Gun homicides are four times the world average - guess where?

[Rich]

I bet there were Europeans in the 1930s, especially Jews, that would have been thought of as being paranoid.

That was a specific race and not a nation

 

[Alc]

Moral of the story? Guns don't kill people. Knifes don't kill people - people kill people.

..bombs and setting a fire are the best.

So, discounting actions by the military, which country(ies) have a murder rate involving bombs and fires that's higher than that where the killers used guns?

 

[Rich]

Prove it. =]

-dK

I don't have to, there's not a scrap of evidence to support the opposite

 

[dkinley]

That was a specific race and not a nation

Considering they killed just as many Christians as they did Jews doesn't make it about race. The Christians only thought they were safe because they also thought it was about race.

Consider the "peaceful Muslims" who currently think they are safe. Once the master plan by the "terrorist Muslims" has been executed - the peaceful denial will then get them destroyed.

-dK

 

[dkinley]

I don't have to, there's not a scrap of evidence to support the opposite

But yet is okay to accuse and convict without proof? Touche, Rich.

-dK

 

[Mike375]

That was a specific race and not a nation

The point is many of the would have been though of as being paranoid.

And I don't think Hitler's advances were restricted Jews.

 

[Rich]

But yet is okay to accuse and convict without proof? Touche, Rich.

-dK

You made the original statement on the need for civilians to be armed, not me

 

[Rich]

Considering they killed just as many Christians as they did Jews doesn't make it about race. The Christians only thought they were safe because they also thought it was about race.


-dK

Yes and armed civillians didn't stand a bloody chance against them, now what was your point again?

 

[Mike375]

So, discounting actions by the military, which country(ies) have a murder rate involving bombs and fires that's higher than that where the killers used guns?

The biggest mass killings are with fire and bombs although bin Laden introduced the aeroplane.

As a side note, do you prefer the idea of only criminals having guns?

 

[Rich]

The point is many of the would have been though of as being paranoid.

And I don't think Hitler's advances were restricted Jews.

Well yes, I see the similarities between Germany and the US, both led by one lunatic with huge armies etc behind them, I wonder why the Yanks didn't rise up against Bush?
Oh I know, Muslims are now the enemy

 

[dkinley]

Yes and armed civillians didn't stand a bloody chance against them, now what was your point again?

My point is - I am not going to simply roll over like so others choose to do. Sorry, and no offense, but I am of the sheepdog classification.

If you choose to roll over, then by all means - roll over and die a slow death while your rights are being squeezed from you or at the mercy of other people. People like me just ask people like you to quit attempting to get us to roll over, too. Just quit hampering, get out of our way and let us take care of the business that people who like to roll over won't. You can go back to living the life of denial after we have died to secure your right to do so.

-dK

 

[Rich]

My point is - I am not going to simply roll over like so others choose to do. Sorry, and no offense, but I am of the sheepdog classification.

If you choose to roll over, then by all means - roll over and die a slow death while your rights are being squeezed from you or at the mercy of other people. People like me just ask people like you to quit attempting to get us to roll over, too. Just quit hampering, get out of our way and let us take care of the business that people who like to roll over won't. You can go back to living the life of denial after we have died to secure your right to do so.

-dK

My forefathers from my country did it centuries before the Yanks decided they own the credit

 

[dkinley]

My forefathers from my country did it centuries before the Yanks decided they own the credit

And they are honored for doing so. Do you honestly think it is a one-time thing? That every generation doesn't need to be vigilant in protecting the rights, liberties and securities that their forefathers gave them?

If not, that is denial. If so - then what's the problem?

-dK

 

[KenHigg]

Thread Summary
=============================
No new opinions
No new insights
No one changes their views
Time wasted away...
=============================

 

[Rich]

And they are honored for doing so. Do you honestly think it is a one-time thing? That every generation doesn't need to be vigilant in protecting the rights, liberties and securities that their forefathers gave them?

If not, that is denial. If so - then what's the problem?

-dK

No the difference is in modern society we have two little things called the vote and civil unrest.
Oddly enough it was both those that finally brought a Black president to the US, how odd that you're scared of that fact and it's conclusion

 

[Alc]

The biggest mass killings are with fire and bombs although bin Laden introduced the aeroplane.

Which of these were not carried out by the military, be it government-sponsored or 'rebel' groups?

Besides which, the original poster was clearly referring to individual killings, as opposed to genocide. The average person wishing to kill someone appears to favour a gun over a fire or bomb, presumably as the fire is harder to direct and the bomb takes more skill to create and is harder to get hold of.

As a side note, do you prefer the idea of only criminals having guns?

If the police and the judiciary are given the necessary powers to deal with it? Yes. In the same way that I think only criminals should vandalise cars. Doesn't mean I think anyone should be doing it, just that if someone does do it they should automatically become a criminal. The way you worded the question is intended to imply that I approve of criminals owning guns - I don't.

If anyone found in possession of a firearm (or ammunition for one) were automatically executed on the spot, I'd be willing to bet that the number of people willing to carry one would drop dramatically. Even those who clearly need one as a penis extension would think twice.

Yes, there are armed criminals and many people feel the need to arm themselves 'just in case'. I get that. But I feel it would be far better to deal with the problem (more police, harsher penalties, or whatever.) than add to it. If some people were getting kicks by throwing illegally obtained hand grenades into houses, the answer wouldn't be to make hand grenades legal. That would just mean that any people who want to commit the same act but don't have the necessary criminal contacts to buy the devices illegally would find it easier. I know grenades don't kill, people do, but the grenade and the gun were both invented to make it that much easier for people to do so.

 

[dkinley]

No the difference is in modern society we have two little things called the vote and civil unrest.
Oddly enough it was both those that finally brought a Black president to the US, how odd that you're scared of that fact and it's conclusion

lol ... I am not scared of it. I will support anyone as long as they continue to guarentee my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These things will not be until everyone can be guarenteed there are no threats, foreign and domestic. But until they have demonstrated there are none, then we will retain our other rights guarenteed by the same.

But still the question persists .... are you in denial that your rights can be taken away? And if so, are you prepared to hand them over quietly or fight for them?

If the latter - how do you plan to fight if the votes are rigged by those you are planning to fight and you have nothing left to fight with?

-dK

 

[Rich]

lol ... I am not scared of it. I will support anyone as long as they continue to guarentee my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These things will not be until everyone can be guarenteed there are no threats, foreign and domestic. But until they have demonstrated there are none, then we will retain our other rights guarenteed by the same.

But still the question persists .... are in in denial that your rights can be taken away? And if so, are your prepared to hand them over quietly or fight for them?

If the latter - how do you plan to fight if the votes are rigged by those you are planning to fight and you have nothing left to fight with?

-dK

Come off it, Bush was the most right wing pres the US has had for yonks, where was the uprising, and talking of vote rigging
And what are these rights that you believe are being taken away, the right to bear arms that is so twisted anyway?

 

[Mike375]

If the police and the judiciary are given the necessary powers to deal with it? Yes. .

We will never agree and for a fundamental reason.

I prefer full freedom and whatever negatives come as a price for that freedom. You prefer gov't intervention and whatever negatives come as a price.

 

[dkinley]

No, it's not about paranoia - it's about not being naive. I think it was described best when using sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves as an analogy to society. Here you go ...

http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

-dK

I reckon Ken's summary is correct.

Good luck.

-dK