Firearms are serious business for responsible owners. You are obviously a non-experienced person as well
It only takes one to want to kill. How 'bout we have a lottery to see which criminal gets to break into the next house or decides to pull a gun out in a restaraunt. And tell us why your thoughts about America should be of concern to us..............
I've said before, stay there, then you won't have to be skeert of the bogeyman. 100,000,000 people say you should stay there.
[ True enough. But "right" or wrong, the second amendment was not about hunting or target shooting. The first is not about what you whisper in private. Your opinion on whether the constitution is "right", that is http://www.bit-101.com/blog/wp-cont...you-know-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.jpg My mom was an English professor, I know a simile when I see one. Referring to people as "John Waynes" is name calling. True. But then, I dont have paranoid thoughts. I have issues, but that isnt one of them. I have some lingering emotional issues because someone did in fact try to kill me. Im lucky to be alive. It was a rude way to find out how vulnerable I am. There is nothing "John Wayne" about me. I simply want to have the means to defend myself in gravest extreme, unlikely as it is to ever happen again. My emphasis is no avoiding and preventing, of course. You havent walked in my shoes, I dont believe I'd wish that on anyone. You in turn, dont please presume to know my purpose or need for a weapon, let alone diagnosing me as some trigger happy movie actor or mental defective. 'k?
Amongst bandits people carry guns, poor dabs. As in all areas, you kill like mad to enrich a few profiteers, in this case the merchants of death who sell kids popguns because they haven't guts to do without, and can only grovel or murder. Men, in most places, stand up like men and fight, often shaking hands after. You can't shake hands with someone you've murdered.
ho hum...........boring. We''ve heard this insane rhetoric for along time. Ad hom.............overstating facts. Ad him..............strawman You assume, again. killing in self-defense is not murder, legally or lawfully
http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2009/07/ak-47/5/ Funny. Hahaha. Anti-gun legislator and concealed weapon carrier Diane Feinstein with finger on trigger at news conference.
Only if. Good grief. Are you just unwilling to admit that there are situations in which a gun is appropriate and necessary?
Apparently this equation is false because even as gun ownership has increased to historic levels violent crimes have been going down since the 1990's. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...wn-part-2-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2961080/posts Roughly 20 years of increased gun ownership while crime statistics have been steadily declining really shows the liberal belief that gun ownership creates or equates to crime is a myth.
Aside from you rather over the top comments in bold you sort of have about half a point. I agree that men should be men and settle their differences mano a, with fists if they cant manage to do with words. Since I cant be a man, nor fight one with fists, and shaking hands after a rape is not in the cards none of your ideas apply to me. if you wish to discuss the manly arts with men, fine; if you see no problem with me having access to a gun for self defense we have no issue.
You'd be utilising the standard spurious conclusion error. The 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis requires the isolation of gun effects, by definition
Everyone knows gun control will civilize criminals. It is common knowledge. Your hypothesis is soundly reputed by my superior anti-gun logic.
Failure to normalize your psi function with a proper sample size and proper boundry conditions trumps your conjecture.
Sorry Shiva - will have to get back to you later today if able But please this is only held as a truism in America - and most of that is thanks to John Lott and his dancing statistics backed of course by the NRA and the armaments industry These studies only address homicide - will come back with more later http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Well, certainly the whole rape thing needs serious looking at, but rapists can carry guns too, you know. I think that the problem is that very many women are conditioned against violence, by and large, and murdering people is more difficult for them than it is for drunken yobs. I think training in unarmed combat would be more profitable, honestly. When one of my daughters had this difficulty a quick boot to the testicles settled it: you need to know where to kick, and practice how. I see the problem, which is just as real here, where we murder incredibly fewer people, but it isn't easilly answered by killing people, I think, if that isn't really your bag.
sounds like you speak from experience. Have you ever been raped and beaten by three men twice your size? .....and criminals now become victims. Ain't that sweet...............
wow, read the first bunch of posts on this and thought, "finally, it's not just a contest of who can use the most clever insults and who can ignore facts but an actual, intelligent conversation." then that racist guy came in and it was all downhill from there. but pertaining to the question, though i'm liberal on most issues, i generally approve of guns. i don't like violent felons having the rights, but i think ones that have non-violent crimes (most likely drug sales and the such) then they could simply have some gun-parole. i don't really like fully automatic guns, but with the right paperwork i'm not opposed to ownership. and the mentally ill, same as with the felons, only the violent ones.
