Prove there's a god.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#582709 Jan 4, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>What is wrong with clam diver? I don't mind being called that.
heheh, yeah, what happened to her gay pride? I thought there wasn't supposed to be anything derogatory about being called gay? Some people just can't make up their minds. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT.

xD

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#582710 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're one of those impossible trolls....
Ugh
Explain why **^^you think^^** that gun owners are more likely to die every year.......
Because it is FACT.

"Summary

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms.

The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.

Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles.

The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method.

It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

Argument

Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?

In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides.

(1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time.

Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.

Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal.

Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).

After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.ht...

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#582711 Jan 4, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I called the insult police, but they were busy on another thread.
Somebody typed astrology instead of astronomy...it was a text bath, worst I've seen.
What are you...like 4? Little tattle tale wussy.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#582712 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You said "guns kill". That is not a fact..
Actually it is.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#582713 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
But the stats only show how many kids have died because of guns.
Find one that shows how many have LIVED because of guns...
What?

Like all the kids Lanzo missed?

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#582714 Jan 4, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Why? It was her poor judgement that caused her own death.
No one asks to be murdered dumb ass.
A kid is to blame when he isn't paying attention and gets killed walking across the street.

That doesn't make it any less tragic or make anyone on the entire planet happy for you to say "it was his own damn fault".
But it does reveal something about you.
Forum carlsbad nm

Hobbs, NM

#582715 Jan 4, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, because pregnancy is caused by women.
Women are too dumb not to want respect from men.
Men are dogs always in heat. Cover up. It's gross.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#582716 Jan 4, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>The word it dehumanizes a person for the person making the statement.
Like in 'Silence of the lambs'.
"It rubs the lotion on It's skin."
Or like in the book ' A Child Called It'.
I knew an old woman who refused to call her grand daughter anything but "it" from the day the kid was born. Very strange.

I'm not so insecure that being called "it" by anybody would provoke anything but a laugh from me.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582717 Jan 4, 2013
OCB wrote:
I have no desire to see our police forces unarmed.
Good. I thought you were totally crazy, now I know you're partially crazy.
BULLSHIT. You have no proof or anything even close to it to justly claim that guns would be manufactured and sold illegally.
It always happens when things get banned or made illegal...
Nope- PLANNING to commit a crime does NOT make one a criminal.
Following through on the plan DOES. BIG difference.
So we should have people branded as criminals because of their thoughts???
Thoughts and planning are different. To which are you referring?
WTF is right. I KNOW you never read "1984"- perhaps you should if you think THOUGHTS are what makes a criminal.
How many other Timothy McVeighs have there been? What's that? NONE??
That's stupid. How many Adam Lanza's are there?

Dumb ass.
"Probably not". I am sure all the parents of the shooters I mentioned thought DEFINITELY not.
How imbecilic of you that you take comfort in stating "probably" not.
Yes, I take comfort in probably not.

Probable:
adjective
likely to occur or prove true

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582718 Jan 4, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text> Because it is FACT.
"Summary
Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms.
The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.
Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles.
The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method.
It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.
Argument
Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides.
(1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time.
Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.
Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal.
Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).
After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.ht...
Of course the NRA contends it, Arthur Kellermann is a well-known anti-gun nut. Any "study" of his would be absolutely bias.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582719 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You said "guns kill". That is not a fact..
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it is.
You're lack of fact is impressive.

Do you have those velcro shoes?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582720 Jan 4, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
What?
Like all the kids Lanzo missed?
Sure, and all the other people in America that are NOT murdered.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#582721 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
You know the Federal Law you refuse to acknowledge that names it, Child in Utero. That baby.
That's a fetus, not a baby. Even if the federal law called it a teenager, it would still be a fetus.
UR BS wrote:
So now humans are no more value than a tree to you?
Nope. Not yet.
UR BS wrote:
Or a cow? Or a moose?


Keep going.
UR BS wrote:
As to the Iraqia please get off that lame rant.
I was through with "the Iraq-ia"

You're not Miss Teen South Carolina, are you? Listen to this chick say, "the Iraq(a)" at 00:40 at http://snipurl.com/ro1l7

QUESTION: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?

MISS TEEN SOUTH CAROLINA: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#582722 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
The majority of your innocent Iraqis were actively trying to kill Americans there.
I know that you can't know that. And if that were true, it probably means that the locals felt forced to. How would you treat an invading army in New Hampshire or wherever you call home?

