Gun Control debate - What the hell is wrong with people???

[dionysus]

lmao, I love the smoking one
we all know smoking is bad, has detrimental effects, etcetc, but there's NO way of ascertaining if smoking in each case is the culprit, NONE..unless say, a carton feel on someone and crushed them under the weight
someone who smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years may well have died due to the ill effects attributed to smoking, but so does genetics, health, lifestyle, additional habits etc.

 

[Seventh777]

lmao, I love the smoking one
we all know smoking is bad, has detrimental effects, etcetc, but there's NO way of ascertaining if smoking in each case is the culprit, NONE..unless say, a carton feel on someone and crushed them under the weight
someone who smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years may well have died due to the ill effects attributed to smoking, but so does genetics, health, lifestyle, additional habits etc.

Believe me I agree with you 100% regarding smoking and deaths, that should be changed to respiratory based deaths .

Bearing in mind the source of these stats, it wouldn't be in their best interests to mention the C word would it .

Have to laugh when they use "passive smoking" as the reason none smokers get lung cancer, we smokers passive smoke as well, do we not?.

 

[skiny]

I found this rather interesting..........


View attachment 37205


Every American killed with a gun, nearly 90 are killed by alcohol related causes!
Does Congress want to ban alcohol?.

Alcoholism is a disease. It's an issue that needs to be addressed but isn't in the same category as weapon control. It's an entirely different issue.

@skiny - The right to bear arms against a tyrannical government falls under this category, which basically states -



Supreme Court declared that "the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

It's my understanding that an completely separate militia from that of a government controlled one, is one consisting of the people, by the people, for the people, and with it the right to bear arms and restrict the powers of the national government. How else could this be construed bar the right to bear arms against the government if the need arises?.

If people want to run out to Walmart and pick up some hand guns and rifles and form a little weekend group of quasi-soldiers so they can take on the US military, be my guest. Don't be surprised if they end up dead or at the very least charged with treason.

Source -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

P.S.

Wasn't freedom of speech basically removed with the introduction of the Patriot Act?. You must remember it's arrival.........



Imho, if you want to get your point across, forget trying to talk it over lol.

Which is exactly what Adam Lanza did.

 

[Seventh777]

Alcoholism is a disease. It's an issue that needs to be addressed but isn't in the same category as weapon control. It's an entirely different issue.

I would have thought that an aspect responsible for x90 more deaths than guns should be as equally addressed if not more.

If people want to run out to Walmart and pick up some hand guns and rifles and form a little weekend group of quasi-soldiers so they can take on the US military, be my guest. Don't be surprised if they end up dead or at the very least charged with treason.

I think we both know it will not be as rhetorical as that......

Senator Dianne Feinstein,



I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.



I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.



I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.



We, the people, deserve better than you.



Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

source -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Which is exactly what Adam Lanza did.

And Obama does frequently, or does murdering children of another nationality not count for anything?......

I could reply to this regarding the early reports of the two other shooters involved (video, eye witnesses, audio evidence of this), but I wont, now let's put killing children needlessly in perspective, a perspective authorized by those wanting a gun ban in the US.........

In yet another US drone attack in Pakistan, US drones fired ten missiles at different targets in the country's northwestern tribal area of South Waziristan, on Sunday. According to local media, the aerial attacks left at least seven others injured.

Pakistan’s tribal regions are attacked by US assassination drones almost regularly, with Washington claiming that militants are the targets. However, casualty figures clearly indicate that Pakistani civilians are the main victims.



The killing of Pakistani civilians, including women and children, has strained relations between Islamabad and Washington. Last month, Pakistan’s Jama’at ud-Da’wah political group took legal action against the ongoing drone attacks. The group said … the drone strikes continue to claim the lives of civilians.


US drone attacks kill 16 in northwestern Pakistan

Civilians are being "terrorized" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks that target mainly low-level militants in north-west Pakistan, a US report (Living Under Drones) says. Rescuers treating the casualties are also being killed and wounded by follow-up strikes, says the report by Stanford and New York Universities.
…
In one of the most notorious attacks of recent years, tribal elders and local traders were among more than 40 people killed when two drones attacked a car carrying … four militants.
…
A controversial aspect of the US policy is that drone attacks are carried out not by the military but by the Central Intelligence Agency. Pakistan is not a zone of armed conflict, unlike neighboring Afghanistan.
The report … says top commanders only account for an estimated 2% of drone victims.
The report also details hundreds of civilian casualties and the effects of drone strikes on the local population. It cites data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimating that between 474 and 881 civilians have been killed in strikes between 2004 and 2012.
"In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killings' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false," according to the report, (Living Under Drones.
…
According to the report, 42 people were killed, mostly civilians, when they gathered at a bus depot on 17 March 2011 for a "jirga" (community meeting) to settle a dispute over a nearby mine. … . Several missiles were fired. Nearly all those who died were heads of large households.

Drones in Pakistan traumatize civilians, US report says


Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscent of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.


Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist

The absolute majority of the people killed by American UAVs in Pakistan are innocent civilians, claims Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik.
…
There are no exact statistics on the number of people killed in drone strikes in Pakistan. Estimates vary from about 2,500 to over 3,000 victims. As many as 174 of them were reportedly children.

US drones kill up to 80% civilians

How long will the American public continue to follow the anti-gun rhetoric, which has no possibility of reducing violent crime and mass killings, while avoiding discussion and deserved criticism of the Obama administration's policy responsible for the unjustified death of countless innocents, including first-responders and children?

What else could we expect from a leader that employs an advocate of forced abortion as his science Czar?, maybe Lanza was trying to fast track his way to the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[skiny]

I would have thought that an aspect responsible for x90 more deaths than guns should be as equally addressed if not more.

Nobody is saying it isn't. I'm saying it's in a different category. If you want to start a thread on whether or not alcohol should be banned that's fine but whether it should be or not has no bearing on the gun laws in the US. The reason we're having this debate right now and not that one is because Adam Lanza didn't attack a group of children with a bottle of whiskey. He used a weapon that obviously not EVERY citizen can be trusted with and that's the issue we're debating.

I think we both know it will not be as rhetorical as that......

That's a well written letter full of passion and resolve. Too bad it's also full of the very attitude that has built a country with the highest gun crime rate in the civilized world. In the letter he says he learned. Obviously he hasn't learned what happens when every citizen is given the right to own fire arms. He also says "I am not your servant. I am the person you serve." Although if he's currently enlisted in the Marine Corps his duty is to serve. Maybe not her but his country for sure. What exactly does it mean to serve in the US military or Marine corps now? I serve my country but to hell with what my government wants? What kind of fool joins the military and thinks he doesn't serve his government? Who does he think his superiors answer to?

What exactly gives people the idea that the government does not have the right to know they have guns? This every man for himself attitude surprises me. I always thought that Americans were a patriotic people but the more I read things like this the more I believe otherwise. I have a right to be safe so I have the right to own guns and I don't even have to tell you I have them. Forget about the rest of the country. It doesn't matter if that right that you're fighting so hard to preserve is putting guns legally in the hands of people who should not own them. People who can't be trusted with them. Forget about the fact that this makes everyone else unsafe. The greater good is irrelevant. All that matters is MY rights and MY safety.

And Obama does frequently, or does murdering children of another nationality not count for anything?......

