Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: America's Gun Fantasy

  1. #61
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    40,212
    Thanks
    31230

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Your cite is claiming 22% instead of 40%, it is required to make false claims.

    Should kindergartners be included in that ratio, how about prohibited felons and domestic abusers?
    Nice how you didn't include my edit when I realized I had made a mistake.

    But the Pew Center is pretty accurate and they say 30% - although 46% of people in rural areas own them.

    The demographics of gun ownership in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

    Your kindergarten comment makes zero sense.

    But yeah, a small minority whom the politicians paid for by the NRA cater too.

    Shame more people don't pay attention to actual cost of gun violence in this country - 2.8 billion a year.

    https://qz.com/1093144/us-gun-violen...study-reveals/

    That's a pretty heavy cost for a minority of people in this country - while 600 people just had their lives shattered forever in LV. What about their civil rights? But I guess they are not as important as gun owners

  2. #62
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21,744
    Thanks
    3636

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    America's Gun Fantasy

    I haven't seen this article referenced yet in any other thread. I thought it was interesting. The take home message is that no more than three percent of our fellow citizens owns fully half the nation's firearms. And to listen to their rhetoric, it appears as if the main reason these folks want to possess so many firearms is that they see having them as a means to prepare for an ultraviolent showdown with "the government" -- a showdown that can only be wholly imaginary and that in real life they could never win. Meanwhile, the overall percentage of Americans who own and use guns for recreation or personal protection continues to decline. So it seems as if the advocates of more or less unlimited gun rights are fighting a battle they're destined to lose. If that's the case, some kind of compromise would appear to be the smart political play, eh?

    Cheers.
    Well considering our founding fathers just got done winning their independence in a showdown with their government.... it's entirely possible that's what they had in mind as well when they drafted the second amendment.

    Jefferson himself is quoted to have said the the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. So there is really no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers intended for the second amendment to be a check against government power (as all of the amendments are).

    It's a fair argument to suggest the people's chance of success in such a war would be doubtful. But then again no one thought the colonies could defeat the mightiest Empire on earth either. And regardless, their chances of success would be better with firearms then without them.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 9th October 2017 at 09:52 PM.

  3. #63
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,315
    Thanks
    2884

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Well considering our founding fathers just got done winning their independence in a showdown with their government.... it's entirely possible that's what they had in mind as well when they drafted the second amendment.

    Jefferson himself is quoted to have said the the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. So there is really no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers intended for the second amendment to be a check against government power (as all of the amendments are).

    It's a fair argument to suggest the people's chance of success in such a war would be doubtful. But then again no one thought the colonies could defeat the mightiest Empire on earth either. And regardless, their chances of success would be better with firearms then without them.
    At the risk of being considered punctilious, the colonial rebellion would not have survived, let alone succeeded, without the support and material assistance of France. It was cannon and warships which dictated victory at the Seige of Yorktown, not muskets. Yorktown was the Comte de Rochambeau's victory, and French forces - land and sea - far outnumbered the colonial forces. Without the cannon which the Comte de Grasse landed at Yorktown (after beating back elements of the Royal Navy,) there was little chance of the entrenched Lord Cornwallis surrendering his 8,000 seasoned soldiers. The 13 colonies alone did not defeat the British Empire - the French treated the rebellion as a continuation of the Seven Years War, and a wonderful opportunity to stick it to their traditional foe.
    Thanks from Iolo, Havelock, Hollywood and 1 others

  4. #64
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    147

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Well considering our founding fathers just got done winning their independence in a showdown with their government.... it's entirely possible that's what they had in mind as well when they drafted the second amendment.

    Jefferson himself is quoted to have said the the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. So there is really no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers intended for the second amendment to be a check against government power (as all of the amendments are).

    It's a fair argument to suggest the people's chance of success in such a war would be doubtful. But then again no one thought the colonies could defeat the mightiest Empire on earth either. And regardless, their chances of success would be better with firearms then without them.
    The gun mania of the USA started in the 1970ies/1980ies. I guess it's a simple marketing campaign, comparable with the Marlboro Man campaign. Cowboy or war hero stereotypes or something like this. The Marlboro Man died on cancer - will the USA die on civil war one day? What about to introduce a war weapon control law for the citizens of the USA? Or do "you" think bigger and like to see one day the first world war on US-American territory, everyone against everyone?

