• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

flogger said:
Their tiny military must be darned careless then given its been at peace for 300 years ! :lol: .Please prove that this is indeed so ?
Click to expand...
Let me google that for you

flogger said:
To the best of my knowledge the only deaths from gunfire in the British army last year were in conflicts abroad and are hardly relevant to the discussion. Any such accidental deaths are rare and always make the headlines here when they happen
Click to expand...
Um excuse me but long guns aren't relevant to this discussion either. OP is about a handgun in a purse. I am more than willing to follow you as far down the rabbit hole as you want to go, and right now you just made war part of the total death-by-gun count.

Would you like to keep going down your slippery slope or shale we stick to the OP about legally carried concealed handguns?
 
Jerry said:
Let me google that for you
Click to expand...
No you made the assertion I didn't. I'm calling BS on it and I now dare you to prove your point :)

Um excuse me but long guns aren't relevant to this discussion either. OP is about a handgun in a purse. I am more than willing to follow you as far down the rabbit hole as you want to go, and right now you just made war part of the total death-by-gun count.
Would you like to keep going down your slippery slope or shale we stick to the OP about legally carried concealed handguns?
Click to expand...

I've already posted far more than you or anyone else has that is relevant to the OP
 
flogger said:
No you made the assertion I didn't. I'm calling BS on it and I now dare you to prove your point :)
Click to expand...
I linked to the information you asked for.

flogger said:
I've already posted far more than you have that is relevant to the OP
Click to expand...
Everything you've posted has been shot down by nearly everyone else on this thread. Yeah you talk allot, but you say very little.
 
Jerry said:
I linked to the information you asked for.
Click to expand...

Nope

Everything you've posted has been shot down by nearly everyone else on this thread. Yeah you talk allot, but you say very little
Click to expand...

And highly subjective opinions mean little when countered by linked facts
 
flogger said:
Nope
Click to expand...
Yup, just click the link I provided and you'll have all the information on the Switzerland military and why they don't maintain ranks but rely on a militia. It's the same model the United States was supposed to follow and is why we have our 2nd Amendment in the first place for gun ownership to be a topic today.

flogger said:
And highly subjective opinions mean little when countered by linked facts
Click to expand...
Which is why most of your posts are junk.
 
Jerry said:
Yup, just click the link I provided and you'll have all the information on the Switzerland military and why they don't maintain ranks but rely on a militia. It's the same model the United States was supposed to follow and is why we have our 2nd Amendment in the first place for gun ownership to be a topic today.
Click to expand...

This does not assert that Swiss firearm casualties are due to military activity ! The British army hasn't had 239 killed by firearms in non conflict activities since WW2 yet you are asserting the far smaller Swiss army has managed to do this to itself in just a year !

Just how desperate are you ! :lamo
 
flogger said:
This does not assert that Swiss firearm casualties are due to military activity ! The British army hasn't had 239 killed by firearms in non conflict activities since WW2 yet you are asserting the far smaller Swiss army has managed to do this to itself in just a year !

Just how desperate are you ! :lamo
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't digest the link, as usual.

Good morning :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
You obviously didn't digest the link, as usual.

Good morning :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes I'd back out too given the knots I've got you tying yourself up in. This is close to debating a 9/11 truther now

Its been fun :2wave:
 
flogger said:
Switzerland has a very high rate of legal gun ownership (almost certainly higher than in the even most legal US state) yet you are still 17 times more likely to be killed by a gun there than in the UK
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less. those with hoplophobia ignore all the benefits of gun ownership
 
TurtleDude said:
I couldn't care less. those with hoplophobia ignore all the benefits of gun ownership
Click to expand...

LOL.

That sounds similar to what an alcoholic says when confronted with the facts of his drinking.

Man- you guys are getting dismantled by flogger while simultaneously declaring your imminent victory.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

That sounds similar to what an alcoholic says when confronted with the facts of his drinking.

Man- you guys are getting dismantled by flogger while simultaneously declaring your imminent victory.
Click to expand...

Yawn-you probably would have told the mayor of Hiroshima he won because the US was out of nukes:mrgreen:
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

That sounds similar to what an alcoholic says when confronted with the facts of his drinking.

Man- you guys are getting dismantled by flogger while simultaneously declaring your imminent victory.
Click to expand...

Its the ongoing defense of the indefensible that beggars belief here. Its analagous to a sort of religious faith that cannot be rationally questioned or analysed however many inconvenient facts you put in its way. Even basic common sense takes a back seat on this issue replaced by worship at the alter of the sacred gun. Its the casual disregard of human life in defence of the weapons that take it that I find the most jarringly incomprehensible frankly. :(
 
flogger said:
Switzerland has a very high rate of legal gun ownership (almost certainly higher than in the even most legal US state) yet you are still 17 times more likely to be killed by a gun there than in the UK
Click to expand...

Just more proof that it's not gun ownership but the factors that people here have tried to explain to you: the issues are highly focused in socio-economic areas with alot of crime and gangs. Which the Swiss have less of by far than the US. So apparently...guns dont cause crime and gun ownership isnt dangerous...criminals are.

And duh, your dont have gun crime because....the UK doesnt have guns. still has the crime tho....and more than Switz.

All of this is not real complicated, and yet you fail to understand it. Willful ignorance is generally pretty obvious on the Internetz.
 
flogger said:
As a female at home concerned with personal safety consider this. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study
Firearm availability and suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women
Click to expand...

See...you have zero ability to read or process information.

I live ALONE. I clearly gave you my situation and the scenario.

You gave me something that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Consider yourself Pwned.


(btw, there's no reason, except society's bias and upbringing, that keeps those women from being able to defend themselves...you showed it...the men are prepared to use force...women should be better prepared to defend themselves...with or without guns.)
 
flogger said:
If that were really so then it would not have posted such a deliberately misleading chart :roll:
Click to expand...

I think we've already established that you have no ability to interpret chart data.
 
flogger said:
Did you even try to do the math using the figures from your own chart vs population ?
Click to expand...

We've told you this....in the US it is almost totally concentrated in socio-economically challenged areas and you are trying to apply it to the country *overall.*

that interpretation is very inaccurate and does not in any way demonstrate the risks to most Americans. Much like the distinction you attempted to make with your *overall* crime rates in the UK. Is everyone in the UK *at the same risk of crime* based on where they live?
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

That sounds similar to what an alcoholic says when confronted with the facts of his drinking.

Man- you guys are getting dismantled by flogger while simultaneously declaring your imminent victory.
Click to expand...

Speaking of alcoholics who dont admit when they have a problem, did you return to apologize or admit you were wrong pretty much every time you read my posts and responded regarding mandatory and voluntary training? Would you still like me to clarify it for you? You seem to have been left out of the discussion.


I asked you to post the quotes where you said I made claims that training was not beneficial...and you did not. The assumption then is you lied.

Lursa said:
I took training that I paid for. Voluntarily. So 'why is training offered at all' is one of the least intelligent things I've read here yet. People do want training. People do pay for it or get it in other ways.

Again, we're talking about mandatory training and why it needs to be mandated if there's no evidence that training is lacking? And if you dont believe there's no data to support it, please find some. (Obviously I cant find something that doesnt exist but in many discussions on gun forums where there are gun owners that believe as you do....none has turned up.)

I love that you miss the entire point I was making...AGAIN. No one...and this is where you screwed up with Capt. Courtesy...EVER said that training wasnt a good idea. My point is that there is no evidence that mandating training would make any difference. So why impose more govt and more $$ and more restrictions on people? Man, I ****ing HATE 'feel good' legislation that actually means nothing.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Says training is useful.

Then says training is not useful.

Holding two opposing thoughts in ones mind is a cause of cognitive dissonance, you know.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
You said training doesn't change anything.

Sorry if I interpreted that as 'not useful'.

I guess people will get dhot by toddlers anyway and then reflect upon their lapsed training?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Nope. You cannot read properly. Please show, in a quoted post, where I EVER wrote that.

I said that 'mandatory/mandated training has not been shown to make any difference over voluntary training. Again, you cannot process words properly as your exchange with Capt Courtesy also showed.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between mandatory and voluntary. Do you need a dictionary?

But anyway, you now lie or are seriously mistaken. Please post where I said training was not useful?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Speaking of alcoholics who dont admit when they have a problem, did you return to apologize or admit you were wrong pretty much every time you read my posts and responded regarding mandatory and voluntary training? Would you still like me to clarify it for you? You seem to have been left out of the discussion.


I asked you to post the quotes where you said I made claims that training was not beneficial...and you did not. The assumption then is you lied.
Click to expand...


More slicing and dicing and parsing.

You said mandatory training is not beneficial in terms of reducing accidents. But somehow, magicallly, voluntary training is beneficial.

Therefore, I think we can say that you think training is not beneficial, since you have this belief that teaching people things only works when its voluntary.

Its your silly position, not mine.
 
Threegoofs said:
More slicing and dicing and parsing.

You said mandatory training is not beneficial in terms of reducing accidents. But somehow, magicallly, voluntary training is beneficial.

Therefore, I think we can say that you think training is not beneficial, since you have this belief that teaching people things only works when its voluntary.

Its your silly position, not mine.
Click to expand...


Please quote that. I never said it or implied. Quote where I did so. You attempt to insult again when the proof you are wrong is bolded in the previous response.
 
Lursa said:
We've told you this....in the US it is almost totally concentrated in socio-economically challenged areas and you are trying to apply it to the country *overall.*
Click to expand...

Yet you feel the need to arm yourself allegedly against multiple intruders in a non inner city rural area. What a terrifying place you seem to live in. I'd hate to live in a country that is so afraid of itself

In future if I were you I'd stick to ad hom attacks ignoring or dismissing all contrarian responses and endlessly repeating yourself :lol:
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
More slicing and dicing and parsing.

You said mandatory training is not beneficial in terms of reducing accidents. But somehow, magicallly, voluntary training is beneficial.

Therefore, I think we can say that you think training is not beneficial, since you have this belief that teaching people things only works when its voluntary.

Its your silly position, not mine.
Click to expand...

Get used to it :roll:
 
flogger said:
Well done ! You see you really can get there when you try :)
Click to expand...

And yet you quoted your 'overall crime rates' so you still have crime. Huh. Bummer.

And again avoid admitting that your crime is concentrated in certain areas, not all areas of the UK. You were asked a direct question and again...had to resort to denials instead of answering.
 
flogger said:
Yet you feel the need to arm yourself allegedly against multiple intruders in a non inner city rural area. What a terrifying place you seem to live in. I'd hate to live in a country that is so afraid of itself

In future if I were you I'd stick to ad hom attacks ignoring or dismissing all contrarian responses and endlessly repeating yourself :lol:
Click to expand...

So you cant answer my question about personal safety in a rural area either? You just say it's unsafe? It would be no different in a city or suburb. The police dont magically appear.....women are attacked in their homes....in the UK and in the US. You didnt offer any suggestions for me to protect myself against multiple attackers in my home at nite....why not?

Again, you cant answer actual real life questions, all you can do is misinterpret statistics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom