Hey Liberals? Guns work!!

pnwmystery said:

LOL! You must not be very familiar with the very Orthodox Jews in Israel. The ones who throw stones at women for walking through their neighborhoods without covering their hair.



You must be new to this, because for the past ten years I've been studying jihadism and terrorism. The majority of Muslims even say that this extremism is not what a true representation of Islam. You can post up all the Fox News polls you want, but the vast majority trend I've noticed over the past ten years is that they want to be mostly left alone, to practice their faith, and not be bombed for oil. It's the fastest growing religion on the face of this Earth, why aren't we all dead yet if every Muslim wants to kill every non Muslim? There's, what, 1.1 billion of them and counting?

Many Islamic scholars also say that jihad is not just warfare, but if you look at what the actual meaning of the word is, which is "striving, applying oneself, struggling, persevering" they say that every day can be jihad, just to survive and live up to how Allah would want someone to live a good life.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the ole jihad = struggle routine lol.

Behold - "struggle"!




The Muslim population is supposedly around 1.6 billion. Even a ridiculously tiny minority - say one in a thousand - that takes serious the fundamentalist teachings and see their central purpose in life as joining the sacred "struggle", that's over one and a half million militant jihadist!

And nobody is talking about killing all Muslims or deporting all Muslims from the US (other than maybe Trump lol)? That's manufactured political hyperbole - like "hands up, don't shoot".

In spite of decades of distributed Muslim mass murders of innocent non-combatants around the globe (a little more serious than orthodox jews throwing stones and/or hurling verbal abuses), there haven't been violent reprisals against them in the US. But there are lots of concerned people calling for a temporary moratorium on future immigration from various extremist "hot spots" around the world until the head-up-ass State Department's system filters for vetting them can be verified as maximally effective and not unduly influenced by political naivety.

Gotta go. We'll talk later or whatever. Have a nice night!

meristem said:

Yeah, the ole jihad = struggle routine lol.

Behold - "struggle"!




The Muslim population is supposedly around 1.6 billion. Even a ridiculously tiny minority - say one in a thousand - that takes serious the fundamentalist teachings and see their central purpose in life as joining the sacred "struggle", that's over one and a half million militant jihadist!

And nobody is talking about killing all Muslims or deporting all Muslims from the US (other than maybe Trump lol)? That's manufactured political hyperbole - like "hands up, don't shoot".

In spite of decades of distributed Muslim mass murders of innocent non-combatants around the globe (a little more serious than orthodox jews throwing stones and/or hurling verbal abuses), there haven't been violent reprisals against them in the US. But there are lots of concerned people calling for a temporary moratorium on future immigration from various extremist "hot spots" around the world until the head-up-ass State Department's system filters for vetting them can be verified as maximally effective and not unduly influenced by political naivety.

Gotta go. We'll talk later or whatever. Have a nice night!

Click to expand...

I gave you the literal meaning as from the Quran of jihad, and you mock it? LOL okay.

/politics mode

Hey have a nice night too!

^^^^^

pnwmystery said:

I gave you the literal meaning as from the Quran of jihad, and you mock it? LOL okay.

/politics mode

Hey have a nice night too!

Click to expand...

Hey man - I was gonna say let's do a little examination of the life and teaching of "the prophet" and see if today's militant jihadists are in harmony or disagreement, but I already derailed this topic to the point where I must apologize to OP, you, and everyone else. So fuck that tangent. Let's get high! lol

Only proceed if sufficiently tuned and you have more time than sense...



Now, GUNS.

First off, I'm in agreement with libs that most of us ordinary peeps don't need 50 cal sniper weapons, fully auto AK47s, RPGs, suitcase nukes, or whatever insane degree of killing power... in order to defend ourselves against government tyranny. I'm all for more stringent background checks, delays in gun purchases, and not selling to people with dynamite strapped to their chests, etc.

