Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 4:45 AM
271 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 268 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,369 Year: 5,192/29,783 Month: 1,124/1,467 Week: 10/311 Day: 10/51 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 181 of 200 (830572)
04-03-2018 11:58 AM


The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!
From today's Washington Post: Russian bots are tweeting their support of embattled Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Here are the first few paragraphs:

quote:
Embattled Fox News host Laura Ingraham has found some unlikely allies: Russian bots.

Russian-linked Twitter accounts have rallied around the conservative talk-show host, who has come under fire for attacking the young survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. According to the website Hamilton 68, which tracks the spread of Russian propaganda on Twitter, the hashtag #IstandwithLaura jumped 2,800 percent in 48 hours this weekend. On Saturday night, it was the top trending hashtag among Russian campaigners.

The website botcheck.me, which tracks 1,500 “political propaganda bots,” found that @ingrahamangle, @davidhogg111 and @foxnews were among the top six Twitter handles tweeted by Russia-linked accounts this weekend. “David Hogg” and “Laura Ingraham” were the top two-word phrases being shared.

Wading into controversy is a key strategy for Russian propaganda bots, which seize on divisive issues online to sow discord in the United States. Since the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting, which claimed 17 lives, Russian bots have flooded Twitter with false information about the massacre.


Through their bots Russia is taking advantage of the gullibility of the average American to increase divisiveness and encourage belief in absurd conspiracy theories. The most absurd (I think) was the "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor" conspiracy theory, yet a lot of people still believe that one.

In this case the bots are increasing acceptance of all these things that are not true:

  • There is broad support for Laura Ingraham's attack on David Hogg.
  • There is a great deal of antagonism toward the Parkland shooting victims.
  • The Parkland shooting was just another mass murder hoax perpetrated by anti-American elements determined to take away everyone's guns.

Anyone who believes any of the above is a rube.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 182 of 200 (830583)
04-03-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
04-02-2018 3:50 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:

You can quote someone's actual words and still get it wrong.

And you can imply things that aren't true, as you're doing here.

In Message 163 you said, "You are making things up I didn't say." But I cut-n-pasted what you said, so it isn't possible that I made it up. Anyone can see that just by reading the thread.

In your Message 141 you said was that people living in what you called "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" did not hold the 2nd amendment in high esteem, that "they are just violent criminals." It's kind of hard to deny, it's right there in that message in black and white.

But that was a side-point, which you're focusing on to distract from your truly serious errors. Do you now understand that:

  • Your assertion that foreign cities do not have "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" like American cities was wrong.

  • Your assertion that American cities have higher crime rates than foreign cities was wrong.

  • Your assertion that American cities are unique in the world for having higher crime rates than the country they're in was wrong (in a couple of ways).

Thus your assertion that higher gun death rates in the United States are due to higher crime rates in our cities than in foreign cities is wrong.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 04-02-2018 3:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 183 of 200 (830587)
04-03-2018 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
04-02-2018 4:54 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:

I simply thought it odd that New York would have a lower gun death rate than a sparsely populated state like Wyoming, that's all.

Now you're engaging in dissembling. That doesn't come close to what you said. This is the first time you've even mentioned Wyoming in this thread.

No need for fancy speculation.

Except the content of my Message 162 wasn't "fancy speculation". It was statistics from the Numbeo Crime webpages.

You seem to have made your point and that's fine with me, only I haven't yet thought it all through so that could be a false impression. I'm happy if you're right, I just need to think it through and I don't know when I'll get to it.

You'll never get to it, you never do. You're really pleading nolo contendere.

Since you're wrong that American cities have higher crime rates than foreign cities (among other things), you currently have no explanation for their higher gun death rates. Care to try again?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 04-02-2018 4:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 1:48 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 184 of 200 (830589)
04-03-2018 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
04-03-2018 1:21 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
This is just too tediously ridiculous. Yes I may not get to check it out, but I can't totally agree with you unless I do. You should just accept that I grant it looks like you answered me sufficiently. I can't say more than that at the moment. As for the rest you are just piling weird misinterpretations one on top of another. It's too much to try to answer you right now. Who knows, I do sometimes get a second wind so I may come back to it. Your fancy speculations were about my motivations as usual, I don't remember what though, not worth checking.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 1:21 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 2:43 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 185 of 200 (830597)
04-03-2018 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
04-03-2018 1:48 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:

This is just too tediously ridiculous.

I think it's beyond tediously ridiculous. That you make up claims about things you know little about is deplorable.

Yes I may not get to check it out, but I can't totally agree with you unless I do.

But is there anyone here who disagrees with me that you never will? You're just biding time so that in another day or two you can repeat the same disproved arguments all over again.

You should just accept that I grant it looks like you answered me sufficiently.

You and I both know you don't believe that, because it is inherent in your makeup to believe that guns make people safer.

I can't say more than that at the moment.

Translated, you know that understanding statistics is beyond you. A higher gun death rate statewide than in a city seems contradictory to you, despite that that's the case for a number of cities/states and cities/countries, for example, New York State and New York City.

As for the rest you are just piling weird misinterpretations one on top of another.

What "rest"? You quoted nothing. How is anyone supposed to know what the "rest" is?

It's too much to try to answer you right now.

If I had a nickel for every time you declined to address a rebuttal only to see you reintroduce the same flawed argument again a couple days later, it would buy my groceries for a week.

Who knows, I do sometimes get a second wind so I may come back to it.

Yes, of course you'll come back it, by repeating your original arguments all over again. That's what you always do.

Your fancy speculations were about my motivations as usual, I don't remember what though, not worth checking.

Well, you quoted nothing, so I have no idea what you're talking about with my fancy speculations about your motivations. You know, the text is right there. Cut-n-pasting just isn't that hard.

