(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death. and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
And owning a car means you're more likely to die in a car accident than not using a car at all..
Having mountain climibing equipment means you're more likely to die from falling off a mountain.
Sorry John, but the original opinion piece uses a site is completely bogus and you know it.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. We are talking about the same person who claims that the New York Times doesn't have a liberal bias despite two different Times public editors saying they do.
(09-29-2014 09:51 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: A gun is a tool that allows the user to kill something, and I think that's great. The right to defend yourself or provide food to yourself is a fundamental human right.
I believe that it is not a fundamental human right, if you have shown that you are not a responsible person and are a threat to others.
If a person does not pass a background check then they will not be able to purchase a weapon. Your post makes no sense.
It is a human right to protect one's self. Responsible gun owners have never been involved in illegal shooting.
By definition. I'm talking about unresponsible gun owners. Surely there are some of those, given how many unresponsible people are walking about. Besides if they have to pass a background check to get a gun, then it is NOT a fundamental right. My post makes perfect sense.
Is there a background check in every state, and is it required in all situations, including gun shows? What about a private individual selling his gun to a criminal?
Gun shows have the same and all states have the same.
Private sale is private sale. Now to cover that, you just have to prosecute to the fullest extent of the current law and not allow a perp to plea bargain with his Liberal Court Appointed Atty to have the gun charge dropped.
(09-29-2014 03:57 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: Second Amendment......Deal with it! You FAil
Gun shows have the same and all states have the same.
Private sale is private sale. Now to cover that, you just have to prosecute to the fullest extent of the current law and not allow a perp to plea bargain with his Liberal Court Appointed Atty to have the gun charge dropped.
I'm sure the dead person will feel so much better knowing that the guy that shot him will be charged for it.
(09-28-2014 09:13 PM)john01992 Wrote: I like how the gun nuts use a flawed straw man argument while failing to touch the point made in the OP.
Anti gun nut OP uses flawed straw man argument while failing to touch the point of guns and then tells gun supporters that they are using a flawed straw man argument while failing to touch on point of OP.
(09-29-2014 04:07 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: What would you suggest?
Just throwing it out there - honestly, I don't know where most criminals actually get their guns, and nobody talks about it - but that's what I want to know. If a criminal can just go to somebody they know and buy a gun with no background check, obviously then criminals will get guns. Is there any penalty right now for the person that sold him the gun? In some cases the seller wouldn't know he's a criminal. That doesn't help the person that got shot though. There needs to be some very serious charges - probably to the point where people would be very careful about who they sell their guns to. I know you mentioned that already, and I was a little flippant. But the original point about it being a fundamental right is what I disagree with, depending on your definition of fundamental.
A different question, if I may - if somebody shoots me on purpose or accidentally (unprovoked) and I end up in the hospital, who pays for my medical bills? If somebody hits me with their car, there's insurance involved (usually). It's kind of hard to accidently stab someone, so that's why I wondered.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2014 04:18 PM by NIU007.)
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death...
Newsflash: A number of studies verify the claim that owning a house with stairs makes you more likely to fall down stairs in your home, versus if you owned a home that doesn't have any stairs. And a number of studies also verify the claim that riding in a your own car makes you more likely to die of a car wreck in your own car, versus if you're never in a car that's yours. And a number of studies indicate you can't die by a drug overdose unless you overdose on drugs. And a number of studies indicate you can't die by drowning in your pool, unless you have a pool.
And reality (regardless of a number of studies about it) proves that if you want to kill yourself badly enough, you'll find a way, with or without having a gun--with or without owning a pool, and with or without OD'ing on drugs. Ask Robin Williams.
I appreciate you willingness to learn and ask questions.
Now first off if you are shot by any one on purpose or by accident, the individual that fired the weapon is responsible. However, that's assuming you did nothing to warrant the use of deadly force. That party should be liable and guilty of assault and so forth. Your insurance will cover you expenses and then you can file suit against them for damages.
Now as far as the illegal purchase of weapons that are used in a crime, make the penalty so tough that an individual would never use a stem weapon in a crime.
There is s Country Wide NICS system that tracks stem gun registry.
I am sent s letter each November from my county Sheriff that I sign stating that I haven't found the Pistol that was stolen from my vehicle. That weapon is in the NICS data base. (This has been going on for the seven years and will continue until the weapon is located or found at a crime scene).
