Please change title of thread from...
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
Anti-gun activists are Completely Useless. :lol:
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
Anti-gun activists are Completely Useless. :lol:
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
It can be, between any two or more people, organisations etc. who want to formalise how they deal with each other. It can also be spelled out for example, in legal documents such as wills & contracts. In some such cases the rights may be stipulated by just one of the parties.
That is correct and their decisions are generally based on their perception of the majority public will and their own desire to be elected and remain so.
Last edited:
This includes a misstatement. The writer should have said "I argue to win", not "you argue to win", as if it were some kind of law of the universe; it isn't.
To irrevocably make up one's mind on a subject is to renounce the possibility of learning anything more.
I don't personally have much use for the kind of 'us vs them' or 'me vs you' sledgehammer argument - if the objective is to announce a 'winner' rather than explore all aspects of a subject, as deeply and open mindedly as possible. I guess argument-to-win is really just a diversion, a kind of sport or game that need have nothing to do with reality.
I'm sure Colpy really appreciates your lecture Lol Are you an elementary school teacher by chance?
All quotes from VIBC
Fair enough
I've been arguing this subject for wayyyy too close to half a century. I know it inside out, and the evidence is clear; rates of lethal violence have very little to do with the presence of firearms. Simple as that. So it becomes a simple question of to have the liberty to have weapons, or to lack that liberty. And yeah, on that my mind is made up.
I've got a mind like a steel trap.....politically incorrect, and rusted shut.
When it comes to the issue of the state restricting my liberty and potentially stealing my property, the steel trap mind asserts itself, the hammer comes out, and I have no apologies to make in that regard.
Fair enough
I've been arguing this subject for wayyyy too close to half a century. I know it inside out, and the evidence is clear; rates of lethal violence have very little to do with the presence of firearms. Simple as that. So it becomes a simple question of to have the liberty to have weapons, or to lack that liberty. And yeah, on that my mind is made up.
I've got a mind like a steel trap.....politically incorrect, and rusted shut.
When it comes to the issue of the state restricting my liberty and potentially stealing my property, the steel trap mind asserts itself, the hammer comes out, and I have no apologies to make in that regard.
Not really. I understood clearly that you said "you" meaning "one," the generic pronoun. It's common usage.
I can't argue that, and you know my inclination is to find a way. I've just never found one that would reduce gun violence by more'n a couple percent, except banning handguns entirely, and that presupposes (insanely) that you could effectively do so.
Rar.I've got a mind like a steel trap.....politically incorrect, and rusted shut.
When it comes to the issue of the state restricting my liberty and potentially stealing my property, the steel trap mind asserts itself, the hammer comes out, and I have no apologies to make in that regard.
Not necessarily true, I think, but almost certainly means more shooting and means it's easier to kill, especially at a distance or with multiple targets. Easier to have accidental deaths when owners don't secure their weapons as they're supposed to. Easier to commit instant killing in rage or fear or on a sudden impulse, including suicide.
The culture of a nation also plays a part. I think there are some countries with very high gun ownership and very low rates of gun violence. What types of weapon are owned and for what purpose is likely a factor. It's not a simple black vs white, one size fits all type of issue.
Not much to argue about.
The data is conclusive - more guns more violence. Just as common sense would dictate.
On the Columbine lady - she has been found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
I guess a young woman has not developed the deep hatred that leads so many of these old men to go on shooting sprees.
The data is conclusive - more guns more violence. Just as common sense would dictate.
On the Columbine lady - she has been found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
I guess a young woman has not developed the deep hatred that leads so many of these old men to go on shooting sprees.
I absolutely agree that culture has a huge effect on murder rates. That's why black Americans (13% of the population) are responsible for 53% of the murders in which the race of the offender is known.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2.xls
And why the Swiss, with very relaxed gun laws that allow military style firearms and large capacity magazines, have one of the lowest murder rates on earth. And yes, they have a huge gun culture, and lots of weapons. The murder rate is 0.54 per 100,000. That is very, very low.
BTW, you should look at the FBI reports on weapon used. So called (incorrectly) "assault rifles" are the current bugaboo.........yet are rarely used in homicide. The stats do not break down rifles by type, but still rifle murders make up a tiny percentage of overall murders in the USA, and I have no doubt most are done with conventional style weapons.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12
I have to say this; little irritates me more than the idea that because someone voluntarily sticks a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger, my liberty should be curtailed. Idiotic. It is a free country, or it is supposed to be.
As for the effect of large numbers of firearms on a society, compare the two following lists. Look for a correlation. Spoiler: if there is a correlation, it is a negative one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
Here's a website quoting 2014 statitics for the 15 countries with he highest rates of gun ownership, and their firearm homicides per 100,000 population.
https://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html
Most of these countries have 30 - 40% gun ownership, except for Finland & Switzerlad at about 45% and the United States with a whopping 88%.
