If more guns = safety , then more nukes = safety?

[radical right]

Do you realize that the Japanese military leaders interviewed after the war stated that if they had had the bomb before Pearl Harbor, they would have dropped it on Pearl Harbor and anywhere else they could.....

Trump said the solution to N. Korea having nukes, was for Japan to have nukes. And you just said japan would use them in a first strike.

 

[Timmy]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

It isn't a talking point...it is a fact.....

In the United States we had 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million Americans actually carried guns for self defense...legally.........in 2016 we now had 357-400 million guns and over 15 million Americans carrying guns for self defense legall.

According to you, we should have had massive increases in gun crime and gun murder....

What did we actually have?

--our gun crime rate went down 75%....so your belief is wrong.

--our gun murder rate went down 49%....so your belief is wrong.

--our violent crime rate went down 72%.....so your belief is wrong.

And in that time what happened in Britain..where they took guns away from normal British people....the gun crime rate and the gun murder rate went up....then went back to the same place it was before the ban...

And now in London, gun crime went up 42%......last year....20 years after the ban...and violent crime is up 24%....

So you are wrong Timmy...everything you believe about guns is just wrong......and made up in your head.

Timmy....how do you explain the fact that as more Americans...a lot more.....own and carried guns...and our crime rates went down.....how do you explain that? Since you believe that more guns in more hands has to create more gun murder, more gun crime and more violent crime....

How do you explain that?

We're waiting....

You mistake me for someone who wants to ban guns . I don't have issues with gun ownership or even conceal/carry . I'd just like sensible gun control (background checks , gun "titles" to follow sales ) .

There are many reasons that crime has dropped.

What you will find is states wh tougher gun laws have overall less gun crime than gun nut states . And please , no intellectual dishonesty in comparing a New York wh Wyoming.

 

[eflatminor]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

You can think of it that way if you like.

Crimes by a state such as N.Korea can only be deterred with nuclear weapons. However DJ Trump and his close generals are hoping they can extinguish N.Korea's nuclear capability before they develop it.

As far as your analogy to people goes, criminals are normally cowards who only prey on the weak. Therefore if you are strong, and armed, and a good shot, and you can draw quickly and shoot accurately, you will most likely scare away any criminal long before you have to shoot him.

But shooting him is not bad either -- it keeps recidivism low and prison populations lower too.

But not everyone has the balls to carry their own gun.

So if you Timmy don't have those kind or any balls then you can go on pretending some kind of legislation will help you or that the police can protect you -- which they cannot.

Fallacy of false analogy.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

I took the gun safety class , but haven't Applied for my license yet .

I don't think it's "brave " to carry a gun everywhere . Kinda the opposite , being so fearful that you can't leave the house without being strapped .

I suggest you're confusing fear with preparedness. I won't speak for others, but I fear no man, armed or otherwise. Fear rarely helps.

Well when you say someone doesn't have "the balls" you are saying they are afraid . Afraid to go to the market without a weapon?! Oh the irony !

Never said that.

 

[2aguy]

Do you realize that the Japanese military leaders interviewed after the war stated that if they had had the bomb before Pearl Harbor, they would have dropped it on Pearl Harbor and anywhere else they could.....

Trump said the solution to N. Korea having nukes, was for Japan to have nukes. And you just said japan would use them in a first strike.

No....you missed what I said.....the Japanese leadership in World War 2 said they would use them...I didn't say anything about the modern leadership...

Also.....that assumes that no one else would have had nukes at the time of Pearl Harbor...because the bad guys don't worry about public opinion when they commit mass murder.

 

[Timmy]

Do you realize that the Japanese military leaders interviewed after the war stated that if they had had the bomb before Pearl Harbor, they would have dropped it on Pearl Harbor and anywhere else they could.....

Trump said the solution to N. Korea having nukes, was for Japan to have nukes. And you just said japan would use them in a first strike.

He also said he wouldn't get us into more foreign fuckups . Guess that's out the window .

 

[Doc1]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

You can think of it that way if you like.

Crimes by a state such as N.Korea can only be deterred with nuclear weapons. However DJ Trump and his close generals are hoping they can extinguish N.Korea's nuclear capability before they develop it.

As far as your analogy to people goes, criminals are normally cowards who only prey on the weak. Therefore if you are strong, and armed, and a good shot, and you can draw quickly and shoot accurately, you will most likely scare away any criminal long before you have to shoot him.

But shooting him is not bad either -- it keeps recidivism low and prison populations lower too.

But not everyone has the balls to carry their own gun.

