Gun Owners theres light at the end of the tunnel

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 



those figures are based on skewed criteria:

1. we are in the process of a hostile takeover ( i think it's from your folks over there ). it's a cold war.

2. hostile takeover means massive changes to lifestyle, economy, education, quality of life,
and in this case, a few other variables, like social engineering in the form of popular media.

3. the social engineering is targeting people's view of themselves as human beings, specifically,
it's targeting their self worth, and it's negatively targeting it, so it resolves down to alot of people
having very low self esteem, no job, no hope of finding a job and literally hating the color of their
skin, their heritage and their existence. this was deliberate.

4. it's also using racial division and class envy.

5. religious division didn't work since there are so many different religions here, so they've opted to just ostracize the main religion -- protestant christianity, but only white protestant christianity. they did this by ignoring the distinction between catholcism and protestantism, by blaming protestants for the actions of the holy roman empire. this has resolved down to some protestants of one color not liking or even hating protestants of another color. massive social engineering, on a scale that would likely impress the hell out of stalin and hitler.

although i know the uk is suffering with its own self inflicted wounds, you have to multiply that by alot more people who have no real heritage beyond their recent ancestors, declining quality of life and deep emotional trauma that the press and media are continuously re-freshing with more and more insults and condemnation.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Pardon?
 



those figures are based on skewed criteria:

1. we are in the process of a hostile takeover ( i think it's from your folks over there ). it's a cold war.

2. hostile takeover means massive changes to lifestyle, economy, education, quality of life,
and in this case, a few other variables, like social engineering in the form of popular media.

3. the social engineering is targeting people's view of themselves as human beings, specifically,
it's targeting their self worth, and it's negatively targeting it, so it resolves down to alot of people
having very low self esteem, no job, no hope of finding a job and literally hating the color of their
skin, their heritage and their existence. this was deliberate.

4. it's also using racial division and class envy.

5. religious division didn't work since there are so many different religions here, so they've opted to just ostracize the main religion -- protestant christianity, but only white protestant christianity. they did this by ignoring the distinction between catholcism and protestantism, by blaming protestants for the actions of the holy roman empire. this has resolved down to some protestants of one color not liking or even hating protestants of another color. massive social engineering, on a scale that would likely impress the hell out of stalin and hitler.

although i know the uk is suffering with its own self inflicted wounds, you have to multiply that by alot more people who have no real heritage beyond their recent ancestors, declining quality of life and deep emotional trauma that the press and media are continuously re-freshing with more and more insults and condemnation.


I don't think it matters in this case what criteria those figures are "based" upon.
I take it instead of the word "based" you meant reported and documented.

Deaths are deaths.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
pardon

i agree that it doesn't forgive the numbers, merely explains the differences. if we were currently in a healthy social and political environment, these things would not be reported with as much frequency or severity. it's akin to taking a death count in a country undergoing a civil cold war, and then comparing it to a country which is mostly at peace (if you can call it that).

it's not realistic to suggest our guns caused the increase since we've had them all along. it is realistic to suggest our social, economic and political environment is causing the increase, however.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Those were not mass murders.....

3 people, 2 people....no sorry. That's gang violence and plain old criminals.

And you have 65,000,000 citizens, we have 312,000,000, not counting the 11,000,000 illegals that come in thru the Mexican border each year, most drug dealers.

I will keep comparing if you keep up the nonsense.

You have different lives than we do, so don't get involved in our rights.


Knife attacks, you have us beat:


Well, the 2010 stats apparently report 130,000 knife attacks in the UK during that year (an approximation, but all of these stats are). Looking at the Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization report for the same year, approximately 337,960 gun attacks (I am presuming that both numbers include rapes/sexual assaults, robberies, and simple assaults, which appears to be the case at first glance). As the population of the UK is listed as approximately 62,641,000 and the USA is 311,591,517, we get approximately .0021 knife attacks per capita in the UK and .0011 knife attacks per capita in the USA. Assuming the veracity of all these numbers, then it would be true to say that there are more knife attacks per capita in the UK than gun attacks in the US.


www.gamefaqs.com...




