Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
There's a lot of nutty people out there.
Don't compare a celebrity's legitimate need for protection from them with the average Joe's paranoid need for an AR15 to protect themselves from the boogeyman.
They have no more right to their self defense than what I do. I can't afford a bodyguard, and I'll also determine my own self defense needs thanksverymuch.
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.
C'mon man.
* And hey... I forgot about the impending alien invasion (not the one Trump blathers on about... but the one from infinity and beyond). Guy should be allowed to own some land mines for this... no? I should be able to determine my own self defence yah?
Goofy.
Bullshit, there are plenty of situations that an "average joe" may find themselves in that put them in just as or more significant or realistic threat as "celebrities". Otherwise, restraining orders would not exist. You said it yourself, there are nuts out there that come up with all kinds of reasons to harm others; divorces, child custody battles, money, drugs do not always bring out the best in people. "alien invasion"... Seriously?
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.
So are the elderly, the disabled, the poor...it's all relative. Does that mean a celebrity has more of a right to life than someone else? That's what this conversation is dwindling down to...
no it's not. it all comes down to what someone can afford. I have zero issue with anyone having armed security if they can afford it. if firearms are part of your job, then have at er. to me that is totally different than an average person concealing and carrying.
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
So you are cool with rich people having armed security, but not rich people or anyone else being armed to protect themselves if their armed security is not around got it. Agreed, ridiculous.
I am cool with armed security yes. it is assumed that if you have a job where you require a firearm, you are properly trained and not a psycho. you cannot assume that about the general populace.
While I still disagree with you, at least I know what you are saying. This thread was starting to sound like some were implying that rich celebrities had more of a right to arm themselves than the general public, which is fucking elitist and crazy. You just believe that no one except law enforcement or security should be armed, which I still think is crazy, just a different type. Don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that. Thanks for clarifying though
open carry in canada is walking down the street with a hockey stick.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
You need to look at overall statistics to make the claim you're making. Not just look at a handful of random events that all happen to have the same outcome.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
You need to look at overall statistics to make the claim you're making. Not just look at a handful of random events that all happen to have the same outcome.
I wasn't really speaking to overall statistics. Just that it happens to be that sometimes more guns are a good thing. There are numerous instances of people saving the lives of themselves and others by using firearms.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
You need to look at overall statistics to make the claim you're making. Not just look at a handful of random events that all happen to have the same outcome.
I wasn't really speaking to overall statistics. Just that it happens to be that sometimes more guns are a good thing. There are numerous instances of people saving the lives of themselves and others by using firearms.
Well, it happens to be that sometimes a gun comes in handy in a particular situation. That doesn't at all mean that more guns in America in general are a good thing. That's why the overall statistics are meaningful in this context.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
You need to look at overall statistics to make the claim you're making. Not just look at a handful of random events that all happen to have the same outcome.
I wasn't really speaking to overall statistics. Just that it happens to be that sometimes more guns are a good thing. There are numerous instances of people saving the lives of themselves and others by using firearms.
Well, it happen to be that sometimes a gun comes in handy in a particular situation. That doesn't at all mean that more guns in America in general are a good thing. That's why the overall statistics are meaningful in this context.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
You need to look at overall statistics to make the claim you're making. Not just look at a handful of random events that all happen to have the same outcome.
I wasn't really speaking to overall statistics. Just that it happens to be that sometimes more guns are a good thing. There are numerous instances of people saving the lives of themselves and others by using firearms.
forget it dude these guy's will never believe guns help anybody.....but it is fun to read their reply's of shock and horror lol !!!
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
Whatever dude all you want. You claimed more guns saved lives. I simply asked for a source that backed that claim up. That's not condescending.
I gave you a source. Just because that source did not fit your liking is on you. More guns... 0+1=1. 1="more" than 0. Plenty examples where "more" than 1 or more than 0 guns= a life or lives being saved. I don't know what you want? Maybe we are on two different pages here.
You need to look at overall statistics to make the claim you're making. Not just look at a handful of random events that all happen to have the same outcome.
I wasn't really speaking to overall statistics. Just that it happens to be that sometimes more guns are a good thing. There are numerous instances of people saving the lives of themselves and others by using firearms.
forget it dude these guy's will never believe guns help anybody.....but it is fun to read their reply's of shock and horror lol !!!
Godfather.
Can you please point out the replies of shock and horror? I must have missed those. Everyone except you seems to be engaging in a perfectly reasonable discussion.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Godfather.
In other words:
1) The unrestricted freedom enjoyed by the European settlers in America came directly at expense of the unrestricted freedom formerly enjoyed by the indigenous Natives who occupied the land first. Thankfully, the Natives became submissive when presented with the options of death or submission. Once Natives were incapable of revolting, various parties wished to seize control of the entirety of the continent. By pointing weapons at each other, they were all made submissive to each other, and begrudgingly agreed on the rules of law which would allow them to perpetuate their collective power.
