so why not learn from other countries that have successfully carried out strict gun laws and making them work? Their is a danger in becoming to insular... look at the world now. the wo most violent countries are Afgganistan and America.. how does that make sense when England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc all have small amount of gun deaths per year even smaller if you take into consideration per capita.... Australians don't want to be vitim's anymore so nobody buys guns.. in America if you get burnt their is a need to burn people back.
read this article, non biased
the point ... taking guns away from law abiding folk has no effect on crime
crime is dropping around the world though, here in our US cities also,
it is attributed to many things...
tougher laws for incarceration, better technology, awareness,
better social help to stop domestic violence, better mental health care
even more guns protecting citizens, :thumbup:
etc. but what has been found stricter gun laws have no effect on crime
because criminals commit crimes and they are unaffected by laws.
gun deaths in australia and england went down when stricter gun laws were introduced.. and that's a fact.. other crimes have stayed steady.
make sure you ask every potential gun owner if they are going to ever commit a mass shooting.. :roll: I'm sure that would work.. my point being mass murderers and normally civil folk with no prior criminal activity. So you ask yourself then their HAS to a system that has a better way of tracking who buys guns, how many guns, how much ammo because it's no one's right to have a stock pile in their house.. because at that point it's not about self defense it's just plain dangerous.
they are always going to be criminals with guns that's a fact.. but there is no way Americans or any other country folk should be scared to see a movie or go to church.. more guns isn't going to stop these people as a police man had a gun and in WI shot him anyway lol Don't for a second pretend every American can act like Clint Eastwood does on screen in real life in a shootout at a mall or the movies... people either flight or fight and it doesn't always happen like you want it too. Arm everyone to to the teeth and the gun deaths WILL not stop. The fact is the more guns the more people are using them, the more accidents will occur and the more people will loose their jobs and go on a rampage, fail school and go on a rampage or whatever the case maybe. If you have a gun and get to the point that Holmes and severals others have who knows what you're capable of criminal record or not.
That must be your opinion
when the fact is...
the more guns owned for protection by trained individuals to prevent crime,
to prevent victimization this is what lessens crime, this and stronger incarceration laws.
Something maybe gun oppoents should be working towards. Safe ownership not less ownership this would be logical
and stronger stiffer laws for the bad guys, keeping them in prison.
Incidents involving knives have steadily rose ... by over 10 % in England http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16626558...
just an example of ...
criminals find a a way of course.
That must be your opinion
when the fact is...
the more guns owned for protection by trained individuals to prevent crime,
to prevent victimization this is what lessens crime, this and stronger incarceration laws.
please enlighten us on where you get your "facts" from. that statement is ludicrous.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Pandora: what makes your miss ruby more important or have more rights than Matthew Leach?
Miss Ruby was protecting her life and in the process stopped and sent to prison two thugs
you go Miss Ruby!
The Police Officer clearly was not behaving responsibly and is even presumed to be drunk
as was presumed of the victim :wtf: I would say both tragic and irresponsible.
How can you even compare the two?
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
Do you value her life? cause your comments lead some to believe maybe not so much...
calling her ordeal nonsense...
funny to me being drunk with a gun is nonsense as is comparing the two incidents.
We can not take rights away from the thoughtful because of the thoughtless.
read this article, non biased
the point ... taking guns away from law abiding folk has no effect on crime.
A columnist! When will you learn to validate sources????
Here are the actual statistics for the UK (as the article mentioned the UK) covering from 1969 to 2011. All kinds of numbers you may want - number of gun crimes, what they were, what kind of firearms, whether they were fired or not, etc. What it doesn't detail is if the 'gun violence' was gang related, domestic (which often is under 'other'), etc. I'm sure there are other statistics which can detail that (and I think we may be surprised with them!). Overall gun related crime is on the serious decrease. I also believe the source is valid
What I see in the UK is that since Dublane (when gun laws changed), there has been only one other incident someone going on a rampage with a shotgun and a rifle (no handguns). Maybe stricter controls are needed there? Just this year, the US had 23 mass shootings... hmmm..... 1 firearm rampage with multiple deaths in 16 years or 23 in 7 months..... a no brainer really...
Not til you can get over yourself
I rather enjoy posting articles, opinions based, as we are all giving our opinions.
Anyone can wiki some statistics, I think that might be your words...
and we know they are manipulated to fit agenda ...
did you say that too?
not wanting to play that game hmmm
I especially like this thought about limiting gun rights...
However, even if confining guns from law-abiding citizens does not
prompt new heights of violent crime, it does not follow that seizure is
a neutral act.
The best that can be said of it is that it is totally useless. As such,
it is pointless.
Yet seizure also amounts to a forfeiture of private property by persons
who have committed no crime (and thus have given the state no legitimate
reason to take their property). So its pointlessness is a deep violation
of individual liberty.
If the seizure of private guns does not prevent crime -- and from the
British example it is clear it does not -- then there is no common good
that could possibly justify seizure.
And if Britain's mandatory hand-in encouraged even a few hundred
robberies and a handful of murders by emboldening criminals, then the
hand-in was a crime by the state against law-abiding citizens.
Similarly, the registry forced on Canadian gun owners nearly a decade
ago has been totally useless. If taking guns away is not enough to
prevent gun crimes, how could collecting registrations on guns to fill
government databases do any better?
The problem is criminals with guns, period.Targeting law-abiding
owners, whether through registration or confiscation, is looking in the
wrong place for a solution to gun crime.
I'm glad I live in the land of the free myself ...
let's try to keep it that way.
That must be your opinion
when the fact is...
the more guns owned for protection by trained individuals to prevent crime,
to prevent victimization this is what lessens crime, this and stronger incarceration laws.
This is not fact...So, someone is keeping track of the trained individuals with guns? are you talking about police?
The more guns owned also = more gun deaths/shootings.
The problem is criminals with guns, period. Targeting law-abiding
owners, whether through registration or confiscation, is looking in the
wrong place for a solution to gun crime.
So, according to this logic, you're saying accidents and shootings involving people who werent previously criminals IS NOT A PROBLEM?
And nobody is specifically targeting law abiding citizens. How exactly is registration of deadly weapons a bad thing? :fp:
That must be your opinion
when the fact is...
the more guns owned for protection by trained individuals to prevent crime,
to prevent victimization this is what lessens crime, this and stronger incarceration laws.
please enlighten us on where you get your "facts" from. that statement is ludicrous.
Same place the other poster got their facts it is an opinion ...
except that the carry laws are greatly effecting crime, lessening crime. google away
and sometimes just seeing the gun not even concealed is a big deterrent.
Gee wouldn't it be for you if you were a criminal?
Let's see you know this house has a sharp shooter
and this one doesn't which house do you terrorize?
Or this man has a holster and in a different dark alley there is an
unarmed fella walking ... who you gonna mess with?
Miss Ruby was protecting her life and in the process stopped and sent to prison two thugs
you go Miss Ruby!
The Police Officer clearly was not behaving responsibly and is even presumed to be drunk
as was presumed of the victim :wtf: I would say both tragic and irresponsible.
How can you even compare the two?
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
Do you value her life? cause your comments lead some to believe maybe not so much...
calling her ordeal nonsense...
funny to me being drunk with a gun is nonsense as is comparing the two incidents.
Not entirely relevant, but how do you know these two guys would have killed dear old miss Ruby? She didn't lose her life, but who knows if that was ever in danger?
We can not take rights away from the thoughtful because of the thoughtless.
And we don't want to. But what about the right to live? If you ask me, it's ludicrous that the right to bear arms seems more important than life itself. As if people killed in all these shooting are just a small sacrifice for the benefit of many (gun owners).
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
That must be your opinion
when the fact is...
the more guns owned for protection by trained individuals to prevent crime,
to prevent victimization this is what lessens crime, this and stronger incarceration laws.
This is not fact...So, someone is keeping track of the trained individuals with guns? are you talking about police?
The more guns owned also = more gun deaths/shootings.
The problem is criminals with guns, period. Targeting law-abiding
owners, whether through registration or confiscation, is looking in the
wrong place for a solution to gun crime.
So, according to this logic, you're saying accidents and shootings involving people who werent previously criminals IS NOT A PROBLEM?
