quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

So I am unsure where this idea that the US is so scary comes from, cause ya know, it really is not.

I think it might be because, to the rest of the world, Americans look as though they enjoy killing each other, Aylee.

They get their education from Hollywood

Not always. Not everyone watches Hollywood!
Some get it by living there and seeing it first hand.
Others get it by reading independent stats from that thing out there, yanno, the Internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
As a direct result of the availability of firearms thousands of US citizens die yearly. That's a fact.

I appreciate your clarifications, and thank you for posting them. But I still have a quibble with this claim of suicide being a "direct result" of the availability of firearms. International studies have found no significant correlation between the availability of firearms and suicide rates. So to the extent that there may be a relationship there, it most certainly isn't a direct one.
K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

So I am unsure where this idea that the US is so scary comes from, cause ya know, it really is not.

I think it might be because, to the rest of the world, Americans look as though they enjoy killing each other, Aylee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

So I am unsure where this idea that the US is so scary comes from, cause ya know, it really is not.

I think it might be because, to the rest of the world, Americans look as though they enjoy killing each other, Aylee.

They get their education from Hollywood

Not always. Not everyone watches Hollywood!
Some get it by living there and seeing it first hand.
Others get it by reading independent stats from that thing out there, yanno, the Internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Tell me...which of the following best describes the U.S.?

an·ar·chy
\ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
noun
: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
Full Definition
1 a :absence of government
b :a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c :a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a :absence or denial of any authority or established order
b :absence of order :disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
http://i.word.com/idictionary/anarchy

Reallllly curious as to what your answer is.

Since no one else saw fit to answer the question, I'll say 'All Of The Above'.
[sm=couch.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I think it might be because, to the rest of the world, Americans look as though they enjoy killing each other, Aylee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I think it might be because, to the rest of the world, Americans look as though they enjoy killing each other, Aylee.

The visual impairment suffered by those individuals might be caused by the location of their heads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether



What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether



What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

Wait. What? It is wrong to state that criminals do not follow the law?

ETA: Or perhaps I should say, "wrong to point out that criminals do not follow the law?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

The dolt seems to think people are required to carry drivers licenses around also...