In fact, IMO, if ALL the guns and ammo in America - without exception - could be simultaneously and magically eliminated from the hands of the populace, I'd say "great, let's do it!". And that, in spite of our various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

But Pandora's box is already wide open. and the demons have long dispersed across the land. The populace - including the good, bad, and nuttier than fuck - are already armed to the teeth. And as long as the only folks to be practically affected by "gun control" [sic] politics are those that normally obey gun laws, we're merely spinning useless political wheels and subjecting ordinary, self-defense oriented, typically non-violent folks, to even greater vulnerability to criminals, crazies, and ideological assholes.

[there is the safety issue with children and others - accidental shootings and the like - but let's deal with that later.]

---------- some recent examples of counter-productive nonsense---------

Virginia just outlawed the recognition of out-of-state concealed carry permits. Now I bet out of state criminals won't dare come to Virginia. . And the state's variety of violent scumbags will surely flee Virginia like roaches when the light flips on. lol, NOT!!!!!!!! But libs are all yippee over the measure as if it actually has some sort of practical value in dealing with the problem of gun violence. Typical.

Even more significant, the PC saturated State Department hastily (and quite unnecessarily) is going almost pathologically out of its way to import tens of thousands of peeps from the Syrian diaspora while supposedly having a diminished ability to do adequate perform background checking and perform adequate vetting (that's according to FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security administrators (see What You Don’t Know About Vetting Syrian Refugees).

We obviously need to stop dwelling in Progressive Fantasyland and start dealing pragmatically with the crazies and assholes. Yes, we need to deal with the rampant gun proliferation problem, but in a RATIONAL, REALISTIC manner. And let's stop vilifying ordinary citizens merely for political gain for a change! Obama was right. America does need to become "transformed"! But this time, transformed from Left and Right zombie-sheep into realistic pragmatists!

[Btw - I'm actually registered Independent. I left the Democratic Party when they went insane... then later, the Republican Party because they spew one thing but do the opposite. So I may not be as much of a Fox News Republican Rush Limbaugh zombie as you would at first think. Hell, I don't even watch cable news propaganda or listen to lame-ass talk radio! lol And I gotta confess, I voted for Obama in 2008. . Sorry America - I fucked up!

schuylaar said:

1. Because certification.
2. Because shooting for sport, any sport does not require the use of an assault weapon.

The 2A doesn't mean you get to have a missile silo in your backyard.

Compromise or the decision will be made for you.

This is how you end up with laws you really don't like..hold your breath ..stomp your feet and you lose the ability to have a say.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

And you speak rightie who basically doesn't accept facts presented, because it 'might'..yet it never does.

I stand by my post, which is well thought out and cogent.

After we expose the government for what they truly are on that staged moon 'landing'..we 'might' find the moon is really made of cheese..

Click to expand...

#1: a cop is certified in what exactly? The right to shoot first because he said the person he shot was in the wrong? How many innocent.s have ACTUALLY died because a cop "wanted to" shoot first?

#2: You are SO wrong on this one! 3 gun shoot's, NRA High power rifle shoot's (BTW most "hunting" rifles are far more powerful then todays "assault" weapons!), CMP shoots...The Camp Perry NATIONAL 1000 yard event held in Ohio every year is DOMINATED by custom AR-15 weapons based platforms! My wife shoots this and has placed in the top 25 every year she attends!

MY GUNS HAVE KILLED LESS PEOPLE THEN TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR!

If you actually believe the moonlanding was staged.....Your crazier then the NRA!

Fogdog said:

I don't claim to know anything, I'm just reading. I googled BATF gun ownership declining. All I saw were references to concealed carry permits are going up and gun production is up. No I didn't spend a lot of time looking but I wouldn't be surprised if there are two studies with conflicting conclsions. I'd be interested in seeing the report you referred to. The study on gun ownership I refer to can be found here: It uses "households with a gun" as the core variable.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

The household ownership of firearms has declined in recent decades. Table 1 (left side) shows that the 31.0% of households reported having a firearm in 2014, essentially tying with 2010 for the lowest level of gun ownership in the last 40-some years. This is a decline of about 17 percentage points from the peak ownership years in 1977-1980. Similarly, Table 1 (right side) indicates that in 2010 and 2014 about 32% of adults lived households having firearms. This was a decline almost 19 percentage points from an average of 51.2% in 1976-1982. Based on an earlier analysis of those who refused to say whether or not there was a firearm in their household,1 the refusers were reallocated as probably living in a household with a firearm or not living in such a household. This allocation indicates that just under 35% of adults lived in a household with a firearm in both 2014 and 2010. This represents a decline of over 16 percentage point from the peak average of 51.1% in 1976-1982.