2000 1 June: Real IRA bomb explodes on Hammersmith Bridge, London 2000 20 September: Real IRA fired a RPG at the MI6 HQ in London SIS Building 2001 4 March: The Real IRA detonate a car bomb outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building.[15] (See 4 March 2001 BBC bombing) 2001 16 April: Hendon post office bombed by the Real IRA. 2001 6 May: The Real IRA detonate a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.[16] 2001 3 August: A Real IRA Bomb in Britain explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people.[17] (See 3 August 2001 Ealing bombing) 2001 4 November: Real IRA car bomb explodes in Birmingham[18] 2005 7 July: The 7 July 2005 London bombings conducted by four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers, killing 56 people and injuring 700. 2007 January - February: The 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs 2007 30 June: 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack perpetrated by Islamist extremists. 2008 22 May: 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing by an Islamist extremist, injuring only the perpetrator.



en.wikipedia.org...-present



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Take your head out of your arse and read it properly. I said mass shootings.
Irrespective of that, count how many are dead and injured altogether. They were all shot by people using guns weren't they?
I'm not talking about knife attacks, I'm talking about guns but do you believe that as many people would have been killed or injured if the perpetrators just had knives?
That was your original point I believe so from that aspect, comparing knife attacks is moot.

The second quote you posted concerns terrorist activity does it not?
I can't actually see any detail referring to guns in it either.
What are you going to do next, show a comparison of the relative wars both countries have been involved in?
Would you like me to add the Middle East and 9/11 to your body count?

They are not the issue here as you know very well indeed.

And you don't know me from Adam so don't tell me not to get involved.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


If you are not a US citizen, you have no say in our laws.

You cannot compare our two countries, it is not apple to apples.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


And it is it moot......gun bans do not end the violence, that us the point. Criminals will always find a way.

Whether it be bombs, knives, poison in aspirin....you name it.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
pardon

i agree that it doesn't forgive the numbers, merely explains the differences. if we were currently in a healthy social and political environment, these things would not be reported with as much frequency or severity. it's akin to taking a death count in a country undergoing a civil cold war, and then comparing it to a country which is mostly at peace (if you can call it that).

it's not realistic to suggest our guns caused the increase since we've had them all along. it is realistic to suggest our social, economic and political environment is causing the increase, however.


I have never stated that it's your guns which have caused the increase.
I said it's the ongoing availability of them.
Big difference.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Pardon?
 


And it is it moot......gun bans do not end the violence, that us the point. Criminals will always find a way.

Whether it be bombs, knives, poison in aspirin....you name it.


I have a lot of family in the States who I visit often.
They certainly have a say in your laws and they have exactly the same belief as I do.
And when I'm there I fall under your jurisdiction do I not? However, being a visitor, I can't arm myself....

Not once have I suggested that guns should be banned. Not once.

What I have said is that it's too late to ban them now and that tighter controls should have been imposed decades ago.
They've been too easy to get hold of legally for far too long and that helps them be easy to obtain illegally whether by people carrying out "normal" criminal activities or random nutters on a spree.


If you can't see that then I'm afraid you're far too gone.



edit on 18/12/12 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by madenusa
 


I wish that all states would go the way of Arizona and Wyoming... Constitutional Carry. If you can legally buy a gun, you can legally carry it concealed without permits or any other BS



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by madenusa
 


I'd like to make a slight correction to what some are arguing here if I may: There WILL undoubtedly be a gun ban, and soon. That's one of the main reasons for Obama's selection as president. The real question is, "Will there be gun confiscation?"

I don't think anyone will argue against the assertion that Obama is working on a gun ban at this very moment, with the help of Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats' anti-constitutional bunch.

For now the ban will be on "assualt weapons", probably with a huge ammo tax for good measure "to pay down the debt".
and you can bet their definition of assualt weapon will be wide-ranging.

But what about all the weapons already in the hands of civilians? Will they be grandfathered in, or will there be a "buyback" program as in Australia?

I predict that a new gun ban bill will be introduced very soon so as to take advantage of the emotional wave of the Sandy Hook killings. They will shamelessly parade parents of the victims before Congress to testify, thereby making anyone who votes against this bill look like absolute scum. They'll even have one of their cutesy names for the bill like "The Anti-violence against Children Act". It worked for The Patriot Act, and it'll work again. One thing that Congress is petrified of is appearing in any way to be against any form of child protection. They will cave sooner or later.

I guarantee you that after this happens the mass killings will continue, probably with handguns, and they'll step up their effort to grab those. This is only one step in the process of a total gun grab.

The NWO fears for their lives because people are waking up and they are taking desperate measures to suppress any possible resistance.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiNWO
 


On the surface it looks like a great win for the pro-gun crowd, but the fact that the Federal Government thinks that it has the authority to tell Illinois how to manage their guin laws is troubling and only opens the door for them to assume authority over other gun matters in the future.
I cant be excited
ive had a back ground check to carry hazmat how..".high explosives in public"
Why shouldnt i get to carry a Gun ??





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join