ing does more harm than good and this article is crass it's so obvious. Of course if it is not intended to be taken seriously by ordinary honest people ...?
How is such crime possible if banning guns produced the utopia CNN's Piers Morgan repeatedly describes?
Greetings! People's thought processes are consistently overwhelmed by emotion not reason. Any discussion about "guns" or "gun control" engenders first an emotional response and then perhaps but all too infrequently a more reasoned approach further along the dialogue. Rarely will you hear anything about these emotion-laden topics that doesn't arise from the emotionally clouded thinking of people seeking answers to why they feel so scared so impotent and so strongly about this or that...
Publications featuring articles and op-eds aimed at particular and specific target audiences will always appear biased, because they are! In most arguments reason doesn't stand a chance against emotion and this is the reality when conversations turn to politics, religion or any of the plethora of topical issues which elicit strong emotion. We should perhaps spend less time responding emotionally to the contents of some publication and adopt reason first. It won't matter how many facts are presented by whatever authority whether accepted as actually authoritative or not when our visceral responses are our starting position. People die when folk misuse automobiles kitchen knives and firearms, and we don't mature as a society or individually when we are stuck responding to the world around us from the scared child that lives within at the heart of personal insecurity.
Much truth. I used to be opposed to all gun control until the day somebody asked how I could be opposed to gun control if I was not equally opposed to driving licenses. A little thought led me to conclude there was no logical answer.
Texas Concealed Handgun License Murder Rates
Is driving a constitutional right??
I am not opposed to licenses for either driving or firearms ownership, but the right to keep arms is limited in Canada.....not so in the USA.
As such it is protected under section 7 of the Charter, a right, " not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." So yes, your driver's license is protected in that sense.
Some court decisions have held that in our highly industrialized society driving is too important not to be protected. As such it is protected under section 7 of the Charter, a right, " not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." So yes, your driver's license is protected in that sense. Your right to own a gun? Thankfully no. We are not right wing fascist. We do not need more angry white males with concealed handguns on our streets.
"Murder" rates are one of the cons perpetrated on the public by groups like the NRA. They don't count a person murdered unless there is a murder conviction. There are many reasons why many murders don't get counted: the murderer is never identified, police know who the murder is but don't have enough evidence, the murderer dies, the murderer goes to trial but is not convicted to name a few. Using statistics this way, a corpse found dead in an alley with his hands tied behind his back, his pockets turned inside out, his wallet stripped and a bullet through the back of his head is not a "murder" unless somebody is caught and convicted. Pure bullsh!t use of statistics designed to mislead the unsuspecting public.
Cooke said he has been "hiring more staff just to [just] to accommodate the influx of [concealed carry permit] requests," but he does not mind: "My philosophy is the (2003 Concealed Carry Act) was passed so more people can get concealed weapon permits, and we're trying to do everything possible to be sure they can."
For those who think this is a rare occurrence and it could never happen to them.....
I have been paying for motor vehicle insurance for 50+ years with not a single claim....does it mean I don't need insurance?
That's exactly what it means. You also don't need to register your car or have a driving license. Stand up for your freedom!
I Sure hope you are just pretending......to be purposely obtuse that is.....
For the record you can drive an unregistered vehicle.....on your property.