I could reply to this regarding the early reports of the two other shooters involved (video, eye witnesses, audio evidence of this), but I wont, now let's put killing children needlessly in perspective, a perspective authorized by those wanting a gun ban in the US.........

Needlessly killing children? You think these drones are out hunting innocent kids? You do know that you are at war with terrorist organizations? The purpose of these drones is to safely take down militant leaders and people involved in terrorist activities. I can read news stories that say that all these drones are doing is killing innocent civilians and other stories that say very few civilians have been killed but thousands of terrorists have been taken out over the last 8 years. Once again, I have absolutely no way of knowing the truth. My experience as taught me that the truth is usually somewhere in between the two lies but the reality is, your President is trying to defend your country. There is no easy way to do that. I'm not personally privy to US intelligence so I really don't know how much investigation has been done prior to any of these attacks. I have no idea what the intended targets were or what might have happened accidentally.

I can cherry pick articles that tell me completely different stories and I have no real good reason to believe either side. What I do know is there are organizations that have a very meaningful hatred for western civilization and more specifically the US and left unchecked there will be a lot more innocent blood spilled than all of these drone attacks combined. Terrorism is a very real threat and a seemingly endless battle and I'm just glad that I'm not the person who has to decide where to fire missiles or where to send troops. If Pakistan knows that there are terrorist organizations on Pakistani soil they should be firing their own missiles instead of complaining that someone else is and if friends and family of terrorists are getting killed in the crossfire or even people who might have just been hanging around for their own reasons maybe they should take a look at who they're standing beside.

I do not equate casualties of war with a civilian slaughtering almost two dozen children in a school in his own home town. That is insanity at it's worst and should not have happened.

What else could we expect from a leader that employs an advocate of forced abortion as his science Czar?, maybe Lanza was trying to fast track his way to the Nobel Peace Prize.

Well, that statement comes from a 35 year old book co written by Holden with two other people. I haven't read the book so I have no idea of the context and a short search didn't find anything mainstream related to it except a fox news article which I'm not really sure we can consider mainstream. The Fox article says -

The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

I'm not sure which side of the fence Fox is on but they say the book discusses these things and one passage "seems" to advocate something so I'd really have to read the book myself to know if the book really advocates any of it. The passages I have read say a lot of things like "You could do this or you could do that" but they don't really say you should. This is from the same article -

Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.

"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.

"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."

I really don't know what Holden believes but I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that Lanza should have gunned down almost 2 dozen children and I doubt anyone including Lanza himself would think doing so would get him a Nobel Prize.

 

[Nifty29]

See, here is some of the problems I have with the information you provide Seventh.

You consistently claim that we should ignore what the media tells us because it is biased and beholdent to TPTB.....yet you're happy to base your views about the killing of children in wherethefukarewe, Pakistan based on "local media". So who do you think the "local media" will be biased towards? Of course they're going to heavily distort the facts and the figures....they want the attacks to stop, mainly because it is interfering with their criminal and terrorist activities.

It does nothing for anyone wanting to be persuaded by your arguments to see double standards such as this.

I also think that comparing Obama to Lanza is just sick, and an insult to the victims and their families.

The letter from the marine tells me a lot about him, and those in the USA of his ilk......the mysogynist, gun-toting gung-ho "I'll blast you're freakin head off if you take one step onto my property" type. I mean, check out this line from the letter:

"and I will not have some woman". LOL. Not someone, or some politician....some woman. It's pathetic, and shows the mentality of some of these morons. Skiny is right...these kind of people are all about "me me me" and don't give a rat's ass about how it might affect everyone else. As skiny also said....this cretin isn't even educated or intelligent enough to know whose authority he is subject to. If Obama said all military personnel had to give up their private arms, I would love to see this guy stand up at the briefing and spout the crap out that he did in that letter. I guess at least he would have a lot more time to write more in Leavenworth.

 

[skiny]

Well, everyone knows that the mainstream media is biased. Fox news is known to lean toward the right and I've seen at least one video where BIll O'reilly says that Fox offers the other side of the story comparing Fox news to other left leaning news organizations which is actually kind of a strange statement since there should only be one side, that being the truth.

Now that's apparently two entirely different sides of the same story in the mainstream media alone. Then you leave the US. and find entirely new sides to the story in media outlets spread out across the globe. Then on top of that you have websites that have their own view of reality on top of everything else who have apparently not even chosen a side but basically think every government in general is plotting against everyone. And then you have the slightly smaller group who think there is some higher power sitting above all the governments basically controlling everything that happens across the planet.

And everyone wants to convince you that their view is correct. Most of the time they're not even telling lies but hand picking the facts that suit their cause and display them in a manner that give them the appearance of being indisputable. You really have to take all these stories with a grain of salt. Things that seem silly usually are or at the very least have been embellished to sound worse than they are. I don't accept every story I hear about Obama just because some website displayed it as fact or some news organization picked an incident and dressed it up to look worse than it really is. The man was a senator for over 10 years, was elected President of the United States and then was reelected 4 years later. I try to give the guy a little credit. I'm sure he's no saint but then neither am I.

The point is, you really have to be careful what you accept as fact and doubly so if it's found on a privately owned website or by an opposing party like Pakistani news reporting death tolls due to attacks on terrorist organizations. Everyone has an agenda including conspiracy theorists. Most of them aren't just out to expose the truth.

 

[Seventh777]

Nobody is saying it isn't. I'm saying it's in a different category. If you want to start a thread on whether or not alcohol should be banned that's fine but whether it should be or not has no bearing on the gun laws in the US. The reason we're having this debate right now and not that one is because Adam Lanza didn't attack a group of children with a bottle of whiskey. He used a weapon that obviously not EVERY citizen can be trusted with and that's the issue we're debating.

The debate in question is founded on Lanza going on a killing spree using legally owned guns that his mother had, the Coroner stating that all victims had been shot with the long weapon, even though at the time he had only autopsied 7 victims, a Coroner that knew exactly what they had been shot with, (but didn't know how many were female / male), which heavily conflicts with early news reports stating that - 1). Four handguns were found by Lanza`s body. 2). A long weapon was found in a trunk of a car. Lanza allegedly committed suicide, so how did the long weapon make it's way to the trunk of a car?.

That's a well written letter full of passion and resolve. Too bad it's also full of the very attitude that has built a country with the highest gun crime rate in the civilized world. In the letter he says he learned. Obviously he hasn't learned what happens when every citizen is given the right to own fire arms. He also says "I am not your servant. I am the person you serve." Although if he's currently enlisted in the Marine Corps his duty is to serve. Maybe not her but his country for sure. What exactly does it mean to serve in the US military or Marine corps now? I serve my country but to hell with what my government wants? What kind of fool joins the military and thinks he doesn't serve his government? Who does he think his superiors answer to?

Apples and oranges, nowhere in his letter does he state he will go on a killing spree if the government remove his right to carry a gun, soldiers are trained to follow orders, no doubting that, when does the time arise to refuse obeying a certain order. My reply was in response to your original reply stating basic civilians arming themselves and being massacred or arrested, all I done was exposed a bigger picture, there are several ex vets, ex cops, ex government agency employees out there with the same attitude, not just angry civilians.

What exactly gives people the idea that the government does not have the right to know they have guns? This every man for himself attitude surprises me. I always thought that Americans were a patriotic people but the more I read things like this the more I believe otherwise. I have a right to be safe so I have the right to own guns and I don't even have to tell you I have them. Forget about the rest of the country. It doesn't matter if that right that you're fighting so hard to preserve is putting guns legally in the hands of people who should not own them. People who can't be trusted with them. Forget about the fact that this makes everyone else unsafe. The greater good is irrelevant. All that matters is MY rights and MY safety.

No-one is questioning your rights or safety, if someone's brain fries and they want to go a killing spree they will get weapons no matter what, they have criminal tendencies, since when do criminals follow the law?.

Needlessly killing children? You think these drones are out hunting innocent kids? You do know that you are at war with terrorist organizations? The purpose of these drones is to safely take down militant leaders and people involved in terrorist activities. I can read news stories that say that all these drones are doing is killing innocent civilians and other stories that say very few civilians have been killed but thousands of terrorists have been taken out over the last 8 years. Once again, I have absolutely no way of knowing the truth. My experience as taught me that the truth is usually somewhere in between the two lies but the reality is, your President is trying to defend your country. There is no easy way to do that. I'm not personally privy to US intelligence so I really don't know how much investigation has been done prior to any of these attacks. I have no idea what the intended targets were or what might have happened accidentally.

I can cherry pick articles that tell me completely different stories and I have no real good reason to believe either side. What I do know is there are organizations that have a very meaningful hatred for western civilization and more specifically the US and left unchecked there will be a lot more innocent blood spilled than all of these drone attacks combined. Terrorism is a very real threat and a seemingly endless battle and I'm just glad that I'm not the person who has to decide where to fire missiles or where to send troops. If Pakistan knows that there are terrorist organizations on Pakistani soil they should be firing their own missiles instead of complaining that someone else is and if friends and family of terrorists are getting killed in the crossfire or even people who might have just been hanging around for their own reasons maybe they should take a look at who they're standing beside.

A quote from Wikipedia regarding drone attacks, I believe the amount of casualties is the same as my original post reflected, it also mentions these interesting facts.........

Some US politicians and academics have condemned the drone strikes. US Congressman Dennis Kucinich asserted that the United States was violating international law by carrying out strikes against a country that never attacked the United States.[34] Georgetown University professor Gary D. Solis asserts that since the drone operators at the CIA are civilians directly engaged in armed conflict, this makes them "unlawful combatants" and possibly subject to prosecution.[31]

60 cross-border predator strikes in the period from January 2006 to April 2009 killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders and 687 Pakistani civilians

Source......

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I do not equate casualties of war with a civilian slaughtering almost two dozen children in a school in his own home town. That is insanity at it's worst and should not have happened.

Well this is where we will have to agree to disagree, I equate murder of innocent people to the exact same extent as gun nuts going crazy, even more so as drone attacks etcetera are premeditated and meticulously planned to a degree of "Who cares we got the terrorist, didn't we?", killing innocent people should never happen, no matter what the circumstances are.

Well, that statement comes from a 35 year old book co written by Holden with two other people. I haven't read the book so I have no idea of the context and a short search didn't find anything mainstream related to it except a fox news article which I'm not really sure we can consider mainstream. The Fox article says -


I'm not sure which side of the fence Fox is on but they say the book discusses these things and one passage "seems" to advocate something so I'd really have to read the book myself to know if the book really advocates any of it. The passages I have read say a lot of things like "You could do this or you could do that" but they don't really say you should. This is from the same article -

Here you will find links to actual paragraphs etc from the book, accompanied with photographs.........

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I really don't know what Holden believes but I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that Lanza should have gunned down almost 2 dozen children and I doubt anyone including Lanza himself would think doing so would get him a Nobel Prize.

My comment here was based on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize and the irony of it.

 

[Seventh777]

See, here is some of the problems I have with the information you provide Seventh.

You consistently claim that we should ignore what the media tells us because it is biased and beholdent to TPTB.....yet you're happy to base your views about the killing of children in wherethefukarewe, Pakistan based on "local media". So who do you think the "local media" will be biased towards? Of course they're going to heavily distort the facts and the figures....they want the attacks to stop, mainly because it is interfering with their criminal and terrorist activities.

It does nothing for anyone wanting to be persuaded by your arguments to see double standards such as this.

I also think that comparing Obama to Lanza is just sick, and an insult to the victims and their families.

The letter from the marine tells me a lot about him, and those in the USA of his ilk......the mysogynist, gun-toting gung-ho "I'll blast you're freakin head off if you take one step onto my property" type. I mean, check out this line from the letter:

"and I will not have some woman". LOL. Not someone, or some politician....some woman. It's pathetic, and shows the mentality of some of these morons. Skiny is right...these kind of people are all about "me me me" and don't give a rat's ass about how it might affect everyone else. As skiny also said....this cretin isn't even educated or intelligent enough to know whose authority he is subject to. If Obama said all military personnel had to give up their private arms, I would love to see this guy stand up at the briefing and spout the crap out that he did in that letter. I guess at least he would have a lot more time to write more in Leavenworth.

We do have double standards, firstly, is this enough to back up my original post regarding drone attacks?......

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

If you think I base my threads / posts on a single website entry you are sadly mistaken.

Secondly, you have replied to many of my posts / threads, but ones containing irrefutable proof of certain events you completely ignore, the John Gross and NIST video being the main one, why is this?, I see it only as your predetermined views regarding CT's in general, so what now that Wikipedia states exactly what I stated regarding the drone deaths?, the amount of casualties stated in my 1st post........

Estimates vary from about 2,500 to over 3,000 victims. As many as 174 of them were reportedly children.

And Wikipedia.........

Total strikes: 350
Total reported killed: 2,586 – 3,375
Civilians reported killed: 472 – 885
Children reported killed: 176
Total reported injured: 1,252 – 1,401
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 298

I would call that nigh on identical, bar Wikipedia states 2 more children died, but hey, this doesn't matter because they're from wherethefukarewe, you call me disrespectful regarding my statement towards Obama and Lanza, I could quite as easily state your reply as racist.


How different are Obama and Lanza?, they both murder people, and in Obama's case he got rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Where does that leave us now?, knowing my statements are not distorted, nor based entirely on local media which unlike the West's isn't riddled with blatant bullshit, glossed over, and manipulated misinformation / disinformation.

 

[Nifty29]

We do have double standards, firstly, is this enough to back up my original post regarding drone attacks?......

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

If you think I base my threads / posts on a single website entry you are sadly mistaken.

Secondly, you have replied to many of my posts / threads, but ones containing irrefutable proof of certain events you completely ignore, the John Gross and NIST video being the main one, why is this?, I see it only as your predetermined views regarding CT's in general, so what now that Wikipedia states exactly what I stated regarding the drone deaths?, the amount of casualties stated in my 1st post........





And Wikipedia.........




I would call that nigh on identical, bar Wikipedia states 2 more children died, but hey, this doesn't matter because they're from wherethefukarewe, you call me disrespectful regarding my statement towards Obama and Lanza, I could quite as easily state your reply as racist.


How different are Obama and Lanza?, they both murder people, and in Obama's case he got rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Where does that leave us now?, knowing my statements are not distorted, nor based entirely on local media which unlike the West's isn't riddled with blatant bullshit, glossed over, and manipulated misinformation / disinformation.

Where it leaves us is where it has always been.

