Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How much sympathy should be granted to a politically active crime victim?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    How do you claim to not want to remove guns when you characterize the choice as between one side wanting toys and the other side wanting safety?
    ( "Disgraceful that they WANT their toys instead of placing he safety of their citizen first".")

    Why is the spread laughable? I don't know the exact number of defensive gun uses and neither do you.
    We really don't keep records of crimes that didn't happen or almost happened.

    The fact that many americans live without guns (I'm sure your statistics are pulled from an agenda driven site) but that does not establish that the people who have them do not need them. Most crimes occur in cities and owning a gun there is very difficult if not impossible.



    The "study" that claims having a gun in the house means it will be used against the resident includes suicides, and therefore not relevant. UNless you believe that guns cause suicides.
    I tend to think suicides are related more to the mental state of the individual.

    The fact that the survey you quote (which includes some laughable assertions) argues that women don't protect themselves with guns based on 300 responses is kind of a stretch.
    Your agenda driven study admitted that there were 127 defensive gun uses in their data.
    Even if we simply accept those numbers.
    Do those 127 lives have value or must we sacrifice them?


    As for your article in included this ominous quote:
    "Another study, in 2003, found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, not lower."
    They are trying to imply that having guns increase burglaries without any evidence and also without considering the reverse, that areas with lots of burglaries will cause people to own guns for protection.

    According to actual, objective studies by criminologists (not agenda driven journalists), burglars avoid places where they might get shot.
    I gave a link, you have not.

    How does one know if a household has a weapon?

    Simple ownership does not stop break in's unless you sit there 24/7 with the gun in your hand. The same with a car jacking. A weapon in the glove box, console or your belt might stop someone but only if you can get to it and the jacker isn't pointing a gun at you to start.

    If the crime rate is going down why do some feel the need to fight crime from their couch. Back when crime was higher people didn't run around scared shitless having to carry to feel safe. They have an old west mind set now and the Indians are peaceful. I don't get this sudden need to be armed, although IF I lived in the US today I would most likely have a weapon or two, but sure as hell no AR type.
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
      Cool.
      Are there any other things that I said, but don't know about?

      I did notice that rather than actually respond to anything I've said you've just tried to attack me or make up things.
      But you just keep being you.
      So you didn't agree with Arnolds sentiment about non-Americans and didn't say

      "Apparentley they consider your wife and other women expendable"

      (Apologies for not being able to give a proper quote but I am typing this from my mobile phone)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
        I gave a link, you have not.

        How does one know if a household has a weapon?

        Simple ownership does not stop break in's unless you sit there 24/7 with the gun in your hand. The same with a car jacking. A weapon in the glove box, console or your belt might stop someone but only if you can get to it and the jacker isn't pointing a gun at you to start.

        If the crime rate is going down why do some feel the need to fight crime from their couch. Back when crime was higher people didn't run around scared shitless having to carry to feel safe. They have an old west mind set now and the Indians are peaceful. I don't get this sudden need to be armed, although IF I lived in the US today I would most likely have a weapon or two, but sure as hell no AR type.
        I read part of the article. It tried to conflate some facts with opinions and pretended they were the same thing. I addressed the facts from the article and explained why they don't rebut my points.

        I never said that owning a gun decreases break ins. Your article tried to suggest that gun ownership increased burglaries. A ridiculous claim for one of the reasons you mentioned. The burglar probably doesn't know there is a gun in the household.

        The crime rate is down despite the massive increase in the numbers of privately owned guns, including ARs. So while more guns might not decrease crime, they absolutely do not lead to more crime or shootings.

        Regardless, individuals retain the right to defend themselves if attacked or threatened. The fact that we cannot guarantee they will be able to get to their gun in time isn't a valid reason to deny the right to defend themselves.

        Yes, there are problems with getting to guns quickly enough, but it still happens. (See AJR's post)
        Check out youtube for shoot outs that foil armed robberies.

        I won't address the reason why people feel the need to be armed but the increase in their numbers hasn't led to any significant problems.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
          So you didn't agree with Arnolds sentiment about non-Americans and didn't say

          "Apparentley they consider your wife and other women expendable"

          (Apologies for not being able to give a proper quote but I am typing this from my mobile phone)
          Um, if you read what I said, you may have noticed that I never said anything about nonamericans.
          In fact, I challenge you to find any evidence that I have ever posted anything negative about "nonamericans" on any subject whatsoever.
          That is probably the first time I have ever used that phrase.