And nobody is specifically targeting law abiding citizens. How exactly is registration of deadly weapons a bad thing? :fp:
I agree with this article if that is what you are asking. Did you read the article?
The whole article? not just the portion I posted but the link in the previous post.
The problem is people buying illegal guns for both crime or protection do
not know the first thing about gun safety or care. Add in the same for legal guns.
The lack of respect for the gun is the problem. Lack of respect for a life is the problem.
But good news Jonny, there are long waiting lists for gun safety training
which means those buying guns today are buying to be well prepared and safe.
This is awesome! As is concealed weapon permits on the rise, as is the video
Run Hide Fight ... it is awareness and with each incident comes more.
It is education.
There will always be people who will want to hurt others, protecting ourselves
not only a right a must
Hell, I'm dangerous enough with my bare hands... and my bear.
..bear ..arms..? :think:
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
I rather enjoy posting articles, opinions based, as we are all giving our opinions.
Anyone can wiki some statistics, I think that might be your words...
and we know they are manipulated to fit agenda ...
did you say that too?
I especially like this thought about limiting gun rights...
I'm glad I live in the land of the free myself ...
let's try to keep it that way.
As said many times before, opinions are absolutely fine but please do not present them as non-biaised and facts.
And yes... anyone can wiki stuff, but where does that come in with my links? My stats come from 'the horse's mouth'. I haven't posted anything from Wiki - or are you getting me confused with someone else again? I seem to remember you like to use Wiki.
When my links were not neutral, I have stated it, when they were valid, I have also stated it. As it should be.
And when it comes to stats and studies - of course one manipulates data. That's why it is known that one needs to look at the source data and not 'reported' data. Therefore validity of sources is important if one is to quote those kind of things. Unless, obviously, one presents these 'reported' studies or blogs or columns as opinions, which they are. Then they are read as such. Analysis and critical thinking. No problems there.
So... where does this last 'thought' come from? Maybe we could have a link so we can get the whole picture?
The land of the free.... yes.... of course. Kid yourself.
Pandora: what makes your miss ruby more important or have more rights than Matthew Leach?
Miss Ruby was protecting her life and in the process stopped and sent to prison two thugs
you go Miss Ruby!
The Police Officer clearly was not behaving responsibly and is even presumed to be drunk
as was presumed of the victim :wtf: I would say both tragic and irresponsible.
How can you even compare the two?
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
Do you value her life? cause your comments lead some to believe maybe not so much...
calling her ordeal nonsense...
funny to me being drunk with a gun is nonsense as is comparing the two incidents.
We can not take rights away from the thoughtful because of the thoughtless.
how can you say the police officer was not behaving responsibly? were you there? he behaved the exact same way as Ruby did! he was protecting himself! had he been drunk and killed an actual intruder and not his son, you would be applauding this guy!
I value all human life, which I have stated time and time again. Death penalty thread, this thread. I value human life more than you do, which actually is a FACT, because you stated ad nauseum that anyone who tries to victimize another derserves to be killed. I personally do not believe this. So don't question my valuation life.
Why don't YOU value the human lives of those killed by what you call irresponsible gun owners? you mentioned nothing of Matthew Leach. You just chastized his father. You think those lives are just collateral damage as long as people get to keep their guns???
has a responsible gun owner NEVER had an accident?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Miss Ruby was protecting her life and in the process stopped and sent to prison two thugs
you go Miss Ruby!
The Police Officer clearly was not behaving responsibly and is even presumed to be drunk
as was presumed of the victim :wtf: I would say both tragic and irresponsible.
How can you even compare the two?
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
Do you value her life? cause your comments lead some to believe maybe not so much...
calling her ordeal nonsense...
funny to me being drunk with a gun is nonsense as is comparing the two incidents.
Not entirely relevant, but how do you know these two guys would have killed dear old miss Ruby? She didn't lose her life, but who knows if that was ever in danger?
We can not take rights away from the thoughtful because of the thoughtless.
And we don't want to. But what about the right to live? If you ask me, it's ludicrous that the right to bear arms seems more important than life itself. As if people killed in all these shooting are just a small sacrifice for the benefit of many (gun owners).