You use selected information only i.e. the stuff that fits your theories. If I had countless hours to list all the websites and sources that completely contradict just about everything you say....I would do it. As it happens, I don't....but that doesn't mean that your versions of everything are totally spot on because I can't come up with 79 websites or "government insiders" etc that contradict your POV and those of the links you provide. I'm not actually offering an alternative theory of the crime so to speak....because I don't have access to all the information and circumstances....and neither do you. CT websites have an agenda, just like Fox has an agenda....but according to you, we can trust the CT websites you mention, but not a word of what Fox says.

I'm actually surprised, given your obvious deep concern for the plight of the USA, that you haven't moved there to help these people out, or at least convince them to leave. I don't see any point being "in the know" about all the conspiracies in the world if you're not going to do anything about them....it would be like coming here and learning all the info there is about gambling, and never actually gambling.

It's also a fact that people aren't more likely to come around to one's way of thinking as a result of being bombarded with links and a multitude of different conspiracies. In fact, it is more likely to turn them off. For example, if you only posted here about one particular CT and were passionate about it, but accepted that the other CT's were probably off the mark, then I would be 100% more willing to come on board and take in the information you provide. However, because you seem to believe that almost every event that ever happened was a conspiracy, then it leaves me wondering just how your thinking works. Everything can't be a conspiracy. It just can't.

I won't post any more about this stuff because we're never going to agree and you just keep lobbing links to CT websites and talking about the same videos etc. I wonder how many of these "truth for 9/11" people who come out of the woodwork to "testify" actually have a beef with their former bosses i.e. the government. I would bet there is a story behind every one of them....denied promotions (soldiers particularly), sour grapes over workplace issues....the list goes on. If these people really were spilling the beans and exposing TPTB (who don't exist IMO), they would have been silenced well before now.

As they say on Dragons Den......I'm out.


I'm also concerned that you're using Wikipedia as a trusted source. I've seen so many errors on that site it isn't funny.

 

[Seventh777]

Where it leaves us is where it has always been.

You use selected information only i.e. the stuff that fits your theories. If I had countless hours to list all the websites and sources that completely contradict just about everything you say....I would do it. As it happens, I don't....but that doesn't mean that your versions of everything are totally spot on because I can't come up with 79 websites or "government insiders" etc that contradict your POV and those of the links you provide. I'm not actually offering an alternative theory of the crime so to speak....because I don't have access to all the information and circumstances....and neither do you. CT websites have an agenda, just like Fox has an agenda....but according to you, we can trust the CT websites you mention, but not a word of what Fox says.

I'm actually surprised, given your obvious deep concern for the plight of the USA, that you haven't moved there to help these people out, or at least convince them to leave. I don't see any point being "in the know" about all the conspiracies in the world if you're not going to do anything about them....it would be like coming here and learning all the info there is about gambling, and never actually gambling.

It's also a fact that people aren't more likely to come around to one's way of thinking as a result of being bombarded with links and a multitude of different conspiracies. In fact, it is more likely to turn them off. For example, if you only posted here about one particular CT and were passionate about it, but accepted that the other CT's were probably off the mark, then I would be 100% more willing to come on board and take in the information you provide. However, because you seem to believe that almost every event that ever happened was a conspiracy, then it leaves me wondering just how your thinking works. Everything can't be a conspiracy. It just can't.

I won't post any more about this stuff because we're never going to agree and you just keep lobbing links to CT websites and talking about the same videos etc. I wonder how many of these "truth for 9/11" people who come out of the woodwork to "testify" actually have a beef with their former bosses i.e. the government. I would bet there is a story behind every one of them....denied promotions (soldiers particularly), sour grapes over workplace issues....the list goes on. If these people really were spilling the beans and exposing TPTB (who don't exist IMO), they would have been silenced well before now.

As they say on Dragons Den......I'm out.


I'm also concerned that you're using Wikipedia as a trusted source. I've seen so many errors on that site it isn't funny.

I'm not stating that everything is a conspiracy, just the ones that link, The Powers That Be means nothing more than those in power - the established government or authority. Ie, TPTB here are Bryan, Max Simmo etc, so they actually do exist, contradicting websites exist of course they do, where does it all end - Debunking 9/11 CT's, Debunking Debunking 9/11 CT's, rinse repeat.

As far as moving to America goes, no thanks, to many gun nuts there for my liking , we could go on for eternity, but that's what forums are all about, if we all agreed with each other, politicians and the military would be out of work .

 

[Nifty29]

Skiny...

You should have a read of that link from Seventh about John Holdren.

It is incredibly scotomatous and biased, and obviously written by a conspiracy theorist. The language is exactly the opposite of what one would expect from an independent unbiased news article.

It's like it was done by the GOP team for Fox News

I really think it has been blown waaaay out of proportion, considering the guy did not state that the measures discussed SHOULD be taken.....just that, if population control becomes an absolute necessity, it is one way it could be achieved. I haven't read the rest of the book, and I have no doubt the journalist hasn't either, as I am sure that Seventh hasn't....but I would bet London to a brick that the book contains a whole host of other solutions to the population issue.

The fact is, if the world were faced with a severe global famine or some other major global disaster, such draconian measures may need to be at least considered. It's a very ugly scenario, but it might become necessary for the survival of the species...who knows?

I rate this CT right up there alongside "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama has a fake Birth certificate" and "Elvis is alive". It's little wonder that CT enthusiasts have such a hard time selling their POV.

 

[skiny]

The debate in question is founded on Lanza going on a killing spree using legally owned guns that his mother had, the Coroner stating that all victims had been shot with the long weapon, even though at the time he had only autopsied 7 victims, a Coroner that knew exactly what they had been shot with, (but didn't know how many were female / male), which heavily conflicts with early news reports stating that - 1). Four handguns were found by Lanza`s body. 2). A long weapon was found in a trunk of a car. Lanza allegedly committed suicide, so how did the long weapon make it's way to the trunk of a car?.

This still has nothing to do with alcohol abuse.

Apples and oranges, nowhere in his letter does he state he will go on a killing spree if the government remove his right to carry a gun, soldiers are trained to follow orders, no doubting that, when does the time arise to refuse obeying a certain order. My reply was in response to your original reply stating basic civilians arming themselves and being massacred or arrested, all I done was exposed a bigger picture, there are several ex vets, ex cops, ex government agency employees out there with the same attitude, not just angry civilians.

ex vets, ex cops and ex government agents are civilians and maybe some of these people can be trusted with guns but everyone can't and certain weapons are not neccesary so for safety of the general population they shouldn't be owned by anyone.

No-one is questioning your rights or safety, if someone's brain fries and they want to go a killing spree they will get weapons no matter what, they have criminal tendencies, since when do criminals follow the law?.

You have no way of knowing that everyone who snaps can get guns and maybe if children don't grow up being taught to fire them and have them lying around the house when they do snap the end result might be different. Every situation is different and restrictions on gun ownership might save lives.

A quote from Wikipedia regarding drone attacks, I believe the amount of casualties is the same as my original post reflected, it also mentions these interesting facts.........

Wikipedia isn't a guaranteed accurate source of information and like I said for every story there is a counter story. Believe which ever one you want.

Well this is where we will have to agree to disagree, I equate murder of innocent people to the exact same extent as gun nuts going crazy, even more so as drone attacks etcetera are premeditated and meticulously planned to a degree of "Who cares we got the terrorist, didn't we?", killing innocent people should never happen, no matter what the circumstances are.

I'm not going to argue that fighting a war with terrorists is the same as shooting school children because you snapped and went on killing spree for no reason. That's just silly.