2) When injustices are brought to the surface and no longer tolerated by the populace, the populace has a tendency to revolt, but thankfully they can be forced into submission with the fear of death (the one with the greatest ability to destroy always wins).
If you believe that governance based on fear is the most effective way to govern a nation (humanism and justice be damned, power and greed be praised), then I can see why guns would be attractive to you. I really hope we don't perpetuate such faithless existences, as to feel incomplete without a tool to potentially take a life if need be. This is especially true when the statistics (i.e. irrefutable proof) show that we are far less likely to endure harm if these tools of mass paranoia and (intentional or incidental) destruction are highly restricted.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Godfather.
In other words:
1) The unrestricted freedom enjoyed by the European settlers in America came directly at expense of the unrestricted freedom formerly enjoyed by the indigenous Natives who occupied the land first. Thankfully, the Natives became submissive when presented with the options of death or submission. Once Natives were incapable of revolting, various parties wished to seize control of the entirety of the continent. By pointing weapons at each other, they were all made submissive to each other, and begrudgingly agreed on the rules of law which would allow them to perpetuate their collective power.
2) When injustices are brought to the surface and no longer tolerated by the populace, the populace has a tendency to revolt, but thankfully they can be forced into submission with the fear of death (the one with the greatest ability to destroy always wins).
If you believe that governance based on fear is the most effective way to govern a nation (humanism and justice be damned, power and greed be praised), then I can see why guns would be attractive to you. I really hope we don't perpetuate such faithless existences, as to feel incomplete without a tool to potentially take a life if need be. This is especially true when the statistics (i.e. irrefutable proof) show that we are far less likely to endure harm if these tools of mass paranoia and (intentional or incidental) destruction are highly restricted.
Maybe I missing your point but your points and example have been happening since the beginning of time. Borders have changed, land has changed hands, changed names, and it more times than not is done with violence. The Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, the Nazis, etc. the list is very long. Another group of people invade new land by force and take ownership. Instead of firearms and explosives they used swords, spears, and arrows.
Well surely you didn't expect GF to care about how Americans committed genocide with their guns.
Don't you mean how Government committed genocide with their guns?
Or is there some private army out there invading nations under the US flag?
I think you know perfectly well what I meant... although private citizen shot Natives too, and were legally allowed to do that without repercussions in most circumstances, so....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Individuals commit atrocities. Human beings commit atrocities. I can't believe you are working to dehumanize genocide.
I don't think that's what he's doing (unless I'm misinterpreting). I read it as government actions legitimize those same actions when done by private citizens (which is true).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Godfather.
Surely you are referring to Shay's Rebellion, when a well-regulated state militia crushed the insurrection, ultimately garnering Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
Funny when you put a quote like this into context, it is referring to a healthy, strong government crushing rebellion, rather than encouraging constant uprisings against the government. At least that is what it meant until some asshole named Timothy McVeigh co-opted the phrase to mean something entirely different.
Taken in it's entirety: "Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
When I read this, it says to me: Some people don't have the critical thinking skills to understand how government actually functions. We will try to reason with them, but in the end we're going to have to dispose of a few idiots to preserve democracy. see: Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. And I'm pretty sure one of our Founding Fathers just called you ignorant manure.
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Godfather.
Dear Gawd.
I was going to reply with the exact same thing.
LOL ! prove me wrong.
Godfather.
No need to.
I will say though that you and many others have said countless times that guns don't kill people... people kill people. Yet in that wild post of yours... you contradict yourself (giving guns much more credit for killing than you do in other arguments).
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.
I thought I read somewhere that they are armed... but how would that make him a hypocrite? I never heard that he didn't think security guards or the police shouldn't be armed. I would imagine that he, like most others, is a logical person who understands that certain jobs actually do justify being armed.
I'm just at a loss here. The same people that say that guns do not offer any protection are the ones defending people protecting others with guns...can't have it both ways. By the logic of previous posters (not specifically you Pjsoul), a celebrity's life would be at more risk because of the close proximity to firearms... At what point is or is not firearm a valid form of personal protection?
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?
A celebrity's life is more at risk given the range of mental stability that exists in the massive fan base spectrum.
Guns are certainly necessary given the amount of guns already in existence. At some point in time, proportionately speaking, you might find your country safer with fewer guns lying around waiting to be used.
More guns equals more deaths by guns. The statistic is irrefutable. Dance around it all you want, but its a losing argument.