Congratulations on contributing nothing to the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 1:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 2:58 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 186 of 200 (830600)
04-03-2018 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
04-03-2018 2:43 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Your tables generally show that there are more gun deaths in densely populated areas. What does that have to do with my argument that more people carrying guns would make people safer in the circumstances of these mass shootings?

Based on your tables I have no reason to doubt your conclusion that New York has fewer gun deaths than a sparsely populated state like Wyoming, and that was the comparison in my mind, but unless I analyze it all very carefully I'm not yet convinced my initial concern was wrong. As I recall I didn't even argue that I was sure it was right, it just struck me as odd and that, really and truly, is all.

If I do go on to try to argue the same thing again without more reason to do so, then call me on it. I'm not biding my time at all, I just don't know at this point and don't want to commit to a position yet. When it comes to YEC arguments I do keep coming back to the same argument over and over, because I know it's basically true no matter what, but I don't have any reason to do that with this particular argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 2:43 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 04-04-2018 2:50 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 187 of 200 (830640)
04-04-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
04-03-2018 2:58 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:

Your tables generally show that there are more gun deaths in densely populated areas.

I'm not sure if you've misstated it or you misunderstand it, but that's not what the tables show. The figures in the tables do not represent the number of gun deaths. They represent the number of gun deaths per 100,000 people. It's a rate, not a quantity. What the tables and other information show is that:

  • Your assertion that foreign cities do not have "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" like American cities was wrong.

  • Your assertion that American cities have higher crime rates than foreign cities was wrong.

  • Your assertion that American cities are unique in the world for having higher crime rates than the country they're in was wrong (in a couple of ways).

Thus your assertion that higher gun death rates in the United States are due to higher crime rates in our cities than in foreign cities was wrong. The tables and other information were a response to that assertion, not a response to this:

What does that have to do with my argument that more people carrying guns would make people safer in the circumstances of these mass shootings?

But this has been addressed also. We know that the more people with guns the more gun deaths. For example, statistics tell us that a gun in the household makes residents and friends less safe, not more safe. There are too few mass shootings for a statistically valid sample, but the same principle applies. Putting guns in churches and post offices and night clubs and office buildings and schools and shopping malls and so forth makes the people in those places less safe, not more safe. That's because guns are always there whenever it happens that someone gets angry or depressed or careless, much more common events than gun attacks. The ubiquity of guns is why nearly 40,000 people are killed by guns every year. It's why the gun death rate is lower in states with lower gun prevalence. It's why the gun death rate is lower in most other western countries than in the US, as this graph shows:

This Boston University study found that, adjusted for other factors, each 1% increase in household gun ownership results in a .9% increase in homicides.

Based on your tables I have no reason to doubt your conclusion that New York has fewer gun deaths than a sparsely populated state like Wyoming,...

This is wrong on a couple counts, one minor, one major. First, I never said anything about Wyoming. That's the minor error, but it's the second time you've brought up Wyoming out of the blue. A search reveals that Modulous mentioned Wyoming back in Message 142 - perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

Second, you're again confusing rates and quantities. Since you brought it up, let's compare Wyoming with New York.
The population of New York (19.85 million) is more than 30 times greater than the population of Wyoming (579,315), so of course New York has far more gun deaths than Wyoming. The advantage that New York does have over Wyoming is a much lower gun death rate per 100,000 people, 4.39 for New York versus 17.51 for Wyoming. You are much safer in Times Square than Cheyenne.

Just to make sure this is very clear, let's do the math, which tells us that Wyoming averages around 100 gun deaths per year while New York averages around 870. But the number of gun deaths in New York is 8.7 times larger than Wyoming's only because New York's population is more than 30 times greater. You actually have about a four times greater chance of death by gun in Wyoming than in New York.

...and that was the comparison in my mind, but unless I analyze it all very carefully I'm not yet convinced my initial concern was wrong.

Until you understand how statistics work you'll continue relying on your gut feel that guns make you safer.

I just don't know at this point and don't want to commit to a position yet.

There is no one who's discussed this subject with you who believes you are not committed to a position.

When it comes to YEC arguments I do keep coming back to the same argument over and over, because I know it's basically true no matter what, but I don't have any reason to do that with this particular argument.

You're kidding yourself. Your modus operandi on all subjects on which there is disagreement, be it evolution or politics or guns or whatever, is pretty much the same.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 2:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 04-05-2018 11:33 PM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5784
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 188 of 200 (830738)
04-05-2018 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
04-03-2018 11:44 AM


Re: Problem
Hi Percy

Been a long time since you hollered at me.

Percy writes:

Sure they were. You think no one doing "bad things...in the name of religion" were followers of Jesus? Followers of Jesus are acknowledged sinners, and sins run the gamut from white lies to murder to supporting Trump.

The following quote is what I was talking about that you are questioning.

quote:
You and other here point out many times all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion.

The worst part of that is I have to agree many bad things have been done in the name of religion.

But none of those people were followers of Jesus. Even though many may have claimed too. But they can not point to Jesus doing any of those things. The only time He could possibly have been accused of doing something bad was when He chased out the money changers from the temple because they had made His house a den of thieves.


You or anyone else has never pointed to any deeds preformed by religionist and showed where Jesus did those things or told his disciples to do them.

A Christian is a person that is living a life like Christ did. Show me where he killed anyone because of what they believed or practiced.
He healed, fed, and comforted others and told His followers to do likewise.

Percy writes:

Ah, I see you have your own special definition of a follower of Jesus. Can I assume that "has done bad things" means one isn't a follower of Jesus? So in your eyes a follower of Jesus commits no sins?

No such thing. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
I am a saved sinner, and I do not claim to be a Christian.

I do claim to be born again and trying to follow Jesus.
I have never done bodily harm to anyone that was not trying to do bodily harm to me or my family or other members of the human race. In those cases I will use all the training I have had to protect them.