You're not being the best person you can be to imply that so many people deserved the pain and suffering that they endured as a result of a military invasion or resisting it. They were just unlucky pawns - unsophisticated peasants in the wrong time and place, not people that deserved to lose homes, legs, children, and more. You can do better than that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582723 Jan 4, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Again, 5 times more people would equate to SEVENTY murders with guns- NOT over NINE THOUSAND.
And until you can provide any proof that the higher crime rate in the UK is a direct result and cause of ordinary citizens not having guns, keep your yap shut.
I'm putting an end to the whole "UK is safer than US" crap.

It's not.

Go there, you're 125% more likely to be raped.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582724 Jan 4, 2013
Forum carlsbad nm wrote:
Women are too dumb not to want respect from men.
Men are dogs always in heat. Cover up. It's gross.
Riiiiight......

And women have sex with men because men are in heat....

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#582725 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. I thought you were totally crazy, now I know you're partially crazy.
<quoted text>
It always happens when things get banned or made illegal...
<quoted text>
Thoughts and planning are different. To which are you referring?
<quoted text>
That's stupid. How many Adam Lanza's are there?
Dumb ass.
<quoted text>
Yes, I take comfort in probably not.
Probable:
adjective
likely to occur or prove true
OCB wrote:
I have no desire to see our police forces unarmed.

Good. I thought you were totally crazy, now I know you're partially crazy.

BULLSHIT. You have no proof or anything even close to it to justly claim that guns would be manufactured and sold illegally.

It always happens when things get banned or made illegal...

Nope- PLANNING to commit a crime does NOT make one a criminal.
Following through on the plan DOES. BIG difference.
So we should have people branded as criminals because of their thoughts???

Thoughts and planning are different. To which are you referring?

WTF is right. I KNOW you never read "1984"- perhaps you should if you think THOUGHTS are what makes a criminal.
How many other Timothy McVeighs have there been? What's that? NONE??

That's stupid. How many Adam Lanza's are there?

Dumb ass.

"Probably not". I am sure all the parents of the shooters I mentioned thought DEFINITELY not.
How imbecilic of you that you take comfort in stating "probably" not.

Yes, I take comfort in probably not.

Probable:
adjective
likely to occur or prove true

Actually, I've stated I am in favor of all LAW enforcement officials being armed.

I am NOT in favor of ANY ordinary private citizen being armed.

No- it does NOT always happen when something is banned or made illegal. That is a flat out LIE.

Hey stupid- a PLAN IS a THOUGHT. And UNTIL a PLAN is carried out, it remains nothing more than a thought. I can tell you I am THINKING that I PLAN to win the lottery. Until I actually win, my plan means NOTHING.

How many Adam Lanzas? I listed 3 more for you right off the top of my head. There are MANY more but how many more will it take for you gun NUTS to WAKE the F*CK up??

Likely and probable are NOT facts and are NOT absolutes.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#582726 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Explain why **^^you think^^** that gun owners are more likely to die every year.......
Because statistic back that up.For example,in the New England Journal of Medicine, they studied the fallacy of owning a gun for your own protection. They obtained medical examiner's case files which were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim.

They studied everything for the pass 6 years and found that a total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (thatÂ’s right, ONLY 2) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry.

62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home.

Wow, that's almost 3/4. Imagine that.

The good news is that America is wising up and gun ownership is now going down. It peaked in 1977 when 54 percent of American households had a gun. In 2010, that percentage decreased to 32.3 percent, the lowest level recorded by the independent General Social Survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In Connecticut, only 16.2 percent of households have guns now.

The more educated the country becomes on this issue, the safer the country will be.

Redneck you can't make an informed decision on this topic because you are in the inside looking out. Delusion is like that. Just ask Nancy Lanza. Most other people however are on the outside and can see all the facts for what they are - facts. Many other countries have proven that the less guns around, the safer it is for everyone. Time for the U.S. to do the same.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#582727 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm putting an end to the whole "UK is safer than US" crap.
It's not.
Go there, you're 125% more likely to be raped.
But a HELLUVA lot less likely to be killed with a GUN.

Do you honestly think women should walk around armed in order to deter would-be rapists? I imagine in some instances it would act as a deterrent, but I imagine that in MANY more instances it would not and could very well further enrage the attacker to the point of him using the victim's gun against them.

Yeah- you SHOULD put an end to it- it backfired on you.

With a very low incidence of killings with firearms in the UK- that being just 14 a year versus 9.369 in the USA, you made yourself look like the fool you are for posting what you did.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#582728 Jan 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the "at any time" part.
Dumb ass.
No, actually I didn't dumbass.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Buck Crick 71,106
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min hojo 658,913
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 33 min Buck Crick 284
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 46 min Toby 5,061
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 52 min Al Capone 3,047
Poll Is the price is right fixed for blacks? (Jun '12) 59 min fed up 160
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 1 hr Bj_happy 77
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr onemale 283,030
More from around the web