What would you say to this?

This is a discussion on What would you say to this? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by QKShooter I think it's really dangerous and sickening the way crazy sports fans riot, carry on, get drunk, & start fires, loot ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: What would you say to this?

  1. #16
    Member Array walther1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    329

    QKShooter is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    I think it's really dangerous and sickening the way crazy sports fans riot, carry on, get drunk, & start fires, loot businesses and turn over cars after big championship games causing millions of dollars in damage to a city....so why not eliminate stadium sports?
    You never see that sort of stuff happening after a ballet or a symphony or the figure skating competitions or even pedigree dog shows....so let's just have those. I would say that those milder events are OK.
    Who needs the violent sports games in an industrialized, civilized, society...afterall we're not ancient Romans.
    We should be more advanced by now.
    :c-yes3:
    -------------
    Walther1

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of the ultimate CC gun!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    discussing guns with an 'anti' who has all the answers...don't try to confuse him/her with the real facts...they won't be heard. I have learned 'who' not to discuss the self-defense issues with at work (it's a school...so that is pretty much everyone...).
    I made that mistake once...the individual had so many strange ideas about how dangerous guns were...
    I just had to agree to disagree...so frustrating...

    OMO

    ret
    I have written this before on a different thread, but I think that it is relevant as well to this thread. As with all subjects, including the Second Amendment and guns, it is pointless to engage in a discussion with any one who is ideaologicly committed to a particular point of view or idea. For example, no amount of logic, reason, or statistics is going to convince Sara Brady that her position is wrong. That is also why it is an equally bad idea to discuss religion if the purpose of the discussion is to try to convince the other person that your religion is the only "true" religion and that theirs is false. And, I agree that this may be the case with many anti-gun people, as suggested by Retsupt99. But, I do believe that there is a large group of people out there who, although uncomfortable about guns, are not ideaologicly opposed to gun ownership and may not have a real understanding about the Second Amendment. It is this group that may be brought around with reason, and in my opinion it is not only worth the effort, but imperative that we try to do so given the likely coming threat to gun ownership represented by the current change of control of Congress.

    Ron

    Ron

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    People's minds can be changed if they are willing to honestly and openly enter the arena of ideas.

    What you have written should make the light come on in the head of any person who is willing to cosider that they are wrong. There are some who will never be convinced, but we must never stop trying.


    Good job. I hope he takes you up on your invitation to do some shooting.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    [But there is something wrong with Americans. We kill each other like no other industrialized nation. Canada has far more guns per person and they don't kill each other... so the problem is something deeper.]

    First off, I'm curious as to what your sources are on saying that Americans "kill like no other". According to this website (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita ) we are #24 on the list of amount of murders per capita. And as for Canada having more guns than we do, I hightly doubt it. According to a poll in the 90s, roughtly 50% of Americans admitted to having a gun in their home. Now, that was Pre-9/11, which was when gun sales really went through the roof, and also it doesn't count the many gun owners who probably wouldn't admit to owning a gun. Unless you're counting those lil "bang bang cap guns" at Wal-Mart, I don't see how Canada has more guns than we do, lol.
    Do not make the mistake of not dealing with the person's statement. He said, that Canada has more guns per person than the US. In your response you are addressing the total number of guns. There are 300 million people in the US. There would have to be 300 million guns for there to be one gun per person. There are fewer than 33 million people in Canada, so there would only have to be 33 million guns for there to be one gun per person. The latest information I can find is for 1997 and it shows that for that year there were .25 firearms per person in Canada and .82 firearms per person in the US. So his statistic is incorrect.

    As stated in another post if his statistic were true it would be evidence that his whole argument is wrong.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  6. #20
    VIP Member
    Array nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    7,120
    what dear is he thinking about

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,067
    I like your response--reasoned, factual (with sources)...so of course he isn't going to read it. If he does, I'm interested in his response.

    Mike

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285
    He is right I would not hunt a Dear with a AK (30 cal) but I would hunt a Deer with one.

    Also we hunt with .50 cal (black powder) all the time so he is wrong there, as to the boys to the north having more guns... well look at the stats of how many guns vs how many US citizens and I believe that may be in error there too.

    His crime notions are way off base, actually gun crimes are not that significant per 100K and are mostly repeat offenders doing the bad deed, so I point my finger to the judicial system for blame on that one.

    One more thing the musket was the assault weapon of the 1700's.

    So did anyone keep count on how many points he has wrong here?
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  9. #23
    Member Array tj1231's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post

    Now, as far as "the founding fathers didn't envision the weapons we have today" -- that doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. What they envisioned was that we would have contemporary arms, I imagine. So if the other guy has a Remington 700, you have a Remington 700. If the other guy has a GLOCK 22, you have a GLOCK 22. If the other guy has an AK47, you have an M16, etc.
    Exactly...
    Have him read this article: http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/113.cfm

    Then read the 2nd amendment section here:
    http://www.gunfacts.info/index.html

    Then read the militia act. The militia act does specifically talk about muskets because they were the standard "infantry" gun of the day. My understanding is that we should have what the standard soldier carries. Our rights do however end at artillery, because they address artillery seperately than "arms".

    Point out the fact that Connecticut, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont all had their state constitutions BEFORE the Bill Of Rights and they specifically addressed self defense.

    If he decides that militia means "national guard" apply this type of logic: Why would the government need to protect a government entity from the government, IN a document designed to protect the people?

    I hope some of this helps.

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Risque007 View Post
    Does anyone remember the name of the case against the police in D.C.?
    Warren vs. the District of Columbia
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ruger ranch rifle at walmart

Click on a term to search for related topics.