Percy writes:

Ah, another part of your special definition of follower of Jesus: someone whose only sins were ones Jesus committed himself.

If I am following the example He set I will not do those things. And since I am born again my want too and my desires have been altered by His example.

Percy writes:

So one can only be a follower of Jesus if the only sin one has committed is overturning the tables of the money changers.

You may now commence denying that you said what you just said.

Why would I want to deny anything I have said? Your miss representations of what I said are something else.

But I guess I am just as guilty of overturning the money changers as Jesus was. I have been called to pastor Churches that had bake sales, supper sales, car washes, and garage sales to raise money for the Church. When I arrived those thing ceased as God's work is to be supported by the members by their tithes and offerings. Not commercial enterprise.

Percy writes:

God is not real but imaginary? Where did you get such an idea? Books by ancient nomads don't count.

I have met God the Son in person in 1965, so no He is not imaginary.

Percy writes:

Oops, as a teacher of religious people you must be dissembling (hint: that's a sin, presumably one Jesus didn't commit).

I do not pastor religious people. If a religious person comes to the church I pastor after one sermon they will usually go somewhere else to practice their religion.

I pastor a bunch of saved sinners who are trying to live a life like Christ did and set the example for us to do.

If a religious person comes along and sees we have something besides religion that they are interested in, we are glad to share the gospel (good news) with them.

According to Gallup 90% of the people in the US still believe in God.

According to ABC News 83% of people identify themselves as Christians.

According to Gallup when asked if they (Christians) consider themselves to be born-again or evangelical 42% said yes.

Evangelical "Criteria". Faith sharing, Biblical Inerrancy and Born again.

However when asked 3 questions on evangelical doctrine only 22% of Americans fit the description of an evangelical.

When limited to Protestants or unaffiliated Christians the numbers drop to 18%

When limited to those who have never been Protestants or claimed to be unaffiliated but are Bible believing, Bible practicing, saved sinners we fellowship with the number fall further to about 4%

Some of that 18% do not practice what they say they believe. So there is about 65% that I would classify as religious that has nothing in common with what I believe and practice.

They are the ones I would call hypocrites as they claim to be something they are not.

Percy writes:

What criteria separate lower from higher?

I was under the impression that according to evolution that the first life form was a single cell something. From that simple single cell life form all life on earth began to exist.

Is that wrong?

According to Darwin that is wrong as he did not know how many life forms God started with, but they were what all the rest evolved from.

Percy writes:

So you're arguing that people are concluding that because they "are no more than a worm" and "just evolved from a lower life form" that they are "their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do." How does the conclusion follow from the premises?

What I am saying is that since most have been taught and believe that they have evolved from that simple single cell life form and there is no God to one day judge them and to reward them for what they have done in this life, they are their own god. Whatever they do is ok as they have to answer to no one. Laws don't mean anything today and when they are broken there is no consequences for doing so.

Percy writes:

Not sure, but are you maybe returning to the topic here? irregardless, again, how does this conclusion frollow from the premises?

My point is that most of last 2 generations have been raised without any restraints. They have been taught by example that life is worthless. There have been 60,313,424 abortions performed since Roe vs Wade. Our young people know that if a fetus is carried to term a child is produced. So they also know that if the pregnancy is terminated that child is not born. So they don't bother about the argument of when life begins, they just know it ends prematurely or later in life. Thus they become hardened an have no respect for life. They see people lie, cheat, and steal, riot, vandalize businesses break all kinds of laws and no one is punished. They then conclude they can choose to do anything they desire and there will be no consequences. If you die so what, we all die sometime?

Percy writes:

The logic seems okay, but you haven't shown that "life is worth nothing," especially from the perspective of people, who in general the world over seem to value life a great deal

Percy, do you believe any of the shooters in the mass shootings had any respect for the life of the innocent victims they killed and maimed?

As far as that goes do you think anyone who commits murder has any respect for the life of their victim? If they did they would still be alive.

The only life that most of those people have respect is for themselves, some don't even respect their own life s they end it also.

Percy writes:

Where in anything you said above did you show that people are caused to believe there is "nothing else"?

Percy you are part of the 83% who believe in God unless I misunderstood you being a deist. So you may well believe in something other than life and death such as a life after this one.

But the people I have been talking about do not believe in God or a life after this life is over. When this life is over it is over for them as far as they are concerned right now.

Percy writes:

I've heard jail is an unpleasant place - are you sure you want to advise people to "just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences"?

I was not giving advice. Just stating the fact that many people live their life believing that.

Have you ever seen a rioter that vandalized property and took what they wanted arrested, charged, and jailed for committing such a crime even though they were shown on TV committing the crime?

Percy writes:

A lot of TV preachers seem to have this problem.

Yes, and a lot of them that are not on TV have that problem. There are thousands of them in the 65% I mentioned earlier.

Percy writes:

Oh, you mean Trump.

When I made the statement I was thinking about rioters and looters. But I can think of a multitude of other instances. Just a couple...

One would be people entering this country by walking across our border. Also those who come to our country and overstay their visas. The people who hire undocumented workers as they are breaking e-verify laws passed by congress and signed by President Clinton. I lived and worked overseas for 15 years so I know how other countries handle those who enter their country illegally or overstay visas.

Percy writes:

You deserve an award for rambling all over the place. So let me make sure I've got the logic straight here. People are being taught they're on the same level as worms and evolved from lower life forms, this causes them to think they're their own boss and that taking a life is nothing, therefore there is "nothing else" and life should be enjoyed with no worry about consequences, which leads to people who think they're their own God, so for the sake of celebrity they commit mass murder. Do I have that right?

That is close enough. Short version, There is a way that seemeth right unto a man.... Proverbs 14:12 Mankind chooses to do things the way that seems right to them.

