Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

Jiigzz said:
The only thing this proves is that your country isn't very good at enforcing the law.

But in all fairness, if you guys are not concerned that much with deaths by firearms, then meh.
Click to expand...
Please respond to my points. I think the biggest concern is how to reduce deaths and killings period. Reducing gun deaths is a great goal, and certainly good, but reducing total deaths and killings is paramount without a doubt. I'm not saying that reducing gun deaths will result in a 1:1 increase in other deaths, but saying eliminating 10k gun deaths will eliminate 10k total deaths is not likely, nor is it even likely that we can actually prevent all of the 10k deaths due to the omnipresence of guns in America and among criminals. Again, we have agreed that something should be done, and one some steps to start with, but twisting statistics and exaggerating people's stances/opinions does you no favors.

Edit: Also, if we can't enforce current laws, shouldn't our focus be on enforcing existing laws before passing more laws that we likely also wouldn't be able to enforce?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
A significantly greater percent of deaths by firearm are suicides relative to the percent of vehicle deaths by suicide. I don't even think the CDC tracks vehicle suicide, as its a very uncommon form of suicide. I just did the math, and it's something like 93% of suicides come from poisoning, suffocation, and firearms. That leaves at most 7% for EVERYTHING else. You guys in favor of reducing guns have some reasonable arguments, but perverting data to exaggerate these points only makes you look bad and makes it easy to discount the rest of what you say, even if it may be true.

Edit: One source lists approximately 1.7% of fatalities involving vehicles were deemed suicides. It was a small sample size, but we know it's a low number to begin with.
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Why do you assume I'm for "reducing guns" because I told somebody they don't get to modify statistics based on their personal feelings or that I think something should be done to prevent guns deaths? That's a huge part of the problem. People have divided the issue into two sides and there are knee jerk reactions like that when somebody mentions change. Automatically it's "they're trying to take our guns away." Again, I own guns and I live in Texas. Why the assumptions?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Why do you assume I'm for "reducing guns" because I told somebody they don't get to modify statistics based on their personal feelings or that I think something should be done to prevent guns deaths? That's a huge part of the problem. People have divided the issue into two sides and there are knee jerk reactions like that when somebody mentions change. Automatically it's "they're trying to take our guns away." Again, I own guns and I live in Texas. Why the assumptions?
Click to expand...
It was a generalized statement, maybe I worded it wrong. Have I been knee-jerk here? Have I claimed to be on one side? I both said I support the right to bear arms, concealed carry, etc, but also that I support increased penalties for gun related crimes, support a ban on bumpfire stocks, support considering mental health issues, etc. I apologize for accusing you of something, but the "vehicle suicide" thing is largely a moot point, but I suppose there's no way you would have known that without researching it. To restate, 63.6% of firearm deaths were suicides, compared to ~1.7% of vehicle deaths. One is the majority, one is largely negligible. Again, I apologize if I came off as accusing you of using that question/logic as an argument against gun ownership, it was just not supported by facts at all, as I pointed out.

Edit: As a side note, while not all people who say they want to reduce gun violence are "coming for our guns," many prominent politicians like Obama, Clinton, and Feinstein have supported what would be taking many people's guns, including bans on semi-automatic weapons and/or handguns. That's not you though, so I'm sorry if I assumed it was.
 
youngandfree said:
Ask those in positions of power to make laws and regulations why they only feign public outrage and dismay over gun deaths and not the multitude of other ways that you are more likely to die from. When the arguments are made out to be that guns are the leading cause of death, when they're not, and we need tighter restrictions on them, it seems disengenuous, for reasons that have been discussed here many times. The Democrats and progressives have been attacking and trying to change the Constitution for a century or so now, so attacking a freedom with nonsense regulations is a non starter.
Click to expand...

