"Gun town U.S.A." Not a murder in 25 years!!!

Shift, it's what happens.... But anyway, it's obvious that this country shouldn't outlaw guns man, I mean we all know the most famous gun saying. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Duh

 

LOL..

since you say you didnt move it ,i guess i have no choice..

i apologize for jumping to conclusions about this particular thread balbus.

although i do feel the moderating in politics leaves much to be desired,i was wrong to assume you were the one that moved this thread.
although in my defense im sure you see why it was easy for me to jump to that conclusion..

once again,i apologize.

 

Hyde

ONCE MORE I HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE – READ WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED BEFORE POSTING

It’s just common courtesy.

See above Post 47

 

Thank you hillbilly

The thing is that I think this thread has just about served it’s purpose and becoming full of people that aren’t reading what been said and are not interested in the debate but instead just want to score points.

I don’t think it should be moved but there is a case for it being closed and if I have to repeat what I’ve just said to Hyde one more time I will.

 

OWB

This doesn’t make sense, I’m not saying that thinking you are going to be attacked is the same as being attacked, what I’m saying is that pro-gunners seem to promote guns by promoting the supposed threat of being attacked.

They’re the ones that relate scenarios involving violent criminal, psychos and rapists.

What you seem to be suggesting is that being told that you could be murdered, maimed or raped is the same as being told that you might be rained on, which to me is ridicules.

*

Are you arguing that if someone says people might be attacked, maimed or murdered by a violent criminal they’re not trying to induce or instil any sense of fear in that audience?

I think you’d have to be rather naive to think so?

*

But it’s not me promoting guns through fear by saying that people might be attacked by violent criminals, and that gun ownership makes them ‘safer’.

*


Sorry again this argument just doesn’t seem to make much sense.

You’re implying that people that buy a gun specifically for protection (millions of them according to the info above) are doing so because they feel in no way threatened whatsoever?

You’re saying that if someone says something like ‘you’ll wish you had a gun when a killer/rapist/psycho kicks down your door’ they’re not trying to us fear to sell guns they’re just saying there’s positively and absolutely nothing to worry about.

It seems to me you’re either desperately clutching at straws or your incredibly naive.

 

I couldn’t believe my good fortune here, OWB I could kiss you.

Thank you, thank you, your reply is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying.

*

So are you saying that violent crime and its causes are NOT in your opinion societal problems?

It seems to me that pro-gunners are ignoring the possibility there might be wider concerns and instead concentrate overly on guns?

Because as I’ve pointed out, they don’t seem interested in discussion of wider issues and just concentrate on guns.

I mean you do seem to be supporting the idea that gun ownership is a way of dealing with the problem of violence.

So while you seem to be ignoring the wider societal problems associated with violence you are advocating that guns are a way to deal with it?

Which is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying.

*

These are all things that are believed to lead to crime. Non-urban areas that are described as affluent (such as Kennesaw) with low levels of hunger, homelessness and unemployment usually have lower levels of crime.

To quote a business article on Kennesaw

http://articles.directorym.com/Unemployment_Kennesaw_GA-r653-Kennesaw_GA.html

One of the points I’ve been making is that pro-gunners seem to want people to believe guns are a way of dealing with something like crime (often using fear tactics), as a way of distracting from the societal problems that are thought to be the major causes of such things, because they don’t seem to have any answer for those problems.

For example why is it that in the 1990’s the rate of homicide due to firearms for black males in their early twenties was 104.7 per 100,000 while the rate for all individuals in there early twenties was just 17.1.

(By the way the 2000 census for Kennesaw indicted that it was 81.7% White and only 9.9% Black in a state with a 30% Black population.)

*

Read above

*

 

What I’m trying to point out isn’t ‘off topic’ it goes to the very heart of the original post.

The implied claim is that guns are a good way of tackling the problem of crime, I say no, they could only by themselves tackle the symptoms of societal problems that have resulted in crime.

The problem is that pro-gunners don’t seem interested in those wider societal problems, if they truly were interested in tackling crime rather than just promoting guns (selling them) then they would be.

BUT THEY’RE NOT.

So it seems to me that this is just a page out of the conservative, neo-con, Republican, right wing play book, since they don’t have any constructive ideas keep hitting back with either ‘god, guns and gays’.

Here it just happens to be mainly guns.

 

Well here I am simply agreeing with other people and I get shot at. Just because something is previously stated doesn't mean that it's wrong to state it again, man. And no you're right I havn't read this entire damn thread, I don't have the time to read all of it. I read about 5 pages ahead of when I post on every thread I post in, no more, no less.

 

I see.

Well if we’re only going to get cheerleaders, hecklers and point scorers and the only person who actually seemed to be putting forward reasonable posts has seemingly bowed out, it just might be better to close this thread.

 

just close the thread already balbus(as you are the only one taking your side of the issue),there is no point in debating you anyway. it just goes around in circles.

 

qft

 

I think the problem is this thread is so long and so many of the posts themselves are so long no one new wants to jump into the battle

 

I thought it might have had more life in the Conspiracy Forum. Maybe it belongs in Fyrenza's Forum?

 

so can any one tell me why this thread should be closed?

 

because it doesnt fit the socialists who run this forum political agenda..

 

Perhaps:

Balbus.
The thing is that I think this thread has just about served it’s purpose and becoming full of people that aren’t reading what been said and are not interested in the debate but instead just want to score points.

 

maybe the purpose was actually to say hooray for kennesaw and nothing more. that is before balbus and ari decided to make it all about the breakdown of society and how we refuse to discuss it in a thread that has nothing to do about it..

 

more life?? its twenty four pages long.. thats a pretty lame excuse..

 

does ANYONE! think that a man, or buissness, or gov, is more deserving of rights than any outher?

 

does a rich man have any more right to go fox hunting than a poor man does to go turkey hunting?