Defend the Second Amendment!

Indie

Why is a very good question and I’ve raised it and asked it many times I’ve even given some suggestions I think might help the situation (above)

But ease of access to more lethal weaponry is likely to result in a higher murder rate, so the type of weaponry available should NOT be disregarded, if is a significant factor in the numbers likely to be killed.

 

Oh hell this has been covered so many times – do you never read other peoples posts?

Do we really need to repeat ourselves AGAIN?

 

No, just indicative my approach to useless idiotic waste of time comments like this.

Thanks for the nice view into your personal life but this subjective view and most of what you say is subjective, is not proof of anything except that you like to cook.

More of your sterling wit I see. You might try turning it to something useful like addressing the discussion.

See what I mean another subjective view with a bit of ad hominem attack.

Anything to add to the discussion or are you just going continue with these ad hominem attacks?

Yes, I did, thanx for the recap.

Quite frankly, as I've said before, the term "more lethal" is basicly meaningless, once a person is dead you can't make them more dead.

Now are you done with the ad hominem attacks?

 

Well at least you have stopped stating your opinions as fact.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And replying ‘whatever’ like some petulant teenager was a deeply insightful contribution to the debate? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Well no, but it is characteristic of how you debate or rather non-debate. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As are most of your other comments. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I wasn’t proving anything I was pointing out that you idea about training don’t seem very rational or thought through - they still don’t – and I notice you don’t address that. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But I notice you still haven’t produced the ‘information’ you once claimed to have seen. We might then be able to discuss and address it - without it we can’t.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’d love to discuss the issues but all you seem to give is ‘whatever’ and a self pitying line in faux righteous indignation. [/SIZE]Please piss or get off the pot.

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]My pleasure – but why did you ask – had you forgotten what your own stance was? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You are in a duel and there are two weapons - one is a fully working and loaded glock-17 the other a randomly picked kitchen knife – are you honestly saying you’d choose the knife because in your view they are equally effective as ‘lethal’ weapons? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Ten paces turn…[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Oh what the fuck are you talking about….[/SIZE]

 

Are ever going to get tired of posting this rubbish?

If want me to address a point, how about actually bringing it up in your post, otherwise don't expect it to be addressed.

How observant. But I guess that you didn't happen to notice that I said I didn't have that "information" at hand.

I used "whatever" one time and one time only and suddenly you are saying that my using it one time means that it "is all you seem to give". Is this what you call rational debate?

And this one time use of the word “whatever” came after, in several posts, I had tried to explained what I meant by what I had said to another poster and then you had continued with this "brilliant insightful discussion of the issues"; “Ok this is your unanalysed, not thought about response”. And it was to this "brilliant insightful discussion of the issues" that I responded “whatever” in hopes of getting back to a discussion of the actual issues of the OP but oh no, now it seems the only thing you want to discuss is my one time use of the word “whatever”.

What in the world? Where did this come from?

I was talking to some one else not to you and if you are going to butt in to such a situation at least act like that is what you are doing and not act like the comment was made to you.

Yeah, an obviously randomly picked situation out of real life.

Let's try another randomly picked situation.
You are at war, it is night time and you have a fully working and loaded glock-17 and a kitchen knife, you need to break into an enemy base and you are outnumbered 100 to 1 but there is only one enemy between you and completing your objective. Are you going to use that "super deathly highly lethal" fully working and loaded glock-17 or are you going to use that “barely” lethal but silent kitchen knife?

I was talking about how nice it was to see, at least this one time, that you weren't continuing your usual habit of acting like everything you say is a fact that can't be contested, at least not in the post I mentioned.

 

1a. How many of the years was the U.S. involved in each of the wars? WW II, for example, began in 1939 but the U.S. declared war with Japan on Dec. 8th, 1941, followed by declaration of war with Germany and Italy on Dec. 11th, 1941 and with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania on Jun. 4th, 1942. Would you say there are no civilian deaths during times of war?

2a. Not all persons who are killed during war are in the military.

3a. If you want to leave the Confederate losses out claiming they were not U.S. military during the Civil war then take note that the U.S. did not exist at the beginning of the Revolutionary war. But even so, using your lowest figure of 346,511 results in about 86,000 deaths per year.

4a. What you seem to be pointing out is that guns are not the most effective weapons used to fight wars. I concede that fact, planes, bombs, and other weaponry has proven to be much more efficient in killing large numbers of people. I mentioned the Mongol conquests only to point out the fact they had no guns, yet they killed many people.

Population is a factor, the District of Columbia for example, with the lowest gun ownership 3.6% had the highest rate of gun murders 16.5 per 100K AND the highest rate of murders 21.8 per 100K, while Vermont with gun ownership of 42.0% had the lowest rate of gun murders 0.3 per 100K.

Guns are, and always will be available to those who wish to use them for criminal purposes. How many of the millions of guns in the U.S. are used each year to intentionally kill another human? That information should be more readily available, but the number of guns used to prevent being killed or the victim of a crime is seldom reported, and has in some cases resulted in the arrest of the person who used a gun to prevent being victimized.

ed: When I said population is a factor, in terms of density, it becomes a major problem. Too many people, too few jobs, many have nots to prey on those who have.

 

I have enjoyed discussing this subject and also see a problem that needs to be addressed but as of yet I am not entirely sure what the problem is and what can be done about it.

It is obvious that there are way too many gun deaths in the US but does that make the problem guns? Or prehaps there is a gun culture in the US that needs to addressed?

Now I hate to admit it but I like "action movies" but I watched a movie just the other day and there was no plot, just a set up and then the main charactor just started killing people some with knives but mostly with guns, sorry to say I watched it to the end, I think in hopes that sooner or later a plot would show up. Could this be at least part of the problem, that our entertainment is constaintly offering up violence as the answer to our problems.

 

Out of all of the amendments, the second seems the least important to me.
I really don't think anyone is trying to take all the guns away, but even if they were, the wealth gap and environmental degradation are far, far more serious threats.

 

Too much of anything tends to imply a problem but saying too many guns implies a problem seems little vague. Perhaps you can explain what you mean?

One of my personal favorites.

 

The removal of freedoms usually starts small and with things that seem unimportant.

 

This is what the libertarian types think, but they've totally got it backwards.

Our society is far more Brave New World than 1984.
It's the drugs, junk food and pop culture that are the real threat.

 

There are any number of ways your freedoms can be taken from you.

 

Okay... Never mind.

 

I just don't think it's very likely that the government would risk destabilizing society unless it was absolutely necessary. The US has already learned that forcing people to conform doesn't work, and that you catch far more flies with honey... what exactly do they have to gain by turning to Stalinist tactics at this point? Nothing they don't already have. They don't care about what you believe, they care about what you're willing and able to do.

It's easier and better to keep people pacified and productive. If guns serve to give people a (probably false) sense of security, then that's what they will give you. This isn't the wild west anymore and if the government wanted you dead it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find you and kill you-- I mean, you're already posting in a public forum, and you would probably be up against people with better training, better weapons and better technology than you could ever have.

They know it's harder to find the willpower to attack the government when your biggest concern is the plot of the next Star Wars movie... what if the revolution means you'll never see the whole trilogy?

 

I have to say it seems like the Government did a good job of removing some of our rights with the "Patriot" act and society barely even flinched let a lone become destabilized.

Also my statement; "There are any number of ways your freedoms can be taken from you." allows for a person to have his freedoms taken away by drugs or entertainment.

What? Okay, I'm out on this whole revolution thing.