I'm asking a general question to people as human beings. If you're unable to answer the question, then shut the **** up.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
It was a generalized statement, maybe I worded it wrong. Have I been knee-jerk here? Have I claimed to be on one side? I both said I support the right to bear arms, concealed carry, etc, but also that I support increased penalties for gun related crimes, support a ban on bumpfire stocks, support considering mental health issues, etc. I apologize for accusing you of something, but the "vehicle suicide" thing is largely a moot point, but I suppose there's no way you would have known that without researching it. To restate, 63.6% of firearm deaths were suicides, compared to ~1.7% of vehicle deaths. One is the majority, one is largely negligible. Again, I apologize if I came off as accusing you of using that question/logic as an argument against gun ownership, it was just not supported by facts at all, as I pointed out.
Click to expand...

You're fine, but thanks for clarifying. You're right about there being more gun suicides than vehicle suicides. I'm pointing out that manipulating data like that based on personal preference starts down a tricky path. The same with mental health restrictions. People on both sides keep saying that, but that's a whole other cluster waiting to happen because you have to ask what mental health issues will be included and who gets to decide? It'll start off as serious mental health diagnoses, but like everything else will get abused and exploited. And that's ignoring who gets to decide why somebody with depression now doesn't have Constitutional rights.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You're fine, but thanks for clarifying. You're right about there being more gun suicides than vehicle suicides. I'm pointing out that manipulating data like that based on personal preference starts down a tricky path. The same with mental health restrictions. People on both sides keep saying that, but that's a whole other cluster waiting to happen because you have to ask what mental health issues will be included and who gets to decide? It'll start off as serious mental health diagnoses, but like everything else will get abused and exploited. And that's ignoring who gets to decide why somebody with depression now doesn't have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

But I'm not manipulating any data, so I don't know why you're attacking me again over it.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You're fine, but thanks for clarifying. You're right about there being more gun suicides than vehicle suicides. I'm pointing out that manipulating data like that based on personal preference starts down a tricky path. The same with mental health restrictions. People on both sides keep saying that, but that's a whole other cluster waiting to happen because you have to ask what mental health issues will be included and who gets to decide? It'll start off as serious mental health diagnoses, but like everything else will get abused and exploited. And that's ignoring who gets to decide why somebody with depression now doesn't have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
I agree, depression from losing a loved one should not be disqualifying; that's not attempting to keep guns out of dangerous peoples' hands, but using "mental health" as a facade for "gun control." Having a history of violent outbursts, or serious mental issues, perhaps things like delusions and/or voices in your head telling you do do dangerous/harmful things is a completely different story though. I've tried to be as objective here in my analysis of statistics as possible. Note that I corrected the incorrect statements about Brazil and the PEACE (not safety) index, as well as the vehicle suicide vs firearm suicide data, but still did admit that the US does have a somewhat higher murder rate (total) than other countries like New Zealand. I'm trying to be as logical and objective as possible here.
 
Jiigzz said:
You seem proud of this fact.

So not only is your chances of getting shot quite high, so are your chances of getting killed in a car accident.

Its not like it's a contest to see which method of death is most common. It's still am appaling stat
Click to expand...

I'm not proud of it. Simply stating that your hyper distress over chances of being shot in the US are much less than being in a car. And considering I'm in a car for 8-12 hours/day for work, that's even more probability I'll fit into that category.
 
Jiigzz said:
I give up man. You guys will just have to live with the fact that 10,000+ people will die every year because you fail to see that the main reason they die from gun shots, is because a gun fired them.

If you think that makes your nation safe, and that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of 10,000+ Americans each year (850,000+ in your life time on average) then by all means justify away.
Click to expand...

If you want to visit a safe place in America and more than likely the entire globe where almost nobody gets shot, and also have some of the lowest crime rates than any corner of New Zealand (and the entire globe) you can tour over in those towns where you posted those pictures (below) of the people carrying big guns on their back into the grocery stores...ya know the ones who live in "paranoia" yet live in more than likely the safest environment in the entire globe. If you want to visit hell holes where people die every day go to heavily gun restricted liberal run down shythole areas like Chicago. Thats the truth.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Having ONLY open carry and no concealed carry would essentially make it crystal clear to criminals that anyone not openly displaying a gun is unarmed, and therefore an easier target. The potential of concealed carry at least gives a criminal some level of doubt or concern as to if a potential target is armed. I think open carry does have its reasons and benefits, particularly for store owners, but I think that outlawing concealed carry in favor of only open carry would be a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

I dont think having open carry means no anyone could be having concealed carry. Open carry doesnt mean you have to show your gun everywhere you go right? It should be a personal option. Heck....you can do both concealed and open carry at the same time!
 
ax1 said:
I dont think having open carry means no anyone could be having concealed carry. Open carry doesnt mean you have to show your gun everywhere you go right? It should be a personal option. Heck....you can do both concealed and open carry at the same time!
Click to expand...
True, I'm just saying that I believe concealed carry is more vital than open carry, and that open carry alone may be a bad idea. I don't really know if anyone actually supports open carry and not concealed carry though.
 
ax1 said:
If you want to visit a safe place in America and more than likely the entire globe where almost nobody gets shot, and also have some of the lowest crime rates than any corner of New Zealand (and the entire globe) you can tour over in those towns where you posted those pictures (below) of the people carrying big guns on their back into the grocery stores...ya know the ones who live in "paranoia" yet live in more than likely the safest environment in the entire globe. If you want to visit hell holes where people die every day go to heavily gun restricted liberal run down shythole areas like Chicago. Thats the truth.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
It's very hard to argue against baseless stats lol. You just made all of that up and tried to pass it off as fact ;)
 
Jiigzz said:
It's very hard to argue against baseless stats lol. You just made all of that up and tried to pass it off as fact ;)
Click to expand...

Honestly I did I’m going by opinion only. I assume I’m close to accurate but that’s just my opinion and proof is proof.

Where were those pictures taken we can try to pull the info up? I need help I’m on the Beijing subway typing this having fun out all day so excuse that I having putting as much research into my posts as I could :) just trying to contribute on vacation, its a good debate and a good time.
 
Jiigzz said:
The only thing this proves is that your country isn't very good at enforcing the law.

But in all fairness, if you guys are not concerned that much with deaths by firearms, then meh.
Click to expand...

The government doesn’t even enforce itself, violating all 10 bill of rights on a consistent basis. They are corrupt, out of control, smuggle guns, heavy arms and drugs across borders along many other countries to thugs and terrorists every day for decades and you want them to take our guns? Then Mexican drug cartels and Al-queda can use what the US Government took from us, except we had to buy them and then we pay with our tax dollars to both let them steal them away from us, then export them and they can have them for free with free training and Obamacare benefits!

Letting the gun/drug smuggling thugs in Washington take our guns won’t make the world safer believe me, including NZ. Your better off letting Americans citizens solve their own issues without government interventionism. Interventionism, social engineering, and overall letting our guards down to protect our founding principles (Bill of Rights) is what has been turning this country into a shythole to begin with. We need not more government interventionism, but far, far less of it and restoring our founding principles of a free society and revert the globes most precious jewel that goes by the name of USA back to what its supposed to be to reach its true potential.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I agree, depression from losing a loved one should not be disqualifying; that's not attempting to keep guns out of dangerous peoples' hands, but using "mental health" as a facade for "gun control." Having a history of violent outbursts, or serious mental issues, perhaps things like delusions and/or voices in your head telling you do do dangerous/harmful things is a completely different story though. I've tried to be as objective here in my analysis of statistics as possible. Note that I corrected the incorrect statements about Brazil and the PEACE (not safety) index, as well as the vehicle suicide vs firearm suicide data, but still did admit that the US does have a somewhat higher murder rate (total) than other countries like New Zealand. I'm trying to be as logical and objective as possible here.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that you are and thank you or it.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
Seems like the most protected restaurant and grocery store around. Like the "old west" less crime cause everyone carried and the death penalty was quick without costing tax payers money cause it only cost the price of a bullet
Click to expand...

Actually the "old west" had stricter gun control than we do now.

"In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. "

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
Actually the "old west" had stricter gun control than we do now.