My comment here was based on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize and the irony of it.

Obama winning a Nobel prize has nothing to do with Lanza killing school children. These far fetched links between unrelated events are one of the reasons you can't believe these theories.

If you think I base my threads / posts on a single website entry you are sadly mistaken.

That doesn't mean the sites get the information from the same incorrect sources. This biased information is passed from website to website whether it's true or not. It's like collecting and displaying conspiracy theory trading cards.

 

[Nifty29]

Here is an example of the reason why the gen pop dismiss conspiracy theorists and "truthers", and their claims, as nonsensical and deluded.

What's the bet the "truthers" mentioned here are also 9/11 "truthers" and JFK "truthers" etc etc.

Coverage like this sets back the sincere CT's (those people who might believe one or two events in history MAY involve a conspiracy) decades.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Sorry, but this is just f*cked up.

 

[Seventh777]

Here is an example of the reason why the gen pop dismiss conspiracy theorists and "truthers", and their claims, as nonsensical and deluded.

What's the bet the "truthers" mentioned here are also 9/11 "truthers" and JFK "truthers" etc etc.

Coverage like this sets back the sincere CT's (those people who might believe one or two events in history MAY involve a conspiracy) decades.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Sorry, but this is just f*cked up.

I agree, it is totally uncalled for, even is there was 100% irrefutable evidence that someone has been exposed as a patsy this is not the way to go around things, it makes those with pure intentions seem bad, I could add that those causing this guy grief could be government shills, but I have no proof, so I won't.


And the story changes once again, only 4 hand guns (as I stated in several posts) and no rifle, which has further implications, I will make another post and link video...


[video]http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495[/video]


There is of course one way to settle this once and for all an independent investigation into 9/11 using the plethora of uncovered evidence available, a good pointer here is not only did two flight numbers not exist but 3 from 4 planes that day had not flown for 9 months, this evidence comes from The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a government agency.....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

A splash in the ocean of the evidence available.

The biggest threat towards the perps of these events are those that dispute them, governments make sure the general consensus towards CT's by the gen pop is one of ridicule and more.

They will have you believe we are a minority of the people, we are not........

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

P.S.

Regarding History and conspiracies, every war on record was started from a false flag event this is not a theory, it is fact, research it 1st please before stating it may have been a conspiracy theory .


I tried to post a link to a current documentary shown on one of our independent channels recently ITN3 it was put together by renowned journalist John Pilger, but has been removed from youtube - The War You Don't See -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

well worth watching if you can find it on the net somewhere, it has revealing interviews from several high ranking journalists from their 1st hand experiences.

To any middle of the road people reading this, google - 33 conspiracies that turned out to be true, weed out the crap, and take it from there, a great example of why CT's are seen as a threat to the perps.

 

[Seventh777]

Okay ff to 1:19 and listen to what Carver the coroner states "All were killed by the long weapon er rifle"...........

[video]http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/12/15/shandy-hook-shooting-medical-examiner-information-deaths[/video]

Killed by a weapon that was never found.

TPTB really fucked up on this one, still awaiting explanation for the other two shooters that were at some time - handcuffed.

 

[Nifty29]

Okay ff to 1:19 and listen to what Carver the coroner states "All were killed by the long weapon er rifle"...........

[video]http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/12/15/shandy-hook-shooting-medical-examiner-information-deaths[/video]

Killed by a weapon that was never found.

TPTB really fucked up on this one, still awaiting explanation for the other two shooters that were at some time - handcuffed.

So, you're saying that the school shooting was the result of a conspiracy between some powerful people you cannot identify?

Just because there is some confusion over the weapons that were used, doesn't mean its another 9/11. I imagine the situation was extremely fluid and confused at the time of the shooting and the time immediately after.

I reckon I could choose just about any news report or event and pick out something that doesn't seem right....just as I reckon if I dug a little deeper I would find it was a human and/or reporting error.

I'm beginning to think you might be extreme enough to be a holocaust denier.....do you think that?

 

[skiny]

I forgot about this thread and now it's popped up with unread posts. Now I'm confused as to which conspiracy we're talking about.

Maybe someone can explain exactly why Sandy Hook was a conspiracy and I'll just look at that. From what I can see there was an issue with which guns were reported on the scene. Is that it or is there more?

 

[Seventh777]

So, you're saying that the school shooting was the result of a conspiracy between some powerful people you cannot identify?

Just because there is some confusion over the weapons that were used, doesn't mean its another 9/11. I imagine the situation was extremely fluid and confused at the time of the shooting and the time immediately after.

I reckon I could choose just about any news report or event and pick out something that doesn't seem right....just as I reckon if I dug a little deeper I would find it was a human and/or reporting error.

I'm beginning to think you might be extreme enough to be a holocaust denier.....do you think that?

Dear oh dear oh dear, why do I bother posting videos etc, getting things wrong on the news is hardly the same as an autopsy guy clearly stating all had been shot by the long weapon, it was not found, why state 2 guns and a semi automatic rifle were found at Lanza's side when they were not.

Not extreme, the holocaust happened, so did many cases of genocide that very rarely get spoken of from WWII.

 

[skiny]

I agree, it is totally uncalled for, even is there was 100% irrefutable evidence that someone has been exposed as a patsy this is not the way to go around things, it makes those with pure intentions seem bad, I could add that those causing this guy grief could be government shills, but I have no proof, so I won't.


And the story changes once again, only 4 hand guns (as I stated in several posts) and no rifle, which has further implications, I will make another post and link video...


[video]http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495[/video]

The video in your link is dated Dec 15th, the day after the shooting. These are very early reports given shortly after a terrible massacre. It's not uncommon for early reports in these situations to be incorrect. I did a bit of digging which took about 5 minutes and easily found a newer story from CNN dated Dec 19th.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Which states there was "a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm." And a rifle in the car. It also goes on to say "The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military."

I'm not sure where any news agency has reported that there were no rifles in the school that is newer than this CNN report. The original report the day after the shooting said there wasn't but those were very early reports. The reporter in the video you posted even said at the time there was a lot of contradictory information given.

Personally, I think certain groups are nit picking this tragedy because of the gun debate it's triggered and because Obama said measures had to be taken to at least try to prevent these things from happening again. If you truly believe in conspiracies this is your chance to uncover the one that seems to be unfolding around this terrible event. There is a group of people spreading disinformation about Sandy Hook but it's not the government. It's the people who don't want this event to have any effect on the current gun laws.

Those teachers and children are all dead. Spreading misinformation, distorting the facts and criticizing the people who are left to investigate this heinous crime is shameful while the friends and family are still mourning their losses. It's hard enough to try to put something like this behind you as it is. And then you have groups of people trying to convince everyone either it didn't happen or it was all some staged government plot to instigate a gun control debate.

Sometimes there is no plan. Sometimes bad shit just happens.

 

[Nifty29]

The video in your link is dated Dec 15th, the day after the shooting. These are very early reports given shortly after a terrible massacre. It's not uncommon for early reports in these situations to be incorrect. I did a bit of digging which took about 5 minutes and easily found a newer story from CNN dated Dec 19th.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Which states there was "a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm." And a rifle in the car. It also goes on to say "The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military."

I'm not sure where any news agency has reported that there were no rifles in the school that is newer than this CNN report. The original report the day after the shooting said there wasn't but those were very early reports. The reporter in the video you posted even said at the time there was a lot of contradictory information given.

