Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_1
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_3
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_4
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_5
Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 42. (Read 36627 times)
.....
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against conscription. It does not matter if new military enlistees have a particular viewpoint on gun rights.
Obviously if a country could entice young men into fighting with promise of glory and bravery then it would not need a draft. So your response has nothing to do with my point. Here it is again.
it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.
So you're somehow trying to say that because organization G causes the group S to get their faces blown off, that somehow my statement about subculture L seemingly waiting for the day when X happens, might result in some of subculture's members in getting their faces blown off?
Let me understand then: you're saying that because something happens, my remark about something unrelated happening holds no value?
Interesting.
We KNOW countries start wars, kill large numbers of people, draft or enlist their young men and women, other people oppose this, so forth and so on. You can certainly move to "relax the tensions" as the US and Soviet empires did. But this in itself affirms the relationships.
Notice how about 75 percent of homicides in the U.S. are by gun?
For the United States:
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2011: 3.6
2010: 3.5
2009: 3.7
2008: 4.0
2007: 4.1
2006: 4.2
2005: 4.1
2004: 3.9
2003: 4.1
2002: 4.1
2001: 3.9
2000: 3.8
1999: 3.8
1998: 3.3
1993: 7.0
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2011: 3.6
2010: 3.5
2009: 3.7
2008: 4.0
2007: 4.1
2006: 4.2
2005: 4.1
2004: 3.9
2003: 4.1
2002: 4.1
2001: 3.9
2000: 3.8
1999: 3.8
1998: 3.3
1993: 7.0
That basically matches this post I made earlier:
Some statistics for Japan:
Homicides (any method)
2008: 582
2007: 553
2006: 621
2005: 637
2004: 703
2003: 759
2002: 784
2001: 776
2000: 818
1999: 834
1998: 851
1997: 755
1996: 719
1995: 759
Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
2008: 0.5
2007: 0.4
2006: 0.5
2005: 0.5
2004: 0.6
2003: 0.6
2002: 0.6
2001: 0.6
2000: 0.7
1999: 0.7
1998: 0.7
1997: 0.6
1996: 0.6
1995: 0.6
1994: 0.6
Gun Homicides
2008: 11
2002: 47
2001: 56
1997: 34
1996: 36
1995: 42
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2008: 0.09
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1997: 0.03
1996: 0.03
1995: 0.03
1994: 0.02
Homicides (any method)
2008: 582
2007: 553
2006: 621
2005: 637
2004: 703
2003: 759
2002: 784
2001: 776
2000: 818
1999: 834
1998: 851
1997: 755
1996: 719
1995: 759
Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
2008: 0.5
2007: 0.4
2006: 0.5
2005: 0.5
2004: 0.6
2003: 0.6
2002: 0.6
2001: 0.6
2000: 0.7
1999: 0.7
1998: 0.7
1997: 0.6
1996: 0.6
1995: 0.6
1994: 0.6
Gun Homicides
2008: 11
2002: 47
2001: 56
1997: 34
1996: 36
1995: 42
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2008: 0.09
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1997: 0.03
1996: 0.03
1995: 0.03
1994: 0.02
Here's a source:
UN data
UN data
FirstAscent, where did you get those statistics?
This is madness!
This is madness!
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japan/Switzerland/Crime
.....
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against conscription. It does not matter if new military enlistees have a particular viewpoint on gun rights.
Obviously if a country could entice young men into fighting with promise of glory and bravery then it would not need a draft. So your response has nothing to do with my point. Here it is again.
it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.
So you're somehow trying to say that because organization G causes the group S to get their faces blown off, that somehow my statement about subculture L seemingly waiting for the day when X happens, might result in some of subculture's members in getting their faces blown off?
Let me understand then: you're saying that because something happens, my remark about something unrelated happening holds no value?
Interesting.
.....
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against conscription. It does not matter if new military enlistees have a particular viewpoint on gun rights.
Obviously if a country could entice young men into fighting with promise of glory and bravery then it would not need a draft. Your response has nothing to do with my point. Here it is again.
it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.
Please address the question I posed a few posts back:
FirstAscent might counter my examples of the girl, and the homeowner, and my personal experience with arguments A, B, and C - things like the kid accidentally shot, more guns in criminal hands, whatever. But this presumes that he thinks his argument of A, B, and C trumps the individual decisions made by me, by the girl, and by the homeowner. They have already likely considered A, B, C, etc in their decision process.
