Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Gun Laws Do Work
Apr 2, 2014 15:59:11 #
"Mister NagNag , You are trying to drown the fish, and it's not gone work . Give you reading assignment ? hell NO you don't want acknowledged the facts of others !!"
Facts? How do you know? Did you read them? Facts have no relevance until they are put into context. Why don't you present those facts in the poorer context. If it seems relevant I will either comment on your assessment of the links, or read them myself. If you have nothing to say yourself, you are just an irrelevant electronic card catalogue.
Facts? How do you know? Did you read them? Facts have no relevance until they are put into context. Why don't you present those facts in the poorer context. If it seems relevant I will either comment on your assessment of the links, or read them myself. If you have nothing to say yourself, you are just an irrelevant electronic card catalogue.
Apr 2, 2014 16:00:59 #
"I can speak of the city and county that I live in. From the Sheriffs mouth who is a Democrat of the 25,000 or more carry concealed linsenses issued last year only 3 people's CCL was revoked and none of them were gun related they were all for drunk driving. Isn't that good?"
Yes, it is wonderful. Now what is the relevance of this to the abnormally high gun murder rate in the US?
Yes, it is wonderful. Now what is the relevance of this to the abnormally high gun murder rate in the US?
Apr 2, 2014 16:01:41 #
PNagy wrote:
"I can speak of the city and county that I live in. From the Sheriffs mouth who is a Democrat of the 25,000 or more carry concealed linsenses issued last year only 3 people's CCL was revoked and none of them were gun related they were all for drunk driving. Isn't that good?"
Yes, it is wonderful. Now what is the relevance of this to the abnormally high gun murder rate in the US?
Yes, it is wonderful. Now what is the relevance of this to the abnormally high gun murder rate in the US?
CRIMINALS!!!
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
Apr 2, 2014 16:08:35 #
raferrelljr wrote:
How many people die each year in automobile crashes?? Are we going to out law cars??
This is disingenuous.
You don't need guns as part of your modern life. People in democracies live happy free lives without them and are much safer overall. Cars are essential to most people. I am in favour of of far tougher driving laws, especially bans for those who drive dangerously.
Apr 2, 2014 16:14:07 #
Skellum0 wrote:
This is disingenuous.
You don't need guns as part of your modern life. People in democracies live happy free lives without them and are much safer overall. Cars are essential to most people. I am in favour of of far tougher driving laws, especially bans for those who drive dangerously.
You don't need guns as part of your modern life. People in democracies live happy free lives without them and are much safer overall. Cars are essential to most people. I am in favour of of far tougher driving laws, especially bans for those who drive dangerously.
You offer you opinion as a typical liberal. If I had to loose one freedom over the other I would start walking instead of not being able to protect me and my family. How do you know what I need or don't need, and you know what they say about opinions.
Apr 2, 2014 16:15:56 #
raferrelljr wrote:
You offer you opinion as a typical liberal. If I had to loose one freedom over the other I would start walking instead of not being able to protect me and my family. How do you know what I need or don't need, and you know what they say about opinions.
As long as there is evil and criminal intend to harm people I do need a way to protect myself and family. The world hasn't changed that much since the Romans. Technology has changed but people haven't.
Apr 2, 2014 16:25:42 #
Skellum0: This is disingenuous.
You don't need guns as part of your modern life. People in democracies live happy free lives without them and are much safer overall. Cars are essential to most people. I am in favour of of far tougher driving laws, especially bans for those who drive dangerously.
raferrelljr: You offer you opinion as a typical liberal. If I had to loose one freedom over the other I would start walking instead of not being able to protect me and my family. How do you know what I need or don't need, and you know what they say about opinions.
Nagy: It is noteworthy that raferrelljr did not at all address the point raised by Skellum0. The first responsibility of a debater is to respond to what the opposition has said. The counterpoint follows that step. raferrelljr eliminated the response, because he has none.
The counterargument is itself based on faith, rather than fact. In the US, where anyone can have guns, many argue that we need to keep having the right to carry those things for protection. That implies that without a proliferation of guns, there would be more gun deaths. It is about as logical as prescribing sexual intercourse to avoid conception. In the US, where gun control is lax, the murder rate is four to thirteen times as high as the murder rates of countries that strictly control guns. Ah, that will not stop raferrelljr from screeching about how we need to keep those guns in order to avoid being killed by them.