(09-29-2014 07:30 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: It doesn't get much better than having Chuck Wright as the sheriff in the adjacent county! Great guy he is!
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Chuck Wright and Newberry's Lee Foster might be the two best lawmen in the state.
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death. and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
And owning a car means you're more likely to die in a car accident than not using a car at all..
Having mountain climibing equipment means you're more likely to die from falling off a mountain.
Sorry John, but the original opinion piece uses a site is completely bogus and you know it.
Cars have another purpose. Guns are meant to kill. Therfore for 1 death is a unfortunate side effect. For the other, it is the desired effect. That's why that comparison is so stupid.
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death. and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
And owning a car means you're more likely to die in a car accident than not using a car at all..
Having mountain climibing equipment means you're more likely to die from falling off a mountain.
Sorry John, but the original opinion piece uses a site is completely bogus and you know it.
Cars have another purpose. Guns are meant to kill. Therfore for 1 death is a unfortunate side effect. For the other, it is the desired effect. That's why that comparison is so stupid.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Actually, no guns in my home are meant to kill any humans at any time. All are meant ONLY to deter other humans from killing. Used properly, they are 100% successful in preventing unwanted killings, and there are no unfortunate side effects.
Also, guns do have several other purposes (not just killing as you claim). One alternative purpose is to make people money. They can be great investments, yielding excellent gains when sold for a profit.
(09-29-2014 07:55 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: NIU,
I appreciate you willingness to learn and ask questions.
Now first off if you are shot by any one on purpose or by accident, the individual that fired the weapon is responsible. However, that's assuming you did nothing to warrant the use of deadly force. That party should be liable and guilty of assault and so forth. Your insurance will cover you expenses and then you can file suit against them for damages.
Now as far as the illegal purchase of weapons that are used in a crime, make the penalty so tough that an individual would never use a stem weapon in a crime.
There is s Country Wide NICS system that tracks stem gun registry.
I am sent s letter each November from my county Sheriff that I sign stating that I haven't found the Pistol that was stolen from my vehicle. That weapon is in the NICS data base. (This has been going on for the seven years and will continue until the weapon is located or found at a crime scene).
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
I do think the more people that have guns, the easier it is to steal one. How did they steal one from your vehicle? I know they break into gun shops and steal that way (that's how McVeigh stole a bunch of guns and sold them). And how can you file suit for damages from someone that doesn't have money to pay for your medical expenses? That's why insurance is used for cars.
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death. and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
And owning a car means you're more likely to die in a car accident than not using a car at all..
Having mountain climibing equipment means you're more likely to die from falling off a mountain.
Sorry John, but the original opinion piece uses a site is completely bogus and you know it.
Cars have another purpose. Guns are meant to kill. Therfore for 1 death is a unfortunate side effect. For the other, it is the desired effect. That's why that comparison is so stupid.
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
I guess the public editor of the New York Times is an idiot as well then.
Me ----> <---- JohnnyZero
again, you are an idiot.
@ you
You are incapable of admitting you are wrong. Even when the public editor of the very paper in question says on video that the New York Times has a liberal bias you continue to defend your erroneous claim that they don't. You are like the three year old caught with chocolate icing all over their hands and face insisting they didn't sneak a piece of cake.
But just to pile on, let's see what one of her predecessors as public editor said about it.
In a piece called : THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? written in 2004 by Daniel Okrent he has this to say:
Quote:OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
Quote:Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish -- but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).
Quote:But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.
The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine (''Toward a More Perfect Union,'' by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.
I guess that makes two New York Times public editors that are idiots too.
hey buddy, next time you cite a source, do a little bit of background research. the guy you are citing started working for the NYT just MONTHS before that article and ended up working at the NYT for only a year and a half.
Nice try, deflect again please but next time do so with something substantial.
![[Image: Correlation-VS-Causation.png]](http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Correlation-VS-Causation.png)
![[Image: pchart1.jpg]](http://www.inspectorinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/pchart1.jpg)
![[Image: ice-cream-vs-drowning.jpg]](http://freeyourintellect.angerisagift.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ice-cream-vs-drowning.jpg)
<---- JohnnyZero
@ you