It has been known since decades that leftists suck about what concerns the 2nd amendment and weapons in general.
All of the statistics show that ****** rates are down in countries that do not have guns. A massive majority of non **** related deaths by shooting are not comitted by what we consider to be "killers". They are shot by friends and ******, often after a heated argument, when the *** just happens to be there. Usually in suburban American homes. Without the ***, the ****** may be a lot more complicated, and may provide time to give the potential ******** a chance to think, or at least to fist fight instead of shooting.
Fox
in America, where *** crime is one of the leading causes of death, the #1 way to ******, and a huge, huge problem, making guns ******* *would* save thousands and thousands of lives every year. That's my point. :thumbsup:
And well done on the quote. Perfect job.![]()
Thanks for your opinion righty, and what about the fact that more non **** related killings in America are comitted by ****** and friends in the heat of argument using legal guns than are comitted by "bad guys who will always have guns". But we've been over this a hundred times on this thread. You can't sum up an entire complex thread with "sorry, bad guys will always have guns". It's just not true. What bad guys in England have guns? Guns are *******... We don't have any shooting problems at all. What bad guys in Finland have guns? There it is legal, and like the man said, there's no big *** crime problem there either. I should change my argument to in *America*, it has been shown that guns should be outlawed, because too many innocents die because of legal firearms. Not ******* ones.
I think it's sad that there are so many causes to fight for that genuinely affect life or death in this world, but the most passionate cause for so many seems to be "I deserve to own a ***, it's my right". It brings out the kind of fight in people I never see on other threads. To me that's sad because if it were really about "rights and liberties" and not just - I want to have a *** screw the government, the same people from this thread would argue very passionately about many other rights the government takes away. Some people do, but I've never seen so much anti-government sentiment as on this: but it's not about life or death or poverty or lies... just about *** ownership. I suppose, if that's what you want to stand for.
100% of those deaths would not occur with guns *******. Some ****** members/friends might run and get a ***** and stab them, but I don't think that would happen in most cases
Post statistics or any serious proof of *** crime committed by legally owned firearms and illegally owned firearms. Seriously do you honestly think that someone who has many experience at the range will **** his her neighbour /friends?????But in America, most non-****-related *** crime (i.e. involving innocent victims, not **** dealers etc), is comitted with legal weapons by ****** members or friends. 100% of those deaths would not occur with guns *******. Some ****** members/friends might run and get a ***** and stab them, but I don't think that would happen in most cases... it's the convenience and instantaneous **** of the ***, how easy it is to just grab it and squeeze the trigger... almost doesn't feel like ******* at all... until it is too late. :2 cents:
Hope you're wrong about people needing guns in France and England. I hope we are moving the other way, away from the need to carry guns. I don't hear anyone in England ****** to make guns legal. I hear many in America ****** to make guns *******. So which way is it really going?
********** said:I'm pretty pissed off so I won't be posting anymore in this thread, no matter what. Which I'm sure will delight the majority of you since the majority don't agree with me the majority of Americans anyway.
Arguing over something that should obviously be up to the citizens of a country, nbot the government, or selfish individuals who think it's "their right" to own lethal weapons, and not a community decision. There are a lot of scared inner city ******* and fathers sending their **** to school knowing there are guns in school, but as long as you all have your right to have a ***, who gives a damn about them?
Since you asked, the stats are all right here
Premium Link Upgrade
More ****, teenagers and adult ****** members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminals.
Only 154 justifiable self defence homicides in 1999 compared to over 8000 shooting deaths.
The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.
A *** in the home is 22 times more likely to be used by the criminal, for suicide, or for an accidental shooting, than in self defence.
Two thirds of spouse and ex-spouse ****** victims were ****** with guns.
There's a hundred weppages and studies like this one, but I'm sure you all can find stats to back up your side of the story too. I seriously don't want to talk about this anymore.
Scum deserves death and no forgiveness. Thanks for your wisdom. D-Rock, there's your ally on this one.
Since you asked, the stats are all right here
Premium Link Upgrade
More ****, teenagers and adult ****** members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminals.
Only 154 justifiable self defence homicides in 1999 compared to over 8000 shooting deaths.
The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.