So if you Timmy don't have those kind or any balls then you can go on pretending some kind of legislation will help you or that the police can protect you -- which they cannot.

Fallacy of false analogy.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

I took the gun safety class , but haven't Applied for my license yet .

I don't think it's "brave " to carry a gun everywhere . Kinda the opposite , being so fearful that you can't leave the house without being strapped .

I suggest you're confusing fear with preparedness. I won't speak for others, but I fear no man, armed or otherwise. Fear rarely helps.

Well when you say someone doesn't have "the balls" you are saying they are afraid . Afraid to go to the market without a weapon?! Oh the irony !

Never said that.

Timmy did, he was splaining himself.

 

[eflatminor]

Does the same go for chemical and biological weapons?

I stand by my original statement. Do you wish to make a case in favor of tactical disadvantage?

If the bad guys developed ebola as a weapon, what tactical advantage do we gain by also developing ebola as a weapon?

Not a clue. You're conflating HOW one might gain a tactical advantage with my point, which was that it is important to do so.

That's a straw man argument. My original post stands.

 

[radical right]

No....you missed what I said.....the Japanese leadership in World War 2 said they would use them...I didn't say anything about the modern leadership...
.

Unlike Germany, Japan wasn't taken over by a fascist political group. The japanese generals were mainstream japanese, pretty much the same you have today.

 

[2aguy]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

It isn't a talking point...it is a fact.....

In the United States we had 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million Americans actually carried guns for self defense...legally.........in 2016 we now had 357-400 million guns and over 15 million Americans carrying guns for self defense legall.

According to you, we should have had massive increases in gun crime and gun murder....

What did we actually have?

--our gun crime rate went down 75%....so your belief is wrong.

--our gun murder rate went down 49%....so your belief is wrong.

--our violent crime rate went down 72%.....so your belief is wrong.

And in that time what happened in Britain..where they took guns away from normal British people....the gun crime rate and the gun murder rate went up....then went back to the same place it was before the ban...

And now in London, gun crime went up 42%......last year....20 years after the ban...and violent crime is up 24%....

So you are wrong Timmy...everything you believe about guns is just wrong......and made up in your head.

Timmy....how do you explain the fact that as more Americans...a lot more.....own and carried guns...and our crime rates went down.....how do you explain that? Since you believe that more guns in more hands has to create more gun murder, more gun crime and more violent crime....

How do you explain that?

We're waiting....

You mistake me for someone who wants to ban guns . I don't have issues with gun ownership or even conceal/carry . I'd just like sensible gun control (background checks , gun "titles" to follow sales ) .

You guys always bring up background checks and registration....how do those work to do anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?

Could you explain how they actually work?

Because:

1) criminals get their guns from people who can already pass background checks or they get them by stealing them...or from others who have already stolen them...

So how does a background check work to stop criminals?

2) Mass shooters...almost every single one has passed one or more background checks to get their guns...since they don't have a criminal record before the mass shooting....background checks are useless to stop them...

How does a background check stop mass shooters, who can pass background checks?

Registration....

Do you realize that felons do not have to register their illegal guns? This is because of the ruling by the Supreme Court in Haynes v. United States.....

And how does a registration help to stop or solve crimes...when the shooters didn't buy the guns...didn't register the guns and either stole them or got them from a straw buyer?

Do you realize that Canada already tried to register their long guns....and had to give it up...?

So what you want to do, register guns, doesn't stop gun crime, doesn't solve gun crime, doesn't apply to actual criminals, and has already failed wherever it has been tried...

Canada...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

 

[Doc1]

God.

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

It isn't a talking point...it is a fact.....

In the United States we had 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million Americans actually carried guns for self defense...legally.........in 2016 we now had 357-400 million guns and over 15 million Americans carrying guns for self defense legall.

According to you, we should have had massive increases in gun crime and gun murder....

What did we actually have?

--our gun crime rate went down 75%....so your belief is wrong.

--our gun murder rate went down 49%....so your belief is wrong.

--our violent crime rate went down 72%.....so your belief is wrong.

And in that time what happened in Britain..where they took guns away from normal British people....the gun crime rate and the gun murder rate went up....then went back to the same place it was before the ban...

And now in London, gun crime went up 42%......last year....20 years after the ban...and violent crime is up 24%....

So you are wrong Timmy...everything you believe about guns is just wrong......and made up in your head.

Timmy....how do you explain the fact that as more Americans...a lot more.....own and carried guns...and our crime rates went down.....how do you explain that? Since you believe that more guns in more hands has to create more gun murder, more gun crime and more violent crime....

How do you explain that?

We're waiting....