Personally, I think certain groups are nit picking this tragedy because of the gun debate it's triggered and because Obama said measures had to be taken to at least try to prevent these things from happening again. If you truly believe in conspiracies this is your chance to uncover the one that seems to be unfolding around this terrible event. There is a group of people spreading disinformation about Sandy Hook but it's not the government. It's the people who don't want this event to have any effect on the current gun laws.

Those teachers and children are all dead. Spreading misinformation, distorting the facts and criticizing the people who are left to investigate this heinous crime is shameful while the friends and family are still mourning their losses. It's hard enough to try to put something like this behind you as it is. And then you have groups of people trying to convince everyone either it didn't happen or it was all some staged government plot to instigate a gun control debate.

Sometimes there is no plan. Sometimes bad shit just happens.

Well said. It is a shameful disgrace that some are using this event to further their own ends.

As usual, this CT is based on one report less than 24 hours after the event, and completely ignores every other report to the contrary (which is how CTs work....only information that fits the theory is considered). Any unbiased person would accept that early reports are almost always inaccurate.

In any case, what difference does it make in this case? Is seventh really saying there was a gunman on a grassy knoll nearby? I just don't see any other angle....except maybe that the kid was a CIA sleeper agent implanted at birth with instructions to commit this crime when activated. Maybe the FBI should be looking through his phone records for a phone call received just before he left his house......

Ridiculous? Of course it is. So is any suggestion that a CT is involved. The whole thing has been created by the gun lobby for their own ends, and the CTers are lapping it up, like they do every other one, without actually thinking about what they're really suggesting.

 

[max1mike]

who actually gives a shit as to WHAT KIND OF GUN KILLED THE KIDS?

does it matter?

hate to break it to everyone who is anti "semi-automatic" weapons, but even the most basic 6 shot revolver is "semi-automatic"...it only fires when you pull the trigger...

new legislation WONT MAKE ONE DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE to anyone who wants to go do some unbelievably stupid shit.

criminals or anyone with intent to kill someone arent waiting for the background check to get back from the FBI.

 

[LaHutti]

Excactly why noone should keep even a "basic 6 shot revolver" in their home.
Too bad the US government are too much chickens, to really make a difference for the better.
I had hopes that Obama had the balls to do it
It's a start though, and better than doing nothing.

Again, the less weapons available, the less chance that someone grabs a weapon and does something stupid.
Yes, if you sit down and plan a stupid thing, you can do it, but at least you have to put a little effort into getting the weapons. Most of these insane shootings, I believe, do not take much planning, and certainly no effort what so ever as it is now.

who actually gives a shit as to WHAT KIND OF GUN KILLED THE KIDS?

does it matter?

hate to break it to everyone who is anti "semi-automatic" weapons, but even the most basic 6 shot revolver is "semi-automatic"...it only fires when you pull the trigger...

new legislation WONT MAKE ONE DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE to anyone who wants to go do some unbelievably stupid shit.

criminals or anyone with intent to kill someone arent waiting for the background check to get back from the FBI.

 

[max1mike]

the weapon strapped to my hip has never killed anyone, but its damned sure nice knowing its there if I need it.

EVERYONE should keep a weapon in their home, and learn how to use it.


"the less weapons available"...

sorry, criminals ALWAYS have them. law abiding citizens should too.

 

[skiny]

who actually gives a shit as to WHAT KIND OF GUN KILLED THE KIDS?

does it matter?

hate to break it to everyone who is anti "semi-automatic" weapons, but even the most basic 6 shot revolver is "semi-automatic"...it only fires when you pull the trigger...

new legislation WONT MAKE ONE DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE to anyone who wants to go do some unbelievably stupid shit.

criminals or anyone with intent to kill someone arent waiting for the background check to get back from the FBI.

Well, according to the Washington Times, Lanza tried to buy a rifle a few days before the shooting but didn't want to undergo a background check. It's easy to say there is no other way this could have turned out if the mother wasn't heavily armed with weapons that Lanza had access to but nobody knows if that's really the case. You can say that people will get guns if they want them but not everyone knows where to get a gun. If I wanted a gun I wouldn't even know how to go about buying one legally or illegally. Maybe it's much easier to get illegal guns in the US but where I live I don't think I'd be walking up to people who look like they might be gun runners and asking to buy a weapon.

If the situation in the US is at a point where anyone in the country can easily get a gun illegally then something certainly does need to change. That's not an excuse to make gun laws more relaxed. It just seems to me that nobody wants to work towards a better situation. Gun lobbyists say gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns but what is their solution? Just keep pumping more guns into the system? Try to arm the public better than the criminals are armed? That's just not going to happen. Do nothing? Doing nothing obviously isn't working either.

The only way to cut down on the amount of guns the criminals have is to cut down on the amount of guns that everyone has. That won't be easy and it won't be fast but there's no other real solution. Saying that the military and the police shouldn't be better armed than the civilians is silly. I want the police to be better armed than me. What good are they for protection if they're not?

I welcome anyone who does not advocate gun control of some kind to offer me a better solution. I'm not opposed to new ideas. I'm just not hearing any.

 

[max1mike]

”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin

 

[skiny]

the weapon strapped to my hip has never killed anyone, but its damned sure nice knowing its there if I need it.

EVERYONE should keep a weapon in their home, and learn how to use it.


"the less weapons available"...

sorry, criminals ALWAYS have them. law abiding citizens should too.

This is the attitude that's completely foreign to me. It's all about the individual. Every man for himself. The weapon you have strapped to your hip never killed anyone but the guy next to you might not be able to say the same thing. The problem is everyone is so intent on keeping their own weapons they don't care who else has them or how many. Nut cases, criminals, maniacs, manic depressives, schizophrenics, they can all have guns, it doesn't matter as long as I get to keep mine.

 

[max1mike]

our government, our laws, and our "authorities" will never be able to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but they want to uber-reglate those of us who are law abiding?

bullshit.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

which side of the weapon would you rather be on?, holding it, or looking down the barrel?

 

[dionysus]

can't I pick c): neither

 

[max1mike]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[max1mike]

can't I pick c): neither

well. thats the problem. C isn't an option.

hopefully none of us will ever be faced with a situation where weapons will be involved, but, I'm damned sure I want to be holding it, rather than staring into it.

 

[skiny]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

These statistics are of reported crimes submitted to the FBI for data collection purposes. Over a 10 year span not only does the percent of reported crimes change but the percent of submissions changes. There is no law that says all agencies have to submit statistics. In fact many states submit nothing. To compare these statistics we would need a detailed analysis of which states submitted statistics from each year and have some idea of how many crimes are unreported or not included in the statistics.

One thing that gets me about these statistics is that every single type of crime has apparently decreased year by year for the last 5 years.

Murder, Forcible rape, Robbery, Burglary, Larceny-theft and Motor vehicle theft have all decreased every single year from 2007 till 2011. That seems odd for any country. Not one of these types of crimes has increased from one year to the next for the last 5 years straight? I don't think any of this conversation even matters. According to the data the FBI is collecting it won't be long before the US is crime free.

 

[skiny]

well. thats the problem. C isn't an option.

hopefully none of us will ever be faced with a situation where weapons will be involved, but, I'm damned sure I want to be holding it, rather than staring into it.

You still don't seem to understand the point. If 300 million people are making the same statement you're making now, 300 million people are holding the gun.

