NRA slaughters young black man

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I applaud you!

Thank you :)

Looks like the commies are out.

Hahaha What a moronic statement, to equate LIBERALS with Communists. Someone went to Herr Hannity University it would seem.

As the NRA is so famous for saying,

Guns don't kill people, People kill people.


In the United States, there's this attitude about guns, and gun ownership that it's a God Given right to own an arsenal that would make a banana repuplic blush, and if you're down on that, you're a commie bastard, who's opposed to freedom.

It's that attitude, and the way many people ARE so knee jerk about the idea of guns and the Second Amendment that led to Trayvon Martin's death.

Both the ease with which you can get a gun, legally and illegally, and a "Shoot First, ask questions later" attitude killed that young man.

Too many people own guns that are up to no good with them. Look at the violence statistics. How many violent crimes involve guns? Where are these guns coming from? How do we track the purchase and trade of these guns?

Though I've never personally seen the need, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. If you really need to protect yourself that badly, Please, by all means, get a gun. However, Please, for Heaven's sakes, do it legally, and do what you have to to be safe about it.

That means, getting a gun safe, taking safety classes, etc. It also means knowing when to NOT use a gun.

Every right goes hand in hand with a responsibility, IMO.

Thank you ! Had I not been so enraged by the ineptness of the Police dept and the totality of INJUSTICE completely surrounding this senseless murder, I would have been able to say something so informative and eloquent, while keeping veracity intact.

That was so very well said.

HH
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
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.


That's b/c it IS Preposterous. A fantasy no doubt from a far right Anti-European rag that bloviates on without facts. Or like FAUX NEWS does, skews the stats to where they are no longer real.

HH
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Did you READ the direct source and COMPARE it to the one you originally quoted???

Nationmaster says Drug offenses: 183,419 per 100,000 people

unodc.org says Drug Offenses: 309.68 per 100,000 people.

Nationmaster used the TOTAL COUNT as it's per 100,000 people. Since the stat is from 2002, and in 2001 the UK had 58,789,194 inhabitants, that would make that Nationmaster stat inflated by 58,789%.

I'm not saying Nationmaster is out to portray the US as better than the UK somehow, but at the very least they made a pretty sloppy mistake. I wouldn't trust their stats. Next time, go to the direct source, and do your own math. (For the record, undoc doesn't list the stat for US drug offenses at all, so who knows where Nationmaster pulled the US stat from - THEY DON'T SAY)


Now lets investigate your numbers compared to the Nationmaster numbers, compared to the original source numbers. I think we'll be able to note some discrepancies.

You said:



Lets start at the beginning.

You say the UK has 133% more assault victims than the US. Nationmaster agrees with your number. Nationmaster's source, however, is unavailable for public browsing - can't be verified (that means they're unreliable)

We already discussed the drug offenses above.

You say the UK has 125% more rape victims than the US. Nationmaster agrees with your number. Nationmaster's source, however, is unavailable for public browsing - can't be verified. Interestingly, unodc.org does have numbers for public browsing. Their numbers show that the US has 144% more rapes/capita than the UK. We should probably go with the numbers we can verify.

You know what, I'm getting tired of doing this because Nationmaster keeps cherry-picking where they get their numbers from - and most of them aren't available for public browsing. For example, they say that the UK has a much lower percentage of crime overall than the US (82% less) but a much higher percentage of crime victims (25% more). How on earth does that make any sense? Well, it might help if they were comparing numbers from the same source, instead of two different sources that reported numbers for different years.

The take-home message from this exercise: Just because you find numbers that agree with your point of view, doesn't mean those numbers are valid.


Hahahahahahaha WAY TO GO Ballbuster!!!!!

I only hope he doesn't get a horrible rash, being allergic to facts and all lol

Thx for the CORRECT correction sexy !

HH
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
For all the "strict" Constitutionalists out there who like to tout their "2nd Amendment" rights, just remember that the framers of our wonderful document were referring to muskets and at a time when MOST of the country went out each night and shot their dinner! Soooo the "right" to bear arms STRICTLY interpreted should mean "muskets only!"

