RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Politesub53 -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 5:21:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The first time I heard that it was at a gun show in the early 90's. It went "if you own a gun you're a citizen, if you don't you're a subject". I have always heard it recited among gun owners wisecracking about other Americans who are anti gun. That's where it comes from.


It is still factually incorrect though.




Nosathro -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 5:24:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

And don't try to use Lott's or Kleck's study both have been debunked.

You can also find this on Wikipedia.

"Also" indeed... more plagiarizing and bullshit.

In January 2013, President Barack Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research. The CDC and the CDC Foundation asked the IOM, in collaboration with the National Research Council, to convene a committee tasked with developing a potential research agenda that focuses on the causes of, possible interventions to, and strategies to minimize the burden of firearm-related violence.

The committee's report, published by the National Academies Press, found that armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker...

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

Additionally, the committe reports the finding that...

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year -- in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Interestingly in this connection, the report notes that some scholars argue for a lower estimate of 108,000 DGUs based on NCVS data, but discounts that conclusion because respondents were not asked about defensive gun use.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm Related Violence

K.



This is what your link shows:


Authors
Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine (EO); Institute of Medicine (IOM); Committee on Law and Justice; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE); National Research Council


Description

In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the United States as the result of a firearm-related incident. Recent, highly publicized, tragic mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Aurora, CO; Oak Creek, WI; and Tucson, AZ, have sharpened the American public's interest in protecting our children and communities from the harmful effects of firearm violence. While many Americans legally use firearms for a variety of activities, fatal and nonfatal firearm violence poses a serious threat to public safety and welfare.


In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes

I looked over the rules and it says nothing about requiring bios and foot notes so you, as always, twist things to match your phatic views. In the Degrading Scientific Standards it is Kleck attach against McDowell. Kleck has never appeared before a Science review board and the Academy of Science has declared his work not proven which is good enough me. Now today it was cold, wet and over casted but after reading your laughable attempt to me the sun was shining, it was warm, a beautiful spring day.[sm=dancer.gif]




Kirata -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 5:33:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

you, as always, twist things to match your phatic views.

Yes, I twisted those quotes to match my "phatic" views. Damn, you caught me.

[sm=mrpuffy.gif]
K.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 5:59:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You just don't like it even if it is correct.
See my other tagline.


Well brains, your facts about what constitutes a British Citizen are also incorrect. You also fail to get the difference between cant owning a gun and not wanting to own one.

So one of your taglines points out the folly of the other. Not many people are smart enough to do that, so kudos to you.


I believe you meant can't own a gun and not wanting to. My God you are so smart.
The right to own includes the right not to.
For the English people and nation I have a great deal of respect.




stef -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 6:38:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The first time I heard that it was at a gun show in the early 90's. It went "if you own a gun you're a citizen, if you don't you're a subject". I have always heard it recited among gun owners wisecracking about other Americans who are anti gun. That's where it comes from.

It is still factually incorrect though.

Idiotic would be a more accurate assessment.




lovmuffin -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 7:02:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The first time I heard that it was at a gun show in the early 90's. It went "if you own a gun you're a citizen, if you don't you're a subject". I have always heard it recited among gun owners wisecracking about other Americans who are anti gun. That's where it comes from.

It is still factually incorrect though.

Idiotic would be a more accurate assessment.


That's the thing about wisecracks, they're typically going to be completely or mostly factually incorrect. Sometimes they're idiotic. I didn't make it up, I didn't use it, I simply pointed out it wasn't something originally meant to insult people in the UK.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 7:05:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The first time I heard that it was at a gun show in the early 90's. It went "if you own a gun you're a citizen, if you don't you're a subject". I have always heard it recited among gun owners wisecracking about other Americans who are anti gun. That's where it comes from.

It is still factually incorrect though.

Idiotic would be a more accurate assessment.


That's the thing about wisecracks, they're typically going to be completely or mostly factually incorrect. Sometimes they're idiotic. I didn't make it up, I didn't use it, I simply pointed out it wasn't something originally meant to insult people in the UK.

It took polite a week to notice the tagline.
His friends who want to use terms like idiotic should have a talk with him.
To help you. maybe when I used the term citizens vs subject I was not talking so much about owning guns as the mindset of dependence on the government.
A subject depends on the government for everything, a citizen depends, first and foremost, on himself and only on government as a last resort.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 7:11:48 PM)

Defense of the gun owning quote was mainly because it is so much fun watching polite make a fool of himself.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 9:26:28 PM)

FR
for those who wish to continue the debate on what the difference is between a subject and a citizen I have started a thread.
Now back to the thread on gun rights.




stef -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/9/2013 11:24:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It took polite a week to notice the tagline.
His friends who want to use terms like idiotic should have a talk with him.