Oh please not another sympathizer with the victimizers really?
They are two young thugs entering an 89 year old women's house, breaking in the door as she slept...
Do you know how easy it is to hurt a little old lady?
I guess we could take the gun away and see what shape was in in the end...
I think not! In fact there was another local lady no way to protect herself,
both little arms broken, blackened eyes, she got off easy huh? :fp:
What is of value is life and why we must protect it. It is criminals who do not value life
they are parasites to life itself.
We need guns to protect life because criminals have guns to take lives,
guns save lives.
Norm... where is your little guy banging his head against the wall when we need it?
not sure why y'all are still feeding the nonsense but hey, have fun! :P
...
Actually (and sadly)... Norm, this is probably more constructive.
It's an odd situation, when the brick wall has a better understanding of what you are saying.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Actually (and sadly)... Norm, this is probably more constructive.
It's an odd situation, when the brick wall has a better understanding of what you are saying.
it is sad...paranoia and fear are a toxic combination
I rather enjoy posting articles, opinions based, as we are all giving our opinions.
Anyone can wiki some statistics, I think that might be your words...
and we know they are manipulated to fit agenda ...
did you say that too?
I especially like this thought about limiting gun rights...
I'm glad I live in the land of the free myself ...
let's try to keep it that way.
As said many times before, opinions are absolutely fine but please do not present them as non-biaised and facts.
And yes... anyone can wiki stuff, but where does that come in with my links? My stats come from 'the horse's mouth'. I haven't posted anything from Wiki - or are you getting me confused with someone else again? I seem to remember you like to use Wiki.
When my links were not neutral, I have stated it, when they were valid, I have also stated it. As it should be.
And when it comes to stats and studies - of course one manipulates data. That's why it is known that one needs to look at the source data and not 'reported' data. Therefore validity of sources is important if one is to quote those kind of things. Unless, obviously, one presents these 'reported' studies or blogs or columns as opinions, which they are. Then they are read as such. Analysis and critical thinking. No problems there.
So... where does this last 'thought' come from? Maybe we could have a link so we can get the whole picture?
The land of the free.... yes.... of course. Kid yourself.
From the one you dismissed you didn't read it did you? caught ya!
Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
You caught me at what? A columnist giving her opinion? Yeah... I stopped reading halfway down when I noticed it was rubbish. So you like to requote this but only partially. Good on you.
I have you the Home Office official statistics.
Columnist.... Home Office official stats... .Hmmmm.... which is opinion (which a poster would like to present as fact) and which is validated? No brainer here again.
Pandora: what makes your miss ruby more important or have more rights than Matthew Leach?
Miss Ruby was protecting her life and in the process stopped and sent to prison two thugs
you go Miss Ruby!
The Police Officer clearly was not behaving responsibly and is even presumed to be drunk
as was presumed of the victim :wtf: I would say both tragic and irresponsible.
How can you even compare the two?
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
Do you value her life? cause your comments lead some to believe maybe not so much...
calling her ordeal nonsense...
funny to me being drunk with a gun is nonsense as is comparing the two incidents.
We can not take rights away from the thoughtful because of the thoughtless.
how can you say the police officer was not behaving responsibly? were you there? he behaved the exact same way as Ruby did! he was protecting himself! had he been drunk and killed an actual intruder and not his son, you would be applauding this guy!
I value all human life, which I have stated time and time again. Death penalty thread, this thread. I value human life more than you do, which actually is a FACT, because you stated ad nauseum that anyone who tries to victimize another derserves to be killed. I personally do not believe this. So don't question my valuation life.
Why don't YOU value the human lives of those killed by what you call irresponsible gun owners? you mentioned nothing of Matthew Leach. You just chastized his father. You think those lives are just collateral damage as long as people get to keep their guns???
has a responsible gun owner NEVER had an accident?
no I don't applaud drunk people with guns... do you?
I believe one has the right to save their own life when their life is threatened.
Do you?
I am against the death penalty.
I think thoughtful people who are responsible should be allowed to own a gun
to protect their lives and that of their loved ones.
I think in this case thoughtless people who are irresponsible
made their own destiny with their actions
and thoughtful people should not be punished for that.