What is your solution? Are you offering one or just saying everything is fine the way it is?

 

[skiny]

”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin

What about those who give up inessential liberty to purchase permanent safety? What do they deserve?

 

[Nifty29]

”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin

Why is owning a gun an "essential liberty"?

I don't get it.

Wasn't the "right to bear arms" section of the constitution written at a time when guns were pretty much "the law" I.e. like the Wild West.....the quickest shooter won the argument etc. For all we know, it may have meant "everyone has the right to remove the arms from a grizzly bear and hang them on the wall"..... Or, as I read it, that every citizen has the right to bear arms for their country in an organised fighting force.

There is NO such thing as complete liberty. We all trade the right to do whatever the hell we want for some safety. Are you saying that murder should be made legal? After all, we give up our right to kill everyone we don't like for the deterrent of life in prison or death. Yes, some people still murder, but what do you think would happen if suddenly you could kill whoever you want with no consequences? Half the population of the USA would be dead in a year.

I'm yet to see anyone fiercely defend their right to own a small armoury who wasn't the "yee hah!!" Dukes of hazard type....you know, the ones who are still lamenting that they can't staff their "plantations" for free. I'm sure this isn't everyone, but I see it time and time again on the Internet and news, so there has to be some connection. Did you see that guy lately who said that if Obama tries to take his gun he'll "start killin people". I rest my case.

 

[dionysus]

Just a funny aside; a moderate derail, but in vein.

I lived in California for 2 years. We lived in a high-end gated community..walls, cameras, guards, atop a hill, private roads, affluent, safe area.
I had a house party of 30-something couples. EVERY person (save for us 2) were gun owners. Wives were comparing to wives the guns they owned, the husbands to husbands.
The two of us were Canadian and asked about WHY everyone owned a gun, wasn't the nieghbourhood safe?
The general retort was along the lines of 'Yes, because we all own guns'

Here, I've thrown many a house party. I don't know a soul who owns a gun. I don't. None of my guests or friends do. Yet, miraculously, I still feel safe.

 

[slotplayer]

there is no comparision between 1791 (2nd amendment) and today. there were only 14 states, around 3/4 of the country was owned by spain.

I can tell you one thing if I was in Lexington Mass in 1775, about 5 miles from me right now (Battle of Lexington and Concord) and pulled out a Bushmaster assault rifle there would be no start to the revolutionary war nor a second amendment. imo

 

[skiny]

There is obviously enough people who do not want gun control to keep this debate going and I keep asking for a better or at least different solution but I've yet to have an answer.

What are the alternatives?

 

[same_old]

Ok, who the hell hunts with a semi automatic or a pistol, let them keep the guns but get rid of the semi auto's. I dont see why a single shot rifle- shotgun cannot do the same as a semi. you still can shoot someone who tries to break into your home etc.

I assure you the death toll would not be as big if you only have single round guns, this is what Australia did- basically you can only have single shot guns in your home- if you want a semi automatic then it stays at the gun club locked away and you use it for target practise only.

 

[skiny]

There is obviously enough people who do not want gun control to keep this debate going and I keep asking for a better or at least different solution but I've yet to have an answer.

What are the alternatives?

Still waiting.

 

[skiny]

I didn't realize asking for a better solution would kill the thread again.

Was that the wrong question?

 

[Nifty29]

I didn't realize asking for a better solution would kill the thread again.

Was that the wrong question?

Well you know now.

The majority of pro-gun people just don't give a stuff about the bigger picture. It's all "me me me" and "my rights under the constitution" blah blah blah....who cares if people die as a result, as long as their "rights" are preserved.

 

[skiny]

Well you know now.

The majority of pro-gun people just don't give a stuff about the bigger picture. It's all "me me me" and "my rights under the constitution" blah blah blah....who cares if people die as a result, as long as their "rights" are preserved.

Personally, I think they want things to be better just like everyone else. I just think they want to have thier cake and eat it too. So the question remains, how do you reduce the amount of crimes that include guns without reducing the amount of guns or at least controlling what kind of guns can be legally owned?

 

[max1mike]

You still don't seem to understand the point. If 300 million people are making the same statement you're making now, 300 million people are holding the gun.

What is your solution? Are you offering one or just saying everything is fine the way it is?

there is no solution, other than people stop acting like assholes. stop acting like human life has no value.


you don't want a gun?...don't buy one.

don't want an abortion?...don't get one.

just stop forcing others to do what you think is right.

maybe all 300 million should have a gun. it would make the assholes think twice about pulling their weapon.

you gonna try to rob someone who you know has a gun?

do cops ever get car-jacked? well, hell no. what do you suppose the reason for that is???

 

[max1mike]

Personally, I think they want things to be better just like everyone else. I just think they want to have thier cake and eat it too. So the question remains, how do you reduce the amount of crimes that include guns without reducing the amount of guns or at least controlling what kind of guns can be legally owned?

does it matter how many guns someone owns?

you can only shoot 2 at a time. no high cap magazines were used at sandy hook.

the problem was, that there were no good guys with guns to stop the idiot.

one armed good guy ends the situation, before it turns to shit.

 

[dionysus]

well, that, or one armed good guy, means one more dead guy

 

[skiny]

there is no solution, other than people stop acting like assholes. stop acting like human life has no value.


you don't want a gun?...don't buy one.

don't want an abortion?...don't get one.

just stop forcing others to do what you think is right.

maybe all 300 million should have a gun. it would make the assholes think twice about pulling their weapon.

you gonna try to rob someone who you know has a gun?

do cops ever get car-jacked? well, hell no. what do you suppose the reason for that is???

does it matter how many guns someone owns?

you can only shoot 2 at a time. no high cap magazines were used at sandy hook.

the problem was, that there were no good guys with guns to stop the idiot.

one armed good guy ends the situation, before it turns to shit.

I really can't believe that you seriously think that the general public should be policing the state and country. Even if you arm one third of the law abiding population what percentage of the 100 million people now carrying firearms do you think are really qualified to act as police officers? The kind of civilization you want to live in - the rest of the civilized world outgrew hundreds of years ago. It's not ok for people to be shooting each other in the streets. You can sit back and make up situations where shooting someone would be ok because you were wearing the white cowboy hat but the reality is that in almost every situation when two people are shooting at each other, neither one of them are the good guys. What exactly does it take for people to admit that even though there are almost as many guns in the US as there are people they still have one of the highest gun crime rates in the civilized world, possibly even the highest. At what point do people step back and say "Ok, more guns is not making us safer?"

I was just reading this

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

-

Responding to President Obama's recent actions on guns, thousands gathered across the country at state capitols, gun shops and shooting ranges for "Gun Appreciation Day" on Saturday, the Associated Press reported.

In some places, the AP said, attendees carried rifles and pistols, while others carried signs or yelled until they became hoarse.

"Homemade placards read 'An Armed Society is a Polite Society,' ''The Second Amendment Comes from God' and 'Hey King O., I'm keeping my guns and my religion,'" the AP said of the rally in Austin.

Gun appreciation? It's a weapon. It's sole purpose is to kill things. People say they need guns for their protection but realistically guns are not for protection. A shield is for protection, a helmet is for protection, airbags are for protection. A gun is an offensive weapon. Just like pretty much every other weapon ever invented, guns were made to put in a soldier's hand. They were told "take this and go kill people." Not "hang on to this in case you need protection." Following the same weapons for protection logic, instead of airbags in cars there should be rocket launchers on the front. If someone looks like they might smash into you, blow them to bits first. Now you're safe because you had that rocket launcher for protection.

