Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#15978 Dec 18, 2012
Cousin DuPrees Cousin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it you just seem like a guy who is itching to pull that trigger on someone, a real human? Almost like you're wishing and dreaming to find yourself in a scenario, like the mall or one of the school shootings, but I don't think it would go the way you expect it would. You have seen too many movies and YouTube Clips.
I posted the YouTube clip to demonstrate that it doesn't go down like you imagine. Think of it: all that training, all that firearm practice and education, and those cops missed the suspects like they were 100 feet away.

This is how we end up with innocent bystanders getting shot in the hood. Those lowlifes have no training, no experience and no knowledge of a gun. They do figure it's like a Dirty Harry movie and they will kill their victim with one shot to the head. Little do that know that any generous amount of space between them and their target will have a few misses. So they shoot at some other lowlife, the bullet misses and ends up killing somebody in their home watching television.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#15979 Dec 18, 2012
For Fred's and Pops' benefit, lets review.
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
This is actually exactly what I was talking about.
If banning guns wouldn't reduce the homicide rate due to the assumption that murders would find other tools, what keeps the UK at 1.2 to the US's 4.2? Shouldn't the murders have found other tools?
Just after a mass shooting the UK placed serious restrictions on firearms and came out of a spike in violent crime. There's been no rise in knife, car, bomb or pool cue deaths to make up the difference.
What keeps Australia at the 1.0 they reached after strict firearms restrictions?
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
Island?
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Australia is a homogenous society, geographically isolated by today's standards with very selective immigration criteria compared to the United States.
tranpsosition wrote:
Aus foreign born population in 2007: 25.0%
US foreign born population in 2007: 13.6%
Google "1370.0 - Measures of Australia's Progress, 2010" for the full dataset.
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Did you happen to consider that of that 25% foreign born the majority come from Europe? White, western democratic tradition, educated nations. HOMOGENOUS.

[QUOTE who="Duke for Mayor"]<quoted text>
Better check the numbers Georgie boy. You're approaching the bubble meter's limits again.
woof
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>I said population, over time. Not the immigrants of 2010.
Now where your cite?
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
Australia had almost 26.5 percent of the population born overseas and this is regarded to be the highest since 1901.
In the year 1947, nearly 90 percent of the total population of Australia was exclusively Australian-born. However, it was only after the Second World War when Australia encouraged immigration at massive scales by inviting migrants hailing from Europe to immigrate to Australia. This resulted in immigration of Europeans into Australia in large numbers (hundreds of thousands).
Meanwhile, immigrants hailing from Britain account for largest number of single overseas-born people in Australia.
http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/26-perce...
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimi...

If you really want to clutch your pearls, check out the racial make up.
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>And that's beginning in which year?
Tell me about the foreign born population before 1990 and their descendents. HOMOGENOUS.
woof
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#15980 Dec 18, 2012
tranpsosition wrote:
I've never really understood the argument that having a gun will somehow keep you safer in an attack or assault.
Do people who believe this not know about studies showing that carrying a gun in an assault increasing your risk or do they just ignore them?
I've never seen such statistics. The statistics I have seen show that criminals are more afraid to commit a crime where people can defend themselves than Victim Zones where they know nobody is armed.

Do explain: how is one less safe with a gun than without during an assault?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#15981 Dec 18, 2012
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Did you happen to consider that of that 25% foreign born the majority come from Europe? White, western democratic tradition, educated nations. HOMOGENOUS.
And there is no nation easier to enter as a poor, uneducated third worlder than the United States.
How many poor, uneducated third worlders have shot up a mall, movie theater, political rally or school lately?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#15982 Dec 18, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
Island?
Guns can swim.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#15983 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The caliber of gun is not what makes the accuracy, it's the barrel length and recoil.
If I were a parent who feared for my child's life in school, I would be more relieved knowing a few teachers or faculty had firearms in the building to protect my child than I would knowing that if some maniac breaks in, my child has no protection at all. Some schools have already started that program. So far, seems to be working rather well. No shootings in those schools.
That program will be popular until someone gets shot with some teacher's gun.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#15984 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted the YouTube clip to demonstrate that it doesn't go down like you imagine. Think of it: all that training, all that firearm practice and education, and those cops missed the suspects like they were 100 feet away.
This is how we end up with innocent bystanders getting shot in the hood. Those lowlifes have no training, no experience and no knowledge of a gun. They do figure it's like a Dirty Harry movie and they will kill their victim with one shot to the head. Little do that know that any generous amount of space between them and their target will have a few misses. So they shoot at some other lowlife, the bullet misses and ends up killing somebody in their home watching television.
Replace "lowlife" with "teacher."
Spookishere F trolls

Toledo, OH

#15985 Dec 18, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Guns can swim.
A 40smith and wesson is a lightweight cousin to the first European manufactured 10mm. Like a .38 to a .357mag. Actually the 10mm was close performance wise to a .41mag
you are a sicko

