The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home

[Brain357]

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

FBI crime statistics say you are a clueless anti-gun nutter.

Well do point the statics out then.

 

[BluesLegend]

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

FBI crime statistics say you are a clueless anti-gun nutter.

Well do point the statics out then.

Define 'very few', 11 million women will be raped in the next 10 years is that very few in your mind?

 

[2aguy]

We need gun control, say the libs.
Look at the crime rate in France, say the libs.
It works over there, it'll work here, say the libs,

In one or two days all of that has been wiped away. The Muslim assholes who attacked Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery were armed with RPGs, AKs, and other goodies, generally not even available in this country, much less to the average Frenchman. The only ones not armed were the good guys, a/k/a the victims of their attacks.

At least now some Jews are getting hte idea that being defenseless and dependent on how fast police can react is a recipe for more dead Jews.
Europe s Leading Rabbi Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns Washington Free Beacon

You gun people never let a tragedy go to waste.

I guess france should look at us with our much more frequent mass shootings and higher homicide rate and want to be like us?

I used to wait...out of respect for the victims....and then I would watch while the irrational anti gunners would wade through the still drying blood, drag the victim in front of their minions in the democrat controlled media...and cry out for more gun control......even as the current gun control failed to protect the innocent dead they were exploiting.....

So, no more. From now on I will comment on all of these events as soon as I feel like doing it....no more giving in to the crazies and the nuts on the anti gun side.....

 

[2aguy]

We need gun control, say the libs.
Look at the crime rate in France, say the libs.
It works over there, it'll work here, say the libs,

In one or two days all of that has been wiped away. The Muslim assholes who attacked Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery were armed with RPGs, AKs, and other goodies, generally not even available in this country, much less to the average Frenchman. The only ones not armed were the good guys, a/k/a the victims of their attacks.

At least now some Jews are getting hte idea that being defenseless and dependent on how fast police can react is a recipe for more dead Jews.
Europe s Leading Rabbi Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns Washington Free Beacon

Had proper gun control been in place they would have needed to use a bat or a knife. And no, we have no plans to ban bats or knives, since they are dual-purpose, to say the least, while a gun is only for killing thing, human things often enough.

Tell me what gun control policy would have prevented those shootings. You understand the weapons used are already TOTALLY BANNED in France, right? I mean like no one except the government can own them. Are you for disarming the govt?

And at least one of the French terrorists was a convicted criminal....on a government terrorist watch list......and they had fully automatic weapons, a rocket propelled grenade and hand grenades......

the only reason France has a lower murder rate is they don't feel like committing murder....if they did, they can obviously get their hands on guns....as can Canadians, Australians, Belgians, French and British...

In Australia...their guns are in the hands of biker gangs and immigrants..

Canada....immigrants

so please....don't tell me it is a gun problem...it is a criminal desire to do murder problem.....

 

[2aguy]

Werent the first cops to respond in France armed?

Americans are armed and yet it hasnt stopped shootings and crimes here. So yeah France be like us?...More guns and more shootings?

As more Americans have bought and started carrying weapons our gun murder rate has gone down, not up...in fact, it has gone down faster than the rate in Australia....and our accidental gun death rate has dropped too.......and we haven't given up our guns or decided to let criminals rape, murder and rob us at their pleasure.....

 

[2aguy]

Liberal Hollywood makes big cash off guns, just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy.

You got that right. Was stuck watching a bunch of previews and every one had guns and shooting. They hate guns except when they make them $$$$. They are probably more pro gun than the nra.

This is why I say pay no attention to what liberals say, pay attention to what liberals do.

I say that for both parties. Remember when Clinton handed bush a balanced budget?

Uhhh...no....he vetoed several budgets till just before the election and then was forced to sign the Republican budget.....let's tell the truth shall we.....?

 

[Brain357]

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

FBI crime statistics say you are a clueless anti-gun nutter.

Well do point the statics out then.

Define 'very few', 11 million women will be raped in the next 10 years is that very few in your mind?

You can predict the future? How many of those are preventable with a gun?

 

[Geaux4it]

Red herring fallacy noted! Rabbi Rules!

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

We have the right to exercise unlawful actions if we choose. Owning an ICBM is against the law supported by the people. Where your hypothesis fails is assuming the day will ever come when the people support the further disarming of America.

Your dreaming

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

Liberal Hollywood makes big cash off guns, just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy.

You got that right. Was stuck watching a bunch of previews and every one had guns and shooting. They hate guns except when they make them $$$$. They are probably more pro gun than the nra.

