Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 482 of 1184 (842022)
10-25-2018 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by ICANT
10-25-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Actually Robocop made mistakes
I guess that if it was Robocop Vs Robopops you’d win then. Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 2:42 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 483 of 1184 (842024)
10-25-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by ICANT
10-24-2018 9:39 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:
Percy writes:
ICANT writes:
Guns for me is not a hobby...As long as I have my guns I can eat.
I've already said I don't have anything against hunting rifles. We've been talking about handguns.
I squirrel hunt with a 22 pistol.
Well, I assume you're not on a steady diet of squirrel, so I guess all you meant was that you occasionally use one of your handguns to hunt. When you said guns weren't a hobby and that you can eat because of your guns, I thought you meant you were feeding yourself by hunting.
There are around 75 hunting related fatalities each year. Given that you feel that even one burglary is one to many, isn't that 75 too many hunting related fatalities? How do you justify hunting at all?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2018 9:39 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 7:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 484 of 1184 (842027)
10-25-2018 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Percy
10-25-2018 11:33 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
Look at the relative length of the green line ("Not gun-related") to the red line ("Gun-related") for the US as compared to all other countries. How is that not an argument against guns?
Your own graph demonstrates that in the absence of a gun, people are going to find ways of killing themselves. You're blaming guns when it is convenient to do so and purposefully excluding all other disconfirming evidence. So, looking at your graph we could conclude that South Koreans are a more suicidal people than other cultures... I mean, that's what the graph is saying, right? Or we could conclude that suicide is a little more complicated than just looking at values and determining a hypothesis solely on the numbers.
And how, exactly, do you reach that conclusion from the information in the chart, aside from rampant imagination.
Are you joking? Aside from the fact that I am aware of various methods of suicide, your own chart demonstrates that by the referenced green bar. With that information alone, you can literally see that people commit suicide by other means aside from a gun.
Well, yes it is an ludicrous argument, and nothing like the situation with guns. You'd like your contrived argument to be similar and realistic, because then you'd have an argument, but it's not, not even remotely.
How so? You will underhandedly find any reason, even suicide, to vilify guns. But your own arguments demonstrate an obvious and selective bias. If all things were equal, you would be as harsh on the rope used for hanging, or the high places that aren't fenced off, or the pills used to kill themselves, or the sharp objects used to tear open veins and arteries.... You don't see that as an obvious problem where you will happily exclude relevant information?
If you fail to see it then you're not thinking, because it's fairly obvious after even just a little reflection.
It's only obvious to those who would willfully exclude disconfirming evidence.
If these states were all we looked at then it could be argued that both contribute to the lower gun death rate, but we also have the data from the high gun death states, and as I already pointed out, their wide range of crime rates implies that crime rate is not the controlling factor, and that the high gun ownership rate is.
As with anything, treating the symptom is not the same as treating the disease. For instance, it's not the knife that is the central issue in a place like London... it's the reason why people feel that murder or maiming is the best recourse to resolve conflict.
Stop the killing THE authorities must get a grip on London’s knife crime crisis. It is scandalous that the capital’s murder rate is higher than New York’s. Complacency has played its part in the ep you're not suggesting that liberals chipped away at Chicago's gun laws. Conservatives have little power in Chicago, not zero power.
I already pointed out how easy it is to get guns in Chicago just by taking a ten minute drive. It's the same phenomenon as the border between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Liquor sales in New Hampshire are restricted to state owned/controlled liquor stores, so there are tons of liquor stores just across the border in Massachusetts. Firework sales in Massachusetts are illegal, so there are tons of firework stores just across the border in New Hampshire. I imagine there are tons of gun stores just outside the Chicago city limits. Obtaining illegal guns in Chicago is just way too easy.
The point is that outlawing guns isn't a solution. In fact, it worsens the problem because the only people that have the guns are exactly the kind's of people that are giving you the problem in the first place.
That's a big and important difference. I do not think people should own handguns or assault rifles or any firearm of large caliber and/or of great energy. This is all the bullet you need for hunting
A .22 for hunting? Hunting what, gophers?
I'm against assault rifles, whether or not they're automatic.
Why, though?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 11:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by ringo, posted 10-25-2018 4:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 490 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 6:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2283
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 485 of 1184 (842028)
10-25-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Percy
10-25-2018 11:33 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
You do not need bullets like these:
How are you going to effectively and humanely hunt a moose with a .22? Do you sentence it to a death by a thousand cuts? Big, fast bullets are generally the most efficient and humane means of bringing down large game.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 11:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 8:52 PM DrJones* has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 486 of 1184 (842029)
10-25-2018 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2018 4:31 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm against assault rifles, whether or not they're automatic.
Why, though?
See, this is where I disagree with most gun control advocates. I don't think any civilian should have a handgun - or most cops either. But if you're going to interpret the "militia" in the 2nd Ammendment as meaning everybody, then it must mean military weapons for everybody. I'd like to see the NRA advocating for grenade-launchers, RPGs, and all types of infantry weapons. Then maybe people would see how stupid that argument is.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2018 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 7:36 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 487 of 1184 (842030)
10-25-2018 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by ICANT
10-25-2018 2:07 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:
Percy writes:
Your figure of a burglary every 20 seconds across the entire US is actually good news.
1 burglary in 1000 years in the US would be too many. No one has any right to enter someone's house and remove anything from the house.
If something is not yours leave it alone or if you find it return it to the rightful owner.
This is just a silly off-topic rant - there's been crime since the beginning of time. You're ignoring what you can't rebut.
You've been arguing that you need your guns locked and loaded by your side to protect you from burglars who could break down your door at any moment since there's a burglary every 20 seconds in the US. But it's been pointed out to you several times that that's a small number given how many households there are in the US, and that burglaries are down by 2/3 over the past 30 years, with the threat of crime going down every year. How do you justify the danger your guns put you, your family and friends in given that it's greater than the danger represented by criminals?
An analogy: if someone told you there was chance you could die from some disease but that a pill would completely protect you from that disease, would you take it if the pill had a greater chance of killing you than the disease? No, of course not.
It's the same with guns. If someone told you there was a chance a burglar could break in and kill you but that if you armed yourself with a gun that it would completely protect you from the burglar, would you arm yourself if the gun had a greater chance of killing you than the burglar? No, of course not, not if you believed the odds you were quoted. Your problem is that you can't accept that the odds are true because you love your guns too much, but you can't find anything wrong with the odds either, so you're arguing about everything else but.
Percy writes:
I'm curious. Do you now understand that you can't have 2/3 of households using guns to scare off criminals when only 1/3 of households have guns?
What kind of fuzzy math are you using?
Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?
In 2017 there were 126.22 million households in the US.
Yes, we know - that it's so large is why your "burglary every 20 seconds" figure doesn't help you make your case.
Since there is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns or not you can only guess at how many households have guns in them.
Did you check out the link I provided a few posts ago: The percentage of U.S. households with guns is falling? It puts the number of households with guns at 31%. From the webpage:
quote:
Methodology: Researchers surveyed about 1,500 adults in each of the years studied and asked them, 'Do you happen to have in your home (if house: or garage) any guns or revolvers?' Numbers for gun ownership tend to vary across polls, depending on responders' willingness to divulge ownership information and other factors. Still, the downward trend of gun-owning households is consistent across data sets.
Don't believe that link? Here's another: American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years. About household gun ownership it says:
quote:
Different national polls tend to show slightly different rates of gun ownership. The latest household gun ownership rate in the General Social Survey, in 2014, was 32 percent. The October 2015 Gallup survey showed a higher rate of 43 percent, including guns kept on property outside the home.
You continue on to misleadingly state:
In 2017 the Gallup and the Pew Research Center had 42 percent of the people surveyed said they lived in a household with guns in the house. If there is 42% that will admit to having a gun in the house there is probably at least 20% who have guns that will lie and say no.
The quote I provided just above shows that you're selectively quoting. You left out the part about "including guns kept on property outside the house," which would mean storage sheds, etc. That's why the percentage is higher. This figure is useless for your argument since a gun kept outside the house can't protect you from people breaking into your house.
You can debate the figures all you like, that last link also says:
quote:
But the downward trend in gun ownership remains consistent across the national polls. According to Gallup, gun ownership has fallen by about 10 percentage points since its peak in 1993. The General Social Survey shows a 20-point drop since the mid-1970s.
Raising concern levels, you next say:
If you call me and ask if I had guns in the house I would say no. If you came to my door and asked the same question I would say no. If you were sitting in my living room and asked me the same question I would say no. Yet one would be within reach of my hand. I would not know what your intentions were regardless of what you said your reasons for asking was.
Admitting that you're a liar when it comes to guns isn't going to help you make your case.
But lets just go with the poll mentioned above at 42%.
That's fine, the point doesn't change, I'll just substitute the value you prefer. Do you understand that 67% of households can't be using guns to scare off criminals if only 42% of households have guns?
That would mean there are 53,012,400 households in the US with guns in them.
Oh, good grief, another figure, and once again you go nowhere with it. You already have a percentage, you don't need a hard number.
So why is it so impossible for 2/3 of the 3 million homes where burglaries occur have guns in them. People that have guns usually live in areas where crime is much higher than people who do not have guns.
But I've already shown this isn't true at the state level. Here's the information I presented earlier to Hyroglyphx in Message 473:
  • Alaska: 1986
  • Alabama: 1941
  • Arkansas: 2065
  • Idaho: 1068
  • New Mexico: 2241
  • Montana: 1230
  • West Virginia: 1235
  • Wyoming: 1136
The above states have both high and low crime rates, yet they all have high gun death rates. What they have in common is a high gun ownership rate. This suggests a strong correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death rates, but not between crime rates and gun death rates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 2:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 8:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 488 of 1184 (842031)
10-25-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
10-25-2018 2:37 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:
Percy writes:
Your lack of any Christian sense of value for human life is noted.
I value all life.
Obviously untrue. These are your words from Message 457:
quote:
When it comes to the point my neighbor is fixing to harm me or my wife, yes I would blow his/her brains out.
...
My mind is conditioned that when I would see a weapon of any kind that is being positioned to bring harm to me or anyone around me reflexes would take over without even thinking as my actions would be automatic. I know you don't understand that but I can't help you there.
Remember I would not shoot anyone offensively but in defense it will work automatically.
That is the reason a person pulling a phone out of his/her pocket when standing before a policeman with a revolver in hand shouting orders or reaching for their back pocket usually end up dead. If the policeman has to think he is usually the one that ends up dead.
Over and over and over again you have expressed your willingness to inflict fatal harm on others if you think you're threatened, and that you think others have that same right.
Don't give me the argument about a woman having control over her own body. She could do that before she has sex with a male. Either protect or don't have sex, as she is in control. Then when she wants to have a child have unprotected sex.
I guess it's not enough that you have to be dumb about guns, you have to be misogynistic, too.
Percy writes:
Policemen firing on people with cell phones is just one of the reasons why we have to take guns away from the police, too.
All they have to do to not get shot is obey the office when he says drop it. Put your hands on the top of your head. People who do those things when told to don't get shot.
As the Police Shootings thread clearly documents, police commit unjustified shootings all the time, especially when cameras are present to contradict the official police report. You're living in your own gun fantasy world where everyone who gets shot deserves it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 2:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 8:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 489 of 1184 (842032)
10-25-2018 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by ICANT
10-25-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:
Actually Robocop made mistakes.
I train regularly to minimize any possibility of making a mistake. But in all my years of owning and carrying guns I have never made a mistake. I have never even come close to having to use my weapon. I hope that continues the rest of my life. But incase the situation ever arises I will be prepared.
Oh, here we go, you're superman again.
Of course you've made mistakes. There's no one perfect out there, no matter what your delusions tell you. What you really mean is that your mistakes haven't hurt anyone yet, that we know of. You're already making a major mistake by not locking up your gun and ammunition separately. You've told us straight out you'd lie when it comes to guns, so why should we trust anything you say anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 2:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 8:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 490 of 1184 (842035)
10-25-2018 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2018 4:31 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Look at the relative length of the green line ("Not gun-related") to the red line ("Gun-related") for the US as compared to all other countries. How is that not an argument against guns?
Your own graph demonstrates that in the absence of a gun, people are going to find ways of killing themselves. You're blaming guns when it is convenient to do so and purposefully excluding all other disconfirming evidence.
You're very confused, I'll get to why in a moment.
So, looking at your graph we could conclude that South Koreans are a more suicidal people than other cultures... I mean, that's what the graph is saying, right? Or we could conclude that suicide is a little more complicated than just looking at values and determining a hypothesis solely on the numbers.
Yes, it is a little more complicated. That's why I didn't suggest comparing suicide rates between countries. There are cultural and medical differences between countries that skew the statistics. That being said, I think it's possible that South Koreans commit what we would deem suicide at a higher rate than many other countries, but that's really got nothing to do with this discussion.
And how, exactly, do you reach that conclusion from the information in the chart, aside from rampant imagination.
Are you joking? Aside from the fact that I am aware of various methods of suicide, your own chart demonstrates that by the referenced green bar. With that information alone, you can literally see that people commit suicide by other means aside from a gun.
