- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 19,500
- Reaction score
- 5,458
- Location
- Wokingham, England
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
many of them are suicides. what sort of punishment is going to deter a suicide?
tell us why are you so afraid of Americans owning guns?
NO. It matters and it matters completely. When a firearm is used to kill - it being used exactly for the purpose it was created in the first place. And the maker knows that and was aware of it and makes the product just the same.
So please spare me the excuses and the really atrocious comparison to people driving cars. Cars were invented to transport people. They were NOT invented as weapons of death.
You didn't answer my question. Auto deaths are almost entirely accidental (and hence unavoidable) and are something the US shares with other developed countries unlike its horrendous firearm stats. There is a big difference between accident and intent here
Yes indeed. The USSR had won that for us long before our military aid to her had made much impact and long before D day.
And many of them aren't. Why is making suicide more difficult to commit a bad thing ?
I'm not. I'm pointing out the consequences for your society
please go sue a car maker because a drunk guy plowed into a crowd or some maniac ran a bunch of people over.
we understand the consequences of freedom. 99% of all gun owners use them responsibly and for proper purposes. the benefits far outweigh the costs and most of the costs would remain even if the wet dreams of gun fearers came true
yet they 100% more death caused by car wrecks and drunk drivers than gun shootings.
guns have no intentions they are inanimate objects.
And many of them aren't. Why is making suicide more difficult to commit a bad thing ?
I'm not. I'm pointing out the consequences for your society
please go sue a car maker because a drunk guy plowed into a crowd or some maniac ran a bunch of people over.
after all the maker of the item is responsible for what people do with their products.
you are wrong you just don't realize how faulty your logic is.
it doesn't why cars were invented companies are responsible for what people do with their products remember that is your logic or at least core belief of the logic you are using.
guns were invented for personal protection that was the core reason they were invented and many early guns couldn't shoot more than a few feet with any accuracy.
again we are talking about your core logical belief here.
The USSR staved off defeat totally on their own merits.
Had there not been a D-day, or Lend Lease, however, the USSR would have been at great risk of stalemating with the Germans on the Eastern Front.
A key factor would have been German policies towards the peoples of occupied Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and how willing the locals would have been to either fight the Soviets, or at least not actively oppose the German occupation.
It was the numbers that mattered in the East and the Russians had more
One can have all the numbers in the world, but if they are not being fed, they are not going to do any good. Lend Lease provided the Soviets with:
26 boxes of pineapples, 71 pounds of olives, 595 boxes of limes
and....
500 million pounds of pork, 70 million pounds of bacon, 583 million pounds of sausage etc. etc etc
For a guy who loves to throw around the term LOGIC - you make the very illogical error of pretending that cars which were invented for the purpose of transportation and firearms which were invented for the purpose of shooting others are the same thing.
The great bulk of lend lease did not kick in until after Stalingrad and Kursk had been fought and won in July 43. By that time the Germans had lost the initiative forever on the Eastern front and were in continuous retreat for the 18 months before D day. The allied landings may have accelerated Germanys end but they certainly did not precipitate it. Russia did the bleeding but Hollywood revisionism grabbed all the glory for the US in the Cold War that followed. In the reckoning some 92% of all German military casualties happened on the Eastern front and it was this Soviet wrecking of the Wehrmacht that was by far the most important component in the winning of the conflict
have you gun banners ever figured out how lame that argument is
I agree with most of your post. At the end of the day, however, Lend Lease and D-day allowed the USSR to avoid a stalemate.
Even after Stalingrad, the Germans remained very lethal on a broad unit by unit average. Soviet soldiers drove to their victories on 50,000 2 /12 ton trucks while eating about 2 billion pounds of US provided food.
My guess is that with out lend lease and D-day, the entire eastern front would have stalemated after Kursk (Kursk was far more of a stalemate than a German defeat).
I would be happy to check with that infamous "gun banner" Ronald Reagan to get the answer but I read that he is deceased.
we understand the consequences of freedom. 99% of all gun owners use them responsibly and for proper purposes. the benefits far outweigh the costs and most of the costs would remain even if the wet dreams of gun fearers came true
do you think such evasive posts matter? Ronald Reagan has no relevance to this argument. and under the rules of debate you constantly talk about, its diversion
The truth is always relevant.
not at all, something can be truthful but irrelevant to the conversation. Ronald Reagan is irrelevant to this conversation
The truth is always relevant.
Any time you throw out the silly charge of GUN BANNER in a discussion about the Second Amendment, the name and record of Ronald Reagan is extremely relevant and will be brought up to show just how silly the label is since Reagan was a strong fried and supporter of the Second Amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?