JPercy writes:

Way to completely miss the point. You should have asked yourself why there are no efforts to ban knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers. Could it be because no person with a knife, even a hundred knives, has ever killed 58 and wounded 851? Has any person with a knife ever even killed 17 and wounded 17? The 2014 Kumming knife attack in Japan that killed 31 and wounded 140 was carried out by 8 perpetrators, which is 4 killed and 18 wounded per perpetrator. How many might they have killed and wounded had they been armed with AR-15s?

No but the fact remains that each year more than 9 People are killed by knives, fists, feet, clubs, and hammers for each person killed by a rifle.

So in your estimation which is the most dangerous weapons to mankind?

Percy writes:

You're again missing the point. Automobiles provide transportation, AR-15s kill people. We can't get rid of automobiles without having a massive negative impact on the economy and quality of life, something that would in itself cause a great deal of loss of life. But eliminating AR-15s and the like would have a minuscule economic impact but eliminate many mass murders.

This country got along without automobiles for a long time.

You and others rant about AR15's and say the others don't matter.
When you add deaths by auto's to the numbers above you have over 141 persons killed by those means to 1 person killed by a rifle of all kinds.

Percy writes:

And does an AR-15, a weapon of war, have any use beyond killing people and providing recreation for gun nuts? Can you use an AR-15 to slice onions? Hammer a nail? Knit a sweater? Walk to the store?

I don't think an AR15 is a decent weapon of war. Not even the one that will fire full automatic. If I shoot you I want you dead not wounded. Therefore I want a weapon that will fire a bullet that will penetrate your body armor and kill you. If I just wound you, you might be able to shoot and kill me instead.

Percy writes:

Would that efforts to improve gun safety were as ambitious.

If we could get people to obey the two commandments Jesus gave to the Church the problem of murders and slaughter would be prevented.

1. Love the Lord thy God with all your mind, body, and spirit.
2. Love thy neighbor as much as you love yourself.

If everybody just obeyed the second one there would be no problems and we could go back to sleeping with unlocked doors.

Percy writes:

Anticipating the apocalypse, I see.

No, just speaking of being prepared. A stitch in time saves nine. Didn't your grandmother teach you that?

Percy writes:

Then gun deaths in the US would decline precipitously.


The criminals would still have weapons so the guns death would go down very little.

Percy writes:

Civil war and revolution are two different things.

What is the difference?

Each group is trying to impose their will on the other group.

Percy writes:

How come it's the most religious who most strongly advocate implements of death?

Because they have the most to lose and are not willing to put themselves in a position to not be able to resist opposing force.

This country was founded because the British government and the Government controlled Church was killing people who did not agree with their form of worship. They burned alive true believers at the stake.

Those people came to this country and found the United States. They wrote our Constitution in a way that the Government could not establish a Church run by the government that could require people to worship as the government saw fit. They further provided the second amendment to grantee that if such did occur the people would have means to resist and protect themselves.

You want me to give up my weapons and trust the government to take care of me. You may trust them, but I don't.

I hope that answers your question as to why some people advocate very strongly for retaining their weapons.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 11:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 04-07-2018 1:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 189 of 200 (830739)
04-05-2018 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
04-04-2018 2:50 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Perhaps you are right, I don't know and I don't have the energy to try to find out. Please just ignore whatever I've said, I have to stop posting, I'm tired, I feel rotten, I can't deal with any of this right now although I keep trying. I have to stop. Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 04-04-2018 2:50 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 04-07-2018 4:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 190 of 200 (830745)
04-06-2018 8:43 AM


Firearm Deaths and Injuries to Children
The American Academy of Pediatrics in June of 2017 issued a report on Childhood Firearm Injuries in the United States. Quoting the results section:

quote:
RESULTS: Nearly 1300 children die and 5790 are treated for gunshot wounds each year. Boys, older children, and minorities are disproportionately affected. Although unintentional firearm deaths among children declined from 2002 to 2014 and firearm homicides declined from 2007 to 2014, firearm suicides decreased between 2002 and 2007 and then showed a significant upward trend from 2007 to 2014. Rates of firearm homicide among children are higher in many Southern states and parts of the Midwest relative to other parts of the country. Firearm suicides are more dispersed across the United States with some of the highest rates occurring in Western states. Firearm homicides of younger children often occurred in multivictim events and involved intimate partner or family conflict; older children more often died in the context of crime and violence. Firearm suicides were often precipitated by situational and relationship problems. The shooter playing with a gun was the most common circumstance surrounding unintentional firearm deaths of both younger and older children.

Pulling out the key points:

  • Firearms are responsible for the deaths of nearly 1300 children annually.
  • Unintentional deaths and homicides of children are in a decline.
  • Child suicides are on the rise.
  • Child homicides are higher in many southern and midwestern states compared to the rest of the country.
  • Child homicides most often occurred as a result of "intimate partner or family conflict."
  • Unintentional child deaths were most often the result of firearm play.

Regarding crime homicides as a contributor to child firearm deaths:

quote:
Firearm homicides of older children were significantly more likely to be precipitated by another crime, to be gang-related, to have drug involvement, and/or to involve weapon use also on the part of the victim.
...
Firearms have been a prominent factor in assaults, crime, and homicide involving young males, particularly ethnic minority males, for decades. Findings based on the NVDRS data indicate that firearm homicides among older children were more likely to be precipitated by another crime, to be gang-related, and to have drug involvement, which is consistent with other research on youth violence. As seen in this and other studies, younger children are often “caught in the crossfire,” whether as innocent bystanders to community violence or during incidents of intimate partner violence and family conflict.

That is, older child homicide victims tend to have been involved in crime in which they in some way played a role. Younger child homicide victims tend to be "caught in the crossfire" of family events beyond their control.

There can be little doubt that removing guns from homes would greatly reduce child firearm deaths.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 191 of 200 (830798)
04-07-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ICANT
04-05-2018 9:22 PM


Re: Problem
ICANT writes:

You or anyone else has never pointed to any deeds preformed by religionist and showed where Jesus did those things or told his disciples to do them.

Following Jesus is not limited to those who have only committed sins that Jesus committed.

A Christian is a person that is living a life like Christ did.

It's a bit more involved than that, but a Christian *tries* to follow Christ's example. No one lives a life like Christ, including Christ since he's fictional.

Show me where he killed anyone because of what they believed or practiced.

Murderers can't follow Jesus?

He healed, fed, and comforted others and told His followers to do likewise.

Hey, you got something right, or close enough.

Percy writes:

Ah, I see you have your own special definition of a follower of Jesus. Can I assume that "has done bad things" means one isn't a follower of Jesus? So in your eyes a follower of Jesus commits no sins?

No such thing. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Yes, of course, but that's not what you said, which was that many bad things have been done in the name of religion by people who were not followers of Jesus, even though they claimed to be. I objected, and you're agreeing with me, saying that "all have sinned," so therefore those who have done bad things in the name of religion *can be* followers of Jesus.

And though murderers aren't often murdering in the name of religion, isn't a murderer a sinner?

I am a saved sinner, and I do not claim to be a Christian.

I do claim to be born again and trying to follow Jesus.

Hmmm, interesting, you're a follower of Jesus the Christ who is not a Christian. Even we Unitarians are Christians, though we see Jesus as a normal person and not an incarnation of God.

I have never done bodily harm to anyone that was not trying to do bodily harm to me or my family or other members of the human race. In those cases I will use all the training I have had to protect them.

Yeah, you follower of Jesus you, you run to the lockbox in the bedroom without getting shot, then remember your keys are on the kitchen counter, you run to the kitchen without getting shot, run back to the bedroom without getting shot, fumble for the right key, struggle to get it in to the lock (or you just pull the gun with it's trigger lock out of a living room drawer without getting shot, then remember your keys are on the kitchen counter, you run to the kitchen without getting shot, you fumble for the right key, struggle to get it in to the lock), and pull out the unloaded gun.

Or maybe you have a biometric lock box, so you run to the bedroom to fetch it without getting shot.

Now you need ammunition that should also be hidden away under lock and key. Fetch the ammunition (with all the attendant problems of fetching the gun) and load the ammunition into the gun. Probably you have magazines preloaded with ammunition, so this last part should be pretty quick. You're now ready to defend your family.

Or maybe you carry a loaded gun on your person at all times?

Be sure to replace your ammunition every 10 years.

Percy writes:

Ah, another part of your special definition of follower of Jesus: someone whose only sins were ones Jesus committed himself.

If I am following the example He set I will not do those things. And since I am born again my want too and my desires have been altered by His example.

Not very much. You have a very unJesus-like love of weapons. And your position is that we're all sinners, that we cannot help but sin.

Percy writes:

So one can only be a follower of Jesus if the only sin one has committed is overturning the tables of the money changers.

You may now commence denying that you said what you just said.

Why would I want to deny anything I have said? Your miss representations of what I said are something else.

"Miss representations?" Never mind.

But I guess I am just as guilty of overturning the money changers as Jesus was. I have been called to pastor Churches that had bake sales, supper sales, car washes, and garage sales to raise money for the Church. When I arrived those thing ceased as God's work is to be supported by the members by their tithes and offerings. Not commercial enterprise.

Well don't you sound like fun.

Percy writes:

God is not real but imaginary? Where did you get such an idea? Books by ancient nomads don't count.

I have met God the Son in person in 1965, so no He is not imaginary.

And yet you can produce no evidence of any such meeting. How is "God the Son" any different from Elwood P. Dowd's Harvey.

Percy writes:

Oops, as a teacher of religious people you must be dissembling (hint: that's a sin, presumably one Jesus didn't commit).

I do not pastor religious people.

You're playing word games again. What do you call your "following Jesus" if not religious?

If a religious person comes to the church I pastor after one sermon they will usually go somewhere else to practice their religion.

So religious people who remain in your church become non-religious. Interesting.

I pastor a bunch of saved sinners who are trying to live a life like Christ did and set the example for us to do.

Do they believe in a higher power like "God the Son"? That's a religion.

If a religious person comes along and sees we have something besides religion that they are interested in, we are glad to share the gospel (good news) with them.

In other words, if a religious person sees that you are using an alternative nomenclature, you will explain it to him. Wherever did you get the idea that giving things different names makes them any different from what they already are?

According to Gallup 90% of the people in the US still believe in God.

So what? In addition to Christians that includes me and Moslems and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and so forth.

According to ABC News 83% of people identify themselves as Christians.

But according to you, that would include me but not you or your church, since Christianity is a religion whose adherents you believe should practice their beliefs elsewhere than in your church.

According to Gallup when asked if they (Christians) consider themselves to be born-again or evangelical 42% said yes.

Evangelicals are members of the Christian religion that you eschew.

However when asked 3 questions on evangelical doctrine only 22% of Americans fit the description of an evangelical.

You'll never go wrong underestimating the intelligence or intellectual consistency of the American public. 25% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth. 98% of them are evangelicals (I made that up).

When limited to Protestants or unaffiliated Christians the numbers drop to 18%.

Why do you care? They're all religionists, and you don't believe in religion.

When limited to those who have never been Protestants or claimed to be unaffiliated but are Bible believing, Bible practicing, saved sinners we fellowship with the number fall further to about 4%

You're just citing figures from a news article that gathered all this stuff together. Do you have a point?

Some of that 18% do not practice what they say they believe. So there is about 65% that I would classify as religious that has nothing in common with what I believe and practice.

