The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

page: 20
48
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


and yet, as i mentioned above, the US still has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Guns or no guns, we just don't kill anywhere near as many of each other as they do in 62 other nations.

Taking that fact into account, it seems that the percentage of that relatively low number being related to guns is an irrelevant point. It would seem obvious that in a nation that allows guns, some of those murders would be from guns. If there were just enough murders to show that we had a problem in the US, i might care.




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by chr0naut
 


So then explain how come the US has a lower murder rate per 100,000 people than 62 other nations, as evidenced in my prior post? I pulled that from a site that just displays data. No motives, no angles. Just data.
....
That is what I mean...your narratives prove it. Figures don't lie. But liars can figure. And misfigure. Then present those misfigures as a narrative in an opportunistic pro gun control hit piece.


Yeah, I know, but there's "lies, dammed lies and statistics".

What was trying to point out was the absurdist position that the ownership of a weapon is a human right.

But if you can't see it, you can't.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 





What was trying to point out was the absurdist position that the ownership of a weapon is a human right.

But if you can't see it, you can't.


It is a clever way to phrase what would otherwise be an assertion that ownership of a weapon is not a right. Clever in that your following sentence then doesn't read as so absurd, but it is absurd to smugly act that you can "see" a not right. No one can see a lack or an absence of. It is not bigfatfurrytexan who has problems with vision between the two of you.

All people have the right to life. This is self evident and easily seen. It logically follows that if all people have the right to life they have the right to defend that life...but, if you can't see it, you can't.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


first, lets establish that guns exist. And because guns exist, they represent the currently best option for someone to use as a threat against you. further, as a tool for hunting it is unparalleled. it represents what is still a fair way to allow man to continue the human heritage of hunting. of course, you can bow hunt. that is not my choice, but i can see why some choose it. but, that is beside the point.

so, if we can establish that it is possible to have a gun used against you, either by individual or by government, then lets move on...

...as a human, do you have a right to life? i would suppose the answer to this is obvious, yes? i know that i assert MY right to life. therefore, i assert my right to defend that life, to preserve it. if i don't, then i don't assert any right to life therefore, since the current standard for a the tool of death is a gun, it stands to reason that the person who doesn't have one has the highest risk of being a victim.

I have already established, i refuse to ever b a victim of anything than my own stupidity or lack of foresight. a victim is a person who doesn't have the foresight to prevent their personal tragedy, and wants to relinquish responsiblity for that failure to someone else (either the authority, or the perpetrator).

therefore, since i find being a victim repugnant, i also find putting myself in a position where i could be a victim equally repugnant. plus, i like to hunt, i like to be connect with that very small part of me that is actually human.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but I did want to add the known details of an incident that occurred in my home county, just today.

The final result is three dead in an RV park. It seems a man has had an ongoing and escalating dispute, with a couple who reside in the park. Apparently the couple's dogs were the main source of contention. Today, the dogs defecated in the man's yard, precipitating an explosion of tensions. The man shot the two dogs and, when confronted by the couple, shot and killed them, as well.

As the first officer arrived, the man opened fire on him. However, another resident of the park, being lawfully armed himself, was able to stop the first man, preventing any further violence. The action of this lawfully armed citizen, likely enabled that officer to return home to his family, at the end of his shift.

I will read the rest of the thread, as soon as I have time, JPZ.





 
48
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join