Have responsible drivers ever had an accident?
Or were they texting, drunk, speeding, changing the radio? etc ...
That is debatable also isn't it?
Accidents the word itself is debatable.
Have responsible drivers ever had an accident?
Or were they texting, drunk, speeding, changing the radio? etc ...
That is debatable also isn't it?
Accidents the word itself is debatable.
um, of course responsible drivers get into accidents. that's why they are called ACCIDENTS. how can you say that word itself is debatable? what does that even mean?
so what you are saying is everyone is responsible until they have an accident, which then classifies them irresponsible. which we could then surmise that everyone is potentially irresponsible.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
I thought you admonished others for making what-if statements in this thread. you presume time and again that ruby would have died. you don't know that anymore than anyone else does.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
You caught me at what? A columnist giving her opinion? Yeah... I stopped reading halfway down when I noticed it was rubbish. So you like to requote this. Good on you.
I have you the Home Office official statistics.
Columnist.... Home Office official stats... .Hmmmm.... which is opinion (which a poster would like to present as fact) and which is validated? No brainer here again.
Ok so you asked for the link but you had it already commented on it and dismissed it ...
who's on first :?
oh rubbish?
really why cause it doesn't agree with your opinion?
Is that good debate form?
If someone did that to your contributions would you consider that characteristic of a narrow mind?
Not listening to the other opinions?
As said many times before, opinions are absolutely fine but please do not present them as non-biaised and facts.
And yes... anyone can wiki stuff, but where does that come in with my links? My stats come from 'the horse's mouth'. I haven't posted anything from Wiki - or are you getting me confused with someone else again? I seem to remember you like to use Wiki.
When my links were not neutral, I have stated it, when they were valid, I have also stated it. As it should be.
And when it comes to stats and studies - of course one manipulates data. That's why it is known that one needs to look at the source data and not 'reported' data. Therefore validity of sources is important if one is to quote those kind of things. Unless, obviously, one presents these 'reported' studies or blogs or columns as opinions, which they are. Then they are read as such. Analysis and critical thinking. No problems there.
So... where does this last 'thought' come from? Maybe we could have a link so we can get the whole picture?
The land of the free.... yes.... of course. Kid yourself.
From the one you dismissed you didn't read it did you? caught ya!
...
I read the article... it said this:
"It is entirely likely that some of the increase in the past five years has stemmed from an increased confidence among criminals that ordinary citizens almost certainly have no guns in their homes.
But it is unlikely the handgun ban accounts for all or even most of the increase. France has had a similar upward spike in robberies over the past five years without banning guns. France, too, now has a violent crime rate at or above the Americans', with the exception of murder. "
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Oh please not another sympathizer with the victimizers really?
They are two young thugs entering an 89 year old women's house, breaking in the door as she slept...
Do you know how easy it is to hurt a little old lady?
I guess we could take the gun away and see what shape was in in the end...
I think not! In fact there was another local lady no way to protect herself,
both little arms broken, blackened eyes, she got off easy huh? :fp:
What is of value is life and why we must protect it. It is criminals who do not value life
they are parasites to life itself.
We need guns to protect life because criminals have guns to take lives,
guns save lives.
I was just wondering why you seemed so quick to assume the very worst.
They did knock first you know, only broke down the door when there was no answer, seems to me they were wanting Ruby's stuff more than her life. Not all criminals are murderers. I know we'll never know, just wondering.
I know the value of life and I cannot believe people truly believe that the way to protect it is to introduce more and more means to take it away (in this case, guns) to more and more people.
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
Comments
+1
That must be your opinion
when the fact is...
the more guns owned for protection by trained individuals to prevent crime,
to prevent victimization this is what lessens crime, this and stronger incarceration laws.
Something maybe gun oppoents should be working towards.
Safe ownership not less ownership this would be logical
and stronger stiffer laws for the bad guys, keeping them in prison.
Incidents involving knives have steadily rose ... by over 10 % in England http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16626558...
just an example of ...
criminals find a a way of course.
please enlighten us on where you get your "facts" from. that statement is ludicrous.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you go Miss Ruby!
The Police Officer clearly was not behaving responsibly and is even presumed to be drunk
as was presumed of the victim :wtf: I would say both tragic and irresponsible.