Getting tired of the "guns=more deaths by guns" rhetoric. Anyone could also say "more guns=more lives saved by guns" or "more burglars stopped by guns" or "more deer harvested by guns". I for one believe that deaths from guns is not "always" a bad thing. If someone dies because they were breaking into a house to rape a grandma and were shot by her, then I for one am glad for that death by gun. The situations vary, but "more gun deaths" is not 100% negative relative to the reasoning behind the shooting. Less guns=less people defending themselves with guns, etc, etc, etc. Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.
Whatever dude. In all of those examples, having more guns than 0 =lives being saved. In all honesty though, I'm half way trolling. I no longer take the anti-gun crowd around here seriously anymore due to the condescending nature of their posts and refusal to consider strategies for decreasing gun violence in any ways other than what has failed time after time. I've been round and round in this debate and no new ideas or meaningful solutions have been posted in a long time. Pure entertainment here.
if you look at it any other way you'd just be disappointed, most of the folks here are steadfast democrats which is fine, not too many members are willing to peek over the fence or so to speak.
Godfather.
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?
Two things I consider fact:
1. The gun debate has been lost big time by gun advocates. It's not even close. The need for solid measures of gun reform demonstrated by items such as statistics, comparisons to other countries, and common sense blows paranoia and an ancient document's etchings out of the water.
2. Even though the gun debate has been lost and never to be won until such a time as when madness ensues... it would never result in any significant changes. The majority of people are much too self concerned or-- simply put- stupid to accept meaningful change efforts for the betterment of society.
I have more respect for gun owners that can at least recognize these two facts versus trying to sell their point of view to people that know better. Honestly, it's like pushing religion on people grounded in science.
Bottom line: enjoy your guns.
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Godfather.
Dear Gawd.
I was going to reply with the exact same thing.
LOL ! prove me wrong.
Godfather.
how do I prove you wrong when you say "madness will reign...." and the rest of that paranoid blather?
and as Benjis stated, and as I've stated several times to you, the birth of your nation (and mine) was the genocide of others. But your response to that in the past has been "get over it", because it was before Obama's presidency.
what I thought...you can't, a gun is a tool used for many reasons how it is used is dependent on who is using it and what circumstances they may be involved in......shocker !!!!!! gun's don't think for themselves.
Comments
1) I don't believe the gun debate was ever lost or won by anybody, the birth of this nation and the safety and freedom we enjoy has been because of the gun and superior fire power, pen's and men may determine peace but it was a gun that brought them together at the table to negotiate
2) when madness ensues madness will reign for a short time then guns will bring back order as they have done since this
country was settled (the good guy's always win)
Godfather.
www.headstonesband.com
we will find a way, we will find our place
Godfather.
1) The unrestricted freedom enjoyed by the European settlers in America came directly at expense of the unrestricted freedom formerly enjoyed by the indigenous Natives who occupied the land first. Thankfully, the Natives became submissive when presented with the options of death or submission. Once Natives were incapable of revolting, various parties wished to seize control of the entirety of the continent. By pointing weapons at each other, they were all made submissive to each other, and begrudgingly agreed on the rules of law which would allow them to perpetuate their collective power.
2) When injustices are brought to the surface and no longer tolerated by the populace, the populace has a tendency to revolt, but thankfully they can be forced into submission with the fear of death (the one with the greatest ability to destroy always wins).
If you believe that governance based on fear is the most effective way to govern a nation (humanism and justice be damned, power and greed be praised), then I can see why guns would be attractive to you. I really hope we don't perpetuate such faithless existences, as to feel incomplete without a tool to potentially take a life if need be. This is especially true when the statistics (i.e. irrefutable proof) show that we are far less likely to endure harm if these tools of mass paranoia and (intentional or incidental) destruction are highly restricted.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Ben.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Or is there some private army out there invading nations under the US flag?
Forms of Government commit atrocities.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
He's not wrong. But he's employing the classic deflection tactic so necessary by the pro gun faction to try and make their argument legitimate.
Godfather.
Funny when you put a quote like this into context, it is referring to a healthy, strong government crushing rebellion, rather than encouraging constant uprisings against the government. At least that is what it meant until some asshole named Timothy McVeigh co-opted the phrase to mean something entirely different.
Taken in it's entirety: "Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
When I read this, it says to me: Some people don't have the critical thinking skills to understand how government actually functions. We will try to reason with them, but in the end we're going to have to dispose of a few idiots to preserve democracy. see: Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. And I'm pretty sure one of our Founding Fathers just called you ignorant manure.
I will say though that you and many others have said countless times that guns don't kill people... people kill people. Yet in that wild post of yours... you contradict yourself (giving guns much more credit for killing than you do in other arguments).
and as Benjis stated, and as I've stated several times to you, the birth of your nation (and mine) was the genocide of others. But your response to that in the past has been "get over it", because it was before Obama's presidency.
www.headstonesband.com
Godfather.