The reported firearm homicide rates bear little relationship to gun numbers. Shooting deaths are mostly below 1/100,000 but range from 0 (Iceland) to about 3 (Urugay) per 100,000 and a little over 3 in the U.S.
In Canada the figure is 0.51.
Note these figures are about gun ownership; they take no account of regulation strictness/laxity, or types of firearm in circulation.
https://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html
Most of these countries have 30 - 40% gun ownership, except for Finland & Switzerlad at about 45% and the United States with a whopping 88%.
The reported firearm homicide rates bear little relationship to gun numbers. Shooting deaths are mostly below 1/100,000 but range from 0 (Iceland) to about 3 (Urugay) per 100,000 and a little over 3 in the U.S.
In Canada the figure is 0.51.
Note these figures are about gun ownership; they take no account of regulation strictness/laxity, or types of firearm in circulation.
Whether Canada is "supposed to be a free country" depends on who's doing the supposing and which freedoms, or their limits, are being considered. Canadian society is a society and as such defines those freedoms and their limits, as far as practical, by consensus of the majority.
I remember - I think it was after the school shooting in Falkirk - when the British government tightened its gun laws, I saw a TV interview with members of the gun club in a small English town. Their response to the new restrictions was something like "Oh well, I guess we'll have to get another hobby." I thought that was a remarkably healthy attitude and spoke to the stability of their local culture.
I remember - I think it was after the school shooting in Falkirk - when the British government tightened its gun laws, I saw a TV interview with members of the gun club in a small English town. Their response to the new restrictions was something like "Oh well, I guess we'll have to get another hobby." I thought that was a remarkably healthy attitude and spoke to the stability of their local culture.
Yep.
Entirely intended to mislead.
The use of "firearms homicides" is a tactic of anti-gun organizations to push their point.
If guns are a superior method of committing homicide to any real degree, and if the presence of guns causes homicide, then the countries would match; most guns, more homicide.
It doesn't. Not even close. That blows their argument out of the water completely, so they turn to "firearms homicides". It is BS.
If no gun is available, a killer simply turns to another weapon, and no life is saved. That is what the comparison of gun ownership rates and homicide rates indicates.
Take everything gun grabbers tell you with a generous dose of salt.
Dead on.
Everything's a load of bullshit just intended to mystify the unbelievers.
They throw numbers at you as if numbers mean something, but they're only wanting to see if you can count. If you can count they'll try another strategy, to fool you into thinking it's Friday when it's really Wednesday.
They use words like 'you', 'I' and 'if' to get you thinking they understand the language. Don't be misled; that's exactly what they want!
They may present you with real facts hoping you won't notice and will think it's just another fake news tactic to confuse you.
They'll do anything to prove their point but when it looks proved, don't believe it. God, they're slippery. But the point is that they don't know what the point is. Except maybe on Tuesdays.
Everything that do or say is a tactic to keep you from seeing the truth. They'll show it to you backwards and hope you don't notice.
They use words like 'words' or 'firearm' or 'cause' or 'match.' Don't read those words, they will lead you astray.
They're just anti-pumpkin-pie evangelists, cabbage munchers, cake crushers and porcupine lovers. Ignore them and all their seditious nonsense.
Remember that an unloaded brick will not save you in a house fire, and keep your mortar dry.
If all else fails, just blow on them.
Everything's a load of bullshit just intended to mystify the unbelievers.
They throw numbers at you as if numbers mean something, but they're only wanting to see if you can count. If you can count they'll try another strategy, to fool you into thinking it's Friday when it's really Wednesday.
They use words like 'you', 'I' and 'if' to get you thinking they understand the language. Don't be misled; that's exactly what they want!
They may present you with real facts hoping you won't notice and will think it's just another fake news tactic to confuse you.
They'll do anything to prove their point but when it looks proved, don't believe it. God, they're slippery. But the point is that they don't know what the point is. Except maybe on Tuesdays.
Everything that do or say is a tactic to keep you from seeing the truth. They'll show it to you backwards and hope you don't notice.
They use words like 'words' or 'firearm' or 'cause' or 'match.' Don't read those words, they will lead you astray.
They're just anti-pumpkin-pie evangelists, cabbage munchers, cake crushers and porcupine lovers. Ignore them and all their seditious nonsense.
Remember that an unloaded brick will not save you in a house fire, and keep your mortar dry.
If all else fails, just blow on them.
My my my, manners there, young fella. Sarcasm is unbecoming.
What I told you is fact.
What the gun grabbers are doing when they use "gun murders" is twisting stats and evidence on violence by cherry picking to support their agenda..
That is kind of obvious to any thinking individual.
BTW, gun control freaks constantly lie in their stats. Even the gov't and the police were caught out misleading the public with stats on domestic firearms used in crime, and the increase in gun violence by radically boosting the numbers of domestically sourced "crime guns" and using a outlier year of little violence (2013) as a baseline.