(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  First off the Soviet Union was brought down due to being unable to keep up with the United States in the Cold War. It's citizens being armed or not had little to do with their downfall. Communism/socialism typically collapses under it's own weight and the implementation of communism/socialism is typically done on a defenseless people.
So the Ukraine had limitations on gun ownership, were invaded, had massive amounts of weapons sent in from other countries, are doing better than expected against the Russians and you use that as an example of how restricting citizens from owning weapons is good? Do you think that if the people there had been better armed it might have been a deterrent to aggression? Most bullies don't pick on those capable of defending themselves.

Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

You're as hopeless as your brain is useless.

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  First off the Soviet Union was brought down due to being unable to keep up with the United States in the Cold War. It's citizens being armed or not had little to do with their downfall. Communism/socialism typically collapses under it's own weight and the implementation of communism/socialism is typically done on a defenseless people.
So the Ukraine had limitations on gun ownership, were invaded, had massive amounts of weapons sent in from other countries, are doing better than expected against the Russians and you use that as an example of how restricting citizens from owning weapons is good? Do you think that if the people there had been better armed it might have been a deterrent to aggression? Most bullies don't pick on those capable of defending themselves.

Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The more I read the more I believe you might actually be 12.

(06-06-2022 10:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Is this where we point out that average AR can't be used in many states for deer hunting because the caliber is too small? So, Scorpius wants to ban a gun too small for deer, but everything up to a "bear" caliber is fine?
I can't get my mind around any of that.

One thing that most "gun control" advocates, particularly the most draconian of them, seem to share in common is that they don't know anything about guns.

This...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Scorpius is mentally ill. Hope he has no guns.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

[i]In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

Except, you seem to ignore the fact that every bodied Man and older male child was subscripted into the Ukranian army and given the means to fight off the Russians. (or did you forget that early on?)

So quit trying to create a false flag...

Where's scrote disappeared to??

(06-06-2022 10:30 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Where's scrote disappeared to??

He thought he was giving birth, but he ended up just being constipated.

11,654 Deaths from drunk driving crashes in 2020.

0 Calls to sue the makers of alcohol or cars

(06-07-2022 12:45 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  
0 Calls to sue the makers of alcohol or cars

Soon brother, SOON.

As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Back Your last sentence up with facts


Here are some facts

19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun








Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hey Scorp,

If you want gun control so bad why don't you just move to the south side of Chicago?

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, we would be speaking German, Russian, or Mandarin.

FIFY.

As to "Red Flag" laws, do you think somebody like Amber Heard would call the authorities on you? How many of you know at least one person like her? That's the problem with those.

(06-07-2022 03:48 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Back Your last sentence up with facts

Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

Quote:19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun

If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

(06-07-2022 11:04 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:30 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Where's scrote disappeared to??

He thought he was giving birth, but he ended up just being constipated.

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Bullshite, there you go pulling fantasy numbers out of your ass again. Cite legitimate sources or stfu and sit down.

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:48 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Back Your last sentence up with facts

Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

Quote:19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun

If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

ALL you have is speculation and supposition, ZERO cold hard facts. A person who is serious about ending their own life will do it by whatever means available. I'm pretty sure there are studies that bear that out but since you like making crap up I'm not going to provide a source either.

Why haven't you moved to one of the countries you keep citing as better with gun control and universal health care?

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:48 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Back Your last sentence up with facts

Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

Quote:19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun

If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

Complete and utter bullshite.