Since you have your own special definitions of religion and religious, probably at least 99.99% of people have nothing in common with what your believe and practice.

They are the ones I would call hypocrites as they claim to be something they are not.

Not shy about passing judgment, are you.

Percy writes:

What criteria separate lower from higher?

I was under the impression that according to evolution that the first life form was a single cell something. From that simple single cell life form all life on earth began to exist.

Is that wrong?

Well, that's a little oversimplified, but sure, single celled organisms came before multicellular life. I was asking you what your criteria was for defining life as lower or higher. It isn't a scientific distinction that exists within biology.

According to Darwin that is wrong...

That would be incorrect. Darwin believed life began simply, at one point postulating life's origin in "some warm little pond" (letter to J. D. Hooker).

...as he did not know how many life forms God started with,...

Darwin didn't think God started life at all, so he wouldn't think about how many life forms God had started with, but rather that the idea had no reality.

...but they were what all the rest evolved from.

Darwin believed that life today evolved from previous life whose ultimate origin he speculated could possibly have arisen in "some warm little pond."

Percy writes:

So you're arguing that people are concluding that because they "are no more than a worm" and "just evolved from a lower life form" that they are "their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do." How does the conclusion follow from the premises?

What I am saying is that since most have been taught and believe that they have evolved from that simple single cell life form and there is no God to one day judge them and to reward them for what they have done in this life, they are their own god.

Yes, I know that's what you are saying. It is untrue that atheists believe they are they're own god. Atheists don't believe in any god, and especially don't believe that they themselves are a god.

Whatever they do is ok as they have to answer to no one.

3.1% of Americans are atheists, while only .1% of prisoners are atheists. Apparently not believing in God causes one to commit fewer crimes.

Laws don't mean anything today and when they are broken there is no consequences for doing so.

Our large prison population, especially as compared to other countries, says that there are definitely consequences for breaking laws. And laws are broken more often by religious people and "followers of Jesus" than by atheists. Apparently believing in God makes one less law abiding.

Percy writes:

Not sure, but are you maybe returning to the topic here? irregardless, again, how does this conclusion frollow from the premises?

My point is that most of last 2 generations have been raised without any restraints. They have been taught by example that life is worthless.

Almost no one is teaching that life is worthless. Almost everyone from atheists to agnostics to religious people to cardinals and monks believe life has great value.

There have been 60,313,424 abortions performed since Roe vs Wade. Our young people know that if a fetus is carried to term a child is produced. So they also know that if the pregnancy is terminated that child is not born. So they don't bother about the argument of when life begins, they just know it ends prematurely or later in life. Thus they become hardened an have no respect for life.

This is a completely spurious argument. The evidence all strongly favors the view that most people have great respect for life. Those who have abortions or perform abortions or are involved in the abortion industry are not more likely to commit murder.

They see people lie, cheat, and steal, riot, vandalize businesses break all kinds of laws and no one is punished. They then conclude they can choose to do anything they desire and there will be no consequences. If you die so what, we all die sometime?

Do you know that the decline in religiosity over the past few decades has corresponded to a reduction in crime?

Percy writes:

The logic seems okay, but you haven't shown that "life is worth nothing," especially from the perspective of people, who in general the world over seem to value life a great deal

Percy, do you believe any of the shooters in the mass shootings had any respect for the life of the innocent victims they killed and maimed?

This is just an irrelevant emotional appeal unrelated to what I said. People in general the world over value life a great deal.

As far as that goes do you think anyone who commits murder has any respect for the life of their victim? If they did they would still be alive.

Another false emotional appeal that is also wrong. Your position is that recent trends have caused a loss of respect for human life that have resulted in more murders, yet homicides are down:

The only life that most of those people have respect is for themselves, some don't even respect their own life s they end it also.

You're just wrong, wrong, wrong, over and over again. Teaching evolution has not resulted in a loss of respect for human life that is indicated in any statistics anywhere.

Percy writes:

Where in anything you said above did you show that people are caused to believe there is "nothing else"?

Percy you are part of the 83% who believe in God unless I misunderstood you being a deist. So you may well believe in something other than life and death such as a life after this one.

While I believe in God, my position on most details is a big "I don't know, but likely not."

But the people I have been talking about do not believe in God or a life after this life is over. When this life is over it is over for them as far as they are concerned right now.

Finally, something true.

Percy writes:

I've heard jail is an unpleasant place - are you sure you want to advise people to "just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences"?

I was not giving advice. Just stating the fact that many people live their life believing that.

And yet crime is down, so once again the evidence contradicts your position that teaching evolution results in a loss of respect for law, order and life itself.

Have you ever seen a rioter that vandalized property and took what they wanted arrested, charged, and jailed for committing such a crime even though they were shown on TV committing the crime?

You're not even making any sense. Independent of what crimes happen to get televised, people who commit crimes like vandalization and robbery are arrested all the time.

Percy writes:

A lot of TV preachers seem to have this problem.

Yes, and a lot of them that are not on TV have that problem. There are thousands of them in the 65% I mentioned earlier.

As a preacher and a member of this group with a large percentage with questionable ethics, doesn't that leave you suspect? Especially given your love of weapons of war that Jesus would have detested?

Percy writes:

ICANT writes:

...laws don't mean anything.

Oh, you mean Trump.

When I made the statement I was thinking about rioters and looters.

Trump's is making it possible for he and his cronies to loot the country.

But I can think of a multitude of other instances. Just a couple...

One would be people entering this country by walking across our border. Also those who come to our country and overstay their visas. The people who hire undocumented workers as they are breaking e-verify laws passed by congress and signed by President Clinton. I lived and worked overseas for 15 years so I know how other countries handle those who enter their country illegally or overstay visas.