This is the confusion you have that I mentioned earlier. If you read back in the thread you'll see that there was never any claim that people only commit suicide using guns. That would be an absurd thing for anyone to say, and I don't know why you think it was said or why you're bothering to rebut anything so ridiculous.
The actual claim made was that this chart shows that suicides are disproportionately committed by guns in the United States compared to all other countries:
This is because the US has a much higher gun ownership rate than other countries.
Well, yes it is an ludicrous argument, and nothing like the situation with guns. You'd like your contrived argument to be similar and realistic, because then you'd have an argument, but it's not, not even remotely.
How so? You will underhandedly find any reason, even suicide, to vilify guns.
Guns vilify themselves. A gun's purpose is to kill. Name another product advertised for it's stopping power or killing power, the ability of a weapon to incapacitate a human or animal. I don't know about you, but obviously ICANT is thinking about stopping people, not animals. The only animal he apparently hunts is squirrels, no stopping power required.
But your own arguments demonstrate an obvious and selective bias.
Well, yes, I do have an obvious bias. I'm biased toward life and the right of people to be safe in their homes and while they're out and about.
The following is just one silly thing after another:
If all things were equal, you would be as harsh on the rope used for hanging,...
Rope is an essential part of any economy going back thousands of years. I am against murder and capital punishment.
...or the high places that aren't fenced off,...
Not sure what kind of thing you're thinking of here, but high places that people frequent should have protections.
...or the pills used to kill themselves,...
Medicine is essential for doctors to treat patients. Most everyone's against drug abuse and in favor of programs to stop it.
...or the sharp objects used to tear open veins and arteries...
I don't know if you're referring to knives or scalpels, but they're both essential. If you're talking about using them to commit murders then I think pretty much everyone's against murder.
You don't see that as an obvious problem where you will happily exclude relevant information?
I see an obvious problem in your approach. Guns make no contribution to the economy, they don't keep us safe, they don't cure disease or relieve pain, they don't help prepare food or perform surgery. Guns kill. That's it, except for hunting, which also kills, but at least not people.
If you fail to see it then you're not thinking, because it's fairly obvious after even just a little reflection.
It's only obvious to those who would willfully exclude disconfirming evidence.
Well then offer some disconfirming evidence. You keep mentioning it, but you never present any.
If these states were all we looked at then it could be argued that both contribute to the lower gun death rate, but we also have the data from the high gun death states, and as I already pointed out, their wide range of crime rates implies that crime rate is not the controlling factor, and that the high gun ownership rate is.
As with anything, treating the symptom is not the same as treating the disease. For instance, it's not the knife that is the central issue in a place like London... it's the reason why people feel that murder or maiming is the best recourse to resolve conflict.
I can't tell if you've said anything meaningful here. Maybe you can clarify.
Next you screwed up your link, I've fixed it for you:
You inadvertently appended some text from my post, and that screwed up your URL.
I already pointed out how easy it is to get guns in Chicago just by taking a ten minute drive. It's the same phenomenon as the border between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Liquor sales in New Hampshire are restricted to state owned/controlled liquor stores, so there are tons of liquor stores just across the border in Massachusetts. Firework sales in Massachusetts are illegal, so there are tons of firework stores just across the border in New Hampshire. I imagine there are tons of gun stores just outside the Chicago city limits. Obtaining illegal guns in Chicago is just way too easy.
The point is that outlawing guns isn't a solution.
Of course it's a solution. You just don't like this solution because you love your guns too much. It's an emotional issue for you.
In fact, it worsens the problem because the only people that have the guns are exactly the kinds of people that are giving you the problem in the first place.
Your average gun owner *is* the problem. They don't realize they're a danger to themselves and all around them. Look at ICANT. He doesn't even lock up his guns and ammunition.
That's a big and important difference. I do not think people should own handguns or assault rifles or any firearm of large caliber and/or of great energy. This is all the bullet you need for hunting
A .22 for hunting? Hunting what, gophers?
I think a .22 in competent hands is good for far more than gophers, but the modern hunter is spoiled. He wants a high caliber bullet with excellent stopping power that can bring down that buck no matter how bad a shot he is.
What do you really need for deer? A .30 rifle? Even something a little bigger? Fine, I have no problem with it.
I'm against assault rifles, whether or not they're automatic.
Why, though?
Because they make it too easy to kill a lot of people very quickly, and because they have no other purpose than to kill people. Why would anyone want one?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2018 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by ICANT, posted 10-25-2018 8:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 491 of 1184 (842036)
10-25-2018 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by ringo
10-25-2018 3:25 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
I cited Matthew 5:38-39. Didn't you read my post?
quote:
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
That don't say anything about a fellow fixing to kill me with a weapon.
It is talking about a man slapping you on one cheek (since you would be still standing to be able to turn the other cheek he did not use his fist) so you turn the other cheek. If he uses his fist and knocks you down you either stay on the ground or if he comes after you, you return in like kind. But if you turned the other cheek and he slapped it then there are no instructions after that.
ringo writes:
Ecclesiastes 3:8 says, "a time of war." That would be when there would be a time to kill.
If a person begins to present a weapon to kill me he has declared war on my life and I will do my best to kill him/her before they kill me. If you don't like that fine. You can stand there and let someone shoot you or chop you up with a axe if you want too. I will not.
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 481 by ringo, posted 10-25-2018 3:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 9:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 506 by ringo, posted 10-26-2018 11:46 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 492 of 1184 (842038)
10-25-2018 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Percy
10-25-2018 4:02 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
There are around 75 hunting related fatalities each year. Given that you feel that even one burglary is one to many, isn't that 75 too many hunting related fatalities? How do you justify hunting at all?
I don't hunt with other people and I will not shoot myself.
In the past I have hunted squirrels 4 and 5 days a week. All I had to do was go out in the back yard to the hammock and hunt away. I never had to shoot at a squirrel more than twice with my pistol.
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 483 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 4:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by Percy, posted 10-26-2018 11:19 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 493 of 1184 (842039)
10-25-2018 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by ringo
10-25-2018 4:48 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
I'd like to see the NRA advocating for grenade-launchers, RPGs, and all types of infantry weapons. Then maybe people would see how stupid that argument is.
But those are already against the law.
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 486 by ringo, posted 10-25-2018 4:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by ringo, posted 10-26-2018 11:57 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 494 of 1184 (842044)
10-25-2018 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Percy
10-25-2018 5:39 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
This is just a silly off-topic rant - there's been crime since the beginning of time. You're ignoring what you can't rebut.
It was no rant. I have never taken anything that was not mine without bartering for or paying for said item. So yes I feel that 1 crime is too many. Now you pass a law I can't have my constitutional right to bear my arms and I will probably break that law.
Percy writes:
would you arm yourself if the gun had a greater chance of killing you than the burglar?
Since the burglar is not going to get into my house without me knowing it before he gets to the house, I would say my chances of surviving would be 100%. If I didn't know he was coming and he had a gun I would have 100% chance of being killed.
Percy writes:
Did you check out the link I provided a few posts ago:
Yes I did. How do they determine how many households have weapons in them? There is only two ways. Call on phone and ask or go door to door and ask. Either way your are not going to get a correct answer. If you think so I got some nice high dry swamp land I will sell you here in Florida.
Percy writes:
You can debate the figures all you like, that last link also says:
Your link: about 10 percentage points since its peak in 1993.
The first chart shows 42% saying yes to having a gun in the house. Which verifies my information you vilified.
Percy the older you get the more incorrigible yo become.
Percy writes:
Admitting that you're a liar when it comes to guns isn't going to help you make your case.
I have never been asked so I have not lied. You sure have a tendency to jump to conclusions.
Percy writes:
That's fine, the point doesn't change, I'll just substitute the value you prefer. Do you understand that 67% of households can't be using guns to scare off criminals if only 42% of households have guns?
Percy are you saying it is impossible for 67% of the 3 million+ households guns couldn't be used to scare off criminals.
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 487 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 5:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 495 of 1184 (842046)
10-25-2018 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Percy
10-25-2018 5:50 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy
Percy writes:
As the Police Shootings thread clearly documents, police commit unjustified shootings all the time, especially when cameras are present to contradict the official police report. You're living in your own gun fantasy world where everyone who gets shot deserves it.
I met a retired Police Sergeant of 15 years on the Chicago police force in the Cayman Islands in 1994. He purchased a 4 bedroom waterfront condo and paid $725,000 US cash for it. So there is a lot of bad cops out there. There are also a lot on the force that should not be on the force. They panic when put in certain situations that they haven't really been trained for.
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 488 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 5:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 496 of 1184 (842047)
10-25-2018 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by Percy
10-25-2018 5:56 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy
Percy writes:
Of course you've made mistakes.
Yes I have made many mistakes in my life time Percy.
But I have never made one with a firearm and I have never pointed a gun at anything I did not intend to kill, and my kill rate is 100%.
I have been blessed to the point I have never had to point my gun at a human. I hope that continues throughout the rest of my life.
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 489 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 5:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024