Tsiangkun wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/clifford04202007.htmlC-Fan wrote:HDS, sinking to new lows.
HighDemonslayer wrote: It does start to get tiring, reading endless stories of un-needed foreigners, butchering and killing, leaving many thousands of dead citizens in their wake every year.
Example?
Well played Sir, well played! 
children are more at risk of choking on a grape than killing themselves with guns.Jeremy wrote:http://www.neahin.org/programs/scho...ics.htm#america
Interesting gun statistics
" American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)"
Well, grapes don't have to be eaten to survive. There's a lot more food out there, obviously, lol. And guns are usually for entertainment, you know, sport and shooting targets. It's not a very useful purpose, but still a purpose. And like grapes... you don't have to use guns for entertainment, there's thousands of things you can do. lol.Jeremy wrote:That's bogus logic. Not only do grapes serve a useful purpose (ie. food), but there is no practical solution to that problem. Just because one thing is bad, it doesn't make other things any better or worse, they are clearly separate issues.
), and I've got 2 hours of sleep for the past two days, so forgive my... rambling. Kinda just zoning out to The Offspring...
Yeah... I guess you're right. I didn't even think of that. I could actually have a loaded M4 in my hands in less than 15 minutes. I'm a friend of a cop a town away from me, wouldn't be hard to jack his weapon and ammunition. And though live rounds are not stored at my unit's armory, I could easily take an M16-A4 from there, and then take ammunition from the place that I'd get the M4 from, because they both use the same ammunition. Only difference really is one has 3 round burst and the other does not.Sporatical_Distractions wrote:Even with gun control, it's still just about as easy to find a gun.
I don't own a gun nor do my roomates, but I could easily get a hold of one within the next half hour.
If strict gun control does get implemented, the fact that the cops' weapons could be "acquired" by somebody criminal, does not change.eah... I guess you're right. I didn't even think of that. I could actually have a loaded M4 in my hands in less than 15 minutes. I'm a friend of a cop a town away from me, wouldn't be hard to jack his weapon and ammunition. And though live rounds are not stored at my unit's armory, I could easily take an M16-A4 from there, and then take ammunition from the place ...(...)
Brenda has a few examples, some incidents of which I remember from the news (before being swept under the rug) from previous years(I BOLDed a few lines) :C-Fan wrote:
HDS, sinking to new lows. Rolling Eyes
HighDemonslayer wrote:
It does start to get tiring, reading endless stories of un-needed foreigners, butchering and killing, leaving many thousands of dead citizens in their wake every year.
Example?
What does that have to do with anything?homosexual attacks
Source? Of course not! Just a list of murderers, without any stats to show that these Muslims are murdering with any greater frequency that other Americans. Bullshit.distinct tendency of Muslims in the U.S. to start suddenly offing Americans
So why is it not happening in Canada, where our immigration rate is much higher, and is home to the most diverse North American cities, Toronto and Vancouver?The accumulation of mass-murdering immigrants is the merely worst indicator of a society grown too diverse for social harmony.
Does that make their statistics any less valid? The foundation didn't do the surveying themselves, they hired a research company to do it for them. Also, since the issue is not at the top of their agenda, it is less likely to be biased and skewed by political motives.HighDemonslayer wrote: C-fan wrote:
Ridiculous, huh?That's the single most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Congratulations. So if the name of the agency was "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Fatality Statistics" then their methodology would be valid?
If the average, literate person was asked to create a list of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention top 5, 10, or 20 concerns might be, I would bet that gun violence would be mentioned near the bottom of the list, if mentioned at all.
HighDemonslayer wrote: ---------------------------------------
C-fan wrote:
That's the single most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Congratulations. So if the name of the agency was "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Fatality Statistics" then their methodology would be valid?
Yet again. And that article you posted by Brenda Walker is amazing.HighDemonslayer wrote: C-fan wrote:Who the hell is trying to constantly take your guns?
Brenda Walker wrote: We must call this “Immigrant Mass Murder Syndromeâ€
I support the troops.junkyardjew wrote:I guess if the average american had to look at pictures like this every day, they might stop "supporting the troops" - and we wouldn't want that.
He kind of trails off but I think his first point is good; we weren't supposed to have the right to bare arms just because having guns is cool. It seems like an outdated amendment which should be reexamined and rethought.Old friend wrote:The argument over "the right to bare arms" is inane; the second amendment was written to allow people to fight and protect themselves in cases of civil war. It was not meant to allow people the right to go hunting for sport. It was not meant to allow people the right to keep loaded guns in their house in case someone broke in. Look at the statistics, how many children die every year because their parent or guardian keep a loaded gun in the house? Compare our rates of gun murders and deaths each year to other countries who are not at war within the country.
Well, as has already been pointed out, you've got the wrong attribution there. Anyway, let's break this down:HighDemonslayer wrote: C-fan wrote:
Ridiculous, huh?That's the single most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Congratulations. So if the name of the agency was "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Fatality Statistics" then their methodology would be valid?
If the average, literate person was asked to create a list of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention top 5, 10, or 20 concerns might be, I would bet that gun violence would be mentioned near the bottom of the list, if mentioned at all.
C-fan wrote:Well, as the so called Assault Weapon Ban expiration (and Bushs' desire to extend it) showed us:Who the hell is trying to constantly take your guns?
1. Bush
2. Senators H. Clinton ,C Schumer..........tack on any other politico with a history of sneaky, or brazen attempts.
There are other Grabbers, of course, with long histories.
This still has no bearing on the legitimacy of their methods or their findings. Whether the average person would rank tracking fatality statistics in the US as part of the core mission of the CDC or not is irrelevant. If you have some actual knowledge of statistics and the study in question and can point out some real reasons to question its findings, I'm all ears. But you don't, and can't, so stfu.HighDemonslayer wrote:If the average, literate person was asked to create a list of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention top 5, 10, or 20 concerns might be, I would bet that gun violence would be mentioned near the bottom of the list, if mentioned at all.
Do you even know what words mean? You're using the expiration of an assault weapons ban as proof that America's political leadership is scheming to take away your guns? Furthermore, this is the fallacy of composition, or possibly the slippery slope fallacy depending on your interpretation of what the assault weapons ban means. An effort to ban a small, distinct group of weapons is not the same thing as banning all guns.HighDemonslayer wrote:Well, as the so called Assault Weapon Ban expiration (and Bushs' desire to extend it) showed us:
1. Bush
2. Senators H. Clinton ,C Schumer..........tack on any other politico with a history of sneaky, or brazen attempts.
Good thing we don't have a surplus of idiots in America, and everyone that buys guns do it for house protection reasons...flockpocken wrote:wats wrong with keeping a gun in the house in case someone brakes in? i have 3 in my closet. but they are in a gun safe. meant to keep guns... SAFE from children (not that theres any in the house all the time) and fire. your basically an idiot if you keep one laying around in the reach of children.