This isn't "a multitude of other instances." This is just the immigration issue, and it argues against your claim that "laws don't mean anything." Immigrants to this country, both legal and illegal, are less likely to commit crimes than Americans.

Percy writes:

You deserve an award for rambling all over the place. So let me make sure I've got the logic straight here. People are being taught they're on the same level as worms and evolved from lower life forms, this causes them to think they're their own boss and that taking a life is nothing, therefore there is "nothing else" and life should be enjoyed with no worry about consequences, which leads to people who think they're their own God, so for the sake of celebrity they commit mass murder. Do I have that right?

That is close enough. Short version, There is a way that seemeth right unto a man.... Proverbs 14:12 Mankind chooses to do things the way that seems right to them.

So given all the ways I showed evidence contradicting your claims, you're acknowledging pushing an illogical and irrational position.

JPercy writes:

Way to completely miss the point. You should have asked yourself why there are no efforts to ban knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers. Could it be because no person with a knife, even a hundred knives, has ever killed 58 and wounded 851? Has any person with a knife ever even killed 17 and wounded 17? The 2014 Kumming knife attack in Japan that killed 31 and wounded 140 was carried out by 8 perpetrators, which is 4 killed and 18 wounded per perpetrator. How many might they have killed and wounded had they been armed with AR-15s?

No but the fact remains that each year more than 9 People are killed by knives, fists, feet, clubs, and hammers for each person killed by a rifle.

Well now you're just being purposefully misrepresentational. Not many people are killed by rifles compared to all firearms. Far more people are killed by firearms than by knives, fists, feet clubs and hammers combined. See Crime in the United States 2016.

Concerning gun control and rifles, normal rifles are fine, assault rifles are not. Assault rifles should be banned. High velocity bullets should be banned. Hollow point bullets should be banned. High capacity magazines should be banned. Magazines should be limited to some small number - 6 seems reasonable.

So in your estimation which is the most dangerous weapons to mankind?

Nuclear bombs. If you're talking weapons available outside the military, then guns. The gun that is the most deadly and is capable is killing the most people in the least time is the AR-15 and its equivalents.

Percy writes:

You're again missing the point. Automobiles provide transportation, AR-15s kill people. We can't get rid of automobiles without having a massive negative impact on the economy and quality of life, something that would in itself cause a great deal of loss of life. But eliminating AR-15s and the like would have a minuscule economic impact but eliminate many mass murders.

This country got along without automobiles for a long time.

Yet another superfluous argument. The country "got along" without computers and typewriters and tractors and telephones and telegraphs and locomotives and cotton gins and clean hospitals for a long time, too. And as I pointed out in my previous message, the pre-automobile era was not without its horse and buggy accidents, many resulting in death, something you were apparently ignorant of when you said, "I never heard of anyone being killed by two wagons running together."

You and others rant about AR15's and say the others don't matter.

What are "others"? You mean other rifles like hunting rifles and target practice rifles? You mean guns in general? In any case, weapons of war like AR-15's should be banned. All firearms should be in a federal registry. All weapon sales should be added to a federal registry.

When you add deaths by auto's to the numbers above you have over 141 persons killed by those means to 1 person killed by a rifle of all kinds.

The objection to AR-15 type weapons is their lethality due to their being a weapon of war. They are not often used, so the number of persons killed by AR-15 types weapons each year is fortunately not large, but the damage an AR-15 bullet causes is devastating, so a hit is often a death, and survivors are often left with permanent disabilities. Here's a table of recent mass murders, all assault weapon shootings:

IncidentYearDeathsInjuriesType of firearm(s) used
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting20181717Semi-automatic rifle
Las Vegas shooting201759 (inc. the perp.)851Semi-automatic rifles
Sutherland Springs church shooting201727 (inc. the perp.)20Semi-automatic rifle
Orlando nightclub shooting201650 (inc. the perp.)58Semi-automatic rifle and pistol
San Bernardino attack201516 (inc. both perps.)24Semi-automatic rifles

Percy writes:

And does an AR-15, a weapon of war, have any use beyond killing people and providing recreation for gun nuts? Can you use an AR-15 to slice onions? Hammer a nail? Knit a sweater? Walk to the store?

I don't think an AR15 is a decent weapon of war. Not even the one that will fire full automatic. If I shoot you I want you dead not wounded. Therefore I want a weapon that will fire a bullet that will penetrate your body armor and kill you. If I just wound you, you might be able to shoot and kill me instead.

You are seriously misinformed. The lethality of an AR-15 is very high. The bullets are small and the velocity high, the best to way to inflict maximum damage. Read the ads for AR-15 ammunition, you'll see what I mean, they talk about how effectively the bullet expands after penetration causing maximum damage to tissue and bone. They talk about how *their* bullets achieve that sweet spot of penetration versus expansion. This is why the death rate is so high for shooters armed with AR-15 type weapons.

And body armor? What kind of home invasion are you expecting? If the invaders are equipped with AR-15s and body armor, as they burst through your door do you really think you're going to have time to fetch your gun, load, and defend?

Percy writes:

Would that efforts to improve gun safety were as ambitious.

If we could get people to obey the two commandments Jesus gave to the Church the problem of murders and slaughter would be prevented.

1. Love the Lord thy God with all your mind, body, and spirit.
2. Love thy neighbor as much as you love yourself.

If everybody just obeyed the second one there would be no problems and we could go back to sleeping with unlocked doors.

If people didn't have guns, and if those guns that people did have were safer, there would be many fewer gun deaths.

Percy writes:

Anticipating the apocalypse, I see.

No, just speaking of being prepared. A stitch in time saves nine. Didn't your grandmother teach you that?

Did your grandmother teach you to be prepared for zebra stampedes, too?

Percy writes:

Then gun deaths in the US would decline precipitously.


