Reply With Quote
You fixation on self is child like. Pre-K 4 year old obliviousness.
We are discussing public policy and the truth behind the sentiments. I am happy that you have the sentiment they discuss in the article too. You're a 'good guy.'
Whether owning the gun is "effective" depends on the person and the cir stance.
I know that personally if mine or my families life was threatened I would much rather have a gun in my hand than to not have a gun in my hand.
You fixation on self is child like. Pre-K 4 year old obliviousness.
We are discussing public policy and the truth behind the sentiments. I am happy that you have the sentiment they discuss in the article too. You're a 'good guy.'
What the are you talking about?
From your article:
. For example, the claim that millions every year shoot their guns in self-defense has led some to posit that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal uses. This assertion is inexplicable—not backed by any substantive evidence.
Do you think millions every year in the US shoot their guns in self defense or not?
I sure don't and think it's a stupid claim.
This is dishonest from you. Are you going to disregard the links to the NRA head, the Heartland Ins ute, and a Washington gun lobbyist? Instead you hand wave at the other examples you said none of which existed.So you have other obscure references to the same obscure study. Buckeye Firearms Organization?
Whether or not you think so is besides the point you self-absorbed fool. The article referenced 5 places that did including a who's who of the gun lobby in Lott and LaPierre.
If you agree that the claim is bull then great but why are you arguing the point then? Quit being butthurt and try and use your head.
You can't even read and comprehend your own links. NRA / LaPierre never said millions used guns every year in self defense.
You are just full of .
Hertland Ins ute
might as well quote the Onion...
Seeing that the LaPierre link is audio, you're right I never read it.
You can't even read and comprehend your own links. NRA / LaPierre never said millions used guns every year in self defense.
You are just full of .
That's like claiming all liberals are as stone cold crazy as Boutons. Of course, since you strive to be Baby Boutons you might even believe that.
my 9mm is on the table next to my bed. ive never had to use it and hope i never do. id lock it away but whats the point if im awaken in the middle of the night by an intruder one day. am i gonna throw the key at him? lol
I don't know why you get into the arguments since you can't overcome the ridiculous logic of these libs. There is no need to own a gun to protect yourself from gun violence because the risk is miniscule. Therefore, we must ban all guns because the risk of gun violence is so great.
Did you know that Fuzzy Lumpkins thinks conservatives believe that MILLIONS fire their guns every year in self defense?
The article outlines specifically what it disagrees with and gives several examples. Your attempts to shoehorn 'all liberals' or 'all conservatives' in an effort to make it about you is adorable.
You don't even disagree with my or the articles premise. You are too dumb to reconcile that with your butthurt though so you go this route. It's like a broken mind. You having to write everything down lately, old man?
Fuzzy thought that since conservatives believe that millions fire their guns in self defense every year that it was SOOO important that he needed to start a thread about it.
Baby Boutons indeed.
then he posts a poll that says 60% of gun owners own guns for self defense and claims that backs up his claim that conservatives think millions use guns in self defense every year.
Baby Boutons indeed.
I disagree. They can accompany each other but they are not mutual.
You suck at speaking for me. I don't go for the dumbed down blame it all on groupthink route pretty much ever certainly not on that scope. You do but don't project that onto me.
If you must know, my issue is with the gun lobby using flawed methods in specific statistics and surveys and using it to try to paint that gun proliferation increases security. That combined with their obfuscation campaign regarding gun statistics and tracking firearms is a problem. It all ties together but I felt that this article did a good job showing where the statistical inconsistencies and misrepresentations are.
In the case of the individual and given responsibilities, we are responsible for our own actions. Looking at it from the vantage point of the entire population, alcohol addiction will manifest certain undesirable behaviors regularly nonetheless. There are a lot of weak minded people out there.
Well, it didn't but considering your preconceived ideology I can see how you bought into it.
Guns bad.
People with guns bad.
Bad people wouldn't have guns if there were no guns.
I get it, Baby Boo.
I'm one of them.
I guess reading is an issue with you as well. The argument is that gun ownership increases public health and safety risks and does not decrease it despite claims by the NRA and gun lobby. You try and make it seem as if it is not a direct comparison. You obviously did not read or understand what the article says. Instead, you subs ute a blanket dismissal of your 'opponent' and cry about a strawman.
The article did nothing to present a ban. Neither has anyone in this thread. OTOH, you are doing the typical NRA hysteria line, 'they want to take all our guns.'
The quote in my sig about thinking for yourself. . . that is meant for people such as yourself. You clearly are big into partisan groupthink and parrot NRA scare tactics. it is what it is.
Me too, mang. We all have our weak moments.I'm one of them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
