ReeferMadness Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Same places....Canadian Snowbird Association (based in the USA) reports that Florida, Arizona, California, and Texas remain the top states for Canadian snowbirds. Some even have guns....gosh !!! The ones who like to carry guns should stay. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) The ones who like to carry guns should stay. ...and the ones who are afraid of guns should stay out of the United States. Edited January 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 ...and the ones who are afraid of guns should stay out of the United States. Maybe, if there are any people who are afraid of guns. I'm not, though - I grew up around guns. And was taught a healthy respect for them. Which didn't include walking around with an Uzi just in case a rabid chipmunk or trespassing girl guide popped up in front of me. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
eyeball Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 But what if you need to overthrow the government because Nazis our communists have taken it over? The 2nd Amendment seems more. like a responsibility than a right. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Moonlight Graham Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 I wonder how many motorcycle drivers are killed by their ride? I wonder how many skiers die because they were allowed to slide down a mountain? Freedom means the freedom to do things that come with risks because you want to. Different cultures will draw the line at certain activities but no amount of lecturing and figure pointing is going to convince Americans, as a whole, that the risks that come with gun ownership are bad enough to justify restricting them. Your reaction is not unlike a Chinese person pointing at the drivel that is published under the banner of free speech and trying to lecture Canadians about how much social harm is caused by allowing people to speak freely. How many non-motorcycle riders and non-skiers do these people kill? I have no problem with these activities. If you want to risk your own death, people should be free to do that. The whole problem is when the freedom of gun owners interferes with the freedom of other innocent people...rights/freedoms like "life" and the "pursuit of happiness", and very basic personal security. There's no more important freedom than to be free from others physically harming or killing you. The #1 purpose of a state is for government to ensure everyone's personal security, from both foreign and domestic threats. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 I'm not dancing around anything........I fully agree that those involved in gun violence in the United States are more likely to own guns. It should be no surprise that an armed drug dealer is more likely to be involved in gun violence than an average citizen. It should be no shock that a rifle hunter or an armed convenience store clerk or a gun collector or gun hobby guy who shoots rounds at the local target range is more likely to be involved in gun violence than an average citizen. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 It should be no shock that a rifle hunter or an armed convenience store clerk or a gun collector or gun hobby guy who shoots rounds at the local target range is more likely to be involved in gun violence than an average citizen. That would suggest victims of gun violence are gun owners.........Of course the cited statistics don't indicate that, what they do indicate are that the highest rates of gun violence are found among black males shooting black males over drugs....... Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 That would suggest victims of gun violence are gun owners.........Of course the cited statistics don't indicate that, what they do indicate are that the highest rates of gun violence are found among black males shooting black males over drugs....... Shocking that higher rates of violent crime are associated with lower income levels. You may enjoy playing with your guns because they're badass and fun, but if you're going to try to rationalize that behaviour as socially positive, or even non-harmful, by citing statistics you're going to lose terribly. The stats have spoken, many times, over and over. For instance, as to above, from a scholarly peer-reviewed Oxford medical journal study: Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Shocking that higher rates of violent crime are associated with lower income levels. Not at all........and so called "gun control" has little effect on said rates of gun crime, made evident by none other than Mexico, which has rates of gun violence 5-6 times that of the United States, despite far stricter gun laws than what is found in the United States (or Canada)........ You may enjoy playing with your guns because they're badass and fun, but if you're going to try to rationalize that behaviour as socially positive, or even non-harmful, by citing statistics you're going to lose terribly. The stats have spoken, many times, over and over. For instance, as to above, from a scholarly peer-reviewed Oxford medical journal study: From your linked study: The demographic characteristics of the decedents are presented in table 1. Homicide victims were mostly male, less than 35 years of age, and of racial or ethnic minority status. Suicide victims were predominately male, older, and non-Hispanic White. Thanks for confirming what I already cited (from the DoJ), of which the majority of said crimes were drug related.....The statistics confirm my point quite clearly, in that the highest rates of gun violence are found among young minorities involved in drugs. Edited January 8, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Topaz Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 What parent in their right mind , would give a gun to their 12 year old child? Just wait until she falls madly in love with some guy at 16 and finds out the down-side of being cheated on and hurt and she takes the guns and shoots him, then ends up in jail or death row, then what will her father think?? Texas and gun= killing of a president, always will be remembered for. Of course, Americans will always wonder if they can trust their government, so I guess its reasonable to have a gun in a violent country. Quote
Argus Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 That doesn't equate to the cited stats of convictions of CHL holders in Texas. Why would it? I mean, if you can shoot anyone you think is somehow offending against you without being charged then of course there won't be convictions. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 8, 2016 Report Posted January 8, 2016 How are such laws "crazy"? Both the Canadian RPAL and Texas CHL licenses contain provisions to omit mentally disturbed people. I think we define 'mentally disturbed' quite a bit more broadly than Texas does. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 I think we define 'mentally disturbed' quite a bit more broadly than Texas does. What are the differences between both definitions? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Why would it? I mean, if you can shoot anyone you think is somehow offending against you without being charged then of course there won't be convictions. Of course that isn't the case, as Texas has clearly defined laws encompassing use of deadly force. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Texas is a "stand-your-ground law" state, which means there is no duty to retreat and lethal force may be used when imminent threat of bodily harm or death is reasonably perceived. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Texas is a "stand-your-ground law" state, which means there is no duty to retreat and lethal force may be used when imminent threat of bodily harm or death is reasonably perceived. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31 Or loss/damage of property Quote
eyeball Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 How about government over-taxation? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 How about government over-taxation? In Texas? Quote
Argus Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 Of course that isn't the case, as Texas has clearly defined laws encompassing use of deadly force. If that includes shooting 14 year olds who ring your doorbell and run away then they're clearly in need of a lot of tightening. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 What are the differences between both definitions? I think our definition of crazy would probably include most Texans. Most Republicans, too. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 I think our definition of crazy would probably include most Texans. Most Republicans, too. I see, so you can't actually demonstrate a difference........ Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 If that includes shooting 14 year olds who ring your doorbell and run away then they're clearly in need of a lot of tightening. What needs tightening? Their laws? Funny enough I'd consider teenagers trespassing and causing mischief a reflection of poor parenting, further heightened in this day and age of armed home invasions.......... Quote
The_Squid Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 This is the "age of armed home invasions"? No one is safe! LOL What a whacky way of looking at the world. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) I think our definition of crazy would probably include most Texans. Most Republicans, too. Aye, but "who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins? Distinctly we see the difference of the colors, but where exactly does the one first blendingly enter into the other? So with sanity and insanity." - Herman Melville - Billy Budd Edited January 9, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2016 Report Posted January 9, 2016 This is the "age of armed home invasions"? No one is safe! LOL What a whacky way of looking at the world. Source: *An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year onaverage from 2003 to 2007. *A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries. *Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.