So, should the First Amendment only apply to printed words and actual speech?

Just my two cents: I am not anti-gun; I am anti concealed carry.

Let's face it: the police get extensive training to be licensed to kill and they still f*ck up by shooting unarmed people all the time; what do you think Joe Six-pack with the inflated ego, sense of entitlement and itchy trigger finger is going to do? Oh, that's right: shoot unarmed teenagers for trafficking deadly Skittles and illegal iced tea.

I'm sorry, but giving a private citizen the ability to walk the streets with a concealed weapon is a recipe for disaster; there's just too much room for error--with deadly results.

Police in the US are not given what I would call excessive training with regards to firearms. Sure, most if not all of them are competent, but there is nothing a police officer learns that a US civilian cannot.

Apart from that, you're fighting a trend that has been overtaking the nation for the past 20 years. Take a look at the map on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

If the liberalization of concealed carry laws caused increased crime/death/homicide, we would have noticed it by now for damn sure.
 
Last edited:

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
So, should the First Amendment only apply to printed words and actual speech?

Police in the US are not given what I would call excessive training with regards to firearms. Sure, most if not all of them are competent, but there is nothing a police officer learns that a US civilian cannot.

Apart from that, you're fighting a trend that has been overtaking the nation for the past 20 years. Take a look at the map on this page: Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the liberalization of concealed carry laws caused increased crime/death/homicide, we would have noticed it by now for damn sure.

I don't think the police are given excessive training with regards to firearms; that's why I typed "extensive", not "excessive". I also stated that even with that extensive training they still have knee-jerk reactions and shoot innocent people--so if a US civilian can learn and exhibit that same sort of behavior, that "ain't" exactly something I relish or welcome.

As far as fighting a trend--I'm not "fighting" anything because I am not anti-gun. I own two firearms, one of which stays loaded on my nightstand in the evening in case I need to use it. But if the rate of those carrying a concealed weapon is at an all time high, does that mean I have to agree with it because it's trending? I hope not--because that means I will also have to agree with sagging pants, death metal, okra, everyone and their mother having a reality show on television, etc, etc, etc...
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So do you concede, then, that one making the case that the liberalization of concealed carry laws leads to "deadly results" is on rather shaky grounds? We have about twenty years of CCW liberalization in this country without the explosion in crime and homicide rates that opponents of CCW liberalization might have predicted.

I understand that some of us may be uncomfortable with the idea of other citizens carrying firearms, but I'd say that one of the rules for living in a civilized society is that you only support legislation banning acts that infringe on the rights of others intrinsically.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
The fallacy of "people kill people etc."

People kill people much easier with guns. Give enough people enough guns indiscriminately and guess what. Throw in big man patriot fantasies, racial prejudice etc etc and guess what.
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
So do you concede, then, that one making the case that the liberalization of concealed carry laws leads to "deadly results" is on rather shaky grounds? We have about twenty years of CCW liberalization in this country without the explosion in crime and homicide rates that opponents of CCW liberalization might have predicted.
Before I could "concede" (and make an educated statement about death related to concealed carry laws) I'd have to do some research on what the actual statistics are on the subject first. I'm not one of those people who listen to others talk and then go along with what they say because it "sounds nice" or "seems reasonable". I actually research what's being said first. I'm funny that way.

I understand that some of us may be uncomfortable with the idea of other citizens carrying firearms
No, I'm personally still not sold on the thought of private citizens taking their loaded weapons out into the public. Before a trigger is pulled we have to make the conscious decision whether or not we should fire to send a bullet on its way. If we realize we shouldn't have? Well, by then it's too late. Human beings are a flawed, funny ilk and we mess things up sometimes--but if you mess up with a gun people can be hurt or killed. I believe there is a difference between spilled milk and spilled blood--one still allows you to go on living and breathing. The other, not so much...

but I'd say that one of the rules for living in a civilized society is that you only support legislation banning acts that infringe on the rights of others intrinsically.
I'm not really sure I understand you here; are you saying that walking around with a concealed weapon doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights? I'm not negating or agreeing with that, I just want to clarify it so I don't put words in your mouth you didn't say. Thanks :redface:.
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
......

