dfosterf
15 years ago
I wasn't speaking about us as individuals... Macro, not micro.

I was talking about the NRA and points right contrasted with the Brady Bill crowd and points left.

If you have a plan to put all those folks out of a job, I'd love to hear it.
Cheesey
15 years ago
Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.
And some that seem to think that i am over reacting........i bet other countrys thought that too, as they slowly had their rights taken away.
Then one day you look around and realize that it happened. Not all at once, a little at a time.
Yet we get this big "global warming" scare, and people jump on that and take it seriously.
All the while little by little our rights are eroding.
"WE" have given up our power to guys in office that abuse it. I'm damn sick and tired of it, too.
UserPostedImage
Dulak
15 years ago

Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Im a bit emotional atm ... Ive erased what I typed here and I am just going to say ... guns dont just sit there they can hurt familyies ... sons, daughters, fathers and mothers ...
zombieslayer
15 years ago

Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.

"Cheesey" wrote:



GBI banned the importation of 49 foreign guns, many of which I was quite fond of.

GBII said he'd sign the Clinton gun ban if it landed on his desk. Thank God it didn't.

Those were 2 of the worst gun bans I remember since I became old enough to vote. True that I've taken a lot of blows to the head, but if I remember correctly, both Bush's were Republicans.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Porforis
15 years ago

Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



GBI banned the importation of 49 foreign guns, many of which I was quite fond of.

GBII said he'd sign the Clinton gun ban if it landed on his desk. Thank God it didn't.

Those were 2 of the worst gun bans I remember since I became old enough to vote. True that I've taken a lot of blows to the head, but if I remember correctly, both Bush's were Republicans.

"Cheesey" wrote:



You confuse republicans with conservatives. Overall, I'd consider both Bushes conservatives, but Bush II certainly went on liberal streaks. Not that it really takes away from your point, I'm just saying...
TheEngineer
15 years ago
I'm going to stay out of the gun debate, but I will pose the following statements:

Firstly, it is not proven that more guns means or implies that crime decreases based on that article. "In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way." That statement is very misleading because it implies that correlation does prove causation, which is not a guarantee. Additionally, a 1-2% increase does not constitute a "soar" in firearms purchase in my opinion.

Secondly, if you check Table 1, the majority of the decrease is due to a reduction in motor vehicle theft. Now, I'm going to take some liberties here and assume that, in the majority of vehicle theft cases, vehicles are typically stolen when unattended. I therefore hypothesise that the increased reduction in motor vehicle theft is partly due to the improvement in car security. At the very least, I would assume that the majority of motor vehicle thefts do not involve firearms.

Thirdly, the statistics do not list the latest data on violent crimes including or excluding firearms; thefts involving firearms or not, etc etc. It's just too broad to draw such sensationalist conclusions to say that somehow, more firearms actually means less violence.

My conclusion is that that NRA article skews the statistics to give the pro-gun stance a favourable light, irrespective of what implications can actually be drawn with confidence from very limited data contained. Since the article did not cite any other statistics which show some negative correlation between firearms sold and crimes committed, I'm going to dismiss this as the NRA clutching at straws.

I'm sure they'll be statistics that do support a pro firearms stance. It's just a shame the NRA did not bother to actually cite anything that conclusively supports their stance.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm 
blank
Cheesey
15 years ago
Hmmm....let's see......have more gun control laws.
WHO is affected by stricter gun control laws?
ANSWER: Law abiding citizens ONLY.
Why? Because criminals don't give a DAMN about laws. That's why they are CRIMINALS in the first place.
It amazes me how otherwise logical intellegent people don't understand that.
Gun control laws will NEVER lower crime. Because they don't affect criminals one bit. The ONLY way to lower crime is to make the punishment more harsh. Otherwise, like i already said, the prison revolving door just let's the bad guys out to do more crime.
If they made prison places of punishment, instead of worrying about prisoner's "rights", maybe prison would deter criminals from making crime their "profession". Make it so bad in prison that they NEVER want to have to go back, and maybe when they get out they will behave themselves.
Now, it just teaches them how to be better criminals.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago



You confuse republicans with conservatives. Overall, I'd consider both Bushes conservatives, but Bush II certainly went on liberal streaks. Not that it really takes away from your point, I'm just saying...

"Porforis" wrote:



Actually, I don't. The media does though. The Bush's weren't conservatives. Just Republicans. As are most Republicans today.

The closest Republican to a real conservative is Ron Paul, and the current Republican party hates him with a passion (because he's smarter than the rest of them put together and today's Republicans are a bunch of chickenhawks).

I hate Republicans every bit as much as I hate Democrats. One wants to ban this, the other wants to ban that.

Eng - Actually, it's not implying causation. It's taking a stab at the belief that more guns = more murder and shows that's silly and anti-gun nuts need to come up with another angle as their angle is simply wrong.

You really want to cut murder? I'll tell you how. Stop sending jobs overseas. Stop bringing in illegals, who are often criminals, and undercut family farmers and working class folks. Fix the economy. Employed people kill less. This is fact with stats after stats to back it up.

Guns are a small part in this. I'm a gun nut but I'll readily admit this.

Guns aren't the 2nd Amendment because of criminals. They're the 2nd Amendment to protect us from foreign invasion or tyranny. The fact that they give us an additional option against criminals to me is simply a bonus.

From a personal note, the best way to avoid being a victim of crime is to avoid "bad areas." Crime stats in America are skewed because most of the crime happens in "bad areas." America is a very safe country, except for the bad areas. I've lived in bad areas twice in my life and the best thing you can possibly do is do anything you can to move out of them, and when you want to see your friends and family, have them visit you instead of vice versa.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
15 years ago



You confuse republicans with conservatives. Overall, I'd consider both Bushes conservatives, but Bush II certainly went on liberal streaks. Not that it really takes away from your point, I'm just saying...

