Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Questions for liberals.
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
May 28, 2021 06:31:46   #
travelwp Loc: New Jersey
 
Liberals agree to:

1. Taking money away from Police.
2. Firing police officers.
3. Attacking police officers.
4. Making police officers the object of your scorn.

Question for liberals:
How can these actions lead to better public safety?

Reply
May 28, 2021 07:14:21   #
Huey Driver Loc: Texas
 
Liberals are notorious for just throwing it against the wall hoping some will stick many times not knowing or caring what the results will be. If the results are good they take the credit but if not they try to blame some one else.

Reply
May 28, 2021 07:22:40   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
That's painting with a pretty broad brush there, mate. As a librul, so-called, I'd say the first step would be gun control, so that the police work in a less terrifying theater of operation in performing their duties. Then I would do something similar to what Petraeus did with the surge in Iraq - put more police on the streets - on the streets, not in heavily armed military vehicles. In Japan, where I lived, every neighborhood has a "koban" a mini-police station open to residents 24/7. Get law enforcement into the neighborhoods, and stop the CIA from flooding the streets with drugs to fund their black ops, but that is a different level of discussion.

Reply
 
 
May 28, 2021 07:36:32   #
sb Loc: Florida's East Coast
 
travelwp wrote:
Liberals agree to:

1. Taking money away from Police.
2. Firing police officers.
3. Attacking police officers.
4. Making police officers the object of your scorn.

Question for liberals:
How can these actions lead to better public safety?


What an asinine presumptuous assertion.

Reply
May 28, 2021 07:45:31   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
sb wrote:
What an asinine presumptuous assertion.


That's what comes from a trump kool-aid soaked brain.

Reply
May 28, 2021 08:00:40   #
Huey Driver Loc: Texas
 
kymarto wrote:
That's painting with a pretty broad brush there, mate. As a librul, so-called, I'd say the first step would be gun control, so that the police work in a less terrifying theater of operation in performing their duties. Then I would do something similar to what Petraeus did with the surge in Iraq - put more police on the streets - on the streets, not in heavily armed military vehicles. In Japan, where I lived, every neighborhood has a "koban" a mini-police station open to residents 24/7. Get law enforcement into the neighborhoods, and stop the CIA from flooding the streets with drugs to fund their black ops, but that is a different level of discussion.
That's painting with a pretty broad brush there, m... (show quote)

Tell me how well are the gun laws we now have working today? Why do you think more laws will make people act differently when they decide to commit something evil?

Reply
May 28, 2021 08:18:07   #
gorgehiker Loc: Lexington, Ky
 
travelwp wrote:
Liberals agree to:

1. Taking money away from Police.
2. Firing police officers.
3. Attacking police officers.
4. Making police officers the object of your scorn.

Question for liberals:
How can these actions lead to better public safety?


Have you paid any attention to the statements regarding the C*****l P****e officers being made in the last few days? How do you feel about Brian Sicknick's mother begging GOP senators to v**e for a commission to really find out what happened to her policeman son? Trump supporters brutally attacked police officers and conservatives are trying to pretend that J****** 6 was just a normal tourist day. Hypocrits!

Reply
 
 
May 28, 2021 08:29:54   #
Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb
 
kymarto wrote:
That's painting with a pretty broad brush there, mate. As a librul, so-called, I'd say the first step would be gun control


Because penalizing all the honest citizens is somehow going to make things better. Or you actually believe criminals are suddenly going to obey laws? Say, I've got a nice bridge for sale.

Reply
May 28, 2021 08:47:04   #
gorgehiker Loc: Lexington, Ky
 
In the United States, our per capita gun death rate is 8 times higher than in Canada and 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom. If you believe that easy access to guns in our country makes us safer, I've got a nice bridge for sale.

Reply
May 28, 2021 08:55:04   #
JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois
 
As kymarto said that's painting with a pretty broad brush. But demonizing every law enforcement officer for the actions of a few bad ones is also painting with a pretty broad brush. When b****s represent 14% of our population but commit over 50% of the homicides the entire black population is not demonized by the actions of the minority of them and neither should they be. But now with critical race theory all w****s are painted with a broad brush as being oppressors. So stereotyping law enforcement officers and w****s is acceptable but stereotyping b****s is off limits?

Reply
May 28, 2021 09:01:14   #
travelwp Loc: New Jersey
 
sb wrote:
What an asinine presumptuous assertion.


I expected a response like yours:

1. A question was asked and you didn't answer it.
2. You provided a snarky remark.

Reply
 
 
May 28, 2021 09:10:32   #
travelwp Loc: New Jersey
 
kymarto wrote:
"That's painting with a pretty broad brush there, mate."......."In Japan, where I lived, every neighborhood has a "koban".


I don't want to paint with a broad brush, so can you name a city in Japan where at least 276 Japanese k**led other Japanese in 2021 already ??

Reply
May 28, 2021 09:11:26   #
travelwp Loc: New Jersey
 
Kraken wrote:
That's what comes from a trump kool-aid soaked brain.


I expected a response like yours:

1. A question was asked and you didn't answer it.
2. You provided a snarky remark.

Reply
May 28, 2021 09:24:01   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
travelwp wrote:
I expected a response like yours:

1. A question was asked and you didn't answer it.
2. You provided a snarky remark.


Looks like you get a lot of that, ever wonder why?

Reply
May 28, 2021 10:18:06   #
bgate Loc: Texas
 
gorgehiker wrote:
In the United States, our per capita gun death rate is 8 times higher than in Canada and 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom. If you believe that easy access to guns in our country makes us safer, I've got a nice bridge for sale.


Interesting read breaks gun "violence" down into statistics instead of giving you a blanket number the Democraps throw out to you...........
-Mike-

JUST HOW DANGEROUS ARE FIREARMS ???

There are 30,000 gun-related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun-related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:


65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug-related or mentally ill persons gun violence

3% are accidental discharge deaths


So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)


So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.


This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.


Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.


Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of the crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals, and thinking that criminal will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.


But what about other deaths each year?

40,000+ die from a drug overdose THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)


Now it gets good:

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!


710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.....Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!


So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:

The taking away of guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.


Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of a Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.