Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (5 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Shaboid said:
Which is unfortunate, because it actually makes some sense.
Click to expand...
It's the reality of the situation. It's just tit for tat, not actually working toward a solution. Because there can't be. On one side you have people who think guns are bad, and want no danger from guns.
On the other side you have people who accept that guns are dangerous, but necessary tools, and who don't want their rights restricted.

People's rights are codified into law. Most states will not overstep that, so the criminals in other states will continue to have guns. People will have their rights restricted and be no safer as a result.

Money will flow in for both sides, and less time and money will be dedicated to causes which could actually make a much bigger difference than even the most strict gun control possibly could.

End result is that the gun DEBATE results in inaction which actually costs hundreds of thousands to million of lives per year, as well as immeasurable suffering and negative economic impact.
 
Ive had several occasions where I was glad I had a firearm with me on the road.
I know for a fact once, the threat to use it on dogs that were threatening my wife, granddaughter and I while camping. After the third time the 3 dogs, 1 pitbull an 2 Rott's came running into my camp freely and wanted our dog on a lease.
I picked up a big stick and shoed them off and told their owners to keep them tied up. I love dogs ,but when they run in packs like that they are dangerous. Happened twice more same night so I went and told them, 1 more time and I just might shoot all three and they were aggressive. I had told the ranger earlier that there were campers not keeping their dogs under control, of course he addressed it but, they didnt give a shit. The dogs were tied up the rest of the night once they new I was serious.
 
Phatguysrule said:
So none of those numbers take into account violent crime or murder rates change before and after enacting gun control, compared to similar countries.

The numbers I posted look at the big picture. Evidence of actual lives saved. Not from an emotional perspective.

And there is nothing that can really dispute that other than "guns are bad because I said so".

And sorry, but that's just not good enough. That's just more political left vs right BS, IMO.

Welcome to why Republicans beat Democrats so often.
Click to expand...

So really what you are saying is that only your numbers, that meet your criteria, that fit your timeline matter and no other variables are worth considering. Everything else is political hogwash and emotional banter and the reason republicans win. You are only convincing the people who already agree with you.
 
donkiez said:
So really what you are saying is that only your numbers, that meet your criteria, that fit your timeline matter and no other variables are worth considering. Everything else is political hogwash and emotional banter and the reason republicans win. You are only convincing the people who already agree with you.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately nobody is going to be convinced of anything on this topic. That's my whole point.

There isn't enough conclusive data to convince anybody of anything.

That's why it's a waste of time and energy for our politicians.

Gun control will never make a statistically significant difference in thw US. It didn't even make a statistically significant difference in the UK or Australia. No more so than doubling the number of guns made in the US.

We already did an assault weapons ban in the US. It didn't do anything.

You can't dispute my numbers which look at a bigger picture over a longer time frame than anything you can come up with. The Supreme Court is more gun friendly now than ever.

Gun control is a waste of time, money, energy, and political capital.

Unless you just want to say "my team is better than your team". Then it's great for both sides.
 
Phatguysrule said:
There isn't enough conclusive data to convince anybody of anything.

That's why it's a waste of time and energy for our politicians.
Click to expand...

You're correct about the lack of data. That's why it's good if communities, cities, and states go ahead and try some different things if it's approved by the majority of voters in those areas.
 
Phatguysrule said:
It's the reality of the situation. It's just tit for tat, not actually working toward a solution. Because there can't be. On one side you have people who think guns are bad, and want no danger from guns.
On the other side you have people who accept that guns are dangerous, but necessary tools, and who don't want their rights restricted.

People's rights are codified into law. Most states will not overstep that, so the criminals in other states will continue to have guns. People will have their rights restricted and be no safer as a result.

Money will flow in for both sides, and less time and money will be dedicated to causes which could actually make a much bigger difference than even the most strict gun control possibly could.

End result is that the gun DEBATE results in inaction which actually costs hundreds of thousands to million of lives per year, as well as immeasurable suffering and negative economic impact.
Click to expand...
I don't think we could get any sort of numbers for it, but I'd love to see the books for the NRA as well as whatever liberal gun control lobby I'm sure there is. I bet you there's more funding for the former, which you seem to leave out of your response. I only say that because NRA lawyers were quoted in the article. I'm personally not on either side, but like SPD said, I think it's a good idea for communities with high homicide numbers to try what they come up with that'll work for them. But like you said, it's the reality of the situation.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You're correct about the lack of data. That's why it's good if communities, cities, and states go ahead and try some different things if it's approved by the majority of voters in those areas.
Click to expand...