Click to expand...

That's a numbers play of some government type.
Just like the claims from the yearly FBI violent crime reports. - Did you know they DON'T count repeat offenders?

Padawanbater2 said:

AQ urged their followers in the West to take advantage of American gun laws to commit terrorism - is that something you support or do you think maybe we ought to change that little loophole?

Click to expand...

What guns laws do you want to change and what ones will make a dif?

Kill potential....Hmm....what is going to stop that? We are the about the last country to have this problem.....The others could never stop it....How do you propose to? Banning guns will NOT do it!

"OH my word....Terrorists are now here"
I have news for you. We've had domestic terrorists for years! The fed won't admit it because they don't want you to be affraid untill they can use that "fear" for political gain!

The right spouts fear and the left spouts fear to further their agenda's.....

Roosevelt said it best. "There is nothing to fear but, fear it's self!"
Stop worrying over something you have NO control over!
Unless you build the fence on all borders and halt all in-comming who ever's...you'll gain nothing !
AND you'll still be faced with homegrown terrorists - like the idiot in Colorado Springs (our own home grown religious fanatic)!

Padawanbater2 said:

Watch the clip I posted, a sitting member of Al Qaeda does exactly that, and conservatives like LittleBen support it just so they don't have to go through any reasonable gun control restrictions. He's speaking English too, so no need for a translation

Click to expand...

He's dead dude - drone strike

Padawanbater2 said:

Therefore, we concede, ISIS wins.

Retard.

Click to expand...

Isis wins when you take the ground and concede they have an effect.

Dr. Who said:

That's a numbers play of some government type.
Just like the claims from the yearly FBI violent crime reports. - Did you know they DON'T count repeat offenders?

Click to expand...

And so you know the numbers showing trends over decades is phoney how?

I'm fine with a claim that the absolute numbers are off. The report bundled those that declined to answer with those that said they had guns in the household. Also there is a question whether or not people will answer honestly if they have a gun in the house. So maybe the number of households with guns could be higher or lower by several percentage points. The trend over the study period shows significant decline in gun ownership that tracks with a decline in hunting. The trend, I think is real and explainable.

The conclusion that gun owners are minority group is significant to me. The way the press plays it up, you'd think the opposite. Also points to collectors as the main ownership group, which is not a concern to me. After all a person can only fire one gun at a time. So what if they have 5 or 10 or more in their possession? Just, please lock those weapons up in a way that they can't be stolen or played with by children.

In any case, fearing firearms is not rational if you look at overall statistics. There are hot spots where gun crime is more common but that's a more complex issue than the presence of fire arms.

For myself, I think that people who carry in public "for protection" are also irrationally fearful and many times more likely to mistakenly hurt somebody than actually protect or defend. I'd rather they leave the guns at home.

Dr. Who said:

#1: a cop is certified in what exactly? The right to shoot first because he said the person he shot was in the wrong? How many innocent.s have ACTUALLY died because a cop "wanted to" shoot first?

#2: You are SO wrong on this one! 3 gun shoot's, NRA High power rifle shoot's (BTW most "hunting" rifles are far more powerful then todays "assault" weapons!), CMP shoots...The Camp Perry NATIONAL 1000 yard event held in Ohio every year is DOMINATED by custom AR-15 weapons based platforms! My wife shoots this and has placed in the top 25 every year she attends!

MY GUNS HAVE KILLED LESS PEOPLE THEN TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR!

If you actually believe the moonlanding was staged.....Your crazier then the NRA!

Click to expand...

If a person is sound of mind enough to own a semi-AK (which they can bump fire with an ordinary trouser belt, dangerous but doable) why not let them have a full auto one?

Are they more likely to kill someone if the fire selector goes an extra notch?

Fogdog said:

For myself, I think that people who carry in public "for protection" are also irrationally fearful and many times more likely to mistakenly hurt somebody than actually protect or defend. I'd rather they leave the guns at home.

