FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Donald Trump: This is war!

Donald Trump: This is war!

(1:21) Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump responds to the Bastille Day terror attack in Nice, France.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (461 days ago)

That was one of the worst terrorist attacks of all time. When will they ban trucks so that this will never happen again?

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

That was one of the worst terrorist attacks of all time. When will they ban trucks so that this will never happen again?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (461 days ago)

I see your point but trucks are crucial to the daily lives of millions of people, and this incident was almost the first of its kind... it would be so difficult to restrict them.

Gee, if only terrorists preferred to use a weapon that wasn't integral to daily life, one that was used in the majority of violent crime and murder, that we could somehow restrict access to.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

I see your point but trucks are crucial to the daily lives of millions of people, and this incident was almost the first of its kind... it would be so difficult to restrict them.

Gee, if only terrorists preferred to use a weapon that wasn't integral to daily life, one that was used in the majority of violent crime and murder, that we could somehow restrict access to.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (461 days ago)

Guns are crucial to the daily lives of millions of people too. It's that you don't believe that so you completely discount that statement. Mine is for defense, others use them for hunting, some use them for policing and security, some use them for military.

I do not own a truck and never owned a truck but I do own guns. If someone were to break into my house and try to hurt my family, calling the police would be ineffective because of how long it would take them to respond. By the time the police get here, we could all be dead.

The day the President walks around without his secret service being armed with guns, then I will say the country is then safe enough for the rest of us to do the same. Even the President knows it's unreasonable to go without defense but he wants the American people to be disarmed while he remains armed.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Guns are crucial to the daily lives of millions of people too. It's that you don't believe that so you completely discount that statement. Mine is for defense, others use them for hunting, some use them for policing and security, some use them for military.

I do not own a truck and never owned a truck but I do own guns. If someone were to break into my house and try to hurt my family, calling the police would be ineffective because of how long it would take them to respond. By the time the police get here, we could all be dead.

The day the President walks around without his secret service being armed with guns, then I will say the country is then safe enough for the rest of us to do the same. Even the President knows it's unreasonable to go without defense but he wants the American people to be disarmed while he remains armed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (461 days ago)

I would honestly hate to live in a country that I felt was so lawless and corrupt that I needed lethal weapons to feel safe. Land of the free, is it?

You're right, I don't believe guns are crucial to the daily lives of millions of people, other than law enforcement and military. I don't think your paranoia constitutes crucial daily use. Perhaps you're saying that one day, possibly, maybe, hopefully not, your guns will be crucial, but that acknowledges that every other day they are not crucial. You don't own a truck, but far more of your daily life is linked with them - from your mail to your food, your clothes to your gas. If you could click your fingers and make all guns disappear, your life would go on more-or-less as it was before. If you did the same with trucks, your life would be radically different within a few hours. Really, it's a very silly comparison you made.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

I would honestly hate to live in a country that I felt was so lawless and corrupt that I needed lethal weapons to feel safe. Land of the free, is it?

You're right, I don't believe guns are crucial to the daily lives of millions of people, other than law enforcement and military. I don't think your paranoia constitutes crucial daily use. Perhaps you're saying that one day, possibly, maybe, hopefully not, your guns will be crucial, but that acknowledges that every other day they are not crucial. You don't own a truck, but far more of your daily life is linked with them - from your mail to your food, your clothes to your gas. If you could click your fingers and make all guns disappear, your life would go on more-or-less as it was before. If you did the same with trucks, your life would be radically different within a few hours. Really, it's a very silly comparison you made.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (461 days ago)

Our country is not lawless but it's also not 100% free from crime and neither is yours. Since there are still some bad people out there, I want to protect myself and my family. I live in a good neighborhood so it's unlikely I will ever need to defend myself but there could be a time in the future where I might have to and I am prepared for that.

It's sort of like natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes. I've lived in areas that had all of those. It was very unlikely that my house would be impacted by them because only a small percentage of homes are ever destroyed but I am still well prepared for those events by having lots of canned foods, alternative cooking methods, camping equipment, bottled water, and generators. It is sort of stupid to go on in life thinking that nothing bad will ever happen to you so you are never prepared for it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Our country is not lawless but it's also not 100% free from crime and neither is yours. Since there are still some bad people out there, I want to protect myself and my family. I live in a good neighborhood so it's unlikely I will ever need to defend myself but there could be a time in the future where I might have to and I am prepared for that.

It's sort of like natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes. I've lived in areas that had all of those. It was very unlikely that my house would be impacted by them because only a small percentage of homes are ever destroyed but I am still well prepared for those events by having lots of canned foods, alternative cooking methods, camping equipment, bottled water, and generators. It is sort of stupid to go on in life thinking that nothing bad will ever happen to you so you are never prepared for it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aries (460 days ago)

ConcernedCitizen -

Here's a suggestion. Since you want to protect yourself from bad people, why don't you install traps around your home? You know, bear traps, pitfalls, electric fences and so on. Then if anyone came to attack you they'd get stopped by a trap and you'd be safe. You'd have to teach your children how to avoid your own traps, but anyone else would just know you keep out of your yard. And you would keep out of theirs. Everyone safe! Of course there would be the odd incident, but well, stuff happens.

This would be more effective than having a gun since the traps would be doing their job 100% of the time. No need to find your gun, load it, or risk being shot at by a bad guy. The traps would take them out long before they got anywhere near your house without you needing to do anything, except maybe clear out the dead bodies.

So, how would you compare this method to your chosen method of self protection?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

ConcernedCitizen -

Here's a suggestion. Since you want to protect yourself from bad people, why don't you install traps around your home? You know, bear traps, pitfalls, electric fences and so on. Then if anyone came to attack you they'd get stopped by a trap and you'd be safe. You'd have to teach your children how to avoid your own traps, but anyone else would just know you keep out of your yard. And you would keep out of theirs. Everyone safe! Of course there would be the odd incident, but well, stuff happens.

This would be more effective than having a gun since the traps would be doing their job 100% of the time. No need to find your gun, load it, or risk being shot at by a bad guy. The traps would take them out long before they got anywhere near your house without you needing to do anything, except maybe clear out the dead bodies.

So, how would you compare this method to your chosen method of self protection?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (460 days ago)

If someone gets hurt on your property, you are accountable for that. We have insurance that protects us in those cases. For example, you have a sidewalk that goes across your lawn and someone trips and falls on that sidewalk, you can be sued for that. Imagine having bear traps or other boobie traps that are designed to purposely hurt people, that's just being stupid.

You are not allowed to just shoot anyone that steps on your property. You must think we are just shooting anyone but that's not how it works. Look at the George Zimmerman case where he was defending his life and shot someone and was charged with murder. A jury ultimately found him not guilty but he was locked up and ended up in court over that. Nobody wants to go to court over defending themsevles so you're damn sure you need to pull that trigger before you actually do.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

If someone gets hurt on your property, you are accountable for that. We have insurance that protects us in those cases. For example, you have a sidewalk that goes across your lawn and someone trips and falls on that sidewalk, you can be sued for that. Imagine having bear traps or other boobie traps that are designed to purposely hurt people, that's just being stupid.

You are not allowed to just shoot anyone that steps on your property. You must think we are just shooting anyone but that's not how it works. Look at the George Zimmerman case where he was defending his life and shot someone and was charged with murder. A jury ultimately found him not guilty but he was locked up and ended up in court over that. Nobody wants to go to court over defending themsevles so you're damn sure you need to pull that trigger before you actually do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (460 days ago)

That's a really unexpected response to his suggestion. So all these lawless Americans that want to break in to your house, rape and murder your loved ones - you're happy to have a gun to shoot them, but your scared of the insurance issues if they were to fall into a trap you had set? Have another think.

Your take on the Trayvon Martin tragedy is less unexpected. Those are your true colors.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

That's a really unexpected response to his suggestion. So all these lawless Americans that want to break in to your house, rape and murder your loved ones - you're happy to have a gun to shoot them, but your scared of the insurance issues if they were to fall into a trap you had set? Have another think.

Your take on the Trayvon Martin tragedy is less unexpected. Those are your true colors.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (460 days ago)

Not only do they need to break into my house, they need to threaten my life. I cannot just shoot anyone I want. What is so hard to understand about that?

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

Not only do they need to break into my house, they need to threaten my life. I cannot just shoot anyone I want. What is so hard to understand about that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aries (459 days ago)

COncernedCitizen - That's fair enough. I guess you need to have "reasonable" fear for your life, in a legal sense.

What would you do if a child, just playing, but with a real loaded gun, came at you?

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

COncernedCitizen - That's fair enough. I guess you need to have "reasonable" fear for your life, in a legal sense.

What would you do if a child, just playing, but with a real loaded gun, came at you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

There are many hypothetical situations you can come up with and I cannot go through them all but in this case, I could still shoot. Trayvon Martin was just a kid at 17 but was trained in MMA and was a very big kid at 5'11". He was clearly a threat and the Jury agreed.

In general, you give the perp a warning. "I'm armed and I will shoot if you don't leave." If they keep coming at you and is armed, it might not turn out too good for them. Imagine not doing anything and what could happen.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

There are many hypothetical situations you can come up with and I cannot go through them all but in this case, I could still shoot. Trayvon Martin was just a kid at 17 but was trained in MMA and was a very big kid at 5'11". He was clearly a threat and the Jury agreed.

In general, you give the perp a warning. "I'm armed and I will shoot if you don't leave." If they keep coming at you and is armed, it might not turn out too good for them. Imagine not doing anything and what could happen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aries (459 days ago)

ConcernedCitizen - In my post I said a "child." At 17, you are a "young man."

" Imagine not doing anything and what could happen." Actually I think it's your imagination that is the problem.

Pro-gun people imagine terrible things that *could* happen, and by preparing for these fantasies, make them more likely to happen. It's a positive feedback situation - which is great if you make a living from manufacturing and selling weaponry.

It's like parents who drive their children to school in huge SUVs for their "protection" against the dangerous traffic.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

ConcernedCitizen - In my post I said a "child." At 17, you are a "young man."

" Imagine not doing anything and what could happen." Actually I think it's your imagination that is the problem.

Pro-gun people imagine terrible things that *could* happen, and by preparing for these fantasies, make them more likely to happen. It's a positive feedback situation - which is great if you make a living from manufacturing and selling weaponry.

It's like parents who drive their children to school in huge SUVs for their "protection" against the dangerous traffic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

You need to consider things that "could" happen. It makes you better prepared for life. Don't buy something so expensive that it uses every penny of your salary because you "could" lose your job. You "could" get demoted. You "could" have an accident and need to live off disability payments. Being prepared for possible disasters is just one more thing to consider.

They are not fantasies. You make it sound like nobody ever gets raped. The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates. It's definitely in the top of the European union. How can you think it's just a Fantasy. Maybe you're so used the crime that you just let it happen.

SUVs are safer than other types of transportation. You wouldn't bring your child to school on the back of a motorcycle, for example. Those SUVs, when in an accident, are less likely to have a death compared to the smaller cars. If safety is your concern, which it is to many parents with children, then an SUV is a good vehicle choice.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

You need to consider things that "could" happen. It makes you better prepared for life. Don't buy something so expensive that it uses every penny of your salary because you "could" lose your job. You "could" get demoted. You "could" have an accident and need to live off disability payments. Being prepared for possible disasters is just one more thing to consider.

They are not fantasies. You make it sound like nobody ever gets raped. The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates. It's definitely in the top of the European union. How can you think it's just a Fantasy. Maybe you're so used the crime that you just let it happen.

SUVs are safer than other types of transportation. You wouldn't bring your child to school on the back of a motorcycle, for example. Those SUVs, when in an accident, are less likely to have a death compared to the smaller cars. If safety is your concern, which it is to many parents with children, then an SUV is a good vehicle choice.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aries (459 days ago)

ConcernedCitizen - Before SUVs, when I was a child, for example, everyone walked to school. Even quite young children walked a mile or so unaccompanied. There was not much danger from traffic. But as soon as one parent starts ferrying their child in an SUV, the balance shifts to a new equilibrium. Soon everyone has to be driven because anyone walking is in considerable danger.

When you say "If safety is your concern, which it is to many parents with children, then an SUV is a good vehicle choice" then I think simply don't get the point. If no-one used SUVs, there would be no SUVs to protect yourself from - and it's not a fairytale ideal, because it is exactly what used to be the norm for many years.

In the same way, your buying a gun to "protect yourself" simply makes everyone else feel a greater need for "protection" because now there's one more gun out there. You have a gun, and you *might* use it to rob or kill me. How do I know you won't? I better get a gun to protect myself from you. Just imagine if you broke into my house with your gun and I was unarmed! I better be prepared for that possible disaster.

Positive feedback. Good news if you sell weaponry.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

ConcernedCitizen - Before SUVs, when I was a child, for example, everyone walked to school. Even quite young children walked a mile or so unaccompanied. There was not much danger from traffic. But as soon as one parent starts ferrying their child in an SUV, the balance shifts to a new equilibrium. Soon everyone has to be driven because anyone walking is in considerable danger.

When you say "If safety is your concern, which it is to many parents with children, then an SUV is a good vehicle choice" then I think simply don't get the point. If no-one used SUVs, there would be no SUVs to protect yourself from - and it's not a fairytale ideal, because it is exactly what used to be the norm for many years.

In the same way, your buying a gun to "protect yourself" simply makes everyone else feel a greater need for "protection" because now there's one more gun out there. You have a gun, and you *might* use it to rob or kill me. How do I know you won't? I better get a gun to protect myself from you. Just imagine if you broke into my house with your gun and I was unarmed! I better be prepared for that possible disaster.

Positive feedback. Good news if you sell weaponry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

"there would be no SUVs to protect yourself from" Families are not protecting themselves from SUVs. If you had a small car and had an accident with another small car, the chances are higher that you would get hurt than if you were in an SUV and hit another small car. I'm pretty sure it still is true if you hit an SUV as well.

If you were in a car accident, would you rather be driving: 1. A motorcycle, 2. a corvette, 3. An SUV?

I don't go around telling people I have a gun so your comment about people thinking they need to get guns to protect themselves against me is a false premise. What they see is crime on the news and they don't want that same crime to happen to them so they protect themselves.

"Just imagine if you broke into my house with your gun and I was unarmed! I better be prepared for that possible disaster." Substitute the word "you" and "your" with some criminal and then I would say "Yes", if you care about not having your family raped or killed.

Do you deny that violent crime happens? What should you as an individual do to protect yourself from that violent crime? Absolutely nothing? I know, you would say, Please Mr. Murderer wait on one second while I make a quick phone call. Then attempt to call the police while you're at gun point. Is that what you expect people to do?

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

"there would be no SUVs to protect yourself from" Families are not protecting themselves from SUVs. If you had a small car and had an accident with another small car, the chances are higher that you would get hurt than if you were in an SUV and hit another small car. I'm pretty sure it still is true if you hit an SUV as well.

If you were in a car accident, would you rather be driving: 1. A motorcycle, 2. a corvette, 3. An SUV?

I don't go around telling people I have a gun so your comment about people thinking they need to get guns to protect themselves against me is a false premise. What they see is crime on the news and they don't want that same crime to happen to them so they protect themselves.

"Just imagine if you broke into my house with your gun and I was unarmed! I better be prepared for that possible disaster." Substitute the word "you" and "your" with some criminal and then I would say "Yes", if you care about not having your family raped or killed.

Do you deny that violent crime happens? What should you as an individual do to protect yourself from that violent crime? Absolutely nothing? I know, you would say, Please Mr. Murderer wait on one second while I make a quick phone call. Then attempt to call the police while you're at gun point. Is that what you expect people to do?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (457 days ago)

"What they see is crime on the news and they don't want that same crime to happen to them so they protect themselves."

Well, since violent crimes have been regularly declining in the United States for the past 40 years or so, maybe what they're seeing is just too much of the 24 hour news cycle germinating unrealistic fears. Statistically, that gun in your home is much more likely to kill your loved one or yourself than it is to ever be used against any bad guy, real or imagined. I hope you're safe with it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

"What they see is crime on the news and they don't want that same crime to happen to them so they protect themselves."

Well, since violent crimes have been regularly declining in the United States for the past 40 years or so, maybe what they're seeing is just too much of the 24 hour news cycle germinating unrealistic fears. Statistically, that gun in your home is much more likely to kill your loved one or yourself than it is to ever be used against any bad guy, real or imagined. I hope you're safe with it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aries (458 days ago)

Best drive your kids to school in a tank then.

Of course I don't deny that violent crime happens. So do meteorite strikes, shark attacks, sink holes etc but I am not fearful of these. Neither, actually, am I fearful of violent crime.

It seems to me that your fear of violent attack - and you *are* fearful, else you would not be planning your defence against an armed murderer attacks - has warped your judgement. Also, and you still don't seem to understand this, your reaction to that fear, by arming yourself, simply adds to the fear in general. Just like the school run SUVs, it's a positive feedback.

I don't quite know why Americans are quite such a fearful bunch. I guess the media has something to do with it - fear sells newspapers. Also, people like Trump and the NRA can use fear to their own advantage, so they push it for all it's worth. Fear is worth a lot of money.

Rooseveldt had it right with "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear is destroying American society.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Best drive your kids to school in a tank then.

Of course I don't deny that violent crime happens. So do meteorite strikes, shark attacks, sink holes etc but I am not fearful of these. Neither, actually, am I fearful of violent crime.

It seems to me that your fear of violent attack - and you *are* fearful, else you would not be planning your defence against an armed murderer attacks - has warped your judgement. Also, and you still don't seem to understand this, your reaction to that fear, by arming yourself, simply adds to the fear in general. Just like the school run SUVs, it's a positive feedback.

I don't quite know why Americans are quite such a fearful bunch. I guess the media has something to do with it - fear sells newspapers. Also, people like Trump and the NRA can use fear to their own advantage, so they push it for all it's worth. Fear is worth a lot of money.