It's good for the majority to take things away from the minority that protect them from the majority? Guess it depends on if you're of the minority.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You're correct about the lack of data. That's why it's good if communities, cities, and states go ahead and try some different things if it's approved by the majority of voters in those areas.
Click to expand...
Well, it's certainly there prerogative... But like so many things, local solutions can't do much.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Well, it's certainly there prerogative... But like so many things, local solutions can't do much.
Click to expand...

And in something, like legal marijuana, states can show the way to better national policy.
 
WTF is this world coming to! PLEASE somebody tell me how ANYTHING good can come from this. FUCK ME!
 
Phatguysrule said:
In a school shooting the shooter will have a lot to worry about.
Click to expand...

Not sure school shooters are generally known for their careful, rational assessment of their situation.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Not sure school shooters are generally known for their careful, rational assessment of their situation.

barfo
Click to expand...
They put enough thought into it that they usually don't attack places with a lot of armed people.
 
Phatguysrule said:
They put enough thought into it that they usually don't attack places with a lot of armed people.
Click to expand...

Not sure we have evidence for that. I suspect school shooters choose schools because that's what they are familiar with, not because of the softness of the target. Hospitals would be another soft target, but you don't see a lot of teenagers shoot up hospitals. Or yoga studios, or nursing homes, or knitting clubs...

barfo
 
barfo said:
Not sure we have evidence for that. I suspect school shooters choose schools because that's what they are familiar with, not because of the softness of the target. Hospitals would be another soft target, but you don't see a lot of teenagers shoot up hospitals. Or yoga studios, or nursing homes, or knitting clubs...

barfo
Click to expand...
Wise men say "states can show the way to better national policy"...

 
Hoopguru said:
Ive had several occasions where I was glad I had a firearm with me on the road.
I know for a fact once, the threat to use it on dogs that were threatening my wife, granddaughter and I while camping. After the third time the 3 dogs, 1 pitbull an 2 Rott's came running into my camp freely and wanted our dog on a lease.
I picked up a big stick and shoed them off and told their owners to keep them tied up. I love dogs ,but when they run in packs like that they are dangerous. Happened twice more same night so I went and told them, 1 more time and I just might shoot all three and they were aggressive. I had told the ranger earlier that there were campers not keeping their dogs under control, of course he addressed it but, they didnt give a shit. The dogs were tied up the rest of the night once they new I was serious.
Click to expand...
I'll take csre of those dogs for you with a simple baseball bat. They'll never bother you again.
 
HailBlazers said:
It's good for the majority to take things away from the minority that protect them from the majority? Guess it depends on if you're of the minority.
Click to expand...
HailBlazers said:
It's good for the majority to take things away from the minority that protect them from the majority? Guess it depends on if you're of the minority.
Click to expand...
You've never lived next door to a bully, have you?
The minority knows how to shove around anyone including the majority. That's why we have police.
 
Lanny said:
I'll take csre of those dogs for you with a simple baseball bat. They'll never bother you again.
Click to expand...
I had a big stick but if you've ever been circled by a pit bull & 2 Rottweilers, one man with a bat wouldn't last to long. Sure one on one but three pack dogs, nope.
Assholes that allow dogs like that to run freely like that are lookin for trouble.
 
fd90nelqj3e81.jpg
 
SlyPokerDog said:
fd90nelqj3e81.jpg
Click to expand...
US violent crime and murder rates have dropped more than UK violent crime and murder rates since the mid 90s. This after the UK limited access to guns, and the US doubled the number of guns and let the assault weapons ban expire.

The US is a violent place...

There are at least hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the US.

https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

How many of those would have resulted in a violent crime or murder without guns?
 
Last edited:
I'll take my chances on somebody walking into a school with a knife vs an assault rifle.
 
THE HCP said:
I'll take my chances on somebody walking into a school with a knife vs an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
A handgun is far more dangerous in a school than any rifle that is legal to buy without a special ATF permit...

And easier to conceal. Where is the law to ban handguns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top