awyala
Guest
Fresh news today, US and UK intelligence agencies have cracked the encryption of internet banking, medical records, etc.......soooooooo.....logging onto anything really!
former Iraq soldier, private investigator and jail guard shows who's boss.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Fresh news today, US and UK intelligence agencies have cracked the encryption of internet banking, medical records, etc.......soooooooo.....logging onto anything really!
Snobike Mike
Banned
As noted, my problem with your "evidence" is that it's a survey, not a study. Asking people about self defense in a dial a thon survey does not constitute a proper study on the potential effects of self defense cases. For them to make their conclusions (talk about sponsor bias) is suspect at best.
My "evidence" is a complete and exhaustive study with a list of reference materials that is as long as ones arm, in which even a leading gun control criminologist admits that there is no contrary evidence to the results of the study and self defense events in the order of approx. 2 million. In addition to that study I have provided several more that further support that studies conclusions, all of which are contrary to your survey results.
See, you're a reasonable person who I consider pro gun but not pro gun wacko. You can see a logical argument and can argue the point without changing the subject with a question to dodge what's obvious.
I would shoot with you. Even though we have never met I'd assume you were safe. I wouldn't trust Mike with an Airsoft gun, but I'd have no issue going to a range and still trust you. Again, because you're not a wacko. Wackos, IMO, are also careless but I'll get in to that later if it's relevant.
I'd also shoot it out with you. You're the X39 steel plate COMBLOC version of my 5.56 ceramic NATO persona and it would be a lot of fun, I figure.
I'm sure I would steamroll Mike in a second as he would be as much of a challenge as a lame deer that needs to be put down.
OK, lets serious this.
In no particular order.... and not in reply to FS specifically…..
Pro Gun Wacko argument #1 Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
A factual statement that in the eyes of the wacko refutes any argument to the contrary. The reply is guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. Group this in with the other wacko claims that pencils don't make spelling mistakes or whatever other clever way they can say the same thing. It's not an actual argument as long as people kill people with guns. If someone wants to kill someone the go to item is a gun. If they can't get one, they may use something else but if they have one, what is better than a tool that is designed to end life?
Pro Gun Wacko argument # 2 OMFG you don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine therefore your argument is invalid.
In the eyes of the Wacko this is absolute proof that semantics and naming conventions discredit the bigger picture. People don't want to be fed whatever comes out of clips or magazines. Does it matter what they are called when they are being used against you? It's the same end. Another wacko dodge move to shift the focus away from the point at hand.
Pro gun wacko argument #3 But what is an Assault Rifle?
The wacko knows exactly what it is. It is a military weapon designed for killing humans at close range. As modern combat dictates that range is aprox. 0-100M with degrading effectiveness beyond 200m. Prone or from a bench it's capable of hitting further out but it's not required in it's design to do that. It's simply made to hit a body width target with a high powered small round that is effective enough to kill without being to big to add weight and restrict capacity. The wacko claims that assault rifles are not available for purchase but they are wrong. You can buy a FA or SF assault rifle and a 30rnd mag in the US at a gun show without any thing more than money. Even in places where you can't get a FA/SF assault rifle you can still get the same weapon in SA and can still easily modify a legal magazine to full capacity Or, drive across a state line because there is no check point in between and the seller doesn't GAF where you are from. Their *** is covered because you can't cross state lines with it and that’s your problem if you do. The wacko can't explain the difference between the effect of a SA AR-15 and a FA AR-15 with the same capacity. You can't shoot anyone "more dead" with one than you can the other. I'd argue that you would do less damage en mass with a FA because it's accuracy goes to **** by the time the third round has left the barrel. That's why the army uses a SAW or MINIMI for sustained fire. Even then, it's fired in short bursts to keep it on target. Wackos think Rambo like fire where you burn 200 rounds a squeeze is actually used outside of Hollywood.
Coles notes: Assault rifles are real and they are not just limited to an in service M-16xx or an in service AK-xxx. A wacko claiming they don't exist is another way of dodging the point because they are afraid of the actual answer. Expect a wacko to substitute the argument “this looks like a big scary gun but it’s not” and show you a weapon that would never see combat dressed up in plastic junk to lead you away from the fact that an AR-15 is a big scary gun. It’s death for it’s opponent. Nothing more.
Pro Gun Wacko argument #4
If you take away all the guns, only criminals will have guns. Wackos love this because, like PGA #1 it's a factual stand alone statement. Yes, if you take away all the legally owned guns then only criminals will have them, however.... Criminals are usually caught with their illegal guns at some point and they ARE taken away from them. If you stick with this fact then it's fair to say eventually (very long eventually but eventually) they will not have the same access to guns because, remember, we took the legally owned ones away. Every gun a criminal had was at one point a legally owned gun, or it was sold illegally to someone by a dealer that did so illegally.. I doubt many of the manufacturers sold directly to the criminals but it's the USA so.... who knows?
Further. The wacko can't see the difference between restricting some guns and banning all guns. That leads us to.....
Pro Gun Wacko argument #5 Registration leads to confiscation.
Basically Pro Christian argument #1. Jesus is coming back "one day". A great argument for a wacko because it hasn't happened yet so it's not arguable. Never mind that it's not an argument. It's also not arguable. Can you tell me a comet won't hit the earth "one day"? No, because anything is possible. It's just that wackos are also irrationally paranoid so they are convinced it "will" happen.
Truth is, it didn't happen. If it was going to, it would have happened on the tail end of the Sandy Hook gun massacre.
So, registration "might" lead to confiscation "of certain firearms" but it may not. I have two semi automatic assault rifles legally registered and will not lose them to a mass confiscation. I know this to be true and as long as I don't lose them, I'm 100 percent correct in my statement. Work's both ways, wackos.
Pro Gun Wacko argument #6 A soldier said so.
The wacko loves anything a Soldier says because by default, they may know more about terminology and may have experience with firearms but that’s where it ends. They are good for first hand experience EG: "The M-16 IMO is a sub standard desert warfare weapon because x, y, z". That is a legit opinion from someone who has been there, done that. A soldier telling people they need to arm themselves against tyrannical government isn't a soldier. It's just another wacko. With an identity crisis and in actual dereliction of their duties. It’s is a chargeable offence to act against your Government whilst in the service of it. In America, you can be held to this by what you say on an open forum depending on what you say.
Find the legal definition of Treason if you doubt it. Actus et Verba.
Anyways,
It doesn't matter what you think because the Government will either do, or not do what it wants. It's a ****ing joke saying "from my cold dead hands" because if they make it law, it's your cold dead hands or your obedient little ***** hands they will take your guns from. Registered or not. You will be given a choice. Turn them in or become a FELLON.
What the wackos say from the safety of their masturbation chair and what they will actually do when it comes time to sack up are two different things. Yeager was the biggest wacko retard post Sandy Hook. He made the epically stupid statement that if anyone came near his guns, he would start killing people. The ATF went straight to his house and pulled his CCW and he didn't do a damn thing but obey. So, if king wacko gives up his "rights" without so much as a peep, guess what the rest of you lesser trained, lesser equipped cowards will do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing but obey.
Guys like me will come for you and you will be raped of your precious guns. You will obey, or you make a pathetic stand and probably end up being burnt alive in your own home. Yay you. You're a dead marter.
If it comes down to that. I highly doubt anything will change, unfortunatly.
/Epic wall of post.
TL
RDeadhorse.gif
Aside from the above post being the most important in this entire thread....
Here's one for your education Mike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
It's far from a survey...it's an analysis of several other analyses, from the CDC and other government organisations.
There's a word for the willful ignorance of that which you disagree with...actually lots of words. Some of which I would probably get banned for so I'll just leave it at that.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Pot meet kettle. What about your my family member is sick diversion....
You really like the name calling. Figures you'd discuss on a forum and without any further supporting information make a decision to shoot with someone or not based on said discussion without gathering any other facts. Firestart does sound like a good guy, and you probably are to. I won't prejudge you without having actually met you however.
I bet your daddy is stronger than my daddy as well.
Well, airplanes would work better if you're trying to take out a world trade center for example....
So what is your plan to reduce firearm deaths?
Says the guy who argued with me about semantics in the other thread. But I agree the semantics are irrelevant, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning either clips or magazines of any capacity.
What is the bigger picture? What is your plan to reduce firearm deaths?
It's not a pro gun wacko argument if you don't care about the semantic definition because I believe that FA, SA firearms can be owned by law abiding citizens. They are owned in droves in the US and they lose more innocent people to drunk drivers than to firearms.
[
But you actually want to confiscate "some" guns so.......
What does anything in your note above have to do with "pro gun" or the actual realizable benefits of the pro-control agenda?
Well, they actually need to get their gun control agenda through first and that hasn't been working out so well for Obama and crew.....
Staying on topic much? None of this has to do with the debate of whether or not gun control works.
Easy there tex, now who's starting to sound like a........
Snobike Mike
Banned
I guess we're at a stalemate then because here's a few studies that refute your's so we'll just agree to disagree
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.supertrap.com/ST_Downloads_files/GunStatistics1.pdf
Here's a good one that for sure had "sponsor bias" since it was ordered by Obama
Mike. As I have already stated I am done talking to you. The above was not addressed to you at all.
I don't care to read your third run through of how you think or feel about something you have no control over.
You can comment all you want (freedom of speech) however, I'm not interested in what you have to say and not interested in your replies or replying to you.
I'm more interested in the opinions of logical, rational people.
I thought I made that obvious but, some people need to be hit with a truck in order to get the point through. (Figure of speech) I know you have problems with jist.
Think what you want. Argue with everyone. Know they are watching you.
I don't care to read your third run through of how you think or feel about something you have no control over.
You can comment all you want (freedom of speech) however, I'm not interested in what you have to say and not interested in your replies or replying to you.
I'm more interested in the opinions of logical, rational people.
I thought I made that obvious but, some people need to be hit with a truck in order to get the point through. (Figure of speech) I know you have problems with jist.
Think what you want. Argue with everyone. Know they are watching you.
Snobike Mike
Banned
RCMP, CSIS, FBI, HS, Google..........
Hi Mike, after this I'm done with you too.
Your first set of evidence is an international study that doesn't take into account any cultural differences whatsoever. We've already conceded that some other nations have a healthier attitude towards weapons through greater training or a different mindset. We're really talking about the US here, that's why the PEER REVIEWED study I showed you relates only to the US. Apples to Apples Mike.
Now the second set of evidence you show...what peer reviewed journal is that in Mike? I can't see that at all? Without this classification you have an opinion piece.
Thirdly Mike..if you want to know why we have stricter gun controls in Canada, well..it's because of attitudes like yours.
Your first set of evidence is an international study that doesn't take into account any cultural differences whatsoever. We've already conceded that some other nations have a healthier attitude towards weapons through greater training or a different mindset. We're really talking about the US here, that's why the PEER REVIEWED study I showed you relates only to the US. Apples to Apples Mike.
Now the second set of evidence you show...what peer reviewed journal is that in Mike? I can't see that at all? Without this classification you have an opinion piece.
Thirdly Mike..if you want to know why we have stricter gun controls in Canada, well..it's because of attitudes like yours.
Someone who's going to demand your wallet isn't going to worry about the legality of carrying concealed. Gun control ensures the safety of violent criminals - violent crime becomes easier and more lucrative for these opportunistic predators. Harvard, CDC, JAMA and other studies show research fails to support gun control agenda. Research shows more guns = less crime.
Less crime when compared to what; other areas within the US?
D23 - Due to CGN I was almost confident I was the only person alive who was in favor of gun control, even though I own guns. Now I know I'm not alone. Had to stop visiting CGN because I don't own enough tinfoil, and don't exclusively quote Sun News
jc100 - You tried. You really did. I appreciated your contribution, even if Mike over there never bothered to read or comprehend in any way
jc100 - You tried. You really did. I appreciated your contribution, even if Mike over there never bothered to read or comprehend in any way
Other areas within the US and outside.
Like many other countries, the US has areas with extremely high AND low homicide rates in areas with strict and loose gun control - it's the same for other areas throughout the world. Consider California homicide rates, for example, Santa Clara at 1.7 and Santa Cruz at 1.7, and at the other extreme, Oakland at 26.3 and East Palo Alto at 28.1 per 100,000. In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring all heads of households to own a gun. From 1982 to 2012, there were a total of 4 homicides. Large densely populated cities can obscure a serious problem in a particular area - South Chicago is a prime example. Canada had a lower gun homicide rate in the early 60's without any controls on long guns, than we have today with all our licensing & other redundancies.
Belarus banned hand guns, yet has a homicide rate of 10.4/100,000
Russia banned hand guns, yet has a homicide rate of 20.54/100,000
Luxembourg banned handguns, yet has a homicide rate of 9.01/100,000
Poland allows handguns and has a homicide rate of 1.98/100,000
Belgium allows handguns and has a homicide rate of 1.70/100,000
France allows handguns and has a homicide rate of 1.65/100,000
Germany allows handguns and has a homicide rate of 0.93/100,000
Finland allows handguns and has a homicide rate of 1.98/100,000
Norway allows handguns and has a homicide rate of 0.81/100,000
Gun use for self defence is effective in deterring crime and reducing injury and death, as per CDC study commissioned by POTUS executive order. Gun control is superficially plausible, but actually wrong. Just as you won't reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars, you won't reduce homicides by making it harder for lawful individuals to own guns.
I drank the fool-aid and bought into gun control big time before I joined ranges, started meeting gun owners, doing research, asking questions & participating in discussions on forums like CGN. I used to think motorcycles were really dangerous too.
One day I woke up and realized I could manage the risk down to an acceptable level and enjoy riding safely. In spite of the law, who's ultimately responsible for controlling my bike and the risk? Me!I drank the fool-aid and bought into gun control big time before I joined ranges, started meeting gun owners, doing research, asking questions & participating in discussions on forums like CGN. I used to think motorcycles were really dangerous too.
I think that's your problem. Look at yourself now, using the term "fool-aid." Do you also use "sheeple?"
I do go to ranges, I do know gun owners and I do research on the topic and debate with friends regularly, yet I still maintain my viewpoint
I think that's your problem. Look at yourself now, using the term "fool-aid." Do you also use "sheeple?"
I do go to ranges, I do know gun owners and I do research on the topic and debate with friends regularly, yet I still maintain my viewpoint
What problem is that? Should the "flat earthers" also maintain their viewpoint?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/28/Are-Gun-Control-Proponents-Flat-Earthers
