Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Terrorist attack in Florida
Topic Started: Jun 12 2016, 06:39 PM (4,860 Views)
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

When you use the word you are given a small window above your post window in fast reply to confirm you have made a wise choice of words. Just click "continue" if you are certain you appropriately used the flagged term in question. I am unsure where it is on the Full Reply page.

And while murders may have gone down, mass shootings have dramatically increased in frequency. If you were correct in all things as you are with the murder rates, the number of mass ahootings should have decreased as well, ESPECIALLY with over a decade of record gun sales year after year.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

I know, I was clicking "continue" but it was stuck in an endless loop.

You'll have to define mass shooting because the definition varies from person to person. FBI/CRS definition is 4 or more people are killed, not including the shooter. Liberal definition is 2 or more people are wounded.

Using liberal sources and the FBI definition, the mass shooting rate is much, much lower than liberal sources want you to believe.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shootings/2015

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shootings/2014

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shootings/2013
Edited by Helvius Pertinax Augustus, Jun 17 2016, 04:32 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

But there is still gun violence every month whether it's four people killed or just one. And I'd like to add that proportionally it's way higher than the gun violence everywhere else in the world that isn't having some kind of war.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

I'll go by the FBI definition but I am finding far more studies that appear to agree with me. Give me a bit and I'll compile a list of my own.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Pelador
Jun 17 2016, 04:40 PM
But there is still gun violence every month whether it's four people killed or just one. And I'd like to add that proportionally it's way higher than the gun violence everywhere else in the world that isn't having some kind of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Again, not good with computery stuff so change the list so it's highest to least highest. None of the countries above the U.S are at war right now.

Even in intentional homicide rates the United States is ranked 108th in the World, and it's probably got the same population as the 107 countries preceding it. The U.S even has a higher suicide rate with firearms than they do homicide.
Edited by Helvius Pertinax Augustus, Jun 17 2016, 04:51 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Quite a few of those countries listed are also either unstable, dealing with unrest, or have to deal with the cartels and criminals in some form or another I'd like to point out. Like Brazil or Venezuela
Edited by Tinny, Jun 17 2016, 05:10 PM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Are you implying the U.S doesn't have any of those problems? We've got the Cartel here, we've got plenty of gangs, terrorist cells, mafia-type groups, corrupt government officials, drug problems, financial instability, as well as dealing with civil unrest. None of the circumstances you listed are any different. The only key difference between the countries is that in those countries citizens do not have the right to own a firearm. Very rarely is the privilege granted and only to those with connections.

I'd like to point out that many of the firearm related homicides and "mass shootings" in the U.S are from gang and/or drug violence, not from lone wolf shooters like Omar Mateen or Dylan Roof. While they certainly boost the numbers, they are not the primary cause.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

No the major difference is that the cartels don't RUN the American government like they do in parts of South America.

Not having the second amendment is not that much of a difference compared to corruption on a level that makes ancient Roman politics seem like a game of Monopoly.
Edited by Daemon Keido, Jun 17 2016, 05:27 PM.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

No, the cartels don't run the country like they do in Brazil or Mexico but they still terrorize the U.S just the same, especially in areas close to the U.S/Mexico border.

The 2nd Amendment isn't there to protect from criminals, terrorists, or the mentally insane. The first 10 Amendments of the U.S Constitution are there to protect us from a corrupt and totalitarian government. Our country was founded with a government in mind that largely to serves the people, not the people to serve the government. When we allow the government to dictate how, when, and where we're allowed to exercise those rights or if we're even allowed to exercise them at all, the people have lost. The National firearms Act of 1934 was when Americans really started losing to their government.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

You don't need guns to do that. Especially not in the 21st century. My country is a fine example of this. No guns yet we tell our government when to back down anyway. Besides, your amendments wouldn't mean s*** anyway if your government really wanted to down the tyrant route. Bunch of rag tag civis against the full might of the modern U.S military. No chance even if every citizen owned a fire arm.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

You're proving my point, without the right to bear and keep arms our Constitution wouldn't mean s*** and we'd live in fear of criminals and terrorists and pretend our self-serving government has the peoples best interest in mind.

If by full might of the U.S military you mean the U.S military using Nuclear warheads and Hellfire missliles on its own countrymen, you'd be right. No country would be able to withstand that whether it's the United States, Great Britain, China, Russia or North Korea. Your countries leadership would have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly evil to do such a thing, to destroy your own country in spite of its citizens and I doubt very many actual soldiers in the U.S military would be willing to partake in that.

If you mean soldiers engaging civilians, there becomes a certain point where numbers far outweigh military training, especially when it's 1,429,995 (Active duty, reserves, and National guard) against the lowest projected estimate of 90,000,000. That's assuming all of the soldiers won't detract and that they all have combat experience, which they don't. The number of soldiers who actually participate in and train for combat are much lower than that, roughly 100,000 between all 4 branches both active duty and reserve.
Edited by Helvius Pertinax Augustus, Jun 17 2016, 06:24 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 17 2016, 06:23 PM
You're proving my point, without the right to bear and keep arms our Constitution wouldn't mean s*** and we'd live in fear of criminals and terrorists and pretend our self-serving government has the peoples best interest in mind.
What is really different about this now with the inclusion of guns?


There is no chance civilians would beat the military at all just because you own a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it properly, I doubt most people who own a gun do considering most are for home protection aren't they? Probably never even fired it.

With all the jets, tanks, drones etc etc the US military has the civilians would be utterly annihilated with ease and then other countries would most likely retaliate. Which is exactly what would happen now if for some reason every civilian firearm was taken away.
It's not like the rest of the world would just let the US army do their thing, there's no hope for anything besides a few pockets of resistance surviving a full fledged military assault against civilians.


Why would they even do it anyway? Such a puzzling thought, I don't get why people act as though the government are just sitting waiting to take over...what could they possibly gain by destroying their own economy and having half the world go to war with them?


EDIT also as for the whole "liberal definition" of mass shootings: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Literally 6 days in to the year and there was already a mass shooting.

Last year there was one on the first of January...maybe this is progress :rofl:

169 days in the year so far, 141 mass shootings.
Edited by Steve, Jun 18 2016, 12:23 AM.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Pelador
Jun 17 2016, 06:03 PM
You don't need guns to do that. Especially not in the 21st century. My country is a fine example of this. No guns yet we tell our government when to back down anyway. Besides, your amendments wouldn't mean s*** anyway if your government really wanted to down the tyrant route. Bunch of rag tag civis against the full might of the modern U.S military. No chance even if every citizen owned a fire arm.
Ain't that the truth, no number of men with guns it's gonna win against the US's military. Just bring in the air force and then storm what's left. Only way any sort of rebellion can work is if the military splits or sides with the rebels. The second amendment is pretty much outdated, I'm pretty sure it was intended that states would be able maintain a small military to combat the national army of things went bad, but this interpretation makes it much easier to put down rebellion in reality.
Ironic really.
Edited by Tinny, Jun 18 2016, 12:28 AM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

Seems like there's a lot of denial that there is an issue, or that attempts to fix the issue are making it worse. There is a problem. It might not be purely down to the amendment itself but that doesn't matter. People are killing each other with guns too often. Issue every civilian with a firearm for protection or make it really hard to get one. Whatever works, just do something.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Steve
Jun 18 2016, 12:10 AM
Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 17 2016, 06:23 PM
You're proving my point, without the right to bear and keep arms our Constitution wouldn't mean s*** and we'd live in fear of criminals and terrorists and pretend our self-serving government has the peoples best interest in mind.
What is really different about this now with the inclusion of guns?


There is no chance civilians would beat the military at all just because you own a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it properly, I doubt most people who own a gun do considering most are for home protection aren't they? Probably never even fired it.

With all the jets, tanks, drones etc etc the US military has the civilians would be utterly annihilated with ease and then other countries would most likely retaliate. Which is exactly what would happen now if for some reason every civilian firearm was taken away.
It's not like the rest of the world would just let the US army do their thing, there's no hope for anything besides a few pockets of resistance surviving a full fledged military assault against civilians.


Why would they even do it anyway? Such a puzzling thought, I don't get why people act as though the government are just sitting waiting to take over...what could they possibly gain by destroying their own economy and having half the world go to war with them?


EDIT also as for the whole "liberal definition" of mass shootings: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Literally 6 days in to the year and there was already a mass shooting.

Last year there was one on the first of January...maybe this is progress :rofl:

169 days in the year so far, 141 mass shootings.
I linked that in my previous post. Even the first "Mass shooting" in January by FBI/CRS standards wasn't a mass shooting. There's been 8 according to their standard, which is 4 or more killed, not 4 or more wounded. Also you should look where the majority of those shootings are happening and refer to my previous posts. Gun control is heavy in many of those cities and states and many of those incidents, if you follow the links, are gang/drug related crimes, not spur of the moment shootings from crazy gun owners that the media likes to so heavily play up.

You all are forgetting that American soldiers are American citizens too. They lose every right we do if they're taken from us, they would have no reason to fight us and more reason to fight with us against the government.

Also, the 2nd amendment is not outdated. If that was the case then the rest of the Constitution would be outdated too.

Relevant:

Posted Image
Edited by Helvius Pertinax Augustus, Jun 18 2016, 12:42 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91