‘What stands between us and what happened in London? Guns, guns, guns’

No, try to respect my right to see things differently than you do (right or wrong, by you).

Guns and the tentative culture surrounding them in this society, adds up to a LOT MORE than " a few negatives"; that's for certain.

 

Hmmm, so a reduction in violent crime by gun "by the numbers" from the CDC is not good enough for you eh? The raw numbers are not statistics.

 

I rather think you are FOS (no offense intended), but I respect your right to be such, and I do respect your right to have a different opinion.

I just got back from a Memorial Day program where I fired an M1. Without guns, we would be speaking German now, and without citizens having guns, more of us would be murdered in our homes. Guns are not the problem. Too many psycho-trophic drugs that are poorly regulated and the criminal element are the problem.

 

Oh, but that was just for those trying to do the same thing to show that correlation does not imply causation. What better than a "trend" that defies the debaters "assumptions"?

 

Of the gun deaths in the US, the majority are suicides that would be suicides by some other means. Only around 8K+ are related to actual gun violence and then it is mostly relegated to certain areas and certain groups, usually associated with the drug trade.

Mass shootings are really very minimal but get the most news. Like the old saying, "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."

For the most part, law abiding citizens that own the majority of the guns in the US are not the problem yet the gun control crowd think they are with no proof other than feelings and they only want to burden the same under a fiction that doing so and ignoring the real problems will fix something.

 

I'm sure you meant it offensively. Even so, that won't deter me from holding the views I've expressed.

I can see how you and many others would be intransigent (as you certainly are), but the fact remains that this discussion will continue for some time.

Best wishes to you all.

Peace.

 

Peace to you. Have a great day!

 

No dodge. Straight out of the Whackjob Handbook of Tactics! Guess what? The UK, France, Germany and France all have rich, poor, gangs and more. So your weak excuse is that what? ONE of those countries isn't very diverse, compared to the US? Weak, weak weak. Well, I guess it's all you've got. I mean it's not like you have facts or stuff on your side. And the ignorant tripe about "We don't want a sanitized culture" is laughable. WTF is sanitized about Berlin??? Have you ever lived or even been there? Of course not. typical ignorant American. You may not prattle on with the opinions fed to you by your thought masters.
Hugs & Kisses,
Your BFF

 

You are correct and spot-on!! Amen!!

 

TY TY TY. Facts are a real betch for ConservaRepubs nowadays.

 

LOL, reading comprehension.

Not belong. Of course you interpret that to be about race, something liberals do all the time because they view everything through a racial lens.

 

I was going to respond to his usual tripe, but I see you have it handled. Moron liberals.

Utterly incapable of discerning why - in the US, with the highest density of guns per capita on the planet - that the relative proportion of deaths involving guns (without even addressing the large portion of those deaths which are justified) is low.

People kill other people with cars also, and the argument to ban cars is no more legitimate than the argument to ban guns. I have no doubt that if cars were banned in Europe, there would be fewer deaths from crashes.

But you will fail to convince that society is better off for your despotic actions, liberals. Gun equalize the threat of force from all parties. Eliminating guns does not eliminate a threat of force from an antagonistic party; it merely unequals the opposing force. That is a quintessentially American concept, and a cornerstone of the creation of our country.

If you don't like that concept: leave. If you attempt to change the concept, expect to experience the same consequence as those who opposed the formation of this country.

 

We'll, we've got to 'evolve' at least... some.

The "ConservaRepubs" want to hold things in-place, but that is NOT going to happen with human beings. Conservatism will be okay, as long as it is not stale, unreasonable, oppressive and extreme.

ALL sides have to be realistic and none are perfect. But the Right really needs to SEE itself, then understand and accept that they have to 'move' (at least a little at the time).

One cannot stop progress/change and it is hardly 'natural' or 'reasonable' to try doing so. It makes a lot more sense, to embrace innovation, adaptation and reform.

Let's go forward.

 

Not understanding human nature at all, you will march forward to tyranny with your head in the sand.

 

Well then, what (EXACTLY) is it that YOU believe that you understand, that you think is so mysterious and enigmatic... that it would/might be missed (by me)?

Go ahead, explain some of what you are thinking.

All I'm getting from you is the equivalent of... "OMG!!! He doesn't see what I see." And to that, I say... of course, I have a different perspective than you.

My head isn't "in the sand", it is just in a different place than yours is.

So, Hoosier... where are you? What do you see as being "ideal"?

 

So basically, you had to dodge when your weak stupid argument was shredded by the fact that every other country named, didn't work for your excuse. Laughable. I bet you and Subdermal hang out together.
And your comment about a "sanitized" country? You have no explanation as to what that means? Just vague BS used to excuse your ignorance on the subject and the fact that it was spanked with facts and verifiable examples. gee how tough was that to predict...

 

Idiotic predictions are par for the course.

 

Everyone is avoiding the topics that I have raised. "Terrorism" is a copout by the government. It avoids the more obvious problem of race relations. It is nice to be able to brainwash 80 % of the population with "the boogeyman did it" logic with allegations of terrorism. I assume the target in 2015 will be 90 %.

 

The problem with your scenario is that everything that is being done as criminal is already against the law, like straw purchases. If you cannot enforce the law then the law is useless.

Another failure of the argument is that there is no such thing as an Assault Weapon. That was a definition that was created by politicians that required hundreds of exclusions because you cannot define Assault Weapon. When you are trying to differentiate one hunting rifle from another, then you have to have exclusions.

 

Perhaps when you realize that IRS will audit you for any political reason directed by Obama for the next 3 plus years. That is unless he's able to change the rules and become president for life.

 

Gun grabbers want to empower gang members and rioters, whom they turned loose on civilized society in the first place through being soft on crime and through blaming White people for provoking criminality.

 

We should be allowed whatever weapon is needed to defend our home or business in a riot. Hunting rifles never have to fit that qualification and are inadequate for security against a mob.

 

How about RPGs, or a Tank?
I really think a Tank parked in front of my business would be just the thing to discourage looters. As it is I am left with only these semi-automatic shotguns, good enough for slaughtering ducks but will they be adequate to fend off the zombie hordes?
Would my tank?
Would my RPGs?

Face it, no amount of armament will suffice for personal protection in the scenarios you envision so it is ludicrous to use them to establish a position that any and all arms should be allowed to whoever feels the need for them. Your position is hysterical.