"In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. "

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Yep, but yet almost everyone carried openly and only had to check their weapons at public events with local authorities...such as public hangings and town festivals. Again if you walk into a bank with the intention of doing wrong, and everyone to include the bank employees all habe weapons. You would be less likely to try to attempt to carry out that objective. You never go into a mission without outnumbering your objective with atleast 3 to 1 odds.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
Yep, but yet almost everyone carried openly and only had to check their weapons at public events with local authorities...such as public hangings and town festivals. Again if you walk into a bank with the intention of doing wrong, and everyone to include the bank employees all habe weapons. You would be less likely to try to attempt to carry out that objective. You never go into a mission without outnumbering your objective with atleast 3 to 1 odds.
Click to expand...
I can see that. Some towns had more strict ordinances where you couldn't carry openly in town, though.
 
Jiigzz said:
oh only half that. Well that's better then isnt it.

In germany, austria, NZ, poland, england and japan (equates to a total population equiv to the US) the chances of dying by gun shot are, on average, one in 5 million or 0.2 people per million.

In the US? 31 people per million, or 27 shot each day.

even if you half that, that's still wildly above any other country combined.
Click to expand...

maybe...you could be writing Britain off that list. they are asking all police if they want to or are willing to carry guns.... last year Scotland yard announced they would be increasing the amount of armed officers by 600.
 
Misfit28 said:
Actually the "old west" had stricter gun control than we do now.

"In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. "

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with gun control being strong but it must have a purpose, empty laws effecting citizens that deserve to be regulated less will see theses laws as worthless.

Edit: It must serve the purpose in favor of the law abiding citizens.
 
Anyone see CNN's video on the "bumpfire stock" that showed an AR-15 with a grenade launcher and a silencer (which the Vegas shooter had neither of), and no bumpfire stock? They thought the retractable stock and buffer tube was the bumpfire stock.
 
Just taking advantage of ignorance and fear mongering. Not surprised. But no, I (thankfully) didnt see it.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Anyone see CNN's video on the "bumpfire stock" that showed an AR-15 with a grenade launcher and a silencer (which the Vegas shooter had neither of), and no bumpfire stock? They thought the retractable stock and buffer tube was the bumpfire stock.
Click to expand...
They certainly don't know anything about guns. Pretty incompetent reporting.
 
Misfit28 said:
They certainly don't know anything about guns. Pretty incompetent reporting.
Click to expand...
I can't help but wonder if it truly is only ignorance, or if it was intentional, perhaps to make all AR-15s look even scarier, as most of them have a retractable stock, which is not a bumpfire stock. This makes it seem as if most/all ARs have bumpfire stocks, which they do not. The grenade launcher and silencer were clearly included to scare people, yet are completely irrelevant to the Vegas shooting. All they were missing was a chainsaw attachment to make it look even scarier.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I can't help but wonder if it truly is only ignorance, or if it was intentional, perhaps to make all AR-15s look even scarier, as most of them have a retractable stock, which is not a bumpfire stock. This makes it seem as if most/all ARs have bumpfire stocks, which they do not. The grenade launcher and silencer were clearly included to scare people, yet are completely irrelevant to the Vegas shooting. All they were missing was a chainsaw attachment to make it look even scarier.
Click to expand...

Thats totally what im saying, I completely agree. They were taking advantage of viewer ignorance and were fear mongering in the fact that they made the AR look even scarier than it would have if they had just shown the bump stock.
 
jswain34 said:
Thats totally what im saying, I completely agree. They were taking advantage of viewer ignorance and were fear mongering in the fact that they made the AR look even scarier than it would have if they had just shown the bump stock.
Click to expand...

Cue ax1 to say that everything CNN reports is fake......
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Haha, I'm sure we can agree that both sides sometimes care more about ratings and/or an agenda than objectively informing viewers.
Click to expand...

I watch fox...I know they are too right for some folks, but they usually present the leftist side along with the right, and some of the anchors and reporters are too leftist leaning for my taste...they at least attempt to be fair....

I really miss bill o'reillly, and hope Charles Krauthammer returns soon!!!
 
lol...let me see if I have this right.

pence protested the protesters and now cnn and liberals are...protesting pence for protesting the protesters-omg!!!


who needs ringling bros....:lew:
 
thebigt said:
I watch fox...I know they are too right for some folks, but they usually present the leftist side along with the right, and some of the anchors and reporters are too leftist leaning for my taste...they at least attempt to be fair....

