That was most absurd writing I have seen in a long time. He was rambling all over the place with a theme but very little cohesive analysis or support, just lots of annecdotal tripe. It hurt just to read it, not to mention he is wrong in every point made.
Guns do not save or secure lives (not what I would expect out of TN...)
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 244
The civil war lasted about 4 years, or 1460 days. With 620,000, that gives us 424 deaths per day average.
We should start a civil war, fewer people would die!
But, to the article, it's utter nonsense written by somebody whose only knowledge of the real world comes from a Professor.
We should start a civil war, fewer people would die!
But, to the article, it's utter nonsense written by somebody whose only knowledge of the real world comes from a Professor.
Easy way around that. Just go into your cookies and delete the "easttennesean.com" one then close and reopen your browser.
It really p*sses me off that they would put something like that in there. Either make the article free or not, don't play this pansy game of you can look once crap.
Nerd rant off.
Gun rant on:
I wonder if people like this see the IANSA "truth" and believe they are fighting the good fight or if they just have a strong feeling against guns and look for any legitimate looking crap to support their own feelings.
Every time I see someone like this that wants to disarm us, I feel much better knowing that I am armed and can defend my rights.
Let's see... How many millions of Jews died in the gas chambers because they had no way to defend themselves?? How many people are dying in Somalia or Sudan or Darfur because they have no way to defend themselves?? Does this guy really think that if guns are banned, somehow totalitarian dictators and their supporters will never get their hands on any???
So having a gun in the home increases the chance of murder by their partner by 172%?? So let's see, you're taking something that rarely ever happens and a little more than doubling the odds of it happening. OOOHH!! If I buy two lottery tickets instead of one, I DOUBLE my odds of winning!!!!
Some people's lives are just too comfortable, and they have no clue what it's like to realy have to struggle just to survive. Everyone sits in their air-conditioned houses and they play on the internet, or read their books. They go to work and shuffle papers for 8 hours. They have no clue how to grow food, or kill food, or protect themselves, or fix anything! Their whole reason for living is to go to work and write memos all day. This is how everyone is supposed to live, and the government is supposed to take care of everything. Some people are willing to take no responsibility for protecting their freedom OR their security. This entire way of thinking makes me sad.
I have no doubt that thousands of lives would be saved each year if the speed limits on all the highways were changed to 35 miles per hour. And I'm sure this guy would be b****ing about it because he couldn't get to Starbucks in an expeditious manner. But suggest that a few hundred (or thousand) people are going to die each year because they can't handle the right to own a gun responsibly, and he's ready to ban them all, despite the fact that they save many more lives than they take. There really is no fixing stupid....
So having a gun in the home increases the chance of murder by their partner by 172%?? So let's see, you're taking something that rarely ever happens and a little more than doubling the odds of it happening. OOOHH!! If I buy two lottery tickets instead of one, I DOUBLE my odds of winning!!!!
Some people's lives are just too comfortable, and they have no clue what it's like to realy have to struggle just to survive. Everyone sits in their air-conditioned houses and they play on the internet, or read their books. They go to work and shuffle papers for 8 hours. They have no clue how to grow food, or kill food, or protect themselves, or fix anything! Their whole reason for living is to go to work and write memos all day. This is how everyone is supposed to live, and the government is supposed to take care of everything. Some people are willing to take no responsibility for protecting their freedom OR their security. This entire way of thinking makes me sad.
I have no doubt that thousands of lives would be saved each year if the speed limits on all the highways were changed to 35 miles per hour. And I'm sure this guy would be b****ing about it because he couldn't get to Starbucks in an expeditious manner. But suggest that a few hundred (or thousand) people are going to die each year because they can't handle the right to own a gun responsibly, and he's ready to ban them all, despite the fact that they save many more lives than they take. There really is no fixing stupid....
bogie
Member
Heh...
I got bored...
Bogie bored is a bad thing.
======
I'm guessing that someone is guilty of the sin of omission and didn't adequately consider that before they managed to get this uploaded...
Let's look at his major talking point:
1,000 people/day die due to "guns?" I suppose that the people holding onto 'em and yanking on the triggers of the "deadly, unethical" inanimate objects are then completely blameless... Time to retake that class in critical thinking...
But then again, let's look at that number... A thousand a day? Campers, we're looking at some _serious_ headlines. That's 365,000/year, with no time off for Christmas! Now, granted, after one digs to the END of the piece, and actually goes to a different web site, one can learn that our scribbler is bemoaning an alleged international state of affairs. And war. Sigh... He's not talking about the roughly 15,000 US homicide victims (altho the omission of attribution leads one that way), or the approximately 68% of those who were shot (ditto, and my source is the FBI, 2005 data, which he probably doesn't like either). And we're not going to get into the number of these murders that were essentially the result of criminal-on-criminal violence... That's not really within our time scope.
Nope. Let's focus - He's upset over a thousand folks a day who are killed by boomsticks. He doesn't voice concerns over territorial tribal warlords, government-caused genocide by famine, or many of the other not-so-noisy ways in which folks in not-even developing nations have been figuring out to kill each other. Maybe he should consider "machete control," or the novel concept of air dropping AK-47s and RPGs to the populations which are being targeted, so that they may have a chance of defending themselves, and the next shipment of airdropped food, when the lowlifes show up to steal it (so that it can be sold so that the neighborhood territorial warlord can have a nice new gold-plated toilet seat...). But I suspect that may cause a cranial vapor lock in our scribbler. Pity.
Also, I think he's going to need to repeat a history course. Or maybe math...
300 years ago, when "guns were necessary" in the Appalachians and in the west... Okay... Math-time: 1706... Boone, Harrod, Kenton and crew didn't get a successful community founded beyond the Cumberland gap until 1774... Of course, that _was_ the west at that point.
Maybe bigger numbers just sound more important...
And 172 percent? I'd _really_ like to see how he arrived at that one... According to the FBI's numbers (which I feel somewhat confident in...), approximately 1,200 women were murdered in 2005 (maybe 10% of the male figure, but then most - obviously not all - women are generally smart enough to not hang around with guys who are dealing drugs or committing other crimes...). Now, there's about 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Notice the difference in numbers... Now, it's been a long time since stats class, but I did routinely figure errors in a lab for 10 years... Can you say "microblip?"
In the approximately 6% of cases where the assailant uses only "fists and feet" as weapons (FBI, 2005), I'm sure that if the victim had had the mechanical means to resist, the situation would have changed greatly - but then only someone with philosophical blinders on would insist that a 120 pound woman should be required defend herself against a 240 pound attacker using only her fists, feet, and maybe a set of car keys...
I suspect that our scribbler should be required to do a bit more research on Somalia, Darfur and the environs before another rant is considered.
I got bored...
Bogie bored is a bad thing.
======
I'm guessing that someone is guilty of the sin of omission and didn't adequately consider that before they managed to get this uploaded...
Let's look at his major talking point:
1,000 people/day die due to "guns?" I suppose that the people holding onto 'em and yanking on the triggers of the "deadly, unethical" inanimate objects are then completely blameless... Time to retake that class in critical thinking...
But then again, let's look at that number... A thousand a day? Campers, we're looking at some _serious_ headlines. That's 365,000/year, with no time off for Christmas! Now, granted, after one digs to the END of the piece, and actually goes to a different web site, one can learn that our scribbler is bemoaning an alleged international state of affairs. And war. Sigh... He's not talking about the roughly 15,000 US homicide victims (altho the omission of attribution leads one that way), or the approximately 68% of those who were shot (ditto, and my source is the FBI, 2005 data, which he probably doesn't like either). And we're not going to get into the number of these murders that were essentially the result of criminal-on-criminal violence... That's not really within our time scope.
Nope. Let's focus - He's upset over a thousand folks a day who are killed by boomsticks. He doesn't voice concerns over territorial tribal warlords, government-caused genocide by famine, or many of the other not-so-noisy ways in which folks in not-even developing nations have been figuring out to kill each other. Maybe he should consider "machete control," or the novel concept of air dropping AK-47s and RPGs to the populations which are being targeted, so that they may have a chance of defending themselves, and the next shipment of airdropped food, when the lowlifes show up to steal it (so that it can be sold so that the neighborhood territorial warlord can have a nice new gold-plated toilet seat...). But I suspect that may cause a cranial vapor lock in our scribbler. Pity.
Also, I think he's going to need to repeat a history course. Or maybe math...
300 years ago, when "guns were necessary" in the Appalachians and in the west... Okay... Math-time: 1706... Boone, Harrod, Kenton and crew didn't get a successful community founded beyond the Cumberland gap until 1774... Of course, that _was_ the west at that point.
Maybe bigger numbers just sound more important...
And 172 percent? I'd _really_ like to see how he arrived at that one... According to the FBI's numbers (which I feel somewhat confident in...), approximately 1,200 women were murdered in 2005 (maybe 10% of the male figure, but then most - obviously not all - women are generally smart enough to not hang around with guys who are dealing drugs or committing other crimes...). Now, there's about 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Notice the difference in numbers... Now, it's been a long time since stats class, but I did routinely figure errors in a lab for 10 years... Can you say "microblip?"
In the approximately 6% of cases where the assailant uses only "fists and feet" as weapons (FBI, 2005), I'm sure that if the victim had had the mechanical means to resist, the situation would have changed greatly - but then only someone with philosophical blinders on would insist that a 120 pound woman should be required defend herself against a 240 pound attacker using only her fists, feet, and maybe a set of car keys...
I suspect that our scribbler should be required to do a bit more research on Somalia, Darfur and the environs before another rant is considered.
longeyes
member
It's not about Tennessee, it's about the well-nigh universal "anti-testosterone" culture that has now pervaded most of our intellectual "elite." Call them metro-leftists. They all have the same ideas, drawn from the same dubious sources, and they are not going to change their minds. These are men who hate men and want to out-feminist the most radical feminists.
About them we need to know only one thing: we must never let them prevail.
Zundfolge
Member
My comments are STILL not posted.
Anyone else comment?
I just realized this is a college newspaper, not a real newspaper ... my comments will NEVER be posted.
College liberals do NOT believe in freedom of speech.
Anyone else comment?
I just realized this is a college newspaper, not a real newspaper ... my comments will NEVER be posted.
College liberals do NOT believe in freedom of speech.
El Tejon
Member
What's wrong with being a man?
Being male does not mean one is uneducated or has bad hygenie. The Metroleftists were raised on television without male role models in cities such as San Fransico and New York and have no idea how real men behave.
I'm here! I'm male! I have a bunch of guns! Get used to it!
Being male does not mean one is uneducated or has bad hygenie. The Metroleftists were raised on television without male role models in cities such as San Fransico and New York and have no idea how real men behave.I'm here! I'm male! I have a bunch of guns! Get used to it!
island
Member
Wrong. Utterly and completely incorrect. Feel free to check Stats Canada, but disarming law-abiding victims didn't do one blasted bit of good up here either, our violent crime-rate is soaring.
Damien45
Member
Yes unfortunately by banning all firearms from those who owned them legally, just created a larger victim population.
Now, seriously, how can owning a gun for a female increase her chance of being murdered by 172%? Does that mean her, and say her sister, get murdered to make that happen? Honestly I think the stat is closer to "1 in 4 women are murdered. 2 in 5 women with guns are murdered" (this is an example, not actual statement of fact or statistic). It just sounds much more urgent to say 172% increase, even then that is just ignorant.
SoCalShooter
Member
So the American military is wrong then? So the BATFE, FBI, CIA, LEO's accross the nation are wrong. This person obviously does not understand that they still have freedom because someone decided to pick up a gun and say " We will not take this anymore".
Well that statement right there is one of the most anti-American statements I have seen in an article. I say we deport them to Canada.
And *** with the South Africa crap, this AIN'T South AFrica and we had nothing to do with the creation of South Africa or the problems therein so I fail to see the connection, other than they have guns thats about the jist.
Thanks for the article, but I think my blood pressure just shot over 200.
BayouTeche77
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 60
Common on now, lay off the college kids. Some of us can still think for ourselves.
All this talk about how eliminating all firearms would reduce violent crime. . .are you serious?! If it hadn't been for my father and his REGISTERED gun, the old bastard with the STOLEN gun would have killed a lot more people, including myself. I have yet to see an actual statistic of how many lives have been saved by the usage of a gun for defensive purpose that hasn't been immediately followed by the "but guns kill more people than they save according to <insert selected anti-gun organization> statistics" rhetoric. Why can't people just live and let live, but NOOOO, the anti's all feel that they have the power to effect change on a more than 200 year old facet of the American experience. Well, c'est la vie!
All this talk about how eliminating all firearms would reduce violent crime. . .are you serious?! If it hadn't been for my father and his REGISTERED gun, the old bastard with the STOLEN gun would have killed a lot more people, including myself. I have yet to see an actual statistic of how many lives have been saved by the usage of a gun for defensive purpose that hasn't been immediately followed by the "but guns kill more people than they save according to <insert selected anti-gun organization> statistics" rhetoric. Why can't people just live and let live, but NOOOO, the anti's all feel that they have the power to effect change on a more than 200 year old facet of the American experience. Well, c'est la vie!
Zundfolge
Member
Checked again this morning ... nope, my comments aren't posted (methinks no comments are EVER posted).
But someone did write a rebuttle and submitted it as another editorial.
Gotta wonder if Leo there isn't a High Roader
But someone did write a rebuttle and submitted it as another editorial.
Gotta wonder if Leo there isn't a High Roader
velojym
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2006
- Messages
- 621
1000 per day.
365000 per year.
The only entitie(s) to ever kill at that rate were always governments, wherever in the world.
I would bet the article's author is perfectly willing to allow his rulers to possess firearms (as if he would have a choice). After all, then they would have all the guns and would have no fear whatever from their subjects.
Then come the cattle cars for to carry some of us to the "Happy Camps".
365000 per year.
The only entitie(s) to ever kill at that rate were always governments, wherever in the world.
I would bet the article's author is perfectly willing to allow his rulers to possess firearms (as if he would have a choice). After all, then they would have all the guns and would have no fear whatever from their subjects.
Then come the cattle cars for to carry some of us to the "Happy Camps".
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
And yet the world population continues to grow at the lackadaisical number of only 212,907 births per DAY! (364,936 daily births less 152,029 daily deaths).
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe
One could surmise that ALL the GUNS out there aren't doing their jobs. I know mine are just lazing around at home. Well, I'm not sure really... they might be out killing cats for practice (j/k... I mean no harm to the felines of the world). When I get home from work they all look at me expectantly.
Maybe we should outlaw "death" by any means.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe
One could surmise that ALL the GUNS out there aren't doing their jobs. I know mine are just lazing around at home. Well, I'm not sure really... they might be out killing cats for practice (j/k... I mean no harm to the felines of the world). When I get home from work they all look at me expectantly.
Maybe we should outlaw "death" by any means.
- Status