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 10th October 2017 at 02:02 AM.

  5. #65
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    7,688
    Thanks
    1317

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    Nice how you didn't include my edit when I realized I had made a mistake.

    But the Pew Center is pretty accurate and they say 30% - although 46% of people in rural areas own them.

    The demographics of gun ownership in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

    Your kindergarten comment makes zero sense.

    But yeah, a small minority whom the politicians paid for by the NRA cater too.

    Shame more people don't pay attention to actual cost of gun violence in this country - 2.8 billion a year.

    https://qz.com/1093144/us-gun-violen...study-reveals/

    That's a pretty heavy cost for a minority of people in this country - while 600 people just had their lives shattered forever in LV. What about their civil rights? But I guess they are not as important as gun owners
    The ownership rate of people legally able to purchase a firearm in the US is much higher.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f7fb8e2...g-victims.html





    That is a small fraction of the people injured and killed in Chicago which has had those laws on the books for decades. Chicago has a huge mass shooting problem, as does California.


    325 Chicago Shooting Victims in September; 2,961 This Year
    CNS News 15 hours ago



    (Screenshot: ABC7, Chicago) The Oct. 1 shooting massacre in Las Vegas that killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 was horrific, and terribly indicative of how much misery and evil one person can perpetrate. Similarly horrible and heartbreaking are the nearly relentless shootings -- despite tough gun laws -- in the city of Chicago. In 2016, there were 4,368 shooting victims in the Windy City. This year, as of Monday, 2,961 people had been shot. In just the first nine days of October, 95 people were shot.

  6. #66
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,285
    Thanks
    2369

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I do not have links. I explained what is wrong with the survey in detail. You are welcome to take each of my points and explain what is incorrect. If I searched the interwebs high and low in search of an opinion to support my statements, all I would find is someone's opinion.

    The left's mass shootings misrepresentation deserves a thread of its own. The starting point would be the FBI's public retraction of the phony mass shooting report that their name was attached to.
    Translation: After repeatedly claiming that I have facts readily available to support my position, claiming in fact that I have posted those facts here in this thread, I now freely admit I have nothing to support my pseudo-rational gibberish. However, I like to type and, while clumsy and obvious, I like to drag confusingly unrelated things into my posts, while pretending I have the intellectual clout to tell other posters how they should respond to my posts.

  7. #67
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    272

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Translation: After repeatedly claiming that I have facts readily available to support my position, claiming in fact that I have posted those facts here in this thread, I now freely admit I have nothing to support my pseudo-rational gibberish. However, I like to type and, while clumsy and obvious, I like to drag confusingly unrelated things into my posts, while pretending I have the intellectual clout to tell other posters how they should respond to my posts.
    Is that what I said, or did I confine links to other's opinions? Google searches for opinions are proxy arguments and a method I do not participate. Not that there is anything wrong with those types of debates. You are more than welcome challenge any of my statements with a non-feelings based argument. Links to actual data are no problem. If you want a link to a specific data set, let me know and I will produce it.

  8. #68
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,285
    Thanks
    2369

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Is that what I said, or did I confine links to other's opinions? Google searches for opinions are proxy arguments and a method I do not participate. Not that there is anything wrong with those types of debates. You are more than welcome challenge any of my statements with a non-feelings based argument. Links to actual data are no problem. If you want a link to a specific data set, let me know and I will produce it.
    You are more than welcome to provide sources that support the claims you make. You are also welcome to be largely ignored and regarded as a troll. You are welcome to wiggle your fingers on the keyboard. You are welcome to make unsupported assertions, to claim to have posted data you did not post, to announce that you are rational and highly reasonable. I am welcome to point out that your invitations are a silly joke and having seen you rebuff repeated requests for support with more gibberish, I am welcome to ignore further gibberish.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. The GOPís Will to Fantasy
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17th August 2012, 11:31 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th January 2007, 10:55 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed