NRA slaughters young black man

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
First off, I took the initial post as the volume of guns leads to this. I disagreed.

And second, if he was killed by an ax, would we be screaming for ax control laws?

Guns are so much easier and less messy....thats the problem.
Killing should be made more difficult, not easier.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Certainly America has more gun related deaths than the UK or Canada. Much of this can be accredited to gang on gang crime. However, to put things in perspective. The UK has, as a percentage of it's population, 133% more assault victims than the U.S., 326 times more drug offenses, 125% more rape victims, and 25% more total crime victims than the U.S.

Canada has 92% more assault victims than the U.S., 164 times more drug offenses , 100% more rape victims, and 13% more total crime than the U.S.
Sources, TBYC?
Everything in red, I find doubtful ... though that may not mean much.
And everything in red and bolded, I find ... well, sorry, but preposterous. (Is the decimal in the wrong place?)
Are you joking? I can't tell.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ah yes.
It says that in the UK, there are 183,419 drug offenses per 100,000 people.
There are not even any years given for those stats.
I would avoid that website.

Look again, it's source is The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Look again, it's source is The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
It's either bogus or HUGE errors were made in entering the info.
You have to use common sense.
You been knife fighting too much, laddie.
Or maybe oxygen-starved in them zeppelins.
;-)
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's either bogus or HUGE errors were made in entering the info.
You have to use common sense.
You been knife fighting too much, laddie.
Or maybe oxygen-starved in them zeppelins.
;-)

Based on your unquantifiable opinion?

I'll take the report! :)
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Based on the obvious fact that it would be dumb to suggest that people in the UK have on average 1.8 drug offenses per year (if it's even referring to a year ... it doesn't say).

That is only if you assume that we aren't saying some people are booked multiple times in a year for misdemeanor drug crimes. We'd have to read the report(s). :wink:
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
That is only if you assume that we aren't saying some people are booked multiple times in a year for misdemeanor drug crimes. We'd have to read the report(s). :wink:
No, it doesn't preclude that at all.
But you would have to somehow work up to an average of 1.8 drug offenses a year. For the entire population. And that's absurd.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Last edited:

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I shall go in search of those reports for the peace of mind for both of us.
Gud, gud, gud.
Remember, you're trying to prove that the UK rate of drug offenses is 326 times higher than the Amerkun rate.

Ur pullin our legs, ainchuh?
You gotta be.
Say you are.
Say. You. Are.
 
Last edited:

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Gud, gud, gud.
Remember, you're trying to prove that the UK rate of drug offenses is 326 times higher than the Amerkun rate.

Ur pullin our legs, ainchuh?
You gotta be.
Say you are.
Say. You. Are.

Haha, it's a self-reporting survey... you'd have to ask the U.K. officials who filled out their portion!
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Because we are talking about citizens owning guns and using them with impunity, not governments. Your "movers and shakers" in the USSR would amount to a handful of people, not the general citizenry. I hope that clears it up for you.

As for the OP's claim that the NRA is responsible for this young man's death, well that's ridiculous and a bit hysterical. The person who shot the young man is responsible for his death. End of story.

Criminals that want guns will get guns.

Certainly America has more gun related deaths than the UK or Canada. Much of this can be accredited to gang on gang crime. However, to put things in perspective. The UK has, as a percentage of it's population, 133% more assault victims than the U.S., 326 times more drug offenses, 125% more rape victims, and 25% more total crime victims than the U.S.

Canada has 92% more assault victims than the U.S. , 164 times more drug offenses , 100% more rape victims, and 13% more total crime than the U.S.

So, as we can see, the lines of safety based on the restrictions imposed by gun laws are blurred at best.

Your assuredness despite the ridiculousness of your claims? Unwarranted, obnoxious, and outrageous.

Really lame.
 

B_Coconutz

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Posts
1,900
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Under a bridge
Sexuality
No Response
It's not the guns that are the problem, it's people's attitudes towards the guns, like it's their God Given Right to hold them, and use them how they please, without consequence.

Too many guns are getting into the wrong hands, too many people don't know how to properly use their guns, and too many people are getting shot and killed.

When I hear people saying that they own a gun, or an arsenal of weaponry as a deterrent, I find it disturbing. Are we that far gone that this is the answer?

You are right as far as too many guns are getting into the wrong hands. Criminals will always be able to get illegal lethal weapons. Law abiding citizens do not have that option. I own and carry firearms for personal protection. One day, someone like me may save you and or someone you love from one of those "wrong hands".
If you still believe that firearms should not be had by law abiding citizens, place stickers on your car and your house that say you don't own guns.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You are right as far as too many guns are getting into the wrong hands. Criminals will always be able to get illegal lethal weapons. Law abiding citizens do not have that option. I own and carry firearms for personal protection. One day, someone like me may save you and or someone you love from one of those "wrong hands".
If you still believe that firearms should not be had by law abiding citizens, place stickers on your car and your house that say you don't own guns.

What, you will shoot someone with your gun? You will "save" someone by shooting someone else with your gun? That's your "knight in shining armor" gun moment? Really?


Lame.
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm sure it was satisfying for you to mock Coconutz, but the above post doesn't really do anything for the argument I believe you're trying to make. The fact is that there is a possibility that a responsible gun owner may one day make a difference in your life.

As an anecdote... my cousin saved my uncle from being killed by an angry bull by shooting it with a shotgun. I think that is an example of a gun owner acting in a responsible manner and saving an innocent life.
 

D_bgnib7gyo

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Posts
13
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders
merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our
hearts’ content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family
dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses
for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not
the real purpose of the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of
abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural
rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That
is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill ofRights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being
systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to
resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we
always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary,
something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the
weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental
DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don’t like to be reminded of
all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word
“people” in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn’t mean
in any one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say
that, for some odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of
putting in “states” they put in “people.” And so it refers to a right
inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of
legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson’s letters,
for example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, “militia –
every able-bodied man in the state. …” The militia was every
able-bodied man in the state. It had nothing to do with the state
government. The words “well-regulated” had to do with organizing that
militia and drilling it in the style of the 19th century, but “militia”
itself referred to the able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth
— not to the state government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear
arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is
based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at
any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared
to defend ourselves against its abuses

The movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to
our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also
part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human
beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper
reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense
of liberty.

Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for
human self-control, but this approach won’t wash. It is the human moral
will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of
weapons. We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are
the cause of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should
be banned because “they have no purpose except to kill people.” It is
people that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to
do so, if killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be.

So let’s get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we
moral children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control
our will even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the
exercise of our natural rights. If we are only children, then all the
particularly dangerous toys must be controlled by the government. But
this “solution” implies that we can trust government with a monopoly on
guns, even though we cannot trust ourselves with them. This is not a
“solution” I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it
can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That’s why
I don’t understand those who say “save us from guns,” even while they
cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except
what they “choose” to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all
human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of
moral responsibility and self-restraint — of assuming responsibility for
governing himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and
indeed of the entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart,
and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These
things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty
to maintain. And to fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have
to return to the humble subjection to the authority of true moral
principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every
generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the
assertion that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral
order that God has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have
no right to shirk our duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no
right to shirk our duty to preserve unto ourselves the material means to
discipline our government, if necessary, so that it remains a fit
instrument for the self-government of a free people. The preservation of
2nd Amendment rights, for the right reasons, is a moral and public duty
of every citizen.
 
Last edited: