WebFire;1322830 wrote:You're not even worth the time isadore.

gosh you got caught in a lie.

[h=5]'I felt like sitting ducks,' woman says after Oregon mall shooting leaves 3 dead. This is a CNN headline. I am glad the shooter paid attention to the "No Guns" sign in the window. Oh wait, that was just EVERY RESPONSIBLE ARMED CITIZEN that paid attention to the law.[/h]

It's pretty well known that criminals do not follow laws.

Shocked! I thought no gun signs were some kind of force field that prevents anyone from entering your building with a gun. You mean that only honest, law abiding people follow these signs? Wow, I learn something new everyday. Only law abiding people follow the law, that's an interesting concept. Too bad the left hasn't learned that yet.

Good criminals only break racist laws.

tk421;1341170 wrote:Shocked! I thought no gun signs were some kind of force field that prevents anyone from entering your building with a gun. You mean that only honest, law abiding people follow these signs? Wow, I learn something new everyday. Only law abiding people follow the law, that's an interesting concept. Too bad the left hasn't learned that yet.

Well, it's interesting to note that there were more people killed by a gun in this one shooting than were killed in all of 2006 in Japan which has the strictest gun control laws in the industrialized world....

BoatShoes;1341432 wrote:Well, it's interesting to note that there were more people killed by a gun in this one shooting more people were killed in all of 2006 in Japan which has the strictest gun control laws in the industrialized world....

]

And they still have problems with licensed people committing random shootings

LJ;1341438 wrote:]

And they still have problems with licensed people committing random shootings

I dunno. What would you consider these problems with random shootings?

In 2008 the U.S. had 538 people killed just by guns discharging by accident. That same year the Japanese had only 11 people killed by guns in total. Less than the amount of people killed in the Aurora shooting.

I mean they freaked about about a supposed "crazy rise in shootings" by licensed gun owners when there were 22 gun deaths in 2007. If those are "problems with licensed people committing random shootings" they're great problems to have in comparison to the gun deaths we have in America, no?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7257072.stm

BoatShoes;1341479 wrote:I dunno. What would you consider these problems with random shootings?

In 2008 the U.S. had 538 people killed just by guns discharging by accident. That same year the Japanese had only 11 people killed by guns in total. Less than the amount of people killed in the Aurora shooting.

I mean they freaked about about a supposed "crazy rise in shootings" by licensed gun owners when there were 22 gun deaths in 2007. If those are "problems with licensed people committing random shootings" they're great problems to have in comparison to the gun deaths we have in America, no?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7257072.stm

No, because they still have a decent sized murder rate. We have a VIOLENCE problem in the United States, not a gun problem.

LJ;1341485 wrote:No, because they still have a decent sized murder rate. We have a VIOLENCE problem in the United States, not a gun problem.

Where do you get that Japan has a pretty high murder rate???

According to wikipedia, Japan has a murder rate of .3 per 100,000 residents...the fourth lowest in the world behind only Monaco, Palau, and Hong Kong. In fact, apparently they only had 442 murders overall...literally less people murdered than were killed by guns going off accidentally in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

BoatShoes;1341498 wrote:Where do you get that Japan has a pretty high murder rate???

According to wikipedia, Japan has a murder rate of .3 per 100,000 residents...the fourth lowest in the world behind only Monaco, Palau, and Hong Kong. In fact, apparently they only had 442 murders overall...literally less people murdered than were killed by guns going off accidentally in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Where did I ever say they have a "pretty high murder rate"?
Fact is, their murder rate is exponentially higher than that of the number of murders with guns. The Japanese are not a violent culture at all, and your comparisons to a small country is absolutely hilarious. http://amblerangel.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/why-is-there-no-crime-in-japan-insider-vs-outsider-culture-lesson-12/

Switz has the 4th most guns and a murder rate of .7

LJ;1341516 wrote:Where did I ever say they have a "pretty high murder rate"?
Fact is, their murder rate is exponentially higher than that of the number of murders with guns. The Japanese are not a violent culture at all, and your comparisons to a small country is absolutely hilarious. http://amblerangel.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/why-is-there-no-crime-in-japan-insider-vs-outsider-culture-lesson-12/

you said decent sized...we really going to play that type of language game?

Saying it is a small country is the point of citing to murder per 100,000, no?

LJ;1341485 wrote:No, because they still have a decent sized murder rate. We have a VIOLENCE problem in the United States, not a gun problem.

This. The only thing taking away guns would solve is more people being stabbed with knives.

LJ;1341522 wrote:Switz has the 4th most guns and a murder rate of .7

Well the primary justification for Switzerland's guns are its national defense as they don't have traditional armed forces as opposed to their being necessary to fight against a tyrannical government and/or the freedom of an individual to carry a weapon. You might just as reasonably keep an armory in every county or something for the reason Switzerland has guns.

Look, I'm not really mr. anti-gun but I think my point is that pro-gun people really down play gun control by saying that it will result in only criminals having guns but the evidence from other countries doesn't seem to show that to be true and that violence and gun deaths, by and large, are reduced.

Does the United States have enough of a compelling interest in ceasing violence and gun deaths to justifiably restrict the second amendment? I'm not sure.

sleeper;1341528 wrote:This. The only thing taking away guns would solve is more people being stabbed with knives.

Hard to mow down a crowd of people with knives

And I'm not so sure you could say definitively that the Japanese don't have a significant amount of violence in their culture.

See: Nanking, Rape of

BoatShoes;1341531 wrote:Hard to mow down a crowd of people with knives

Sounds like you suck at call of duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The U.S. is low-mid range when it comes to homicides among the world's countries. Violence and murders happen whether or not there are guns.


Let's put it this way....If I'm a 60 year old man or a 25 year old woman and two big fellas break into my house, I don't stand much of a chance unless I'm a martial arts expert. Guns are equalizers as well as deterrents from this type of crime. I was in Ireland recently( very few people are allowed to have guns), and a story just like that dominated the news there.

HitsRus;1341590 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The U.S. is low-mid range when it comes to homicides among the world's countries. Violence and murders happen whether or not there are guns.


Let's put it this way....If I'm a 60 year old man or a 25 year old woman and two big fellas break into my house, I don't stand much of a chance unless I'm a martial arts expert. Guns are equalizers as well as deterrents from this type of crime. I was in Ireland recently( very few people are allowed to have guns), and a story just like that dominated the news there.

LOL...is this tr0ll?

Have you taken a good look at the countries that are ahead of the United States? We're not really in the same neighborhood as any other rich, industrialized country. Farking tribal terrorist Yemen has a lower murder rate than we do. Palestine...with a political party in power that has embedded the desire to murder jews in its founding charter...has a lower murder rate.

I suppose since we don't have as a high as a murder rate as Haiti or Honduras we're all good. :rolleyes:

I mean shit like what you're talking about in Ireland is a national scandal there but is just a blip on the local news here. It's almost surreal how deadpanned the local news guys are when they say "A man was shot in the head execution style in East Cleveland last night. The Cleveland police are investigating."

You tacitly admit it when you say it dominates the news over there. A guy was shot in broad daylight in the middle of NYC a couple of days ago but that gets no where near the hits that it would get in another country.

The countries above us on the list you yourself cite are poor countries without strong governments or gun control and are virtual war zones in many cases.

Why not just own it?

"Yes, we have a ridiculously high murder rate and way too many deaths at the hands of guns in comparison to other rich countries but that is the cost of freedom and they are a bunch of socialists"

"We're going to have to have people unnecessarily dying at the hands of guns because those guns will be needed when Barack turns the Army against us and tries to confiscate private property to institute communist rule. They are worthwhile sacrifices in the cause of freedom."

"I want the freedom to kill and be killed at random because I know that murderer will be on my side when the Democrats come for us! He may want my property now, and I may need my gun to protect it from him...but boy, oh boy, when Barry O comes after us we will unite!"

etc.

Just own it.

It's called 'Murica. People get killed with guns, we don't guarantee access to health insurance or a decent retirement, everybody's farking fat and can't pay for their resulting health problems, we defend the borders of Israel and South Korea harder than we defend our own, we've got the got murder and inequality rates that are in the neighborhood of banana republics and only highly skilled workers and capital owners see tangible benefits from economic growth but god dammit we believe in capitalism and freedom and that's the way the anti-federalists would have wanted it m0thafuckas! Love it or Leave it!

BoatShoes;1341616 wrote:Just own it.

It's called 'Murica. People get killed with guns, we don't guarantee access to health insurance or a decent retirement, everybody's farking fat and can't pay for their resulting health problems, we defend the borders of Israel and South Korea harder than we defend our own, we've got the got murder and inequality rates that are in the neighborhood of banana republics and only highly skilled workers and capital owners see tangible benefits from economic growth but god dammit we believe in capitalism and freedom and that's the way the anti-federalists would have wanted it m0thafuckas! Love it or Leave it!

Love it or leave it, USA #1.

-Iowa QB

Is it just me or has BS gone off the deep end since the election? He was actually coherent and easy to chat with before the election even when you disagreed with him.

Since the election he has become just one step better than isadore, footwedge, etc.

Of course the President has taken a similar turn since the election. He preached on a "balanced" approach with spending cuts included and has since gone back on that deal (until yesterday when he finally talked about a very small cut for the first time).

jmog;1341741 wrote:Is it just me or has BS gone off the deep end since the election? He was actually coherent and easy to chat with before the election even when you disagreed with him.

He has. He's now a douche.

jmog;1341741 wrote:Is it just me or has BS gone off the deep end since the election? He was actually coherent and easy to chat with before the election even when you disagreed with him.

Since the election he has become just one step better than isadore, footwedge, etc.

Of course the President has taken a similar turn since the election. He preached on a "balanced" approach with spending cuts included and has since gone back on that deal (until yesterday when he finally talked about a very small cut for the first time).

Oh don't play coy you silly goose.:rolleyes:

You, and most of our resident right-wingers, candidly referred to my posts as "more BS from Boatshoes" amidst other derision before the election as well. You even...gasp...laid the Billy Madison line on me long, long ago. Let's not pretend you've conversed with me on here as if we've been at a dinner party all these years.

My style of posting...whatever that means...has not materially changed save for some elevated ribbing of folks who openly called a Romney victory for a few weeks after the election.