The criminals would still have weapons so the guns death would go down very little.

How many gun deaths occur during the commission of a crime versus other ways, like an argument or family dispute? I think many gun deaths do not occur during crimes, but I couldn't find statistics. There's a slight subtlety to the distinction. Murder is always a crime, but in one case a crime occurred first, then the murder, while in the other case a dispute (or some such) occurred first (but no crime), then the murder.

Percy writes:

Civil war and revolution are two different things.

What is the difference?

Each group is trying to impose their will on the other group.

How can you ask "What is the difference?" when you were just arguing that there's a difference, saying, "You are talking about the civil war now. That was a whole different ball game." You said that in reply to Modulous when you thought he was talking about the Civil War when your original context was revolution. I should have been more clear, but I think Modulous was also responding about revolution, not civil war.

Percy writes:

How come it's the most religious who most strongly advocate implements of death?

Because they have the most to lose and are not willing to put themselves in a position to not be able to resist opposing force.

So you *do* count yourself as religious, in fact, the most religious. Why do you most religoius have more to lose than anyone else? Why are you most ready to respond with violence? Doesn't seem very religious, and definitely doesn't seem much like a follower of Jesus, someone who never made preparations for his own defense or planned how to murder those who threatened him. He was about love, if I've heard right.

This country was founded because the British government and the Government controlled Church was killing people who did not agree with their form of worship. They burned alive true believers at the stake.

Portions of North America were *settled* (not *founded*) by groups seeking relief from religious persecution in Europe so that they could be free to practice their own particular brands of religious persecution. Much of what is now the United States was settled by people seeking better economic opportunity.

Those people came to this country and formed the United States.

The United States was formed primarily by people born and raised in what is now the United States.

They wrote our Constitution in a way that the Government could not establish a Church run by the government that could require people to worship as the government saw fit. They further provided the second amendment to grant that if such did occur the people would have means to resist and protect themselves.

What the 2nd amendment obviously means is that that since militias are necessary for the defense of the state, and since people in the militias need to have weapons, and since at the time the Constitution was written people in militias provided their own weapons, people therefore have a right to arms. But almost no militias exist anymore, and the military provides the weapons. The 2nd amendment is antiquated and needs modification or repeal.

You want me to give up my weapons and trust the government to take care of me. You may trust them, but I don't.

Why, exactly, when the government decides to take over the country it already governs, is your domicile going to become a military target? And how do you hope to prevail?

I hope that answers your question as to why some people advocate very strongly for retaining their weapons.

Well, that was a lot of words, and what they tell me is that you think a lot of things that demonstrably aren't true, that are self-contradictory, and that you're irrationally paranoid.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2018 9:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 192 of 200 (830816)
04-07-2018 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
04-05-2018 11:33 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:

Perhaps you are right, I don't know and I don't have the energy to try to find out.

I can understand running out of energy looking for facts that don't exist.

Please just ignore whatever I've said, I have to stop posting, I'm tired, I feel rotten, I can't deal with any of this right now although I keep trying.

Of course, no problem. Those long messages full of facts and figures required no research at all because (bless my encyclopedic knowledge) they just rolled off the top of my head. And of course I didn't have to type because I just think and the words appear in the message box, it was effortless. Think nothing at all about breaking off yet again in the middle of discussion.

I have to stop. Thanks.

Hey, you're welcome. A year isn't worth living if you don't do this at least several times. Besides, you'll be back in no time making the same arguments all over again as if they hadn't already been answered.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 04-05-2018 11:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 193 of 200 (830859)
04-08-2018 7:33 AM


Congressman Blames Gun Victims
‘I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords’ says Congressman Ralph Norman (R-SC), pulling out his piece and placing it on the table. Implicit in his remarks is that gun victims are to blame for their own injuries and deaths because they did not carry a gun.

Gifford's husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, responded, “Congressman Norman is right — he’s no Gabby Giffords.”

Representative Norman later claimed he was only making the point that (quoting the article), "guns are dangerous only when they are in the hands of criminals," repeating a very familiar lie. Those in most danger from guns are those who keep them in their homes.

Normal also said, “I’m tired of these liberals jumping on the guns themselves as if they are the cause of the problem.
Guns are not the problem.”

And yet, no guns, no gun deaths. Guns *are* the problem.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 194 of 200 (830860)
04-08-2018 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
03-31-2018 5:49 PM


Re: Ted Nugent Goes on Hate Filled Tirade
Ted Nugent is the gift that just keeps on giving. Yesterday he llikened Democrats, media, academics to 'rabid coyotes'. Please continue boycotting all Ted Nugent products and sponsors (they're listed in the message that this message is a reply to).

But let's provide some titillation. During the interview Infowars host Alex Jones asked why liberals hate America and "love communism." Here's Nugent's answer:

quote:
Don't ask why. Just know that evil, dishonesty and scam artists have always been around and that right now they're liberal, they're Democrat, they're RINOs, they're Hollywood, they're fake news, they're media, they're academia, and they're half of our government, at least.

So come to that realization. There are rabid coyotes running around, you don't wait till you see one to go get your gun, keep your gun handy. And every time you see one, shoot one.


Nugent's comments are remarkably consistent in their emphasis on fact-free accusations and judgments.

I guess one should not conflate the artist's work with his views. If you like Nugent's music then continue listening to it, by all means, he's a top tier talent, but please don't buy his music for the time being.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 5:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2018 8:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2018 2:43 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 195 of 200 (830861)
04-08-2018 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Percy
04-08-2018 7:53 AM


Re: Ted Nugent Goes on Hate Filled Tirade
In my opinion the extreme Conservatives are gearing up to destroy democracy. Elections are “tyranny” if their preferred candidates lose. That’s why they want guns, that is the reason for the hate and the lies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 04-08-2018 7:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018