West Union, OH

#15986 Dec 18, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How many poor, uneducated third worlders have shot up a mall, movie theater, political rally or school lately?
How many come on here and talk the CRAZZZZy talk that you talk? NONE!
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#15987 Dec 18, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That program will be popular until someone gets shot with some teacher's gun.
How popular is our current program where maniacs break into schools killing children and nobody can defend them or themselves? It's not very popular today.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#15988 Dec 18, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Replace "lowlife" with "teacher."
I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Are you saying a teacher trained in firearm self defense is the same as some lowlife who's only experience at firing a weapon is in the ground on New Years eve or at another person in commission of a crime? That's a hell of a comparison.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#15989 Dec 18, 2012
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
While I understand some of the argument that other dangerous weapons would remain if guns were banned, what do those sporting this argument use to make up the difference in the statistics between homicides in countries with gun bans and without.
We've seen an overall reduction in shooting deaths since the gun ban, coupled with the drop in all crime. Shouldn't these gun deaths have been subsumed into a rise in murders by other implements, for this argument to hold?
Or is it an argument only intended to be used in contexts where nobody participating in the conversation knows anything of other countries, their approaches through modern history and the results?
Violent crime and firearms ownership has been decreasing before the assault gun ban and after. There is no evidence to support the false claim that the ban had any real results. As for other countries, don't compare them to ours. Compare those country's to themselves before stringent firearm restrictions and after.

Limbaugh brought up a pretty good statistic today. He said that more people get killed in Chicago every month than the entire school in Connecticut did that dreaded day. Many of them minorities and yes, some children. Yet, nobody called for more gun restrictions for Illinois. Probably because they don't have CCW's in Illinois and have the harshest gun restrictions in the country.

Go figure.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15990 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Violent crime and firearms ownership has been decreasing before the assault gun ban and after. There is no evidence to support the false claim that the ban had any real results. As for other countries, don't compare them to ours. Compare those country's to themselves before stringent firearm restrictions and after.
Limbaugh brought up a pretty good statistic today. He said that more people get killed in Chicago every month than the entire school in Connecticut did that dreaded day. Many of them minorities and yes, some children. Yet, nobody called for more gun restrictions for Illinois. Probably because they don't have CCW's in Illinois and have the harshest gun restrictions in the country.
Go figure.
True, just show how effective Gun Control Laws.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15991 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Violent crime and firearms ownership has been decreasing before the assault gun ban and after. There is no evidence to support the false claim that the ban had any real results. As for other countries, don't compare them to ours. Compare those country's to themselves before stringent firearm restrictions and after.
Limbaugh brought up a pretty good statistic today. He said that more people get killed in Chicago every month than the entire school in Connecticut did that dreaded day. Many of them minorities and yes, some children. Yet, nobody called for more gun restrictions for Illinois. Probably because they don't have CCW's in Illinois and have the harshest gun restrictions in the country.
Go figure.
True, just shows how effective Gun Control Laws are and working in Chicago.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#15992 Dec 18, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>True, just shows how effective Gun Control Laws are and working in Chicago.
About the same as our decades long war on drugs. Now we have the highest percentage of our population locked up in jail compared to the rest of the industrialized world because or recreational narcotics.

Laws don't work on criminals. The reason they are criminals is because they break laws.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15993 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
About the same as our decades long war on drugs. Now we have the highest percentage of our population locked up in jail compared to the rest of the industrialized world because or recreational narcotics.
Laws don't work on criminals. The reason they are criminals is because they break laws.
true.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#15994 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Are you saying a teacher trained in firearm self defense is the same as some lowlife who's only experience at firing a weapon is in the ground on New Years eve or at another person in commission of a crime? That's a hell of a comparison.
Yes. That is what I am saying.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#15995 Dec 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
About the same as our decades long war on drugs. Now we have the highest percentage of our population locked up in jail compared to the rest of the industrialized world because or recreational narcotics.
Laws don't work on criminals. The reason they are criminals is because they break laws.
Then we should repeal the entire criminal code, right?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#15996 Dec 18, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we should repeal the entire criminal code, right?
I would prefer you Mr. Lawyer just enforce the ones on the books

OK sparky

then add to the laws you leave unpunished

swift justice.....remember.....then a crime with a gun is either life in prison, or death. Choice is left up to severity of the crime.

follow the law

it will kill you if you don't
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#15997 Dec 18, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we should repeal the entire criminal code, right?
I forgot to add:

a lawyer would not be necessary at a trial for any gun violence crime.

with a choice of life in prison or death, the court will determine eye for an eye for sure.

you can save money on the lobbyists your fellow lawyers and you pay out to keep the court running.

it won't matter anymore.

you are a hypocrite.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Maumee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: iLoveKickboxing -Perrysburg OH Jul 30 Paityn D 43
Mad Entertainment World Lists Mad Max:Fury Road... Jul 27 Culture Auditor 1
News Critics: 2nd charter school probe needed Jun '15 Bullseye 1
Locate Family May '15 Raymond Bell 2
Review: Electric Tool & Equipment (Oct '14) Oct '14 Captain Bob 1
News Celebrating out of the norm (Dec '13) Mar '14 god 4
News Smoking policy cloudy for ecigarettes (Mar '14) Mar '14 BAN SMOKING NOW 46
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Maumee Mortgages