The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: WatchManUSA on September 24, 2013, 12:12:11 PM
-
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 – Years 2007 to 2011
The FBI has released their 2007-2011 “Murder Victims by Weapon” report. The results are contradictory to anti-gun industry claims that relaxing the ban on assault weapons will cause more crime.
The report indicates you are more likely to be killed by hands or feet than by a rifle or shotgun.
Since 2007 there has been a 16.2% decline in murders committed with personal weapons which are defined as “hands, fists, feet etc.” The number of murders of this type in 2011 totaled 728.
Read Table 8: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Mr. President, it looks to me that we don't need more restrictions on guns to save one life you talked about this week. It looks like we saved 1546 between 2007 and 2011. We are doing just fine without your efforts.
-
You know facts have no place in the gun control debate( from both sides)
-
You know facts have no place in the gun control debate( from both sides)
Speak for yourself .
-
Speak for yourself.
Yeah, I find it f....k amazing puzzling that someone who owns guns says that facts don't support gun ownership.
WTF?
-
no what i said was facts don't belong in gun debates. Its not a logical argument(either side), its a emotional one.
-
no what i said was facts don't belong in gun debates. Its not a logical argument(either side), its a emotional one.
I guess I don't target the emotional fanactic left. I target the people on the edges who do have the ability to understand facts. The media never points out facts like these because it doesn't support the narrative.
-
Still the argument on the whole, for or against, is not based on logic. Side A says we need guns, side B says no you don't. its very hard to make a logical argument with both sides say " I feel this" infact almost all of the "hottly" debated topics are emotional, rather then lgoic.
-
Still the argument on the whole, for or against, is not based on logic. Side A says we need guns, side B says no you don't. its very hard to make a logical argument with both sides say " I feel this" infact almost all of the "hottly" debated topics are emotional, rather then lgoic.
I was about to point out the fallacy of your argument, then realized with whom I was dealing.
-
prove me wrong.
-
no what i said was facts don't belong in gun debates. Its not a logical argument(either side), its a emotional one.
prove me wrong.
We don't need to look or say, anything further. The naivete in your statement speaks for itself.
-
so you can't disprove me is what you are saying. you can draw parallels to every single "hot ticket issue" its not about facts, figures or logic. Its about "feelings".
-
so you can't disprove me is what you are saying. you can draw parallels to every single "hot ticket issue" its not about facts, figures or logic. Its about "feelings".
No, I was trying to be nice and not call you an idiot.
You can have your feelings, they don't trump anyone's rights.
As I said before: "The naivete in your statement speaks for itself."
-
Emotions change......
FACTS DO NOT........ (even if misused or misinterpreted by idiots, they don't change).
Period.
Here endeth the lesson.
-
prove me wrong.
Easy enough.
6 million German Jews say giving up your arms is a really bad idea.
-
THats just it, there are no real numbers that can prove anything. I bet if you polled all death row inmates, and asked them thier favorite milkshake flavor. And say 95% of them said chocolate. Could you say that people that like chocolate milk shakes are more like to be killers? More likely to beconvicted? Or just out of the sample taken 95% like chocolate milk shakes. no one would argue chocolate milk shakes trun you into a killer. But that happens all the time when it comes to guns. they try to prove cuase and effect, but its a very complicated issue.
-
WE are wrong for getting sucked off into areas the take away from the true issue, which is that we have a God given right to keep and bear arms, as observed by the Founding Fathers, and that right is protected by the Constitution of the United States. However, we have an obligation to not let lies concerning the death counts and classifications of deadly weapons be spread unchecked. In this case we have undeniable proof that firearms are not the deadliest thing on the streets even when used by criminals.
All that rambling is to tell TAB that this is important information to hold and to use in the proper debate. We must not let anybody win the debate concerning rifles being the deadliest items on the street.
-
We need to remember that sage, old advice:
A wise man never argues with a fool.
People watching may not be able to tell the difference.
How anyone feels may have relevance during courtship or therapy, but it has no place in a discussion of Constitutional rights.
Crusader Rabbit
-
I'm sorry :-[
From now on I will try and leave TAB alone :-[
-
Since the liberals have pretty much taken God out of the equation,I would call it a "Natural right". Once they completely remove God from our society they will just say there are no God given rights .
-
They may try and amend God out of the Constitution, but He is throughout the founding documents that can not be amended. Just like gun control, they will only get away with it if we let them.