You don't need guns as part of your modern life. People in democracies live happy free lives without them and are much safer overall. Cars are essential to most people. I am in favour of of far tougher driving laws, especially bans for those who drive dangerously.
raferrelljr: You offer you opinion as a typical liberal. If I had to loose one freedom over the other I would start walking instead of not being able to protect me and my family. How do you know what I need or don't need, and you know what they say about opinions.
Nagy: It is noteworthy that raferrelljr did not at all address the point raised by Skellum0. The first responsibility of a debater is to respond to what the opposition has said. The counterpoint follows that step. raferrelljr eliminated the response, because he has none.
The counterargument is itself based on faith, rather than fact. In the US, where anyone can have guns, many argue that we need to keep having the right to carry those things for protection. That implies that without a proliferation of guns, there would be more gun deaths. It is about as logical as prescribing sexual intercourse to avoid conception. In the US, where gun control is lax, the murder rate is four to thirteen times as high as the murder rates of countries that strictly control guns. Ah, that will not stop raferrelljr from screeching about how we need to keep those guns in order to avoid being killed by them.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Apr 2, 2014 16:28:52 #
"As long as there is evil and criminal intend to harm people I do need a way to protect myself and family. The world hasn't changed that much since the Romans. Technology has changed but people haven't."
Nagy: There are cases in which guns can, have, and will avoid crime, but in general, murders vary directly with the number of guns in civilian hands. We have shown this Hogger and others that the need for protection drops with the elimination of guns, and that the proliferation of guns in America is correlated with the highest gun murder rate in the advanced world, but he still persists with the nonsense about needing guns in order to avoid being killed by them.
Nagy: There are cases in which guns can, have, and will avoid crime, but in general, murders vary directly with the number of guns in civilian hands. We have shown this Hogger and others that the need for protection drops with the elimination of guns, and that the proliferation of guns in America is correlated with the highest gun murder rate in the advanced world, but he still persists with the nonsense about needing guns in order to avoid being killed by them.
Apr 2, 2014 16:30:44 #
PNagy wrote:
Skellum0: This is disingenuous. br br You don't n... (show quote)
The reason for the 2nd Amendment was mainly for civil protection against a rouge government.
Apr 2, 2014 16:32:26 #
PNagy wrote:
"How many North Koreans die by government han... (show quote)
Agree, and in addition. North Korea is a Totalitarian state. By definition it try to control everything and therefore bears no resemblance a modern democracy where gun con control is achieved through the will of the majority.
There are no democracies with gun control where the government has suddenly turned on the people, these countries are not turning into police states, indeed, because violent crime falls so much with gun control police they tend to have a lower rate of law enforcement.
What you do have are peaceful, free countries in which violent crime runs around a quarter of that in the US, where homicides are also around a quarter, and gun related deaths are around a tenth.
Apr 2, 2014 16:33:55 #
raferrelljr wrote:
The reason for the 2nd Amendment was mainly for civil protection against a rouge government.
I'm guessing a rouge government would be red and therefore communist.
Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Apr 2, 2014 16:34:18 #
PNagy wrote:
"As long as there is evil and criminal intend... (show quote)
Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with having guns. The gun doesnt walk around finding people to kill. Why not attack the real issue. The evil in men's hearts. Maybe if we had God back in the school system, and non violent kids games and rap music things could be different. But Mr. Pnagy is intent on attacking me. Just pitiful.
Apr 2, 2014 16:35:27 #
Skellum0 wrote:
I'm guessing a rouge government would be red and therefore communist.
Not aleways. Ours is just not quite there yet, but getting close.
Apr 2, 2014 16:48:10 #
PNagy wrote:
Your proposal is the result of a world class meltdown in logic and values. You choose more guns to kill more people already born over abortions that kill embryos. How few other people would have failed to realize that there is no need to have a quota on killing people; that killing embryos and killing people already born are not related; and that killing those who are already born is not preferable to killing embryos?
Your proposal is the result of a world class meltdown in logic and values. You choose more guns to kill more people already born over abortions that kill embryos. How few other people would have failed to realize that there is no need to have a quota on killing people; that killing embryos and killing people already born are not related; and that killing those who are already born is not preferable to killing embryos?
???? Guns don't kill people...they die off after listening to liberals.
Apr 2, 2014 16:50:47 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
jsvend wrote:
It is the law. The Supreme Court banned states from imposing total bans on firearms in the home. So you will need a 28th amendment to appeal the 2nd amendment of the Constitution to change anything. Good Luck
Just think of the 2000 criminals that got them Eric Holder & company
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.