For all the "strict" Constitutionalists out there who like to tout their "2nd Amendment" rights, just remember that the framers of our wonderful document were referring to muskets and at a time when MOST of the country went out each night and shot their dinner! Soooo the "right" to bear arms STRICTLY interpreted should mean "muskets only!"

Secondly --- I think it's downright laughable that the VERY same people who are FOR Capital Punishment and "right" to LIFE are the people who oppose stricter gun laws and an out and out BAN on assault weapons! Ahhh the definition of irony!


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


As I originally said , the 2nd Amendment has been so blown out of proportion as to what the Founding Fathers intended that it is no longer recognizable nor CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

It is quite laughable and even sadder than this inherent hypocrisy is them having the audacity to call themselves "CHRISTIAN" when in fact they are the mockery of what Christ taught.

HH
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Before I could "concede" (and make an educated statement about death related to concealed carry laws) I'd have to do some research on what the actual statistics are on the subject first. I'm not one of those people who listen to others talk and then go along with what they say because it "sounds nice" or "seems reasonable". I actually research what's being said first. I'm funny that way.

If you do that and you come across evidence suggesting that the liberalization of concealed carry laws has or is leading to an increase in violent crime, I would love to take a look at it.

No, I'm personally still not sold on the thought of private citizens taking their loaded weapons out into the public. Before a trigger is pulled we have to make the conscious decision whether or not we should fire to send a bullet on its way. If we realize we shouldn't have? Well, by then it's too late. Human beings are a flawed, funny ilk and we mess things up sometimes--but if you mess up with a gun people can be hurt or killed. I believe there is a difference between spilled milk and spilled blood--one still allows you to go on living and breathing. The other, not so much...

But surely you agree that there are extreme situations in which it would be justified to use deadly force against another human being.

I'm not really sure I understand you here; are you saying that walking around with a concealed weapon doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights? I'm not negating or agreeing with that, I just want to clarify it so I don't put words in your mouth you didn't say. Thanks :redface:.

That is exactly what I am saying. I fail to see how allowing a trained, sober, adult without a criminal history or malicious intent to carry a firearm in public constitutes an infringement of the rights of those in his/her vicinity.
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
But surely you agree that there are extreme situations in which it would be justified to use deadly force against another human being.

No, I don't agree with that statement. And don't call me "Shirley" :redface:.
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
In that case, what sort of action would you recommend be taken against those who decide to carry firearms in public?
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Doesn't confiscating the firearms of or imprisoning people who carry firearms in public constitute an act of force? Isn't it hypocrisy to have police officers, carrying pistols (and potentially MP5s, M4s, flashbangs, et cetera) act against people carrying pistols?
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
In that case, what sort of action would you recommend be taken against those who decide to carry firearms in public?

That question is vague. What circumstances constitute an action that has to be taken, and why does it have to be "against" someone? Probably what's throwing me off a bit is that the act of "carrying" a firearm may or may not denote firing it--but it provides one the choice to do so.

Give me an actual scenario and I can probably give you a better answer...
 
Last edited:

aninnymouse

Cherished Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Posts
2,812
Media
0
Likes
349
Points
553
Location
In My Own World
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
So who do we decide gets the guns?

That's really the question. Is it the cops that only get to have the guns? Because if someone really wants a gun, there's ways to get it. IIRC, certain hunting rifles are legal with no waiting period, every state's gun control laws are different, Hell, even certain Municipalities have laws about guns.

The city of Chicago, for instance, IIRC, up until very recently had a law prohibiting gun ownership within city limits. Did that stop shootings, No.

You're never going to stop guns and shooting and the violence. I'm not sure you can even minimize it, anymore.