America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?Godfather. said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2
Godfather.
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."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Yup.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure people were saying that some people live with a more heightened risk than others and hence, need proactive measures to manage their reality.
Do people actually think Grandma is just as likely to be a target of some psychopath as Donald Trump? Sheesh."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Agreed, ridiculous.0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Agreed, ridiculous.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
And speaking of the elderly....PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
Wyoming nursing home resident, 77, kills one, wounds two others
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/wyoming-nursing-home-resident-77-kills-wounds-article-1.27927710 -
HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Agreed, ridiculous.
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 thoughPost edited by PJPOWER on0 -
open carry in canada is walking down the street with a hockey stick.PJPOWER said:HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Agreed, ridiculous.
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 thoughBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Not a single person implied that. That was your own thought.PJPOWER said:HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Agreed, ridiculous.
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 thoughWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Lol, "assault" stickHughFreakingDillon said:
open carry in canada is walking down the street with a hockey stick.PJPOWER said:HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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...HughFreakingDillon said:
those in the public eye are more susceptible to violence from those they don't know.PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Their threat is more significant and realistic than your's.unsung said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a lot of nutty people out there.unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
"alien invasion"... Seriously?
no one is saying anyone has more of a right to live/safety. that's ridiculous.
Agreed, ridiculous.
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
0 -
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?Godfather. said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2
Godfather.
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.
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.
0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
How do you put a number on the future? It's really the dumbest reply one can come up with.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-20 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I do.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?Godfather. said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2
Godfather.
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.0 -
I can respect this.unsung said:
I do.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?Godfather. said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2
Godfather.
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."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Dear Gawd.Godfather. said:
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?Godfather. said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2
Godfather.
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.
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."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I was going to reply with the exact same thing.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Dear Gawd.Godfather. said:
no not a republican point of view, just somebody who sits and watches.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
And you're saying this from a Republican point of view (not that I'm as 'liberal' as you might think)?Godfather. said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2
Godfather.
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.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2will myself to find a home, a home within myself
we will find a way, we will find our place0 -
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.Degeneratefk said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Degeneratefk said:
That link doesn't support your claim that more guns equals more lives saved. It's just 10 random acts.PJPOWER said:
Numerous, for example, any time someone has justifiably used one in self-defense during a home invasion. If they had zero guns, then it is quite possible they would be dead.Degeneratefk said:
Do you have any sources that say more guns equal more lives saved?PJPOWER said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that?PJPOWER said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.unsung said:
Considering his views on the subject if they are armed it would make him quite the hypocrite.Degeneratefk said:
Does EVs body guards walk around with AR-15s?unsung said:
Must be nice to have the money for personal bodyguards.Bentleyspop said:
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.
Similar to saying "more water=more deaths by water" discounting that more water also = less people being thirsty...
Here are several examples. in some examples, having two guns present instead of only one save unknown numbers of lives.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help