A *** in the home is 22 times more likely to be used by the criminal, for suicide, or for an accidental shooting, than in self defence.
Two thirds of spouse and ex-spouse ****** victims were ****** with guns.
There's a hundred weppages and studies like this one, but I'm sure you all can find stats to back up your side of the story too. I seriously don't want to talk about this anymore.
Scum deserves death and no forgiveness. Thanks for your wisdom. D-Rock, there's your ally on this one.
But I do believe in giving the people what they want, and what they want is to be safe, and what is ******* them - having guns laying around the house to pick up and fire off every time your wife cheats on you or you get into a heated fight with your ***. Etc. That's an exaggeration, but those are the lives that making guns ******* would save. In any case, I think it should be up to the people what is legal and what isn't. You could make similar cases for ******* ***** and bombs, but you don't. Bombs would help us bring down an Orwellian government, so why are they *******? We might need them.
Truth is, we don't need guns to bring down the government in the western world. We just need everyone to agree that we should bring it down, which most people do not. If they ever did, no gunfire would be necessary. A lot of the armies in the free world would choose the side of the people, including I believe the US army. They would not fire upon their own people. They would turn on their leaders. I respect them enough to give them that. I hope I am not wrong.
You can think whatever you want, but saying "if you believe guns should be outlawed, you must have had an easy life" is basically the most ignorant and stereotypical thing you have ever said, D-Rock, and really, really surprises me. I love how people think they can take someone's point of view, and make some personal comment about what kind of lives they must have lived. It's just so unthinkable that someone might genuinely see something very differently than you, and might have used logic just like you did, to analyze things... no, they must have "not been there" and "not know what it's like", otherwise, obviously, they'd feel just like you. Of course. That must be it.![]()
Yeah, right! In England, guns are outlawed, and there's a hell of a lot more freedom of speech there, to be quite honest, than there is here. Like, in England, I can say whatever I like about my government, your government, and the military, and not be told to "get out of the country".
So anyway. Never did I say the government should have any right to take anything away. Never. I think that should be the people's decision. I would vote for guns to be *******, and I would go with whatever the majority wanted. Eventually, I think the majority will realize we're only hurting ourselves by allowing guns in our homes. The statistics show, it is our ****** members getting shot, and not by **** dealers, but by other ****** members.
Yes. I believe that. It happens in a moment of rage. You snap. You pull the trigger. Done. If there's no ***, you actually have to bash someone's head in with a baseball bat. Push the blade through their skin. I think it's a hell of a lot more personal and tougher and real for a momentary "snap" to lead to that... I think that's why this is a mainly American problem, and you don't see this debate going on so much in Europe. Maybe people here have more of a tendency to snap, living in such a high pressure society? Who knows.
As far as I'm concerned Brady is the best QB whose name is not Manning in the league today, and that is the last I am saying on this thread, promise! (couldn't resist)
If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property — to defend it by ******** against violent invasion.
Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights — such as Mr. Robert LeFevre — are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against ******, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against ****** or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property.
Furthermore, if every man has the right to defend his person and property against ******, then he must also have the right to hire or accept the aid of other people to do such defending: he may employ or accept defenders just as he may employ or accept the volunteer services of gardeners on his lawn.
How extensive is a man's right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else. For, in that case, his "defense" would in itself constitute a criminal invasion of the just property of some other man, which the latter could properly defend himself against.
Fox wrote: Why is it that the government can take away a hundred liberties from you in the name of freedom and there is no ranting about that from a lot of the same people, who seem to think guns being legal or ******* is the single most important right we have.
D-rock wrote: I'm also amazed that some of the most distrustful people of the government we have in our society are some of the most firmly anti-*** people we have.
Fox wrote: most non-****-related *** crime (i.e. involving innocent victims, not **** dealers etc), is comitted with legal weapons by ****** members or friends. 100% of those deaths would not occur with guns *******.
D-rock wrote: Our right is the keeper of all the rest of our liberties, and without it all the others are just words on a piece of paper that are ripe to be taken away in the future.
I don't "rant about it". I "do something" about it.Why is it that the government can take away a hundred liberties from you in the name of freedom and there is no ranting about that from a lot of the same people, who seem to think guns being legal or ******* is the single most important right we have.