And when the hell did carrying a gun become a religious duty? Find me where it says in the bible "Thou shalt carry a gun." The right to bear arms comes from God? "And then on the 2190000th day God created guns?" I have no idea what's under that robe the Pope is wearing but I'll bet you anything it's not a holster. I've seen the Pope mobile from pretty much ever angle and I've yet to see a rifle rack on the back window. I wonder if Saint Peter is standing at the pearly gates making sure people didn't forget to pack their weapons. It is your "God given right" to carry them. Surely he's not going to take that right away just because you've passed on. Even if you did accidentally shoot yourself rummaging around in your night stand for a Tic Tac at 2 am because you thought you'd be safer with a loaded gun near you while you slept.

Guns have nothing to do with religion - period.

 

[kauphy]

i love how those that don,t live in the u.s think they know whats best for us.

gezzz everything that i,ve been reading latly says aus murder rate double since their guns were taken away and if you want proof look it up.

i,m not going to come back on here and prove this to anyone caz they will just look up something diffdent and say see your wrong.

if you don,t want to own a gun then fine don,t but you and obama are not my god and master so don,t try to tell me what i should do.

and if you don,t live in the states then you really have nothing to say about what happens over here. so go stick your nose into whats going on in your own

backyard i,m sure someone over there is killing someone eles and you can jump on that. gezzz a thing i watched on t.v say over 3.000 thousand people go missing a year in aus go see if you can find out where they all went.

and if you think about it you can use anything to kill alot of people at once so why don,t we just get it over with and outlaw everything.



and no all the pro-gunners just got tried of listening to most of you who don,t even live here trying to tell us how we should live.

if all the guns were taken away assholes would just find something eles to kill with.

you all keep asking what we can do to solve this well hell i got a thought. why don,t we just get rid of all the ammo and replace it with non lethal ammo.

hell guys look it up it would work just fine but make sure everyone uses it like cops (which they already do) and the goverment.

yes the goverment too there is no reason why s.s.i or the i.r.s needs 100s unpon 100s of rounds of ammo like they have been stocking up on latly.

hemmm maybe they know something we don,t. you think? now i,m done with this you all will just keep it going on and on and on and i don,t give a if i change your mind and you sure in the hell will not change mine. but of course i live here and can see the shit going on.

 

[dionysus]

i love how those that don,t live in the u.s think they know whats best for us.

gezzz everything that i,ve been reading latly says aus murder rate double since their guns were taken away and if you want proof look it up.

i,m not going to come back on here and prove this to anyone caz they will just look up something diffdent and say see your wrong.

if you don,t want to own a gun then fine don,t but you and obama are not my god and master so don,t try to tell me what i should do.

and if you don,t live in the states then you really have nothing to say about what happens over here. so go stick your nose into whats going on in your own

backyard i,m sure someone over there is killing someone eles and you can jump on that. gezzz a thing i watched on t.v say over 3.000 thousand people go missing a year in aus go see if you can find out where they all went.

and if you think about it you can use anything to kill alot of people at once so why don,t we just get it over with and outlaw everything.



and no all the pro-gunners just got tried of listening to most of you who don,t even live here trying to tell us how we should live.

if all the guns were taken away assholes would just find something eles to kill with.

you all keep asking what we can do to solve this well hell i got a thought. why don,t we just get rid of all the ammo and replace it with non lethal ammo.

hell guys look it up it would work just fine but make sure everyone uses it like cops (which they already do) and the goverment.

yes the goverment too there is no reason why s.s.i or the i.r.s needs 100s unpon 100s of rounds of ammo like they have been stocking up on latly.

hemmm maybe they know something we don,t. you think? now i,m done with this you all will just keep it going on and on and on and i don,t give a if i change your mind and you sure in the hell will not change mine. but of course i live here and can see the shit going on.

The hypocrisy throughout the post makes me shudder.
Amazing how someone can bemoan the government is not their God and master and no right to take their guns but can, in another breath, argue it's their God given and government right to bear arms. So... government good if they give you what you want? Government bad if they take what you want?
As for 'non-Americans' making opinions, it would be a whole new thread discussing how Americans have stepped in to enforce their opinions. But here, in this thread and forum, I don't NEED to be American to make a statment. I don't need God and the governemnt to thank, I'll just call it my Bryan-given right l

 

[Nifty29]

i love how those that don,t live in the u.s think they know whats best for us.

gezzz everything that i,ve been reading latly says aus murder rate double since their guns were taken away and if you want proof look it up.

i,m not going to come back on here and prove this to anyone caz they will just look up something diffdent and say see your wrong.

if you don,t want to o a gun then fine don,t but you and obama are not my god and master so don,t try to tell me what i should do.

and if you don,t live in the states then you really have nothing to say about what happens over here. so go stick your nose into whats going on in your own

backyard i,m sure someone over there is killing someone eles and you can jump on that. gezzz a thing i watched on t.v say over 3.000 thousand people go missing a year in aus go see if you can find out where they all went.

and if you think about it you can use anything to kill alot of people at once so why don,t we just get it over with and outlaw everything.



and no all the pro-gunners just got tried of listening to most of you who don,t even live here trying to tell us how we should live.

if all the guns were taken away assholes would just find something eles to kill with.

you all keep asking what we can do to solve this well hell i got a thought. why don,t we just get rid of all the ammo and replace it with non lethal ammo.

hell guys look it up it would work just fine but make sure everyone uses it like cops (which they already do) and the goverment.

yes the goverment too there is no reason why s.s.i or the i.r.s needs 100s unpon 100s of rounds of ammo like they have been stocking up on latly.

hemmm maybe they know something we don,t. you think? now i,m done with this you all will just keep it going on and on and on and i don,t give a if i change your mind and you sure in the hell will not change mine. but of course i live here and can see the shit going on.

AFAIK, Casinomeister forum is open to all nationalities. Hence, I can and will say whatever I like.

Saying that anyone outside the USA cannot have an opinion about the USA is absolutely ridiculous. You then show incredible hypocrisy by stating "facts" about Australia. On that subject, you have obviously been reading Bullshit Weekly, as your claims about our murder statistics are so way off I'm embarrassed for you. Check out the ACTUAL facts here (although I doubt the truth would interest you):

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Your response....what I can decipher of it....is a prime example of exactly what is wrong with the USA, nay, the world in general these days.....its all about "me me me" and sod everyone else. You only have to see some of the inbreds like on Hog Hunters and other pathetic cable shows and how they see their gun as an extension of their uknowwhat. Its laughable that any moron who can use their hands can own a gun powerful enough to slay a small neighborhood.

Instead of playing the "stay out of our business" card, how about actually doing something about gun crime in your country? If its that unsafe......move away. Run for congress. Start a lobby group. Any and all of these options have at least some chance of reducing gun deaths. Giving the population more guns will only increase these senseless crimes. Its a fact.

Missing persons? Errrmm....what does that have to do with gun crime? Or owning a gun? Its a ridiculous statement, which just confirms that you have no other argument other than "coz I don't want Obama tellin' me whats ta do ya hear". What is it that gets some americans here, from certain areas it seems, so steamed up about Obama? Is it a racial thing? Sure looks it from the outside looking in.

If you made other points, I apologize for not addressing them but I can't understand half of what you said.