Rooseveldt had it right with "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear is destroying American society.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (458 days ago)

I don't have fear. I said earlier that I didn't own a gun until I had a family I was responsible for protecting.

Does the UK have a military? Please explain why. Are you guys so in fear that you need to create an army to make yourselves feel more comfortable? I think it's because there are bad people in this world and if you didn't have a military, you would have been taken over by another country by now.

Did your daddy teach you how to fight when you were younger so you could defend yourself at school? Some people learn martial arts to defend themselves. As for me, I bought a gun and learned how to use it properly.

"Fear is destroying American society." I don't see it that way. The American society is doing great and is getting stronger as time passes.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I don't have fear. I said earlier that I didn't own a gun until I had a family I was responsible for protecting.

Does the UK have a military? Please explain why. Are you guys so in fear that you need to create an army to make yourselves feel more comfortable? I think it's because there are bad people in this world and if you didn't have a military, you would have been taken over by another country by now.

Did your daddy teach you how to fight when you were younger so you could defend yourself at school? Some people learn martial arts to defend themselves. As for me, I bought a gun and learned how to use it properly.

"Fear is destroying American society." I don't see it that way. The American society is doing great and is getting stronger as time passes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aries (458 days ago)

Yes the UK has a military. That's because we are scared that if we don't, somebody llike Putin will invade. That's why we have just voted to retain and upgrade our nukes. We are scared that if we don't have nukes, we will be defenceless.

Of course our having nukes makes it worse all round. We'd like to live in a nuke-free world but don't know how to do it. We don't trust the Putins, and laying down our weapons first has no guarantee that anyone else will follow suit.

So yes, this is a fear-driven process. Scared to have nukes, but even more scared to get rid of them. Pretending it's not all about fear is just bravado. Feeling fear does not mean you aren't brave, btw. The brave person feels the fear but does not let it take over.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Yes the UK has a military. That's because we are scared that if we don't, somebody llike Putin will invade. That's why we have just voted to retain and upgrade our nukes. We are scared that if we don't have nukes, we will be defenceless.

Of course our having nukes makes it worse all round. We'd like to live in a nuke-free world but don't know how to do it. We don't trust the Putins, and laying down our weapons first has no guarantee that anyone else will follow suit.

So yes, this is a fear-driven process. Scared to have nukes, but even more scared to get rid of them. Pretending it's not all about fear is just bravado. Feeling fear does not mean you aren't brave, btw. The brave person feels the fear but does not let it take over.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (458 days ago)

The U.K. has a fantastic military and has been asked by the states many times to support bush's illegal wars over oil. Without the nukes the uk would be overrun in no time by the russians. There is a vast expanse between russia and canada, so we would have plenty of warning should there be a ground invasion, and lots of barren wilderness to nuke. Theres a slim chance that a nuclear tomcruise missle could get through but we've made special arrangements with the church of scientology, so we will come to no harm.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

The U.K. has a fantastic military and has been asked by the states many times to support bush's illegal wars over oil. Without the nukes the uk would be overrun in no time by the russians. There is a vast expanse between russia and canada, so we would have plenty of warning should there be a ground invasion, and lots of barren wilderness to nuke. Theres a slim chance that a nuclear tomcruise missle could get through but we've made special arrangements with the church of scientology, so we will come to no harm.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (458 days ago)

That's my feelings exactly. If the planet was a nice peaceful place to live, we wouldn't need weapons. In reality, people are always trying to harm us so we need to have weapons to defend ourselves.

The military is concerned about the entire country. The police cannot respond fast enough and are reactive versus proactive. We are left to defend ourselves at the micro level.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

That's my feelings exactly. If the planet was a nice peaceful place to live, we wouldn't need weapons. In reality, people are always trying to harm us so we need to have weapons to defend ourselves.

The military is concerned about the entire country. The police cannot respond fast enough and are reactive versus proactive. We are left to defend ourselves at the micro level.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (458 days ago)

god living in america must suck. you say the uk is violent but i have never had to defend my life. and you dont even feel safe in the usa without a gun?? holy shit. i really feel bad for you.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

god living in america must suck. you say the uk is violent but i have never had to defend my life. and you dont even feel safe in the usa without a gun?? holy shit. i really feel bad for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (458 days ago)

I've lived in the USA probably longer than you've been alive and I've never had to defend my life either. The whole point is that I'm prepared if I need to.

I have insurance for my car but I've never used it either. Just because I'm prepared for something doesn't mean it's a horrible place to live or that I'm in fear all the time. It's just being smart instead of closing your eyes to the possibilities and then being out of control when it does happen.

In fact, I hope I can go the rest of my life without ever having to use any of my guns. That's the ideal situation and what I expect.

ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment

I've lived in the USA probably longer than you've been alive and I've never had to defend my life either. The whole point is that I'm prepared if I need to.

I have insurance for my car but I've never used it either. Just because I'm prepared for something doesn't mean it's a horrible place to live or that I'm in fear all the time. It's just being smart instead of closing your eyes to the possibilities and then being out of control when it does happen.

In fact, I hope I can go the rest of my life without ever having to use any of my guns. That's the ideal situation and what I expect.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (458 days ago)

If that is what makes you feel good ,and its legal, then go for it.

I could never trust myself with a gun because too many people piss me off.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

If that is what makes you feel good ,and its legal, then go for it.

I could never trust myself with a gun because too many people piss me off.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (457 days ago)

Good thing you don't have a gun then. It's not intended to be used when people piss you off. Even pointing your gun at someone without pulling the trigger can get you in jail. You better know what you're doing before you buy one. It's not for everyone and I can understand if you cannot handle it.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

Good thing you don't have a gun then. It's not intended to be used when people piss you off. Even pointing your gun at someone without pulling the trigger can get you in jail. You better know what you're doing before you buy one. It's not for everyone and I can understand if you cannot handle it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (457 days ago)

Deffinately not for me, im too explosive.

Original comment

Deffinately not for me, im too explosive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (458 days ago)

eeh? i have insurance on my car because i have had accidents, i know most people have accidents, and i see accidents almost weekly. its a common occurence. you get insurance for stuff that doesnt often happen but that still happens a fair bit. if violence and gun crime is as common as that in your country WOW! if i needed a firearm to feel protected against my fellow citizens i would think i was living in a bad place. the uk is so violent and law less according to you but i dont think i know any one who has been attacked and we dont arm ourselves in case it happens because obvciously that makes it worse. or maybe guest is right, you dont understand the stats. anyway basically your either wrong to own a gun because your country isnt that violent and law less, or you are right to own a gun because it is so violent and law less.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

eeh? i have insurance on my car because i have had accidents, i know most people have accidents, and i see accidents almost weekly. its a common occurence. you get insurance for stuff that doesnt often happen but that still happens a fair bit. if violence and gun crime is as common as that in your country WOW! if i needed a firearm to feel protected against my fellow citizens i would think i was living in a bad place. the uk is so violent and law less according to you but i dont think i know any one who has been attacked and we dont arm ourselves in case it happens because obvciously that makes it worse. or maybe guest is right, you dont understand the stats. anyway basically your either wrong to own a gun because your country isnt that violent and law less, or you are right to own a gun because it is so violent and law less.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (458 days ago)

Must be bad to be you. I'm old and have been driving a very long time and have never had an accident. None of my family has ever had an accident ,and none of my friends have ever had an accident. But we all have insurance anyway. You and others like you that are careless are the reason my rates are so high. I'm having to pay to fix your mess because you probably cost the insurance company more than what you paid into it.

The violence and gun crime that you think is common is for a different demographic. They live in a different area and are usually involved in illegal activities such as drugs. I feel pretty safe that I'm not going to be involved in any violent crime during my entire lifetime.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Must be bad to be you. I'm old and have been driving a very long time and have never had an accident. None of my family has ever had an accident ,and none of my friends have ever had an accident. But we all have insurance anyway. You and others like you that are careless are the reason my rates are so high. I'm having to pay to fix your mess because you probably cost the insurance company more than what you paid into it.