This is why I say pay no attention to what liberals say, pay attention to what liberals do.

I say that for both parties. Remember when Clinton handed bush a balanced budget?

Uhhh...no....he vetoed several budgets till just before the election and then was forced to sign the Republican budget.....let's tell the truth shall we.....?

What did Bush do with that budget? Spend, spend, spend.... They only talk about small government.

 

[Vigilante]

A slight adjustment to the 2nd amendment....

 

[turtledude]

You got that right. Was stuck watching a bunch of previews and every one had guns and shooting. They hate guns except when they make them $$$$. They are probably more pro gun than the nra.

They are making money. It is non-political. They are businesses making money, private enterprise, capitalism. The RW should be supporting them.

They don't expect anyone to take it seriously. It is entertainment. Action movies have plenty of car crashes too. Do you think they advocate car crashes?

Only right wing gun nuts take the role of guns in movies to the level of the role of guns in real life. They mimic what they see in the moves and truly believe that a 'real man' and a true 'tough guy' needs to have a firearm. Fools.

its too bad criminals do not target only anti gun sheeple for rape and robbery

It's too bad you think everybody doesn't see through this thinly veiled wish for "rape and robbery" to be visited upon a poster you disagree with.

You're a ballless coward and a synaptically-challenged pissant.

my pet cat would have no problem with a fairy like you

yeah and I do wish that those who want honest people disarmed would be the victims of choice of rapists and robbers

gun banners would get a most useful lesson in reality

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

 

[turtledude]

Red herring fallacy noted! Rabbi Rules!

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

ICBMS are not "Arms" within the meaning of the 2A and they certainly are not weapons that individual citizens are expected to KEEP and BEAR

 

[Brain357]

They are making money. It is non-political. They are businesses making money, private enterprise, capitalism. The RW should be supporting them.

They don't expect anyone to take it seriously. It is entertainment. Action movies have plenty of car crashes too. Do you think they advocate car crashes?

Only right wing gun nuts take the role of guns in movies to the level of the role of guns in real life. They mimic what they see in the moves and truly believe that a 'real man' and a true 'tough guy' needs to have a firearm. Fools.

its too bad criminals do not target only anti gun sheeple for rape and robbery

It's too bad you think everybody doesn't see through this thinly veiled wish for "rape and robbery" to be visited upon a poster you disagree with.

You're a ballless coward and a synaptically-challenged pissant.

my pet cat would have no problem with a fairy like you

yeah and I do wish that those who want honest people disarmed would be the victims of choice of rapists and robbers

gun banners would get a most useful lesson in reality

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

 

[turtledude]

its too bad criminals do not target only anti gun sheeple for rape and robbery

It's too bad you think everybody doesn't see through this thinly veiled wish for "rape and robbery" to be visited upon a poster you disagree with.

You're a ballless coward and a synaptically-challenged pissant.

my pet cat would have no problem with a fairy like you

yeah and I do wish that those who want honest people disarmed would be the victims of choice of rapists and robbers

gun banners would get a most useful lesson in reality

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

 

[Brain357]

It's too bad you think everybody doesn't see through this thinly veiled wish for "rape and robbery" to be visited upon a poster you disagree with.

You're a ballless coward and a synaptically-challenged pissant.

my pet cat would have no problem with a fairy like you

yeah and I do wish that those who want honest people disarmed would be the victims of choice of rapists and robbers

gun banners would get a most useful lesson in reality

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

 

[FA_Q2]

Red herring fallacy noted! Rabbi Rules!

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

Nor did I EVER make the claim that it did. You have done nothing at all but make asinine assertions about things I have never stated.

Would you like to try one more time.

 

[Geaux4it]

my pet cat would have no problem with a fairy like you

yeah and I do wish that those who want honest people disarmed would be the victims of choice of rapists and robbers

gun banners would get a most useful lesson in reality

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Why don't you give up your wallet, but I choose something else- i choose to blow the thugs head off.

-Geaux

 

[FA_Q2]

my pet cat would have no problem with a fairy like you

yeah and I do wish that those who want honest people disarmed would be the victims of choice of rapists and robbers

gun banners would get a most useful lesson in reality

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

 

[Brain357]

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Why don't you give up your wallet, but I choose something else- i choose to blow the thugs head off.

-Geaux

And that's fine.

 

[Brain357]

The reality is that very few people need a gun for defense. If you are not involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely.

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.