You mistake me for someone who wants to ban guns . I don't have issues with gun ownership or even conceal/carry . I'd just like sensible gun control (background checks , gun "titles" to follow sales ) .

There are many reasons that crime has dropped.

What you will find is states wh tougher gun laws have overall less gun crime than gun nut states . And please , no intellectual dishonesty in comparing a New York wh Wyoming.

Well sure, Chicago proves your assertion.

 

[Doc1]

No....you missed what I said.....the Japanese leadership in World War 2 said they would use them...I didn't say anything about the modern leadership...
.

Unlike Germany, Japan wasn't taken over by a fascist political group. The japanese generals were mainstream japanese, pretty much the same you have today.

Please, the "Emperor" was their god.

 

[radical right]

Not a clue. You're conflating HOW one might gain a tactical advantage with my point, which was that it is important to do so.

That's a straw man argument. My original post stands.

You said it was a disadvantage, NOT to develop the same chemical and biological weapons as the enemy. You failed to show how our weaponizing ebola gives us a tactical advantage.

 

[Dr Grump]

Bush derangement syndrome. Obama had 8 years to correct all of "Bushes mistakes" what happened? Don't you see how foolish it is to blame Bush for anything happening today? You really can't see that? Holy Cow.

It's not foolish at all. He created the mess in the ME with his invasion of Iraq. I just love how the neocon loons on the right say it's Obama's fault. No invasion of Iraq, no ME mess. Simple.

 

[westwall]

No....you missed what I said.....the Japanese leadership in World War 2 said they would use them...I didn't say anything about the modern leadership...
.

Unlike Germany, Japan wasn't taken over by a fascist political group. The japanese generals were mainstream japanese, pretty much the same you have today.

I suggest you read some history because you are 100% wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

Not a clue. You're conflating HOW one might gain a tactical advantage with my point, which was that it is important to do so.

That's a straw man argument. My original post stands.

You said it was a disadvantage, NOT to develop the same chemical and biological weapons as the enemy. You failed to show how our weaponizing ebola gives us a tactical advantage.

Wrong. Re-read my post. I never said we had to develop the same chemical weapons as the enemy. I said we should not allow enemies to have a tactical advantage. Different thing.

So, once again, I stand by my original statement.

 

[2aguy]

Do you realize that the Japanese military leaders interviewed after the war stated that if they had had the bomb before Pearl Harbor, they would have dropped it on Pearl Harbor and anywhere else they could.....

Trump said the solution to N. Korea having nukes, was for Japan to have nukes. And you just said japan would use them in a first strike.

He also said he wouldn't get us into more foreign fuckups . Guess that's out the window .

No...he said he would bomb shit out of isis....he did that.....as for Syria....they broke international law....and we are part of that process that deals with that...and since Europe couldn't do the right thing if their lives depended on it...which it did in the 1930s.....Trump took an isolated action to let the world know that chemical weapons cannot be used without consequences...

you should thank him for that...

 

[2aguy]

No....you missed what I said.....the Japanese leadership in World War 2 said they would use them...I didn't say anything about the modern leadership...
.

Unlike Germany, Japan wasn't taken over by a fascist political group. The japanese generals were mainstream japanese, pretty much the same you have today.

Please, the "Emperor" was their god.

The Japanese government was socialist....they took 70% of your income to be used by the state....

The Japanese Generals were racists and nuts.....

 

[idb]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

We dont want criminals to have guns, just like we dont want North Korea to have nukes.

More good guys with guns = more safety
More good nations with nukes = more safety

What if those 'good nations' suddenly aren't so good any more?

 

[2aguy]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

We dont want criminals to have guns, just like we dont want North Korea to have nukes.

More good guys with guns = more safety
More good nations with nukes = more safety

What if those 'good nations' suddenly aren't so good any more?

Yeah...that is why you want limited government with checks and balances on it's power.....unlike the left who insists on giving massive power to a small governing elite....that is the problem with leftism......

 

[idb]

this is a common talking point for righties . If more guns are aviailble to people then there's less crime because everyone is armed .

Wouldn't that translate to a global scale with nuke weapons ? More countries wh nukes, then less likelyhood of war ! Right?

We dont want criminals to have guns, just like we dont want North Korea to have nukes.

More good guys with guns = more safety
More good nations with nukes = more safety

What if those 'good nations' suddenly aren't so good any more?

Yeah...that is why you want limited government with checks and balances on it's power.....unlike the left who insists on giving massive power to a small governing elite....that is the problem with leftism......

Haaaannngg ooonnnn!
I thought that "leftists" wanted to expand the government!!!