Click to expand...

Good post until this part. You will find the reality to be much different than your assumptions. Hard to defend yourself when the gun is at home. But you don't have to worry, many less guns are used in self defense than are used to kill ones self in a suicide, that much is for sure. Why you ask? Because there just aren't that many people carrying pistols on themselves. They are usually heavy, get in the way of natural movement and require a certain dedication and discipline to use correctly and most people don't have the intestinal fortitude to use them anyway.

Too bad people in San Bernardino don't carry, we might not have a story about a mass killing, just an attempt.

Fogdog said:

And so you know the numbers showing trends over decades is phoney how?

I'm fine with a claim that the absolute numbers are off. The report bundled those that declined to answer with those that said they had guns in the household. Also there is a question whether or not people will answer honestly if they have a gun in the house. So maybe the number of households with guns could be higher or lower by several percentage points. The trend over the study period shows significant decline in gun ownership that tracks with a decline in hunting. The trend, I think is real and explainable.

The conclusion that gun owners are minority group is significant to me. The way the press plays it up, you'd think the opposite. Also points to collectors as the main ownership group, which is not a concern to me. After all a person can only fire one gun at a time. So what if they have 5 or 10 or more in their possession? Just, please lock those weapons up in a way that they can't be stolen or played with by children.

In any case, fearing firearms is not rational if you look at overall statistics. There are hot spots where gun crime is more common but that's a more complex issue than the presence of fire arms.

For myself, I think that people who carry in public "for protection" are also irrationally fearful and many times more likely to mistakenly hurt somebody than actually protect or defend. I'd rather they leave the guns at home.

Click to expand...

I think your fear of people carrying because of fear is an irrational fear.

I'm sure the number of innocent is less than the number defended.

Let's ask. How many people reading this, that carry, carry with no thought of doing it. How many carry without practice.

Wait! Wait! I got it. Let's do it like Barney Fife. You can carry but only one bullet in your pocket.

Come on. Everyone I know that carries practices.

I do. To the point its muscle memory. I've hiked mountians and took a shot with my heart pounding out my ears.
I hunt. I know what buck fever is. For those that don't know, when a deer walks out and you get ready to shoot, you get nervous and you heart starts to pound.

I've been attacked and had a gun pulled on me. I assure you I could control myself. I also assure that my shot would be true.

I get it. It sucks to have idiots with guns. Maybe in states where you can carry should be some laws in place. I'm cool with someone going to jail if they carried and didn't train and hurt innocent bystander.

So let's say you have to go to supervised training x amount of times a year. Yearly testing and qualifications.

You carry and hurt someone innocent due to no training or being and idiot then good riddens.

meristem said:

nobody is talking about killing all Muslims or deporting all Muslims from the US

Click to expand...

actually, the frontrunner republican candidate does, and your ideological buddy uncleben said "the only good muslim is a dead muslim".

but racists like you are too cowardly to own up to your racism.

meristem said:

decades of distributed Muslim mass murders of innocent non-combatants around the globe

Click to expand...

still no match for the 500,000 innocent muslims civilians we killed in iraq alone.

but you have no problem with that, because, ya know, they're brown and whatnot. and you're a racist.

UncleBuck said:

actually, the frontrunner republican candidate does, and your ideological buddy uncleben said "the only good muslim is a dead muslim".

but racists like you are too cowardly to own up to your racism.



still no match for the 500,000 innocent muslims civilians we killed in iraq alone.

but you have no problem with that, because, ya know, they're brown and whatnot. and you're a racist.

Click to expand...

haha! Novel response...

Dr. Who said:

What guns laws do you want to change and what ones will make a dif?

Click to expand...

maybe ask australia.

Dr. Who said:

Unless you build the fence on all borders and halt all in-comming who ever's...you'll gain nothing !

Click to expand...

the KKK has that same position.

meristem said:

haha! Novel response...

Click to expand...

so why do you condemn muslims for killing innocent people, but you don't have a word to say when a born again christian president who thinks that god talks to him sends a bunch of white christian males to go kill half a million innocent muslim civilians?

and what made you so racist?

did you walk in to a black guy fucking your boyfriend or something?

whitebb2727 said:

I think your fear of people carrying because of fear is an irrational fear.

