Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
he he he….Typical gun nut response.
Should someone who sells guns sell to someone who tells them, point blank, that the moment they get it, they are going to blow their brains out? There, happy?
Why would I have a problem with that?
Suicide is a choice and I respect other people’s choices
Would you agree that someone who is contemplating suicide is not mentally healthy?
No I do not agree.
Just because a person makes a choice I might not make in no way defines him as mentally ill
Meh. A danger to oneself or others is the traditional definition of insanity.
And that makes it correct?
Why can't a person rationally decide to end his own life?
You must live in the city.Cool. Wow, so "normal people" are really easy to identify! They don't suffer addictions, commit crimes, nor shoot each other. Hmm, still can't say for sure whether I've ever met such a person. Perhaps they all just shot themselves before we could mingle...So, if not burnt dinners, what do all these "normal people" shoot each other over in the home?Just to reiterate or rephrase, you're saying the "the" (singular/definite article) "determining factor" in such shootings was a bunch of stuff that doesn't include a gun, correct?Yeah...been through that particular incident....and as we have talked about with shootings in the home....the determining factor wasn't the gun...but the drug and alcohol abuse, the incidents of police visits, and the history of crime and violence by the occupants ......
Yep.......considering that in homes where they don't abuse drugs and alcohol, where they don't have criminals with long histories of crime and violence and police contact...they aren't shooting each other over burnt dinners.......even when they own and even carry guns....
Normal people don't.....drug addicts, alcoholics and criminals shoot each other because they have low impulse control...as demonstrated by their addiction to drugs, alcohol and their histories of crime and violence.
Indeed, all you "normal people"... Buy a gun today! This will never, ever happen. No way!:
According to police, Drum said she and her husband had been fighting about a casserole she burned that night. She said he began insulting her and cursing at her for her cooking, and they ended up in a bedroom.
She said her husband was sitting on the edge of the bed and she was standing over him when he pulled the gun from a holster.
They don't believe the garbage they spew. The goal is to disarm, overpower, and take our assets. Period.Indeed, all you "normal people"... Buy a gun today! This will never, ever happen. No way!:
According to police, Drum said she and her husband had been fighting about a casserole she burned that night. She said he began insulting her and cursing at her for her cooking, and they ended up in a bedroom.
She said her husband was sitting on the edge of the bed and she was standing over him when he pulled the gun from a holster.
We had something simalar happen here recently. The guy didn’t have a gun. He overpowered her, tied her to the bed, turned on the gas stove. And when the gas got to the pilot light of the water heater, blew her up.
What is your point?
Murderers murder, it’s what they do. Take one tool away, they’ll use another.
You really aren’t that stupid to think they don’t, or are you?
Indeed, all you "normal people"... Buy a gun today! This will never, ever happen. No way!:
According to police, Drum said she and her husband had been fighting about a casserole she burned that night. She said he began insulting her and cursing at her for her cooking, and they ended up in a bedroom.
She said her husband was sitting on the edge of the bed and she was standing over him when he pulled the gun from a holster.
Good. So "The Founders" or as you so verbosely put it now, "all the people who created the laws so that suffrage was left up to the states" are WHO "considered" it so. Great! Making sense so far! And WHEN would that HAVE TO have been?Now, if you'd like to show me where I EVER set a specific time on WHEN some states allowed women to vote, and some didn't, then you just go right on with yourself. But I hope when it dawns on you that I didn't say that at all, and you merely PROJECTED that onto what I said, you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit your error.
But I won't hold my breath.
Great weaseling! So WHEN you said:
The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide
WHO "considered" it so? And WHEN would that HAVE TO have been?
Quoth the Raven: "Oh for the love of Christ" .... "Start making sense."
Obviously, by all the people who created the laws so that suffrage was left up to the states, duhhh.
Crickets...
But oh, how the dissembling continues! Astounding!
According to whom? And no, I will not be "researching" your unsubstantiated assertions. Either cite your source, or I will simply assume that your source is your own ass, from whence you pulled this.
The fraction 3/5 is 60%.
Which has what to do with citizenship?
Did you not take any history courses in school?
To satisfy the disagreement between whether slaves would be counted or not; the framers agreed to count 3/5 of them as citizens for the purpose of house representation.
No, they didn't agree to "count 3/5 of them as citizens". One is either a citizen, or one is not, rather like being pregnant. You cannot be "60 percent citizen", any more than you can be 60% pregnant. Slaves are, by definition, not citizens at all. They are property, much like a cow or a horse or a dog. That is the most basic essence of why slavery is evil and horrible.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, as it is called, dealt with apportioning representation in Congress. When the census was (and is) taken, it counts EVERYONE in the country, not just citizens. Back then, because there were slaves in the country, it counted up how many of them there were, as well. And since you apparently don't know this, apportionment in Congress includes everyone who resides in a district, citizen and non-citizen alike. The question at the time was whether or not that was going to be the case with slaves as well, since the slave population in some states was larger than that of non-slaves, and counting them toward apportionment would have given the slave states far more power in Congress.
The compromise (which is why it's called that) was to allow them to affect apportionment, but not to the same extent that a free person - citizen OR non-citizen - would, in order to lessen the amount of control the slave states would have.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship.
In other words, they treated them differently. Thanks for making my point for me.
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
The fraction 3/5 is 60%.
Which has what to do with citizenship?
Did you not take any history courses in school?
To satisfy the disagreement between whether slaves would be counted or not; the framers agreed to count 3/5 of them as citizens for the purpose of house representation.