I really miss bill o'reillly, and hope Charles Krauthammer returns soon!!!
Click to expand...

You must be kidding.....
 
thebigt said:
lol...let me see if I have this right.

pence protested the protesters and now cnn and liberals are...protesting pence for protesting the protesters-omg!!!


who needs ringling bros....:lew:
Click to expand...

It seems like a publicity stunt to get coverage off of the deranged and senile fearless leader to me, and all at the taxpayer's expense!
 
I personally think he was just looking for any excuse not to watch the sorry a*s colts and 9ers. Lol
 
CJNator said:
There's nothing wrong with gun control being strong but it must have a purpose, empty laws effecting citizens that deserve to be regulated less will see theses laws as worthless.

Edit: It must serve the purpose in favor of the law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
A law abiding citizen is only a law abiding citizen until they break the law.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I can't help but wonder if it truly is only ignorance, or if it was intentional, perhaps to make all AR-15s look even scarier, as most of them have a retractable stock, which is not a bumpfire stock. This makes it seem as if most/all ARs have bumpfire stocks, which they do not. The grenade launcher and silencer were clearly included to scare people, yet are completely irrelevant to the Vegas shooting. All they were missing was a chainsaw attachment to make it look even scarier.
Click to expand...
Id wager it's for fear mongering. After all, they can easily 'correct' their mistake later, but everyone will remember the image of the gun and not their amendment
 
Misfit28 said:
It seems like a publicity stunt to get coverage off of the deranged and senile fearless leader to me, and all at the taxpayer's expense!
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING these days is a publicity stunt it seems...and tell me what isn't at the tax payers expense, hell the tax payers paid for the damned arena!!!
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I can't help but wonder if it truly is only ignorance, or if it was intentional, perhaps to make all AR-15s look even scarier, as most of them have a retractable stock, which is not a bumpfire stock. This makes it seem as if most/all ARs have bumpfire stocks, which they do not. The grenade launcher and silencer were clearly included to scare people, yet are completely irrelevant to the Vegas shooting. All they were missing was a chainsaw attachment to make it look even scarier.
Click to expand...
How do you know about the chainsaw adapter, thats a military secret. Lol
It also probably wasnt a silencer, but a flash suppressor if they where using a military grade which is what it sounds like with a retracable stock and M203 grenade launcher
 
jswain34 said:
I personally think he was just looking for any excuse not to watch the sorry a*s colts and 9ers. Lol
Click to expand...

speaking of which I heard that football has now fallen behind baseball as America's favorite sport....
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Gears of War:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I used to love this game! I think "Army of 2" had a chainsaw weapon too IIRC. I may be thinking of GoW though.

thebigt said:
speaking of which I heard that football has now fallen behind baseball as America's favorite sport....
Click to expand...

As it was always intended to be. It aint called "America's pastime" for no reason!
 
jswain34 said:
I used to love this game! I think "Army of 2" had a chainsaw weapon too IIRC. I may be thinking of GoW though.



As it was always intended to be. It aint called "America's pastime" for no reason!
Click to expand...

too bad the cards aren't having a better year...st louis is over 400 miles away and I went to 3 games this year-they lost all 3...Indianapolis is 70 miles away, the last colts game I went to was the season opener against Detroit last year[which they lost]--probably won't be going again.
 
thebigt said:
too bad the cards aren't having a better year...st louis is over 400 miles away and I went to 3 games this year-they lost all 3...Indianapolis is 70 miles away, the last colts game I went to was the season opener against Detroit last year[which they lost]--probably won't be going again.
Click to expand...
So what your saying is every game you go to the team your routing for loses. Can you go to every Saints game for the reat of the year, and route for the opponent. Drew needs another ring before he retires. Lol. But I know your feeling, every Tigers game I have been to they lost. Though I didnt go this year, and they didnt need me to lose games thus year. Lol
 
jswain34 said:
I used to love this game! I think "Army of 2" had a chainsaw weapon too IIRC. I may be thinking of GoW though.



As it was always intended to be. It aint called "America's pastime" for no reason!
Click to expand...
Army of 2 was fun too, I remember playing with my brother and all the customization. Like this:
Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top