          Despite this, you keep trying to make it about me, not the topic.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            Um, if you read what I said, you may have noticed that I never said anything about nonamericans.
            In fact, I challenge you to find any evidence that I have ever posted anything negative about "nonamericans" on any subject whatsoever.
            That is probably the first time I have ever used that phrase.

            Despite this, you keep trying to make it about me, not the topic.

            I didn't say you used the phrase, you did however quote Arnold who did.
            You then added the comment 'THEY dont want to..... expendable'(again I cant direct quote)

            The only THEY Arnold refers to in the passage you quoted and added additional commentary to is non-Americans.

            I'm not attacking you but that's how it reads as.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
              I didn't say you used the phrase, you did however quote Arnold who did.
              You then added the comment 'THEY dont want to..... expendable'(again I cant direct quote)

              The only THEY Arnold refers to in the passage you quoted and added additional commentary to is non-Americans.

              I'm not attacking you but that's how it reads as.

              Except context must be taken from HPJ's post which was the subject I was addressing.

              "They" = those who try to interpret gun data.
              Had I been attempting to attack "Nonamericans" it would have been the first time I have ever done so.

              In order to arrive at your conclusion you had to ignore the debate on defensive gun use statistics and focus solely on the last line of AJR's post.
              That might have been reasonable had I said anything (ever) about nonamericans
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                Except context must be taken from HPJ's post which was the subject I was addressing.

                "They" = those who try to interpret gun data.
                Had I been attempting to attack "Nonamericans" it would have been the first time I have ever done so.

                In order to arrive at your conclusion you had to ignore the debate on defensive gun use statistics and focus solely on the last line of AJR's post.
                That might have been reasonable had I said anything (ever) about nonamericans

                Just calling calling it like I read it, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                  Are you still claiming that Hogg was three miles away at the time of the shooting?
                  I played a clip that showed him saying exactly that.

                  So much for another one-trick pony.

                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                  How do you claim to not want to remove guns when you characterize the choice as between one side wanting toys and the other side wanting safety?
                  ( "Disgraceful that they WANT their toys instead of placing he safety of their citizen first".")

                  Why is the spread laughable? I don't know the exact number of defensive gun uses and neither do you.
                  We really don't keep records of crimes that didn't happen or almost happened.

                  The fact that many americans live without guns (I'm sure your statistics are pulled from an agenda driven site) but that does not establish that the people who have them do not need them. Most crimes occur in cities and owning a gun there is very difficult if not impossible.

                  The "study" that claims having a gun in the house means it will be used against the resident includes suicides, and therefore not relevant. UNless you believe that guns cause suicides.
                  I tend to think suicides are related more to the mental state of the individual.

                  The fact that the survey you quote (which includes some laughable assertions) argues that women don't protect themselves with guns based on 300 responses is kind of a stretch.
                  Your agenda driven study admitted that there were 127 defensive gun uses in their data.
                  Even if we simply accept those numbers.
                  Do those 127 lives have value or must we sacrifice them?


                  As for your article in included this ominous quote:
                  "Another study, in 2003, found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, not lower."
                  They are trying to imply that having guns increase burglaries without any evidence and also without considering the reverse, that areas with lots of burglaries will cause people to own guns for protection.

                  According to actual, objective studies by criminologists (not agenda driven journalists), burglars avoid places where they might get shot.
                  Excellent points!

                  And the response is -

                  Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                  Addressing mods.

                  Pirateship has confirmed on public forums that he is a virgin.

                  And from the years of his posting here I gather he works a non teaching position at a school. Going by the fact teachers dont get paid enough one can only surmize that his lower status job is also relatively low paid.

                  No insult intended, just posting my observations.
                  How lame!

                  "Have you no shame? Have you no decency?" Heh, of course not, your side is losing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    I played a clip that showed him saying exactly that.

                    So much for another one-trick pony.


                    ...
                    This is another example of how certain posters undermine the quality of a conversation similar to what I pointed in the past when posters who were caught to use fake (edited) quotes just would not admit it, and preferred to make argument about me being a grammar nazi or other nonsense, instead of saying something like "my bad..."

                    So Exorcist just used an edited clip to support the idea that Hoggs supposedly did not deserve respect as a victim because he was not at school at the time of the shooting, and then when this is proven to be "fake news," he continues to stand by his initial attempt to spread misinformation...


                    Well done!

                    ps: I tried to give a nice juicy red cookie but i have to spread my points! Such posts are the only reason i still have the reputation function on.
                    Last edited by pamak; 05 Apr 18, 16:14.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Regardless of the issue kind of odd that a bunch of kids are being used as political tools. They deserve therapy and some distance from the tragedy

                      the self righteous, angry/bald latin girl probably came from a family with a lot of loud altercations

                      Comment


                      • What I'm reading here is Hogg's detractors are focused on his post incident behavior and statements saying in essence he's a political tool that is a provocateur and that they have every right to criticize him soundly for it.

                        Those more in favor of Hogg's position and supporting him on the other hand are pointing to some evidence that questions his presence at the school and saying he was there and a victim, therefore he has a right to speak out.

                        No one is saying he doesn't have a right to speak. He does. Whether he was there or not, he was / is a student at that high school and the point isn't that important. What is important is his actions in the aftermath. By going on the national stage he opened himself to criticism the same as any other major celebrity or political figure. If he can't take the pressure and heat that comes with that then he should STFU.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          What I'm reading here is Hogg's detractors are focused on his post incident behavior and statements saying in essence he's a political tool that is a provocateur and that they have every right to criticize him soundly for it.

                          Those more in favor of Hogg's position and supporting him on the other hand are pointing to some evidence that questions his presence at the school and saying he was there and a victim, therefore he has a right to speak out.

                          No one is saying he doesn't have a right to speak. He does. Whether he was there or not, he was / is a student at that high school and the point isn't that important. What is important is his actions in the aftermath. By going on the national stage he opened himself to criticism the same as any other major celebrity or political figure. If he can't take the pressure and heat that comes with that then he should STFU.
                          There isnít any question as to whether he was there or not. Itís a fact not up for debate.
                          First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                            There isnít any question as to whether he was there or not. Itís a fact not up for debate.
                            And, it's not relevant to the issue of his political activism afterwards.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              And, it's not relevant to the issue of his political activism afterwards.
                              But it is relevant to the issue of using fake news to challenge his political activism, which is an important issue! It i also relevant to the topic of the thread regarding if he should receive sympathy or not...

                              Ohh, and Exorcist made it even more relevant with posts like

                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                              How about because he is a little lying S.O.B.?

                              Of does that even matter anymore? Of course not! He's a Leftist Media figure, the bigger the lies the bigger the stardom.
                              So let's roll out the red carpet for the kid who is speaking more viciously and brutally than any adult can get away with.

                              Or.... maybe not.
                              Maybe that kid can toughen up and get his act together, like Ben Shapiro did;

                              Bold mine


                              and

                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                              David Hogg was 3 miles away, so he wasn't even there.
                              But, still a victim. eh?

                              Or is he the most powerful and influential figure in the media today?

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqjtRC5sxzg


                              Hulu and Expedia are among the list of Corporations boycotting Laura Ingram.
                              Bold mine

                              So, it made sense to examine who exactly is the lying SOB ...
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                                I read part of the article. It tried to conflate some facts with opinions and pretended they were the same thing. I addressed the facts from the article and explained why they don't rebut my points.

                                I never said that owning a gun decreases break ins. Your article tried to suggest that gun ownership increased burglaries. A ridiculous claim for one of the reasons you mentioned. The burglar probably doesn't know there is a gun in the household.

                                The crime rate is down despite the massive increase in the numbers of privately owned guns, including ARs. So while more guns might not decrease crime, they absolutely do not lead to more crime or shootings.

                                Regardless, individuals retain the right to defend themselves if attacked or threatened. The fact that we cannot guarantee they will be able to get to their gun in time isn't a valid reason to deny the right to defend themselves.

                                Yes, there are problems with getting to guns quickly enough, but it still happens. (See AJR's post)
                                Check out youtube for shoot outs that foil armed robberies.

                                I won't address the reason why people feel the need to be armed but the increase in their numbers hasn't led to any significant problems.
                                Some of the guns surely seem to increase the number of mass shootings.
                                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                                youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X