How can you even compare the two?
You would have poor Miss Ruby dead at the hands of two strong young men
because someone behaves irresponsibly? Why? Why should she lose her life
because of someone else's horrible and foolish mistake?
Do you value her life? cause your comments lead some to believe maybe not so much...
calling her ordeal nonsense...
funny to me being drunk with a gun is nonsense as is comparing the two incidents.
We can not take rights away from the thoughtful because of the thoughtless.
I rather enjoy posting articles, opinions based, as we are all giving our opinions.
Anyone can wiki some statistics, I think that might be your words...
and we know they are manipulated to fit agenda ...
did you say that too?
not wanting to play that game
I especially like this thought about limiting gun rights...
However, even if confining guns from law-abiding citizens does not
prompt new heights of violent crime, it does not follow that seizure is
a neutral act.
The best that can be said of it is that it is totally useless. As such,
it is pointless.
Yet seizure also amounts to a forfeiture of private property by persons
who have committed no crime (and thus have given the state no legitimate
reason to take their property). So its pointlessness is a deep violation
of individual liberty.
If the seizure of private guns does not prevent crime -- and from the
British example it is clear it does not -- then there is no common good
that could possibly justify seizure.
And if Britain's mandatory hand-in encouraged even a few hundred
robberies and a handful of murders by emboldening criminals, then the
hand-in was a crime by the state against law-abiding citizens.
Similarly, the registry forced on Canadian gun owners nearly a decade
ago has been totally useless. If taking guns away is not enough to
prevent gun crimes, how could collecting registrations on guns to fill
government databases do any better?
The problem is criminals with guns, period.Targeting law-abiding
owners, whether through registration or confiscation, is looking in the
wrong place for a solution to gun crime.
I'm glad I live in the land of the free myself ...
let's try to keep it that way.
This is not fact...So, someone is keeping track of the trained individuals with guns? are you talking about police?
The more guns owned also = more gun deaths/shootings.
So, according to this logic, you're saying accidents and shootings involving people who werent previously criminals IS NOT A PROBLEM?
And nobody is specifically targeting law abiding citizens. How exactly is registration of deadly weapons a bad thing? :fp:
except that the carry laws are greatly effecting crime, lessening crime.
google away
and sometimes just seeing the gun not even concealed is a big deterrent.
Gee wouldn't it be for you if you were a criminal?
Let's see you know this house has a sharp shooter
and this one doesn't which house do you terrorize?
Or this man has a holster and in a different dark alley there is an
unarmed fella walking ... who you gonna mess with?
It's common sense for some.
Not entirely relevant, but how do you know these two guys would have killed dear old miss Ruby? She didn't lose her life, but who knows if that was ever in danger?
And we don't want to. But what about the right to live? If you ask me, it's ludicrous that the right to bear arms seems more important than life itself. As if people killed in all these shooting are just a small sacrifice for the benefit of many (gun owners).
The whole article? not just the portion I posted but the link in the previous post.
The problem is people buying illegal guns for both crime or protection do
not know the first thing about gun safety or care. Add in the same for legal guns.
The lack of respect for the gun is the problem. Lack of respect for a life is the problem.
But good news Jonny, there are long waiting lists for gun safety training
which means those buying guns today are buying to be well prepared and safe.
This is awesome! As is concealed weapon permits on the rise, as is the video
Run Hide Fight ... it is awareness and with each incident comes more.
It is education.
There will always be people who will want to hurt others, protecting ourselves
not only a right a must
..bear ..arms..? :think:
As said many times before, opinions are absolutely fine but please do not present them as non-biaised and facts.
And yes... anyone can wiki stuff, but where does that come in with my links? My stats come from 'the horse's mouth'. I haven't posted anything from Wiki - or are you getting me confused with someone else again? I seem to remember you like to use Wiki.
When my links were not neutral, I have stated it, when they were valid, I have also stated it. As it should be.
And when it comes to stats and studies - of course one manipulates data. That's why it is known that one needs to look at the source data and not 'reported' data. Therefore validity of sources is important if one is to quote those kind of things. Unless, obviously, one presents these 'reported' studies or blogs or columns as opinions, which they are. Then they are read as such. Analysis and critical thinking. No problems there.