I'm sure the number of innocent is less than the number defended.

Let's ask. How many people reading this, that carry, carry with no thought of doing it. How many carry without practice.

Wait! Wait! I got it. Let's do it like Barney Fife. You can carry but only one bullet in your pocket.

Come on. Everyone I know that carries practices.

I do. To the point its muscle memory. I've hiked mountians and took a shot with my heart pounding out my ears.
I hunt. I know what buck fever is. For those that don't know, when a deer walks out and you get ready to shoot, you get nervous and you heart starts to pound.

I've been attacked and had a gun pulled on me. I assure you I could control myself. I also assure that my shot would be true.

I get it. It sucks to have idiots with guns. Maybe in states where you can carry should be some laws in place. I'm cool with someone going to jail if they carried and didn't train and hurt innocent bystander.

So let's say you have to go to supervised training x amount of times a year. Yearly testing and qualifications.

You carry and hurt someone innocent due to no training or being and idiot then good riddens.

Click to expand...

After an earlier conversation with you, I agreed that I have no problem with you carrying. There are others that I've talked to that do their diligence to get proper training and have thought through what to do, especially how to avoid using that firearm. If only your care and thoughtfulness was standard. But I must say that it is not. But I don't think it is rational to fear firearms like some people do.

What I said in my earlier post was "In any case, fearing firearms is not rational if you look at overall statistics. There are hot spots where gun crime is more common but that's a more complex issue than the presence of fire arms." Your Barney Fife metaphor was misapplied but dang that was a funny bit in the show.

I also think that the fear that drives most people to carry is irrational too. I mean, I was out cross country skiing in wilderness setting and the guy that was skiing with carried just in case. In case of what? Some robber was going to meet us at a summit and take our lunches?

The statistics regarding the number of times a gun is used to defend or protect is way opposite of what you think. The abstract below is from one of many studies that consistently show similar results. We would be safer if people kept firearms safely locked up.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
Kellermann AL1, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

NoDrama said:

Good post until this part. You will find the reality to be much different than your assumptions. Hard to defend yourself when the gun is at home. But you don't have to worry, many less guns are used in self defense than are used to kill ones self in a suicide, that much is for sure. Why you ask? Because there just aren't that many people carrying pistols on themselves. They are usually heavy, get in the way of natural movement and require a certain dedication and discipline to use correctly and most people don't have the intestinal fortitude to use them anyway.

Too bad people in San Bernardino don't carry, we might not have a story about a mass killing, just an attempt.

Click to expand...

You carry and make yourself and those around you less safe. There is a lot of information that confirms this. That said, this issue is driven by a hysterical press and coincidentally, gun sales go up when gun control measures are discussed in the same press. I have no issue when a well trained and careful person carries but statistics say he is making himself and others less safe. Just not enough to worry about.

Fogdog said:

After an earlier conversation with you, I agreed that I have no problem with you carrying. There are others that I've talked to that do their diligence to get proper training and have thought through what to do, especially how to avoid using that firearm. If only your care and thoughtfulness was standard. But I must say that it is not. But I don't think it is rational to fear firearms like some people do.

What I said in my earlier post was "In any case, fearing firearms is not rational if you look at overall statistics. There are hot spots where gun crime is more common but that's a more complex issue than the presence of fire arms." Your Barney Fife metaphor was misapplied but dang that was a funny bit in the show.

I also think that the fear that drives most people to carry is irrational too. I mean, I was out cross country skiing in wilderness setting and the guy that was skiing with me carried just in case. In case of what? Some robber was going to meet us at a summit and take our lunches?

The statistics regarding the number of times a gun is used to defend or protect is way opposite of what you think. The abstract below is from one of many studies that consistently show similar results. We would be safer if people kept firearms safely locked up.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
Kellermann AL1, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

Click to expand...

I get what your saying. I don't want dumbasses carrying.

I might carry on a summit. I've seen cougars up close and personal here. Fish and games says there are none here. I know for a fact otherwise.

Like I said, I'm all for punishing people that don't properly store and lock their guns and careless with them.