No, they didn't agree to "count 3/5 of them as citizens". One is either a citizen, or one is not, rather like being pregnant. You cannot be "60 percent citizen", any more than you can be 60% pregnant. Slaves are, by definition, not citizens at all. They are property, much like a cow or a horse or a dog. That is the most basic essence of why slavery is evil and horrible.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, as it is called, dealt with apportioning representation in Congress. When the census was (and is) taken, it counts EVERYONE in the country, not just citizens. Back then, because there were slaves in the country, it counted up how many of them there were, as well. And since you apparently don't know this, apportionment in Congress includes everyone who resides in a district, citizen and non-citizen alike. The question at the time was whether or not that was going to be the case with slaves as well, since the slave population in some states was larger than that of non-slaves, and counting them toward apportionment would have given the slave states far more power in Congress.
The compromise (which is why it's called that) was to allow them to affect apportionment, but not to the same extent that a free person - citizen OR non-citizen - would, in order to lessen the amount of control the slave states would have.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship.
In other words, they treated them differently. Thanks for making my point for me.
At what time was that your "point"?
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
The 250% chance you speak of is only if that house is owned by a gang member or someone involved in criminal activity or if you are suicidal.
For everyone else the odds of being killed by a gun in your house on any given day?
1 in 300,000,000
Promoting paranoia is shameful
Hilarious. Nice dance. Meanwhile, despite all your crying, no one's accused you of explicitly stating anything of the sort. Nonetheless, they MUST HAVE done it some time! Everyone else here likely knows when that was. "WHEN would that HAVE TO have been?"Good. So "The Founders" or as you so verbosely put it now, "all the people who created the laws so that suffrage was left up to the states" are WHO "considered" it so. Great! Making sense so far! And WHEN would that HAVE TO have been?Now, if you'd like to show me where I EVER set a specific time on WHEN some states allowed women to vote, and some didn't, then you just go right on with yourself. But I hope when it dawns on you that I didn't say that at all, and you merely PROJECTED that onto what I said, you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit your error.
But I won't hold my breath.
Great weaseling! So WHEN you said:
The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide
WHO "considered" it so? And WHEN would that HAVE TO have been?
Quoth the Raven: "Oh for the love of Christ" .... "Start making sense."
Obviously, by all the people who created the laws so that suffrage was left up to the states, duhhh.
Crickets...
But oh, how the dissembling continues! Astounding!
What the hell does that have to do with anything? At no point have you even remotely skated near me putting any sort of time frame on my remarks, and you aren't going to. Keep right on trying to project YOUR mis-assumption onto me, if that floats your boat.
Then stop it. Unless you want women shot:Promoting paranoia is shameful
Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics. No hint of study funding, purpose, or methodology is what easily separates your every day BSing propagandist from someone simply offering some genuinely helpful scientific study results.So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
{snip}
Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
The 250% chance you speak of is only if that house is owned by a gang member or someone involved in criminal activity or if you are suicidal.
For everyone else the odds of being killed by a gun in your house on any given day?
1 in 300,000,000
Promoting paranoia is shameful
Again, the lack of source material is quite telling.
Then stop it. Unless you want women shot:Promoting paranoia is shameful
Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics. No hint of study funding, purpose, or methodology is what easily separates your every day BSing propagandist from someone simply offering some genuinely helpful scientific study results.So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
{snip}
Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
The 250% chance you speak of is only if that house is owned by a gang member or someone involved in criminal activity or if you are suicidal.
For everyone else the odds of being killed by a gun in your house on any given day?
1 in 300,000,000
Promoting paranoia is shameful
Again, the lack of source material is quite telling.
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
The 250% chance you speak of is only if that house is owned by a gang member or someone involved in criminal activity or if you are suicidal.
For everyone else the odds of being killed by a gun in your house on any given day?
1 in 300,000,000
Promoting paranoia is shameful
Again, the lack of source material is quite telling.
2017: 505 accidental gun deaths
2017: 326,000,000 estimated population in U.S.
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia
U.S. Population (2018) - Worldometers
Nuff said
If you aren’t a gang member, in the committing a crime or committing suicide, the odds of dying be gun?
1.55 in 3,000,000,000
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
In my 68 years on this earth I have lived in the country, in a small town and in a large city. I have lived alone and with my family. I have walked through the city alone at 3:00 am and at no time have I ever felt the need to own a gun.
I have never been attacked or robbed, except our house was broken into once when we went to the cottage. The thief stole my husband’s pot plants. The expensive camera sitting on the shelf beside them was left behind.
If you own a gun, you have a 250% greater chance of being shot than if you don’t own a gun. If guns kept you safe, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Instead, theirs in the least safe country in the first world.
The 250% chance you speak of is only if that house is owned by a gang member or someone involved in criminal activity or if you are suicidal.
For everyone else the odds of being killed by a gun in your house on any given day?
1 in 300,000,000
Promoting paranoia is shameful
Then stop it. Unless you want women shot:Promoting paranoia is shameful
Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics. No hint of study funding, purpose, or methodology is what easily separates your every day BSing propagandist from someone simply offering some genuinely helpful scientific study results.So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
{snip}
Then stop it. Unless you want women shot:Promoting paranoia is shameful
Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics. No hint of study funding, purpose, or methodology is what easily separates your every day BSing propagandist from someone simply offering some genuinely helpful scientific study results.So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
{snip}
Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
Then stop it. Unless you want women shot:Promoting paranoia is shameful
Statistics don't lie. Liars lie with statistics. No hint of study funding, purpose, or methodology is what easily separates your every day BSing propagandist from someone simply offering some genuinely helpful scientific study results.So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
{snip}
Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