So... where does this last 'thought' come from? Maybe we could have a link so we can get the whole picture?
The land of the free.... yes.... of course. Kid yourself.
how can you say the police officer was not behaving responsibly? were you there? he behaved the exact same way as Ruby did! he was protecting himself! had he been drunk and killed an actual intruder and not his son, you would be applauding this guy!
I value all human life, which I have stated time and time again. Death penalty thread, this thread. I value human life more than you do, which actually is a FACT, because you stated ad nauseum that anyone who tries to victimize another derserves to be killed. I personally do not believe this. So don't question my valuation life.
Why don't YOU value the human lives of those killed by what you call irresponsible gun owners? you mentioned nothing of Matthew Leach. You just chastized his father. You think those lives are just collateral damage as long as people get to keep their guns???
has a responsible gun owner NEVER had an accident?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I find this statement incredibly disturbing.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
They are two young thugs entering an 89 year old women's house, breaking in the door as she slept...
Do you know how easy it is to hurt a little old lady?
I guess we could take the gun away and see what shape was in in the end...
I think not! In fact there was another local lady no way to protect herself,
both little arms broken, blackened eyes, she got off easy huh? :fp:
What is of value is life and why we must protect it. It is criminals who do not value life
they are parasites to life itself.
We need guns to protect life because criminals have guns to take lives,
guns save lives.
Actually (and sadly)... Norm, this is probably more constructive.
It's an odd situation, when the brick wall has a better understanding of what you are saying.
Hail, Hail!!!
**calls CBG to discuss her masochistic tendencies**
it is sad...paranoia and fear are a toxic combination
From the one you dismissed
http://www.varioustopics.com/anthropolo ... -guns.html
the contradiction here is staggering.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Umm... caught me?
Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
You caught me at what? A columnist giving her opinion? Yeah... I stopped reading halfway down when I noticed it was rubbish. So you like to requote this but only partially. Good on you.
I have you the Home Office official statistics.
Columnist.... Home Office official stats... .Hmmmm.... which is opinion (which a poster would like to present as fact) and which is validated? No brainer here again.
I believe one has the right to save their own life when their life is threatened.
Do you?
I am against the death penalty.
I think thoughtful people who are responsible should be allowed to own a gun
to protect their lives and that of their loved ones.
I think in this case thoughtless people who are irresponsible
made their own destiny with their actions
and thoughtful people should not be punished for that.
Have responsible drivers ever had an accident?
Or were they texting, drunk, speeding, changing the radio? etc ...
That is debatable also isn't it?
Accidents the word itself is debatable.
um, of course responsible drivers get into accidents. that's why they are called ACCIDENTS. how can you say that word itself is debatable? what does that even mean?
so what you are saying is everyone is responsible until they have an accident, which then classifies them irresponsible. which we could then surmise that everyone is potentially irresponsible.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I thought you admonished others for making what-if statements in this thread. you presume time and again that ruby would have died. you don't know that anymore than anyone else does.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Aren't jesus loving gun nuts the epitome of a walking contradiction?
who's on first :?
oh rubbish?
really why cause it doesn't agree with your opinion?
Is that good debate form?
If someone did that to your contributions would you consider that characteristic of a narrow mind?
Not listening to the other opinions?
Snakeduck...you're a nutter (in a nice way!)
I read the article... it said this:
"It is entirely likely that some of the increase in the past five years has stemmed from an increased confidence among criminals that ordinary citizens almost certainly have no guns in their homes.
But it is unlikely the handgun ban accounts for all or even most of the increase. France has had a similar upward spike in robberies over the past five years without banning guns. France, too, now has a violent crime rate at or above the Americans', with the exception of murder. "
Hail, Hail!!!
I was just wondering why you seemed so quick to assume the very worst.
They did knock first you know, only broke down the door when there was no answer, seems to me they were wanting Ruby's stuff more than her life. Not all criminals are murderers. I know we'll never know, just wondering.
I know the value of life and I cannot believe people truly believe that the way to protect it is to introduce more and more means to take it away (in this case, guns) to more and more people.