The violence and gun crime that you think is common is for a different demographic. They live in a different area and are usually involved in illegal activities such as drugs. I feel pretty safe that I'm not going to be involved in any violent crime during my entire lifetime.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (457 days ago)

ok now i know your lying. none of your friends and family have ever scraped a wall when parking or had a pebble chip or shatter the windscreen or had a car go into the back of them at traffic lights? those are all accidents and that is why you have car insurance. because those things are relatively common. in relation to how many cars you have the usa has more traffic related deaths than almost any eu country and double the road deaths per cars owned of the uk and you have over 5.5 million accidents a year so im calling your bluff. you seem to think violent crime is as common as that in the usa. you say its in a diferent area but your so scared you have to have a lethal firearm. sucks to be you. and if your paying to fix the mess of car accidents you never had.. who is paying to fix the mess of scared civilians owning unecesary guns? sandy hook tells you. any way if your resorting to lying and not being honest with your self your game is up.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

ok now i know your lying. none of your friends and family have ever scraped a wall when parking or had a pebble chip or shatter the windscreen or had a car go into the back of them at traffic lights? those are all accidents and that is why you have car insurance. because those things are relatively common. in relation to how many cars you have the usa has more traffic related deaths than almost any eu country and double the road deaths per cars owned of the uk and you have over 5.5 million accidents a year so im calling your bluff. you seem to think violent crime is as common as that in the usa. you say its in a diferent area but your so scared you have to have a lethal firearm. sucks to be you. and if your paying to fix the mess of car accidents you never had.. who is paying to fix the mess of scared civilians owning unecesary guns? sandy hook tells you. any way if your resorting to lying and not being honest with your self your game is up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (457 days ago)

First of all, if someone did hit me or one of my family from behind, it would be the other guy's insurance that pays. The person that's at fault pays. Why do you find it hard to believe that we are good drivers? Any small scrapes wouldn't be covered under insurance anyway because there's something called a deductable. You wouldn't make a claim of any scratch that costs less than $1000 to fix because that's how much you would pay before your insurance kicks in anyway. I've had scratches from grocery carts hitting my car but I'm not making an insurance claim on those for the same dedictable reason.

You can call my bluff all you want. Doesn't matter because you'll never be able to prove I'm wrong and I cannot prove I'm right. I cannot prove a negative. How can someone prove they have never had an accident? I could prove it if I had one by taking photos of my crashed car but what would satisfy you that I've never had one? It would be like proving God doesn't exist, you can't do it.

I said many times earlier that I don't have fear and that includes being scared. I hope I go through life without ever needing to use my gun and I probably will. But if some small chance, someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and threatens our life, he may be the one that doesn't survive that night.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

First of all, if someone did hit me or one of my family from behind, it would be the other guy's insurance that pays. The person that's at fault pays. Why do you find it hard to believe that we are good drivers? Any small scrapes wouldn't be covered under insurance anyway because there's something called a deductable. You wouldn't make a claim of any scratch that costs less than $1000 to fix because that's how much you would pay before your insurance kicks in anyway. I've had scratches from grocery carts hitting my car but I'm not making an insurance claim on those for the same dedictable reason.

You can call my bluff all you want. Doesn't matter because you'll never be able to prove I'm wrong and I cannot prove I'm right. I cannot prove a negative. How can someone prove they have never had an accident? I could prove it if I had one by taking photos of my crashed car but what would satisfy you that I've never had one? It would be like proving God doesn't exist, you can't do it.

I said many times earlier that I don't have fear and that includes being scared. I hope I go through life without ever needing to use my gun and I probably will. But if some small chance, someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and threatens our life, he may be the one that doesn't survive that night.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (457 days ago)

wether its you or someone else who goes into the back of a car you still need insurance and having insurance shows you think that sort of thing (acidents) is quite likely to happen. if you put gun violence in that same category of probability then yes you either live in a law less and dangerous country or you are just paranoid. or maybe both.
i call your bluff and neither of us can prove it but it does you good to remember you cant just make up stupid things and be beleved. people are smart enough to know what is reasonable... look 5.5 million recoreded car acidents every year in usa. thats 1 for every 64 americans including people who cant or dont drive. thats why your not good drivers. and a super high ratio or acidents per cars owned to. but your saying in your whole life you, your friends, your family has never been in an acident? yeaaaaaaah lol. and yes of course you can prove a negative just as much as you can prove a positive.. prosecutors do it all the time. you can prove there isnt a real live elephant in your pocket. you can prove that 1 + 1 is not 3. you can prove the world isnt flat. what you mean is that its hard work to prove a bullshit negative statement with lots of diferent bullshit claims to a cinic living the other side of the world. ok you say your not scared but youve armed yourself for fear of attacks so you think its likely enough to get "insurance" in the form of a lethal weapon. as likely as a car accident even. in most countrys thats called fear. of course you wouldnt admit it because that would injure your famous american pride. i feel bad for you.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

wether its you or someone else who goes into the back of a car you still need insurance and having insurance shows you think that sort of thing (acidents) is quite likely to happen. if you put gun violence in that same category of probability then yes you either live in a law less and dangerous country or you are just paranoid. or maybe both.
i call your bluff and neither of us can prove it but it does you good to remember you cant just make up stupid things and be beleved. people are smart enough to know what is reasonable... look 5.5 million recoreded car acidents every year in usa. thats 1 for every 64 americans including people who cant or dont drive. thats why your not good drivers. and a super high ratio or acidents per cars owned to. but your saying in your whole life you, your friends, your family has never been in an acident? yeaaaaaaah lol. and yes of course you can prove a negative just as much as you can prove a positive.. prosecutors do it all the time. you can prove there isnt a real live elephant in your pocket. you can prove that 1 + 1 is not 3. you can prove the world isnt flat. what you mean is that its hard work to prove a bullshit negative statement with lots of diferent bullshit claims to a cinic living the other side of the world. ok you say your not scared but youve armed yourself for fear of attacks so you think its likely enough to get "insurance" in the form of a lethal weapon. as likely as a car accident even. in most countrys thats called fear. of course you wouldnt admit it because that would injure your famous american pride. i feel bad for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (457 days ago)

"and having insurance shows you think that sort of thing (acidents) is quite likely to happen" Not necessarily. In the USA, it is a law that you cannot drive a car without insurance. I'm sure many people would drive it without if they were allowed and I have seen many court cases where people are sued personally because they had an accident and didn't have insurance. Even still, I would have insurance because I drive an expensive car and the insurance is cheap compared to how much it would cost to replace my car plus any others damaged in an accident in the unlikely event an accident does happen.

Can you show me your source for that 5.5 million accidents per year in the USA? The stats I found only include annual ones and doesn't have any figures close to that. LINK

Did you also consider that many of those accidents are caused by people talking on the phone, texting on the phone, or are young and inexperienced drivers? Also people can have more than one accident which makes up for those of us who have never had one.

"ok you say your not scared but youve armed yourself for fear of attacks" Are you dense or something? You keep using that word "fear" and I keep telling you that I have no fear. I've armed myself in case of of an attack -- not in fear of attacks. See the difference? I hope so because I'm not going to address that again.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

"and having insurance shows you think that sort of thing (acidents) is quite likely to happen" Not necessarily. In the USA, it is a law that you cannot drive a car without insurance. I'm sure many people would drive it without if they were allowed and I have seen many court cases where people are sued personally because they had an accident and didn't have insurance. Even still, I would have insurance because I drive an expensive car and the insurance is cheap compared to how much it would cost to replace my car plus any others damaged in an accident in the unlikely event an accident does happen.

Can you show me your source for that 5.5 million accidents per year in the USA? The stats I found only include annual ones and doesn't have any figures close to that. LINK

Did you also consider that many of those accidents are caused by people talking on the phone, texting on the phone, or are young and inexperienced drivers? Also people can have more than one accident which makes up for those of us who have never had one.

"ok you say your not scared but youve armed yourself for fear of attacks" Are you dense or something? You keep using that word "fear" and I keep telling you that I have no fear. I've armed myself in case of of an attack -- not in fear of attacks. See the difference? I hope so because I'm not going to address that again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (457 days ago)

why do you think its law that you cannot drive without insurance? because the goverment think acidents are quite likely to happen. they dont make you have insurance to hold an umbrella in a rain storm because they think lightening strikes are less likely than car acidents.

LINK "NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 police-reported traffic crashes". 210 million driving licenses (probably not all used) so actualy 1 acident per 42 licensed drivers per year. it doesnt matter WHY those acidents happen any more than it matters the reason why you may be shot in your house. it just matters that car acidents do happen and a lot (in your country).. and because they happen a lot the goverment makes you all have insurance.

so it goes back to my point. the reason you have a gun is because you think you need some kind of insurance against gun violence because you think it is quite likely like a car acident. yes you keep saying your not scared, i understand thats what you want me to beleve. am i dense? no just a realist.. would a gungho american like you admit to being afraid? of course not. cos all americans KICK ASS and they are the BEST IN THE WORLD go murica!! woop woop! but in reality people that arm themselves because they think they are going to be atacked are scared or just paranoid or have genuine reason to think its going to happen. its ok. maybe if we had to live in america with those crime stats we would all be scared and arming our selves to.

ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment

why do you think its law that you cannot drive without insurance? because the goverment think acidents are quite likely to happen. they dont make you have insurance to hold an umbrella in a rain storm because they think lightening strikes are less likely than car acidents.

LINK "NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 police-reported traffic crashes". 210 million driving licenses (probably not all used) so actualy 1 acident per 42 licensed drivers per year. it doesnt matter WHY those acidents happen any more than it matters the reason why you may be shot in your house. it just matters that car acidents do happen and a lot (in your country).. and because they happen a lot the goverment makes you all have insurance.

so it goes back to my point. the reason you have a gun is because you think you need some kind of insurance against gun violence because you think it is quite likely like a car acident. yes you keep saying your not scared, i understand thats what you want me to beleve. am i dense? no just a realist.. would a gungho american like you admit to being afraid? of course not. cos all americans KICK ASS and they are the BEST IN THE WORLD go murica!! woop woop! but in reality people that arm themselves because they think they are going to be atacked are scared or just paranoid or have genuine reason to think its going to happen. its ok. maybe if we had to live in america with those crime stats we would all be scared and arming our selves to.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (457 days ago)

"why do you think its law that you cannot drive without insurance?" You do not need to protect your car, just someone else's car. The law couldn't care less if you damage your own car and don't have insurance on it (but if it's financed, the company you borrowed the money from may require it). It's because people generally do not have enough savings to pay a lump sum payment to fix someone else's car. I'm not sure but I think rich people like Bill Gates may be considered self insured because he can afford to pay for an accident if one should happen. Otherwise, if you don't have insurance, you will be sued and then a judgment against you.

Thanks for that link. I didn't even mention alcohol as a reason for many crashes but from your link, it looks like 31% of all trafic fatalities are related to alcohol and 1.41 million drivers arrested for DUI. Speeding was 32% and I didn't include that either. So I don't drink and I don't speed and I'm not in the age group with the highest percentages of crashes so that's a good reason why I haven't had an accident.

I really don't care if you believe me or not since it doesn't make any difference in this conversation. I said I have insurance in my car and I haven't had to use it -- just like my gun. I stand by that statement regardless if you believe it or not.

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

"why do you think its law that you cannot drive without insurance?" You do not need to protect your car, just someone else's car. The law couldn't care less if you damage your own car and don't have insurance on it (but if it's financed, the company you borrowed the money from may require it). It's because people generally do not have enough savings to pay a lump sum payment to fix someone else's car. I'm not sure but I think rich people like Bill Gates may be considered self insured because he can afford to pay for an accident if one should happen. Otherwise, if you don't have insurance, you will be sued and then a judgment against you.

Thanks for that link. I didn't even mention alcohol as a reason for many crashes but from your link, it looks like 31% of all trafic fatalities are related to alcohol and 1.41 million drivers arrested for DUI. Speeding was 32% and I didn't include that either. So I don't drink and I don't speed and I'm not in the age group with the highest percentages of crashes so that's a good reason why I haven't had an accident.

I really don't care if you believe me or not since it doesn't make any difference in this conversation. I said I have insurance in my car and I haven't had to use it -- just like my gun. I stand by that statement regardless if you believe it or not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (457 days ago)

eeeh? your really not following this at all. i dont know how i can make it simpler.
if you have been driving for a couple of decades you will have an acident even if it wasnt your fault. you may not speed or drink but people on your roads do.. a lot. you didnt say you never claimed on insurance you actually said "have never had an accident" ..

but wait.. actualy no. in this it doesnt matter why car acidents happen or even if you have had them or not. it doesnt matter who causes them or what happens if there is no insurance. it doesnt matter what is alcohol and what is old age and what is speeding. all that matters is that the reason we have insurance for car acidents is that obviously car acidents happen. not all the time to every one but a lot of the time to most people and they happen multiple times every day in the city or state you live in. insurance is for things that are relatively likely to happen so that makes sense. you with me so far??? so BACK to the same point. you see a gun in the same way. you see it as insurance. as i have just shown you (and as you can now admit) acidents happen a fair bit wether cengland is the best driver in the world or not and thats why we are made to have insurance. so the fact you have a gun as insurance is just confesing that you think violence is relatiely likely to happen.. maybe as likely as the 5.5million traffic acidents. thats why your scared and thats why you are armed. fine. i get that. but you cant also try and claim that violence isnt a huge problem then. its such a problem that aparently you need to have insurance as a lethal weapon!!! big problem!!

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

eeeh? your really not following this at all. i dont know how i can make it simpler.
if you have been driving for a couple of decades you will have an acident even if it wasnt your fault. you may not speed or drink but people on your roads do.. a lot. you didnt say you never claimed on insurance you actually said "have never had an accident" ..

but wait.. actualy no. in this it doesnt matter why car acidents happen or even if you have had them or not. it doesnt matter who causes them or what happens if there is no insurance. it doesnt matter what is alcohol and what is old age and what is speeding. all that matters is that the reason we have insurance for car acidents is that obviously car acidents happen. not all the time to every one but a lot of the time to most people and they happen multiple times every day in the city or state you live in. insurance is for things that are relatively likely to happen so that makes sense. you with me so far??? so BACK to the same point. you see a gun in the same way. you see it as insurance. as i have just shown you (and as you can now admit) acidents happen a fair bit wether cengland is the best driver in the world or not and thats why we are made to have insurance. so the fact you have a gun as insurance is just confesing that you think violence is relatiely likely to happen.. maybe as likely as the 5.5million traffic acidents. thats why your scared and thats why you are armed. fine. i get that. but you cant also try and claim that violence isnt a huge problem then. its such a problem that aparently you need to have insurance as a lethal weapon!!! big problem!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (457 days ago)

Distracted driving has now over taken drunk driving as the no.1 reason for car accidents. Put your damn phone down and drive the car.

Cell phones should be banned as dangerous.

If I lived in the states i would probably own a gun, because everyone else has one.

Don`t worry about `guest`` he just thinks he knows everything and everyone is beneath him. He also get an orgasm whenever he gets people upset with his bulllshit argueing over every little thing.

He probably has a little dick and needs to insult people to make up for that.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Distracted driving has now over taken drunk driving as the no.1 reason for car accidents. Put your damn phone down and drive the car.

Cell phones should be banned as dangerous.

If I lived in the states i would probably own a gun, because everyone else has one.

Don`t worry about `guest`` he just thinks he knows everything and everyone is beneath him. He also get an orgasm whenever he gets people upset with his bulllshit argueing over every little thing.

He probably has a little dick and needs to insult people to make up for that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (457 days ago)

I agree with that distracted driving being a leading cause and I did mention that in a previous message. That guest is annoying and I'm considering ending the conversation. I don't care if people believe me or not and he just goes on and on about how I'm lying because of some statistic.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

I agree with that distracted driving being a leading cause and I did mention that in a previous message. That guest is annoying and I'm considering ending the conversation. I don't care if people believe me or not and he just goes on and on about how I'm lying because of some statistic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (457 days ago)

oh ya, he'll keep it up until his ego is mended. He will continue to find things on the net to keep you argueing with him over basically nothing when you have made your point already. I don't think he realizes that you can find stuff to support almost any opinion on the internet. He even thinks he knows more about Canada than I do and my family has lived here since the 1700's. lol

It's supposed to be a pleasant conversation about opinions on posted videos, but he takes it too far. I don't think he has a job or any friends so just feel sorry for him.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

oh ya, he'll keep it up until his ego is mended. He will continue to find things on the net to keep you argueing with him over basically nothing when you have made your point already. I don't think he realizes that you can find stuff to support almost any opinion on the internet. He even thinks he knows more about Canada than I do and my family has lived here since the 1700's. lol

It's supposed to be a pleasant conversation about opinions on posted videos, but he takes it too far. I don't think he has a job or any friends so just feel sorry for him.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (456 days ago)

awwwuh its personal poor bubba!! ive upset you!!! ive hurt your poor little feelings!! lmao. guess you dont like it when i called you out about your terorist friends? you dont like it when i prove your lies are lies like flq was "just a couple of bombs", "canada didnt bomb syria?", etc etc? (yes turns out i do seem to know more about canada than you, those "facts" of yours were wrong!!). you dont like when i show your hypocrisy about not insulting people and not taking it to far!!? you only want a pleasant convo right???? (apart from when your calling people sand monkeys and calling them losers and idiots ad telling them to suck you and all your wierd gay stuff you like talking about). people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

awwwuh its personal poor bubba!! ive upset you!!! ive hurt your poor little feelings!! lmao. guess you dont like it when i called you out about your terorist friends? you dont like it when i prove your lies are lies like flq was "just a couple of bombs", "canada didnt bomb syria?", etc etc? (yes turns out i do seem to know more about canada than you, those "facts" of yours were wrong!!). you dont like when i show your hypocrisy about not insulting people and not taking it to far!!? you only want a pleasant convo right???? (apart from when your calling people sand monkeys and calling them losers and idiots ad telling them to suck you and all your wierd gay stuff you like talking about). people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (456 days ago)

Your a sad,sad lonely person.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Your a sad,sad lonely person.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (456 days ago)

keep those projections coming hypocrite hiker. let it all out. its ok. its ok.

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

keep those projections coming hypocrite hiker. let it all out. its ok. its ok.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (457 days ago)

read your last sentence.. are you seriously too dumb to know what hypocrisy is? lol. superdumb. its cute that your trying to make friends though.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

read your last sentence.. are you seriously too dumb to know what hypocrisy is? lol. superdumb. its cute that your trying to make friends though.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (457 days ago)

Wanker, now your calling me cute, next youll want sex.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Wanker, now your calling me cute, next youll want sex.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (456 days ago)
Latest comment:

your funniest freudian slip to date!!

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

your funniest freudian slip to date!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (459 days ago)

One of the things that "could" happen is you deciding to post only as one identity.

Can you explain why you feel it necessary to keep posting under different names?

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

One of the things that "could" happen is you deciding to post only as one identity.

Can you explain why you feel it necessary to keep posting under different names?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

You're a little obsessed with this aren't you? If he does use multiple usernames then I'd guess he does it for the same reasons Thundercat does - because he has a minority view that is perceived as foolish, and he wants to present himself as having more support than is realistic.

OK?

ReplyVote up (77)down (101)
Original comment

You're a little obsessed with this aren't you? If he does use multiple usernames then I'd guess he does it for the same reasons Thundercat does - because he has a minority view that is perceived as foolish, and he wants to present himself as having more support than is realistic.

OK?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

How often do you see one user posting support for a comment made from another where you think it is the same person?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

How often do you see one user posting support for a comment made from another where you think it is the same person?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

you see that all the time on here about view points. one day theres a guy called thundercat ranting about muslims. next video theres a guy called hitchiker ranting about muslims and you think wow those canadians are some bigots right? turns out its the same one racist dude with a big mouth and to much time. same as cengland i think.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

you see that all the time on here about view points. one day theres a guy called thundercat ranting about muslims. next video theres a guy called hitchiker ranting about muslims and you think wow those canadians are some bigots right? turns out its the same one racist dude with a big mouth and to much time. same as cengland i think.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (459 days ago)

Well yes. If it walks like an astroturfer and quacks like an astroturfer, it's Cengland0 (or COncernedCitizen/Primate/ Guest123456789/Uncle Tom Cobbley)

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Well yes. If it walks like an astroturfer and quacks like an astroturfer, it's Cengland0 (or COncernedCitizen/Primate/ Guest123456789/Uncle Tom Cobbley)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

"The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates. It's definitely in the top of the European union." please provide your source. one of the highest where?

it makes me laugh when americans talk about violent crime rates. did you know the usa definition of violent crime is only 4 types of crime... murder / manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. in uk they class violent crime as all “ crimes against the person,” including any type of simple assault (including a slap or pushing someone over), any type of robbery, and any type of “sexual offenses".

do you understand why that diference is important? cling to your guns if you want but if you realy think a place like england is more violent than the usa you need to wise up!!

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

"The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates. It's definitely in the top of the European union." please provide your source. one of the highest where?

it makes me laugh when americans talk about violent crime rates. did you know the usa definition of violent crime is only 4 types of crime... murder / manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. in uk they class violent crime as all “ crimes against the person,” including any type of simple assault (including a slap or pushing someone over), any type of robbery, and any type of “sexual offenses".

do you understand why that diference is important? cling to your guns if you want but if you realy think a place like england is more violent than the usa you need to wise up!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

Here are a couple:

LINK

LINK

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

Here are a couple:

LINK

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

interesting. earlier you were using stats from nationmaster and now you go to the daily mail 2009 and gallup 2006? do you often have to shop around through old surveys until you get the statistics you want? and you didnt answer my question. do you think the diference in the way the brits and the americans define violent crime is important? can you understand why that would skew results?? just checking if you have any comon sense or if you just dont get stats.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

interesting. earlier you were using stats from nationmaster and now you go to the daily mail 2009 and gallup 2006? do you often have to shop around through old surveys until you get the statistics you want? and you didnt answer my question. do you think the diference in the way the brits and the americans define violent crime is important? can you understand why that would skew results?? just checking if you have any comon sense or if you just dont get stats.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

The poll asked very specific questions to the three countries so you cannot say it has anything to do with the definition of violent crime.

I had always known that violent crime is higher in the UK but you wanted sources. I googled it and picked the first two.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

The poll asked very specific questions to the three countries so you cannot say it has anything to do with the definition of violent crime.

I had always known that violent crime is higher in the UK but you wanted sources. I googled it and picked the first two.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

Sorry to pick up the baton, but this is precisely the issue with confirmation bias. You've just admitted it. You think you've always known something, so you look for any information you think backs that up. You don't bother to read in any detail:

You don't for example read the article in your first link that specifically quotes "Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime." So here, yes the definition of violent crime is absolutely pivotal. As I thought, you're not able to understand how to find and compare statistics.

Neither do you don't bother checking out the gallup poll in your second link, so you don't notice that it's more than ten years out of date, or that it's a small opinion poll of 1000 households rather than official records for every crime recorded by 27 million households in an entire year.

As Guest has pointed out, you've already quoted data from NationMaster which uses more recent information to claim the USA has a murder rate 18 times higher than the UK, intentional homicide rate 4x higher, and firearm homicides 669x higher. So the real question is why would you look for a small 10 year old opinion poll that contradicts the more comprehensive, more recent information you originally found? I think we know.

That's all.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Sorry to pick up the baton, but this is precisely the issue with confirmation bias. You've just admitted it. You think you've always known something, so you look for any information you think backs that up. You don't bother to read in any detail:

You don't for example read the article in your first link that specifically quotes "Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime." So here, yes the definition of violent crime is absolutely pivotal. As I thought, you're not able to understand how to find and compare statistics.

Neither do you don't bother checking out the gallup poll in your second link, so you don't notice that it's more than ten years out of date, or that it's a small opinion poll of 1000 households rather than official records for every crime recorded by 27 million households in an entire year.

As Guest has pointed out, you've already quoted data from NationMaster which uses more recent information to claim the USA has a murder rate 18 times higher than the UK, intentional homicide rate 4x higher, and firearm homicides 669x higher. So the real question is why would you look for a small 10 year old opinion poll that contradicts the more comprehensive, more recent information you originally found? I think we know.

That's all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

It's not confirmation bias. I read many articles every day. From all my reading and previous research, I discovered that the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US and it is something I remembered. I didn't look it up again before quoting it in my original message. Then I was asked to provide sources for something I already knew. I did that.

Do you consider it confirmation bias if I say 2 + 3 = 5 and someone asks me to prove it so then I lookup a website that proves it? I didn't use new evidence in an attempt to prove something I've asserted previously.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

It's not confirmation bias. I read many articles every day. From all my reading and previous research, I discovered that the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US and it is something I remembered. I didn't look it up again before quoting it in my original message. Then I was asked to provide sources for something I already knew. I did that.

Do you consider it confirmation bias if I say 2 + 3 = 5 and someone asks me to prove it so then I lookup a website that proves it? I didn't use new evidence in an attempt to prove something I've asserted previously.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (458 days ago)

Your original statement "I had always known that violent crime is higher in the UK... I googled it and picked the first two," is more or less the perfect definition of confirmation bias. Starting out with the assumption that you already categorically know something (particularly something that is liable to change), and then looking for sources to confirm what you know is classic confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, 2 + 3 = 5 is a self-evident and self-referential statement of logical tautology, for which one needs no sources to establish its truth. It's a really bad example. If you think that the ever-changing crime rate of a country is the same category of irrefutable maths, then your attitude towards statistics is even more hopelessly confused than I thought, and it explains some of your beliefs.

You didn't answer my question. A few questions ago you were happily using information from NationMaster. What made you abandon those comprehensive statistics and look for something older, smaller and less official? I wonder if you're actually aware of what you're doing and you're just a little defensive, or if this is really new to you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Your original statement "I had always known that violent crime is higher in the UK... I googled it and picked the first two," is more or less the perfect definition of confirmation bias. Starting out with the assumption that you already categorically know something (particularly something that is liable to change), and then looking for sources to confirm what you know is classic confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, 2 + 3 = 5 is a self-evident and self-referential statement of logical tautology, for which one needs no sources to establish its truth. It's a really bad example. If you think that the ever-changing crime rate of a country is the same category of irrefutable maths, then your attitude towards statistics is even more hopelessly confused than I thought, and it explains some of your beliefs.

You didn't answer my question. A few questions ago you were happily using information from NationMaster. What made you abandon those comprehensive statistics and look for something older, smaller and less official? I wonder if you're actually aware of what you're doing and you're just a little defensive, or if this is really new to you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (460 days ago)

not lawless but lawless enough for civlians to need assault rifles to defend themselves? lol

ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment

not lawless but lawless enough for civlians to need assault rifles to defend themselves? lol

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (460 days ago)

What you call "assault rifles" are just rifles. If you are planning on doing harm to someone, it's assault so I could call a knife an assault knife to make it sound worse. Automatic weapons are not allowed in the USA. People in the UK are allowed to own rifles too.

If I wanted to, I could probably kill more people with a single pressure cooker than I could with one cartridge from an AR15 which can hurt 30 people. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600 with fertalizer and diesel fuel. But nobody ever suggests banning these objects that can harm more people than guns. I don't need any background check to buy a truck, pressure cooker, fertalizer, or diesel fuel but I do when I buy a gun.

ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment

What you call "assault rifles" are just rifles. If you are planning on doing harm to someone, it's assault so I could call a knife an assault knife to make it sound worse. Automatic weapons are not allowed in the USA. People in the UK are allowed to own rifles too.

If I wanted to, I could probably kill more people with a single pressure cooker than I could with one cartridge from an AR15 which can hurt 30 people. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600 with fertalizer and diesel fuel. But nobody ever suggests banning these objects that can harm more people than guns. I don't need any background check to buy a truck, pressure cooker, fertalizer, or diesel fuel but I do when I buy a gun.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (460 days ago)

If people in the UK can own rifles so easily, then why don't they have the devastating death toll that you do? Are Americans inherently more murderous? Again, you're making the USA sound like suhc a messed up lawless country.

Could you briefly describe the difference in UK gun laws to Arizona for example? Because I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about.

If you were really determined, yes you could kill people with homemade weapons. And yet you look back through the past decade of terrorist attacks and mass killings in the USA and you see most of them don't use pressure cookers, but legally bought guns. I guess when pressure cookers and fertiliser kills more than 13,286 people in a year like guns did last year, you should think about tightening up legislation on them.

It's OK, I'm not trying to get you to see sense. Guns are the American disease. I'm afraid your country is now known for it and you're judged accordingly the world over. You and your children and your grandchildren will continue to pay for it year in year out until you have the balls to do something about it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

If people in the UK can own rifles so easily, then why don't they have the devastating death toll that you do? Are Americans inherently more murderous? Again, you're making the USA sound like suhc a messed up lawless country.

Could you briefly describe the difference in UK gun laws to Arizona for example? Because I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about.

If you were really determined, yes you could kill people with homemade weapons. And yet you look back through the past decade of terrorist attacks and mass killings in the USA and you see most of them don't use pressure cookers, but legally bought guns. I guess when pressure cookers and fertiliser kills more than 13,286 people in a year like guns did last year, you should think about tightening up legislation on them.

It's OK, I'm not trying to get you to see sense. Guns are the American disease. I'm afraid your country is now known for it and you're judged accordingly the world over. You and your children and your grandchildren will continue to pay for it year in year out until you have the balls to do something about it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (460 days ago)

I forgot to mention some old facts that might help you understand this. Per capita, Israel has more guns than the USA but they don't have as many killings. Colombia and Venezuela has made it illegal to own guns but there is more gun crime than in the USA.

Lookup Venezuela for a good example of what might happen when you ban guns. They had a problem with guns so they banned them. Gun crime actually went up -- not down. Another case study would be Canada, "In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate"

You cannot coorelate countries with the number of people owning guns to the number of gun deaths per year.

The top 10 countries with the highest homocide rates are Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Venezuela, Belize, Jamaica, Virgin Islands, Guatemala, Saint Kitts & Nevis, and Zambia. The USA is #104.

LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

I forgot to mention some old facts that might help you understand this. Per capita, Israel has more guns than the USA but they don't have as many killings. Colombia and Venezuela has made it illegal to own guns but there is more gun crime than in the USA.

Lookup Venezuela for a good example of what might happen when you ban guns. They had a problem with guns so they banned them. Gun crime actually went up -- not down. Another case study would be Canada, "In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate"

You cannot coorelate countries with the number of people owning guns to the number of gun deaths per year.

The top 10 countries with the highest homocide rates are Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Venezuela, Belize, Jamaica, Virgin Islands, Guatemala, Saint Kitts & Nevis, and Zambia. The USA is #104.

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (460 days ago)

Do you actually believe this stuff, or do you just look for anything that the NRA churns out to make you feel better? It's gun-owner apologetics at its most cringeworthy, but fascinating for the rest of us.

Yes you have a border with Mexico - and yet you have to wonder why the majority of gun related deaths and mass shootings occur in the Eastern states, nowhere near Mexico. And I wonder how a war on drugs would have panned out if guns were less accessible. Just a thought.

France has moderately strict gun laws and despite it having unmanned borders with 8 different countries, despite it having land access from countries with major terrorist and Islamist problems, its gun-related death rate per capita is just over a quarter of that of the USA, and its murder rate nearly a fifth. I'd say that was pretty telling, wouldn't you?

None of the guns used in the French terrorist attacks were bought legally over the counter, meaning the only people likely to commit mass shootings in France are terrorists with significant criminal connections. In contrast, no the Orlando shooter wasn't allowed to take his guns into the night club, but he was allowed to buy them in the first place (despite being investigated by the FBI). If he hadn't been able to, like most mass shooters he simply wouldn't have had the criminal connections to get that kind of fire power. Every country has the occasional kid like Adam Lamza, for example, but in most countries they can't lay their hands so easily on serious weaponry. Your problem.

Yes swimming pools, cars, etc. There are many important things with multiple safe purposes that sometimes lead to accidental deaths, and absolutely everything is done to make sure these accidents are kept to a minimum. Guns have one purpose, so in most civlised developed countries the risk is intensely managed by limiting their availability to the general population.

No one suggested that making something illegal stops it. But it usually makes it considerably more difficult. Otherwise, why are drugs illegal? Why is speeding illegal? That's really the most ridiculous pro-gun rhetoric on offer. Besides, there are other ways besides just making guns illegal, and your country has shown itself to be impotent on all counts. You are completely incapable and ineffective at doing anything to deal with the situation. The very fact that you're having to compare yourself with places like "Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Venezuela, Belize" shows what has become of your once great country.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm entertaining you. You'll have the stock responses and distractions. Honestly, I realise you and your ilk are incapable of stopping this epidemic you have, and don't have the guts to take the bull by the horns. You just can't understand or accept responsibility. And I also realise that you would happily stand by and watch your loved ones get slaughtered - your law enforcement, your military, your shoppers, your students, your children in schools for god's sake - and not by drug dealers, not by members of organised crime or well connected terrorists, but by civilians touting weapons they bought perfectly legally down the road using your kind of excuses. The rest of the world has compassion fatigue. What a country.

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

Do you actually believe this stuff, or do you just look for anything that the NRA churns out to make you feel better? It's gun-owner apologetics at its most cringeworthy, but fascinating for the rest of us.

Yes you have a border with Mexico - and yet you have to wonder why the majority of gun related deaths and mass shootings occur in the Eastern states, nowhere near Mexico. And I wonder how a war on drugs would have panned out if guns were less accessible. Just a thought.

France has moderately strict gun laws and despite it having unmanned borders with 8 different countries, despite it having land access from countries with major terrorist and Islamist problems, its gun-related death rate per capita is just over a quarter of that of the USA, and its murder rate nearly a fifth. I'd say that was pretty telling, wouldn't you?

None of the guns used in the French terrorist attacks were bought legally over the counter, meaning the only people likely to commit mass shootings in France are terrorists with significant criminal connections. In contrast, no the Orlando shooter wasn't allowed to take his guns into the night club, but he was allowed to buy them in the first place (despite being investigated by the FBI). If he hadn't been able to, like most mass shooters he simply wouldn't have had the criminal connections to get that kind of fire power. Every country has the occasional kid like Adam Lamza, for example, but in most countries they can't lay their hands so easily on serious weaponry. Your problem.

Yes swimming pools, cars, etc. There are many important things with multiple safe purposes that sometimes lead to accidental deaths, and absolutely everything is done to make sure these accidents are kept to a minimum. Guns have one purpose, so in most civlised developed countries the risk is intensely managed by limiting their availability to the general population.

No one suggested that making something illegal stops it. But it usually makes it considerably more difficult. Otherwise, why are drugs illegal? Why is speeding illegal? That's really the most ridiculous pro-gun rhetoric on offer. Besides, there are other ways besides just making guns illegal, and your country has shown itself to be impotent on all counts. You are completely incapable and ineffective at doing anything to deal with the situation. The very fact that you're having to compare yourself with places like "Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Venezuela, Belize" shows what has become of your once great country.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm entertaining you. You'll have the stock responses and distractions. Honestly, I realise you and your ilk are incapable of stopping this epidemic you have, and don't have the guts to take the bull by the horns. You just can't understand or accept responsibility. And I also realise that you would happily stand by and watch your loved ones get slaughtered - your law enforcement, your military, your shoppers, your students, your children in schools for god's sake - and not by drug dealers, not by members of organised crime or well connected terrorists, but by civilians touting weapons they bought perfectly legally down the road using your kind of excuses. The rest of the world has compassion fatigue. What a country.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (460 days ago)

Why can't you make your point without insulting people and where they live?

Maybe you should give that a try sometime?

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

Why can't you make your point without insulting people and where they live?

Maybe you should give that a try sometime?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (459 days ago)

Brilliant! That was honestly my first proper laugh of the day. This is Hitchhiker / Thundercat / Jechill, right? (Whichever name you're using today). So the same guy that uses terms like "fudge packer," "sand monkey", "loser," "complete idiot," "suck my a$$hole," thinks I should try to avoid insulting people! Love it! Right, well in the words of a great orator that frequents this site: "Tell you what, take that pickle out of your a$$ and live life for a bit."

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Brilliant! That was honestly my first proper laugh of the day. This is Hitchhiker / Thundercat / Jechill, right? (Whichever name you're using today). So the same guy that uses terms like "fudge packer," "sand monkey", "loser," "complete idiot," "suck my a$$hole," thinks I should try to avoid insulting people! Love it! Right, well in the words of a great orator that frequents this site: "Tell you what, take that pickle out of your a$$ and live life for a bit."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (460 days ago)

Its not a matter of banning the guns. Its a social problem, with guns being glorified in movies and the news. Amercans are bombarded with propoganda day in and day out, so much so they are blinded by it. The nra has done a great job of popularizing gun ownership, unfortunately you can by them on the black market as well. I personally would like to see all guns with a clip or any that can be automatic in anyway, banned. Theres nothing wrong with using bolt action rifles and six shot revolvers. The american flag itself is now associated with guns and eagles, don't you ever notice how when the americans are in a war with someone, Hollywood comes out with flag waving, patriotic, tank movies and such.

They even glorify the tommy gun waiving gangsters of the past, so its in their nature. The land of the gi joe.

Original comment

Its not a matter of banning the guns. Its a social problem, with guns being glorified in movies and the news. Amercans are bombarded with propoganda day in and day out, so much so they are blinded by it. The nra has done a great job of popularizing gun ownership, unfortunately you can by them on the black market as well. I personally would like to see all guns with a clip or any that can be automatic in anyway, banned. Theres nothing wrong with using bolt action rifles and six shot revolvers. The american flag itself is now associated with guns and eagles, don't you ever notice how when the americans are in a war with someone, Hollywood comes out with flag waving, patriotic, tank movies and such.

They even glorify the tommy gun waiving gangsters of the past, so its in their nature. The land of the gi joe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (460 days ago)

In the USA, we have a war on drugs and we also have gang wars. We have cities next to Mexico that have a lot of deaths per year. That is where most of the gun deaths are.

France has some of the strictest gun laws and look what keeps happening over there. It does not stop terrorists because they don't obey the law.

Remember the Pulse terrorist attack in Orlando? It's illegal to bring guns into a club/bar. But it happened anyway. If we were to ban guns, only the law abiding citizens would turn them in and the criminals (who break the laws) will continue to keep theirs. Then you have a bigger issue where only criminals have guns and nobody would be able to defend themselves against them. I suppose some of the reasons you don't have rampant home break-ins in the middle of the night is because the thief never knows if the house they are breaking into has a gun or not.

If you want to know the gun laws in the UK, you can look it up. It's all over the place but here's one link to look at: LINK

There were 32,675 car deaths in 2014 (the last published number) and that is one of the best years. That is still worse than the 13,286 people you quoted from guns. But we don't ban cars.

"From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings" but we still don't ban pools. Nobody needs a pool, that's just a luxury. We can save so many lives if we banned pools.

In 2014, we had 42,773 suicides. That is already illegal but it happened anyway. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily stop it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

In the USA, we have a war on drugs and we also have gang wars. We have cities next to Mexico that have a lot of deaths per year. That is where most of the gun deaths are.

France has some of the strictest gun laws and look what keeps happening over there. It does not stop terrorists because they don't obey the law.

Remember the Pulse terrorist attack in Orlando? It's illegal to bring guns into a club/bar. But it happened anyway. If we were to ban guns, only the law abiding citizens would turn them in and the criminals (who break the laws) will continue to keep theirs. Then you have a bigger issue where only criminals have guns and nobody would be able to defend themselves against them. I suppose some of the reasons you don't have rampant home break-ins in the middle of the night is because the thief never knows if the house they are breaking into has a gun or not.

If you want to know the gun laws in the UK, you can look it up. It's all over the place but here's one link to look at: LINK

There were 32,675 car deaths in 2014 (the last published number) and that is one of the best years. That is still worse than the 13,286 people you quoted from guns. But we don't ban cars.

"From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings" but we still don't ban pools. Nobody needs a pool, that's just a luxury. We can save so many lives if we banned pools.

In 2014, we had 42,773 suicides. That is already illegal but it happened anyway. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily stop it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (461 days ago)

Exactly how many times have you had to use your guns to defend your family or yourself?

I sense a great deal of insecurity in you.

I have no guns and I think only some people should have them and that doesn't include the average joe on the street. Im not so sure that your not a little nuts and may go off killing people with your guns, it has happened. So you better have a damn good reason for having them.

I mean lets say you get in a situation and you need to make a point, well out comes your gun. Don't like the neighbours, go get your gun.

I live in the society too and I don't feel safe knowing you have guns.

Guess I better not argue with you , you have guns.

Naw I don't think guns work for me.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Exactly how many times have you had to use your guns to defend your family or yourself?

I sense a great deal of insecurity in you.

I have no guns and I think only some people should have them and that doesn't include the average joe on the street. Im not so sure that your not a little nuts and may go off killing people with your guns, it has happened. So you better have a damn good reason for having them.

I mean lets say you get in a situation and you need to make a point, well out comes your gun. Don't like the neighbours, go get your gun.

I live in the society too and I don't feel safe knowing you have guns.

Guess I better not argue with you , you have guns.

Naw I don't think guns work for me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (461 days ago)

People in the UK are allowed to own guns too so I don't know what your problem is with the American people having them.

You're right that I have not used my guns for the purpose they were intended. I only took some target practice and safety class with them so I know how to handle them properly and not hurt one of my family members. That does not mean there will never be a time in the future where I will be forced to pull out my gun and use it to neutralize a threat against me or my family.

Just because I have been lucky and haven't had to use my guns to defend myself, does that mean nobody ever has? I do not want to become a statistic so I will protect myself.

You say you have no gun and that's fine. I didn't have any until I was responsbile for the well being of other people that live with me. It was at that point that I felt it necessary to be trained and armed to protect my family in the case it is needed in the future. If you don't mind being raped or killed by an intruder, that's your own business. I will do whatever necessary to prevent those from happening to me or my loved ones.

Your stupid ideas about not liking the neigbors so "go get your gun" is ridiculous. That is not what I intend to use them for and being an outsider and watching old US Western Movies probably gives you the wrong idea about how our civilization is over here.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

People in the UK are allowed to own guns too so I don't know what your problem is with the American people having them.

You're right that I have not used my guns for the purpose they were intended. I only took some target practice and safety class with them so I know how to handle them properly and not hurt one of my family members. That does not mean there will never be a time in the future where I will be forced to pull out my gun and use it to neutralize a threat against me or my family.

Just because I have been lucky and haven't had to use my guns to defend myself, does that mean nobody ever has? I do not want to become a statistic so I will protect myself.

You say you have no gun and that's fine. I didn't have any until I was responsbile for the well being of other people that live with me. It was at that point that I felt it necessary to be trained and armed to protect my family in the case it is needed in the future. If you don't mind being raped or killed by an intruder, that's your own business. I will do whatever necessary to prevent those from happening to me or my loved ones.

Your stupid ideas about not liking the neigbors so "go get your gun" is ridiculous. That is not what I intend to use them for and being an outsider and watching old US Western Movies probably gives you the wrong idea about how our civilization is over here.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (460 days ago)

You tube shows me how life is over there, plus ive been all up and down the east coast so many times they should make me an honorary citizen.

I just think there is a better chance of getting hit on the highway than getting robbed (or worse) in your home If I were to get a gun here, it would have to remain locked up, with the ammo in another place, locked up. Mace is illegal here, hand held cross bows are illegal. The hassel necessary to own one and keep it, is just too much for someone who doesn't hunt. When I was a kid, we didn't lock the doors and the windows were open every summer night. Anyone would be welcome for a coffea or tea. To make a long story short, I have no need of a gun.

I do however have plenty of security, cameras and alarms and a safe place in the house. In 20 years all thats happened is some kids stole some change from my centre console in my unlocked car. In the states that stupid kid could be dead.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

You tube shows me how life is over there, plus ive been all up and down the east coast so many times they should make me an honorary citizen.

I just think there is a better chance of getting hit on the highway than getting robbed (or worse) in your home If I were to get a gun here, it would have to remain locked up, with the ammo in another place, locked up. Mace is illegal here, hand held cross bows are illegal. The hassel necessary to own one and keep it, is just too much for someone who doesn't hunt. When I was a kid, we didn't lock the doors and the windows were open every summer night. Anyone would be welcome for a coffea or tea. To make a long story short, I have no need of a gun.

I do however have plenty of security, cameras and alarms and a safe place in the house. In 20 years all thats happened is some kids stole some change from my centre console in my unlocked car. In the states that stupid kid could be dead.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (459 days ago)

Do you have house insurance, travel insurance? How many times have you actually had to use them?

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Do you have house insurance, travel insurance? How many times have you actually had to use them?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (459 days ago)

That's a very good statement. I hope you don't mind if I steal that concept in my future posts.

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

That's a very good statement. I hope you don't mind if I steal that concept in my future posts.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Obama: We will win this fight by building
Obama: We will win this fight by building
Vladimir Putin: Dear Francois, Russia knows what terror is
Vladimir Putin: Dear Francois, Russia knows what terror is
Newt Gingrich: Test every person of Muslim background
Newt Gingrich: Test every person of Muslim background
Donald Trump: This is war!
Donald Trump: This is war!