The fact that he didn't notice it for a week has nothing to do with how idiotic it is nor does it mean that anyone who thinks it's idiotic is his friend. That's nearly as idiotic as the original tagline.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 12:06:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It took polite a week to notice the tagline.
His friends who want to use terms like idiotic should have a talk with him.

The fact that he didn't notice it for a week has nothing to do with how idiotic it is nor does it mean that anyone who thinks it's idiotic is his friend. That's nearly as idiotic as the original tagline.

Which does not rank up there with your post.




Kirata -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 1:52:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

It is interesting to note that Kleck never defended his study.

It is also interesting to note that there's a link to Kleck's defense in a post before yours on the same page.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

As they say the truth hurts.

Normal people, yes. You, not so much it seems.

K.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 3:27:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It took polite a week to notice the tagline.
His friends who want to use terms like idiotic should have a talk with him.

The fact that he didn't notice it for a week has nothing to do with how idiotic it is nor does it mean that anyone who thinks it's idiotic is his friend. That's nearly as idiotic as the original tagline.

This started when in another thread I stated "a citizen ,and somewhat less a subject has a responsibility to protect society"
Polite took this as a personal insult and went wild over it even though I wasn't even talking to him at the time.
I did not even interject the quote you are so upset about into the conversation but after he made such a big deal about it when someone else I put it in my tagline to put a burr under his saddle and for no other reason.
A week later he tried to stir up a big fight over this which he has successfully drawn several people into.
My last post to you was perhaps too harsh considering you stepped into the middle of something.




Politesub53 -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 3:33:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I believe you meant can't own a gun and not wanting to. My God you are so smart.
The right to own includes the right not to.
For the English people and nation I have a great deal of respect.


As per usual you believe wrong. I can own a gun if I wish, I just need to go through the checks and balances set by the UK Citizens (Government) If the Government fuck up, we dont need guns to get rid of them, we just vote them out at the next election, under our democratic process.

We, collectively have decided we need gun laws, there is no clamour in the UK to change this, since it works. This is why you would be able to count the number of mass shootings in the UK on one hand. UK Gun laws have been explained a million times but obviously the message is hard for some to follow.

So by posting such crap as telling me "You meant cant own a gun", you are just showing your complete ignorance of the subject of firearms in the UK.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 3:49:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I believe you meant can't own a gun and not wanting to. My God you are so smart.
The right to own includes the right not to.
For the English people and nation I have a great deal of respect.


As per usual you believe wrong. I can own a gun if I wish, I just need to go through the checks and balances set by the UK Citizens (Government) If the Government fuck up, we dont need guns to get rid of them, we just vote them out at the next election, under our democratic process.

We, collectively have decided we need gun laws, there is no clamour in the UK to change this, since it works. This is why you would be able to count the number of mass shootings in the UK on one hand. UK Gun laws have been explained a million times but obviously the message is hard for some to follow.

So by posting such crap as telling me "You meant cant own a gun", you are just showing your complete ignorance of the subject of firearms in the UK.


And as usual your are wrong in the post to which I was responding you said cant owning a gun and I was correcting your misstatement.
I have said repeatedly you can have any gun laws you want.
Grant us the same.




Kirata -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 3:58:03 AM)

Comparing your rights to ours is ludicrous.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

It's almost fair to say you don't have any.

K.




PeonForHer -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 4:26:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

It's almost fair to say you don't have any.



Untrue. We have very extensive rights not to get shot.




Kirata -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 4:44:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

It's almost fair to say you don't have any.

Untrue. We have very extensive rights not to get shot.

I appreciate the honest admission inherent in changing the subject. [:D]

K.




Politesub53 -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 4:59:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Defense of the gun owning quote was mainly because it is so much fun watching polite make a fool of himself.


Except that it only results in showing yourself up to be a complete tosser. Your constant flamming also breaks the TOS.

You moan about name calling, but still do it yourself. You moan about going off topic, but still do it yourself. You dont understand UK Laws even when given the links to read. You cant understand the concept of free choice, even when its pointed out.

And because others find you to be stupid, it doesnt mean they are my friends, just they have read your posts.






Politesub53 -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 5:03:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Comparing your rights to ours is ludicrous.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

It's almost fair to say you don't have any.

K.



No it isnt, it is all about choice. I thought you were bright enough to get this, obviously not.

Your link doesnt seem to work.




Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875