Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 12-22-2012, 07:46 PM
BradW BradW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
You need to provide reliable source for a statement like that one.
i took a quick look for the article i read but i cant seem to remember where i read it but i will find it and post it.

im kinda busy for a couple of days getting ready for Christmas so i will get back to you with the source as soon as i can...be patient boys...it really is out there.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 12-22-2012, 09:01 PM
BradW BradW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 109
Default

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...te-20-times-h/


this isnt the article that i read but it kinda says the same thing...ill keep looking for the other one and post it when i get a chance.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-22-2012, 09:56 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,480
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

I wonder if the firearm related deaths in other countries are that much lower because of strict gun laws or because of availiability?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 12-22-2012, 10:41 PM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
I wonder if the firearm related deaths in other countries are that much lower because of strict gun laws or because of availiability?
No. It is race. Our inner cities are populated with black and Hispanic populations with a big gang problem. If you compare apples to apples, so to speak, our European-American statistics are in the same ballpark as the others. Not very politically correct; but the truth often isn't. The high stats reflect inner city gang bangers shooting each other over turf wars.
In addition, guns are used in a large percentage of suicides. If guns were unavailable these people would likely just take pills or run their car in a closed garage. They would still kill themselves. Adding in the suicides makes the stats look worse. In Europe, they have the doctor do it. Less messy. Plus, it makes them feel morally superior.
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 12-23-2012, 01:44 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,480
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

And I wonder how many of those are committed by people who are not US citizens.

Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 12-23-2012, 02:15 AM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
No. It is race. Our inner cities are populated with black and Hispanic populations with a big gang problem. If you compare apples to apples, so to speak, our European-American statistics are in the same ballpark as the others. Not very politically correct; but the truth often isn't. The high stats reflect inner city gang bangers shooting each other over turf wars.
In addition, guns are used in a large percentage of suicides. If guns were unavailable these people would likely just take pills or run their car in a closed garage. They would still kill themselves. Adding in the suicides makes the stats look worse. In Europe, they have the doctor do it. Less messy. Plus, it makes them feel morally superior.
we need a like button on the forums
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 12-23-2012, 02:18 AM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

someone is going to have to help me understand this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcNCurZDjr0
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 12-23-2012, 02:18 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradW View Post
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...te-20-times-h/


this isnt the article that i read but it kinda says the same thing...ill keep looking for the other one and post it when i get a chance.
The guy rating the statistic as "mostly true" doesn't seem all that convinced himself. However, unless they distinguish between crimes committed by illegally-owned firearms and crimes committed by legally-owned firearms, then the statistic seems intentionally misleading.

Plus, as PTM stated, including suicide statistics is definitely misleading.

The question here is, "does LEGAL gun ownership increase the crime rate?" I say no. I believe it has just the opposite effect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 12-23-2012, 08:37 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
Did god write your constitution?
It is supposed to be pretty much the perfect blue print Biblically speaking on a method to run a State. It is supposed to be pretty much timeless and perfect in its construction.

The two problems I have with it are its exclusion of The Divine Right of Kingship, which The Bible actually makes explicit is a GOD-Given...and not GOD infered Right. Although GOD may have been hesitant about a Monarchy, when he gave his anointing to it...well...thats one of the few political rights set in stone from a biblical perspective...and one completely excluded by the constitution.

When Christ returns some Americans will say he is a Dictator...well, obviously, He wont come with a parliament and a congress, he wont come with a senate, a house of representatives, a house of Lords....he wont be "ellected" He will be a King, and it will be his ways, or Judgement. He will be completely at odds with the notion of any Freedom that isnt "Freedom UNDER Him" Now as the Heavens run on the principle of Monarchy, where GOD is King...I would say to deny the populas a Monarch, is to write out a GOD GIVEN RIGHT written far more plainly and demonstrated many more times in scripture, then the amendment that one should arm ones self...and that doing that is a GOD given Right...personally...I think that if that was something truely beleived by the Apsotlate, then they wouldnt have been martyred....you didnt find Stephen throwing rocks back at those who beat him to death...you didnt find Paul using his sword against the Romans who beheaded him....infact...when a sword was drawn to protect Christ, and to prevent his arrest...Jesus told the disciple to put it away, and healed the wound inflicted....you have to ask yourselves if the amendment in the first place to ignore these things is out of anything but fear. My Suggestion is that the americans who inshrined this in law were very, very frightened...this was a response from the fear of having seen what happened in Europe

The thing is...the world moves on. Germany has Europe under a peaceful diplomatic packt...no blood was shed...but a similar result to Hitlers ambitions. The Federal Government has grown slowly obease until all states now depend upon it....No blood shed since the civil war...IMHO it wasnt just the south that lost...that was the day all american people lost to BIG Government...good luck in reversing the tendrils of that great oaf that is Washington DC

It should be said though...that Monarchy was deliberately excluded, in part, due to how badly some of those annointed had acted upon their own populas. The Evil acts of some of the Reformation Monarchs were so horrific that the Constitution was designed to stop a Soverign acting in such a manner...yet in the wake of gained Independance, George Washington was entertained by thoughts of establishing a monarchy entrusted by the people, he rejected the notion, which left the door open for a constitution.

The Second problem I have is "Amendments" Noone has yet explained to me why an original document would need to be ammended. When most Americans talk about their rights under constitution, they kinda quote from sections not original...but changed, ammended. Noone has yet told me how, or why you can do that to a document such as the one in existance...nor...consequently, what stops it being changed further on the whim of a political tyrant.

Finally...the electoral college of the US is absolutely ludicrus, money buys presidencies, and behind the scenes points seem to keep them their. They have destroyed their Supreme Court by making it dependant on a Federal System entirely at odds now with its constitutional basis, for the sake of money, meaning the Supreme Court will no longer go against the legislative process, nor the executive, should it limit them on funds...we saw that when the rulled against the constitution on the health care reform.

The American people are thus, from a constitutionalistic perspective, already in bondage, and the Tyrant, is the Federal Government, that basically needs to be put back into a box opened during the civil war. But ive yet to see any rebellion about that, armed, or not.

In many ways...the constitution is already becoming a mythical standard, less and less relivent, and along with it notions of obvious Tyrany, replaced by a dissolutioned, and dessensitized structure of Government, simply accepted as the Norm, when its not.

Finally, the true way of reading must stem from context. Dont take the Constitution out of the 1700s when you read, and understand the Zeitgiest of the times...to many people dont understand what it means by "Freedom" Nor "Freedom of Religion" because it doesnt mean what is on display at the moment. It has NOTHING to do with anything but an established Church and Christianity.

What America has tried to do is take the very best bits of Europe, which was its heriatage, and take steps to stop Europes worst bits from developing. The result of that was the Constitution. It worked well until the Civil War. Heaven only knows what George Washington would think if he saw whats happened to the Federal Government post Abraham Lincoln....No doubt he would be bartering with the Federal Government in much the same way he did with England, No Doubt they would refuse his changes in much the same way England did....No doubt he would want to do EXACTLY what happened in the Civil War...he would wish to claim independance from the Federation due to its swollen and obease state.

No State would dare. Not even Texas, who likes to threaten, but ultimately, they are all too reliant on the Federal Government, its money, its wealth, its power, its protection. Where the hell are their State Governments...thats what I want to know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 12-23-2012, 01:31 PM
BradW BradW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamt View Post
someone is going to have to help me understand this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcNCurZDjr0
i haven't seen that clip before but i did watch the guy make his statement

on Saturday only one day after his daughter lost her life and he came across

a bit pretentious in my eyes...not sure whats up with him.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.