Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, the only think I see that you posted was this... What a sweet bike !
The MV Agusta naked superbike? Beautiful ride on a smooth track. Absolutely horrible on regular roads. You feel and get lurched by every bump and pothole.
I have a vintage Chevy truck dragster, as well. 890 hp blown (supercharged) engine.
Just in case no one has worked out the obvious....
Given the statistic that 3% of gun owners own 50% of guns.....having more guns per person would ALWAYS automatically result in a lowering of the "per gun" death rate and perhaps even the overall death or shooting rate.
If one citizen has 50 guns chances are he'll never do anything....and if he does, he'll use 3 of them. So he effectively has warehoused 50 guns.
The basic problem seems to be that people can just buy them when they get angry...speaking of "laws which need to be created", when you've stabbed a neighbor I think a search warrant and complete study of firearms history might be a good idea before letting the dude run free. Whatever "rights" you have to be secure and own firearms should be temp. given up (or maybe for good) once you took the knife and inserted it into the skin of a fellow.
Of course, there are so many guns around that the guy could have just lifted some from "a friend"....but the whole idea of sane laws is that it SLOWS the rate by putting obstacles in the way - meanwhile, the person may calm down.
Your sides premise, is to push for legislation in vain of tragedy. Because you are compelled by flawed emotional logic.
Put the emotions on the back burner.
Do you find it ironic that you accuse others of advancing a political agenda based on emotion while justifying gun ownership by describing their necessity in protecting you from the fear of the deprivation of life and property by some imagined governmental tyranny?
Good lord its 2017 not 1805! Other modern 1st world countries don't need an Arsenal to defend life and property from tyranny! All it does is give you an astronomically high number of people shot to death every year, surely you can see that? You are certainly not more free than me because of it, in fact it looks like you are less 'free' than me,
That's your subjective opinion.
Do you have the freedom to defend life and property with lethal force? Or do you have a duty to retreat?
Astronomically high? Define astronomically high. Because I view these figures as astronomically high. Have a solution for these? Going to require banning forks from fat people? Outlaw sedentary lifestyles and other contributing factors to heart disease?
I'm not discrediting firearm fatalities at all. As stated before... given there are 320 million in our population, with an estimation (depending where the information is coming from) of 300 to 400 million firearms in circulation and rising, the numbers of homicide rates are significantly lower.
I merely suggest removing the emotional aspect and looking at the logic of it. That and to remove evils incentive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
if I want a gun I can get one but I don't need one
It's a bill of rights, not bill of needs. Your needs may differ from mine.
You may have a cat for a pet and need cat food and kitty litter. I dont.
Our laws state, it is a right to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed.
We don't have a National Bureau of Needs. Nor is there a clause in our Constitution that states this document and it's contents become toilet paper following a tragedy and must be revised or abandoned due to fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
because unlike over there I don't need to protect myself with a gun, because unlike over there I am free to walk ANY street in ANY city here without fear of going down the 'wrong one',
I can go into and do go into any area without fear. As I said before I am not compelled by fear. I refuse to relinquish my or others rights regardless of opinion on the matter. I also refuse to live in fear. To me there is no place off limits.
Then again, fear breeds hate. Hate breeds violence. Violence captures and inspires others to follow a vicious cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
my kids are free to go to school without bullet proof backpacks, remove the emotional aspect - you mean the emotional aspect that thousands of people go through every year because of the ridiculous law? THOUSANDS of people mind, now THAT is a lot of emotion right there. Does life really mean so little to you?
I haven't seen any children with bullet proof backpacks.
Life doesn't mean little to me. Life means alot to me. What you fail to comprehend, I do not live my life worrying. My investments could tank. I can be run over by a retiree snowbird while I'm riding my motorcycle. I could be T boned at an intersection by a teenaged driver texting and driving. I could have a lift fail with a 8-10 thousand pound truck above me fall and flatten me like a pancake. I could get hit by a drunk driver while walking in a cross walk.
None of those factors have any influence over how I live my life. I acknowledge the risks involved and plan accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
When it comes to a gun lover, the answer to your question is yes. His gun means more to him than your life.
Wrong. That's just hyperbolic assumption and blatant ignorance.
Our rights as US citizens and residents, should be a concern just as much as our lives should be a concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
Talk to the guy right above your post, who lives in the U.K. That sense of security is not false. Yours is, believing that your guns are going to make you safe.
Hmm... tools of defense of life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness? Vs hoping police arrive should there exist a clear and present threat to life?
I take it you didn't grow up in a rural area with an average response time of 27 minutes...
Where I live currently the response time varies between 3 and 9 minutes. Knowing alot can happen in 3-9 minutes.
And by limiting what current and future generations have access to, when there literally is no limitations of criminals, as criminals and tyrants alike do not obey laws.
Just another mass shooting in America. It's a weekly event. Barely acknowledged by the country's leader. Of course, if it was a muslim, we'd be hearing about it loudly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
No, they all offered their prayers. Because, you know, that's going to help the victims of tomorrow's massacre.
I must make a correction. Trump did tweet about this, but he tweeted about the wrong mass shooting.
He got his tragedies confused--must be all that travel muddling his mind.
"...On Tuesday evening, Trump tweeted: “May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI and Law Enforcement has arrived.”
Sutherland Springs is a village in Texas where ten days earlier a gunman had killed 26 people at a church. He had tweeted a similar message after the November 5 attack..."
I must make a correction. Trump did tweet about this, but he tweeted about the wrong mass shooting.
He got his tragedies confused--must be all that travel muddling his mind.
"...On Tuesday evening, Trump tweeted: “May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI and Law Enforcement has arrived.”
Sutherland Springs is a village in Texas where ten days earlier a gunman had killed 26 people at a church. He had tweeted a similar message after the November 5 attack..."
wow. sounds like that 'redneck vigilante' (sic) really pissed you off by saving lives that you couldn't otherwise smugly pretend to feel 'bad' about
tell us - how did you calculate the number of lives saved by this despicable 'red neck vigalante', as you call him, versus the lockdown protocol in CA?
I never called him dispicible, I think the guy was a hero! (In NC, Redneck is a term of endearment, not an insult). But the point does not escape me that if we were like other countries, our levels of gun violence would not necisitate arming the (potentially) untrailed civilians to keep us safe. My point was that the narrative that we MUST have people with guns running around to keep us safe is false. If there were less guns, and people followed protocol, we would be safer. Anything else is you putting words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
On the contrary, I specifically said...
"And that's not LEO's fault. We just simply cannot have an armed LEO guard for every US citizen/legal immigrant 24/7."
And talk about selective quoting. I specifically acknowledged that you were not blaming them, you edited that out of my quote. I further went on to announce that I specifically did not believe you thought that way, you edited it out.
For my main point, see above. Secondary point is that whenever a 'librul' makes a valid point like you did, it gets twisted and turned that they hate cops, hate America or some other rediculous thing.
if you're going to quote me, first read ALL of what I typed, and then quote ALL of what I said, or at least ALL that is relevant to the piont you are responding to.
As gun ownership increased by 50% over the last 20 years, gun homicides have DECREASED by 50%:
AND...
Bottom chart: As gun ownership increased by 50% over the last 20 years, nonfatal violent crimes DECREASED by 76%.
Does not establish cause and effect, only positive correlation.
One could also (for example) argue that the increase in government regulation, PC-Snowflakism, and the continuing propogation of leftist agenda also have a positive correlation.
Both are true (the latter according to the RWNJs), neither have established cause and effect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