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Actually, I don't. The media does though. The Bush's weren't conservatives. Just Republicans. As are most Republicans today.

The closest Republican to a real conservative is Ron Paul, and the current Republican party hates him with a passion (because he's smarter than the rest of them put together and today's Republicans are a bunch of chickenhawks).

I hate Republicans every bit as much as I hate Democrats. One wants to ban this, the other wants to ban that.

Eng - Actually, it's not implying causation. It's taking a stab at the belief that more guns = more murder and shows that's silly and anti-gun nuts need to come up with another angle as their angle is simply wrong.

You really want to cut murder? I'll tell you how. Stop sending jobs overseas. Stop bringing in illegals, who are often criminals, and undercut family farmers and working class folks. Fix the economy. Employed people kill less. This is fact with stats after stats to back it up.

Guns are a small part in this. I'm a gun nut but I'll readily admit this.

Guns aren't the 2nd Amendment because of criminals. They're the 2nd Amendment to protect us from foreign invasion or tyranny. The fact that they give us an additional option against criminals to me is simply a bonus.

From a personal note, the best way to avoid being a victim of crime is to avoid "bad areas." Crime stats in America are skewed because most of the crime happens in "bad areas." America is a very safe country, except for the bad areas. I've lived in bad areas twice in my life and the best thing you can possibly do is do anything you can to move out of them, and when you want to see your friends and family, have them visit you instead of vice versa.

"Porforis" wrote:



I consider Ron Paul a libertarian over a conservative.

If you ask me, the most conservative 'Republican' I can think of is Huckabee. (Fair tax?)
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
15 years ago

I'm going to stay out of the gun debate, but I will pose the following statements:

Firstly, it is not proven that more guns means or implies that crime decreases based on that article. "In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way." That statement is very misleading because it implies that correlation does prove causation, which is not a guarantee. Additionally, a 1-2% increase does not constitute a "soar" in firearms purchase in my opinion.

Secondly, if you check Table 1, the majority of the decrease is due to a reduction in motor vehicle theft. Now, I'm going to take some liberties here and assume that, in the majority of vehicle theft cases, vehicles are typically stolen when unattended. I therefore hypothesise that the increased reduction in motor vehicle theft is partly due to the improvement in car security. At the very least, I would assume that the majority of motor vehicle thefts do not involve firearms.

Thirdly, the statistics do not list the latest data on violent crimes including or excluding firearms; thefts involving firearms or not, etc etc. It's just too broad to draw such sensationalist conclusions to say that somehow, more firearms actually means less violence.

My conclusion is that that NRA article skews the statistics to give the pro-gun stance a favourable light, irrespective of what implications can actually be drawn with confidence from very limited data contained. Since the article did not cite any other statistics which show some negative correlation between firearms sold and crimes committed, I'm going to dismiss this as the NRA clutching at straws.

I'm sure they'll be statistics that do support a pro firearms stance. It's just a shame the NRA did not bother to actually cite anything that conclusively supports their stance.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm 

"TheEngineer" wrote:



Good post, and I'm surprised you are the first person to mention the NRA article this 'late' in the debate.

While you make valid points.. the 2nd one you made a few assumptions. At a drive thru in the Dairy Queen right down the road from our apartment (the DQ that we frequent most), a woman was car-jacked at gunpoint. She was IN THE DRIVE THRU! I'm not yelling at you.. I'm stressing the fact that there were OTHER people around. I'll be damned if I'm going to have my wife sit in a drive thru without some sort of protection. Yes, having an assortment of pepper spray/'Guardian Angels' is nice. So is having a gun, legally.

In case you didn't know.. In the state of Minnesota, there are two ways of purchasing a gun. Getting a permit to purchase and getting a permit to carry. With only a purchase permit, you cannot carry the weapon. It must stay in the case (and I'm sure it must stay in your place of residence). With the permit to purchase, you jump through hoops, and background checks before you get the permit.

To get a permit to carry, you have to take many classes. The instructor is typically a former/current police officer. The instructor takes EVERY precaution and does everything in his/her power to stress that having a firearm on your person at all times is a great, great responsibility and to not abuse that responsibility. I think they do a great job in stressing those two points.. because, trust me, with our liberal media, they would crucify a person who had their permit to carry if they has used their weapon on someone. I haven't heard of a shooting that involved a legally purchased and carried weapon, ever (I'm not saying it never happened, I just never heard of one).

It's also stressed to go to the firing range A LOT to practice. Not to become a better shot, but to be used to firing a weapon. The more comfortable one is with a weapon, the less chance for an accident.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
    Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
    Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
    Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
    Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
    beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
    beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
    Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I would imagine Dallas will resolve this issue with a truckload of money
    Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : Micah pulling a Myles with trade request
    beast (1-Aug) : Packers should make some cheese forks
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : CUT HIM
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : Socieltal collapse imminent
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : The West has fallen
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : But it should be stable
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : It's probably gonna be slower.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : What crap. Site issues galore
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
    Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
    beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
    beast (30-Jul) : RIP site 😭
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site will die, I have to restart it.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Quinn stinks. Lot of underthrows. (my guess)
    beast (30-Jul) : How did Quinn Ewers effect where Golden was drafted?
    dfosterf (30-Jul) : All I've experienced was late at night or early morning. I just figured you were doing something in the background
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site sure seems to be down more than up
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    1h / Fantasy Sports Talk / macbob

    2h / Around The NFL / wpr

    5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.