Why is his decision (or that of any politician or Authoritarian Progressive Controller) superior?
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting.
I picked this fight? How strange. I didn't create this thread. Someone else did, and I merely presented my position. My recent words are a reaction to your most recent visceral post, commenting of reekings and getting up in arms as if discussing stats from various cultures in comparison to the U.S. is akin to war. You do indeed sound like I described you precisely because of the words you're using.
You said...
Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause..... yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.
I would like to humbly point out (not trying to foment more of a flame war here) that it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.
The same type of governments that "know best", right? That have implemented progressive propaganda campaigns to create a "better society".
Little problem there, LOL...
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting.
I picked this fight? How strange. I didn't create this thread. Someone else did, and I merely presented my position. My recent words are a reaction to your most recent visceral post, commenting of reekings and getting up in arms as if discussing stats from various cultures in comparison to the U.S. is akin to war. You do indeed sound like I described you precisely because of the words you're using.
You said...
Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause..... yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.
I would like to humbly point out (not trying to foment more of a flame war here) that it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.
The same type of governments that "know best", right? That have implemented progressive propaganda campaigns to create a "better society".
Little problem there, LOL...
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting.
I picked this fight? How strange. I didn't create this thread. Someone else did, and I merely presented my position. My recent words are a reaction to your most recent visceral post, commenting of reekings and getting up in arms as if discussing stats from various cultures in comparison to the U.S. is akin to war. You do indeed sound like I described you precisely because of the words you're using.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting.
....wannabe Authoritarian Controller perversions of the Liberal Progressive Type....
For three periods of two or three years each I pretty routinely (and legally) carried a gun. It had to do with work and handling/carrying fair amounts of money. When a reasonable need to carry ceased, I stopped it. They are heavy and bulky.
Basically I'd like to know why he thinks his ideas should be superimposed on ... me ....
This kind of talk...
And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.
Is really, really weird. There's nobody in that category that I know or have met. Anyway, what "rebels?" Take a concrete example. A girl gets raped, then she takes a concealed carry class and begins carrying a Glock. Does she crave a fight? Hell no. Does a homeowner who has a weapon for home protection hope some bad guys break down his front door at 3 am?
I think not.
FirstAscent might counter my examples of the girl, and the homeowner, and my personal experience with arguments A, B, and C - things like the kid accidentally shot, more guns in criminal hands, whatever. But this presumes that he thinks his argument of A, B, and C trumps the individual decisions made by me, by the girl, and by the homeowner. They have already likely considered A, B, C, etc in their decision process.
Why is his decision (or that of any politician or Authoritarian Progressive Controller) superior?
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
How tiring. Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause as bad as you want to lose your virginity? That's how you sound, honestly. You have no interest in an improved society. You just want to cry out how wronged you feel, as you bask in amenities realized by your government while others have less. And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".To him, "fail themselves" includes intended rape victims hitting their would-be rapists in self-defense before they manage to achieve total physical/psychological control, and penetration. Fucking evil as fuck.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves".And where does that leave them, in the end? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". Another NRA meme with no merit. Tell me, can you cite one example where gun control advocates called for a banning of guns from a society where no people existed? If you can, then that might lend some credence to your repetition of that pointless slogan. Instead, you'll discover that gun control advocates seek a reduction in the possession of guns by people, which is a condition, not an object. Possession is a condition in which people possess guns, which implies a relationship between two things - a person, and a gun, which in combination, can be deadly.
Please, stop with the meaningless sayings.
So what do you hope to accomplish by banning guns in areas where the population doesn't want them to be banned? Don't you think they have the right to make up their own minds?
Funny how if you look at the cultures that like guns, you'll find the most gun deaths. Funny how that works. Therefore, what you're saying is: cultures which don't want guns banned want to live in a culture where there are a lot of gun deaths.
Please answer the questions, don't try to tap-dance around them.
If a culture wants guns, then that culture has failed itself. Have you noticed that the same people who want guns also want their government to not tax them, and not provide social nets, thus creating desperate situations, and crime?
Do you think they have the right to make up their own minds, or don't you? It's a yes or no question. And what do you hope to accomplish by banning guns in areas against their will?
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
He's a bloody sociopath. Just give up already.
Jump to: