LDS Freedom Forum

Bee Prepared wrote:Carson: Loss of Gun Rights 'More Devastating' Than Bullet Wounds

by Alexandra Jaffe

Tweet In one of his signature Facebook Q&As Monday night, Ben Carson again weighed in on the Oregon shooting, writing that he had operated on victims of gun violence "but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."

markharr wrote:

AgaetisTakk wrote:
That is called cherry-picking data. You're not accounting for demographic nor city laws. All cities in Cook County Illinois are under the same gun laws as the city of Chicago. Glenview, IL follows the same gun laws as Chicago, it also has almost twice the population of Kennesaw, GA - yet still has a significantly lower crime rate. Not to mention that Kennesaw, GA if a more affluent city than Glenview, IL.

In addition, the crime rate in Atlanta is higher than in Chicago. This is a far better representation of what comparable crime rates are.

As far as Chicago goes for being an epicenter for crime, it's not. Chicago isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to larger city crime rates. Chicago has only been made a straw man argument due to Obama connection to it.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ch ... inois.html

I compare the crime rates of the CITY with the least restricitve gun laws to the crime rates of the CITY with the most restrictive gun laws. You then come in and pick the CITY with the least amount of crime in a STATE that has restrictive gun laws but not the most restrictive gun laws and you accuse me of cherry picking?? That takes a lot of nerve.

I never said that Chicago was the epicenter of crime, I was comparing the crime rates of the city which is generaly considered to have the most restrictive gun laws with the crime rates of the city that is generaly considered to have the least restrictive gun laws. I never even mentioned Obama in relationship to Chicago, and I didn't make a straw man argument.

The data speaks for itself.

Robin Hood wrote:

Serragon wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:Because his comments are so ridiculous.
Does he really want a country that has armed guards at kindergarten and even teachers packing guns?
Surely not. He must have been joking!
Please tell me he was not being serious.

The only thing ridiculous here is your over the top reaction to his comments.

My comments were ridiculous.... seriously?
Armed guards at a kindergarten?
Teachers with guns?
And this man wants to be President!!!
The world's gone mad!

markharr wrote:

AgaetisTakk wrote:Can you find me a quote of Obama saying guns don't make you safer?

“There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So, how can you with a straight face make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths, so the notion that gun laws don’t work, or will make it harder for law abiding citizens and criminals will still get guns is not borne out by the evidence.”


Speaking of, I would like to ask how you can make the argument with a straigh face that the states with the most gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths. Of course they do. Just like states with fewer cars have fewer traffic related deaths, and states without sharks have fewer shark related deaths. The idea is to reduce crime, and the states with the most restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates. If the goal is to reduce accidental death we better start banning more than just guns.

The libs can't win on facts so they are going with emotion.

Sandinista wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:

Serragon wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:Because his comments are so ridiculous.
Does he really want a country that has armed guards at kindergarten and even teachers packing guns?
Surely not. He must have been joking!
Please tell me he was not being serious.

The only thing ridiculous here is your over the top reaction to his comments.

My comments were ridiculous.... seriously?
Armed guards at a kindergarten?
Teachers with guns?
And this man wants to be President!!!
The world's gone mad!

Who is going to protect you from the wave of radical Islamic terrorism arriving on your shores? Oh wait, you gave up your ability to protect yourself because your Government promised to do it for you. Enjoy your "freedom".

Thomas wrote:We have all kinds of laws against drugs. Possession of some drugs carries stiff prison sentences and trafficking in drugs carries even stiffer sentences. Some drug dealers have received more jail time then some murderers. Yet, drugs are readily available in every American city.

It is fantasy to think a law will stop unwanted behavior. It will just mean law abiding citizens will not be able to arm themselves against those who will not obey laws.

AgaetisTakk wrote:
You seem to think that the NRA, John Lott, and Ted Nugent are a good source for facts.

Speaking of, I would like to ask how you can make the argument with a straigh face that the states with the most gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths. Of course they do. Just like states with fewer cars have fewer traffic related deaths, and states without sharks have fewer shark related deaths. The idea is to reduce crime, and the states with the most restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates. If the goal is to reduce accidental death we better start banning more than just guns.

markharr wrote:I would like to go on the record for adding AgaetisTakk as the one and only person being added to my foe list for the following reasons.

1). He/she put a quote from me in his/her signature that was taken out of context. What he quoted was "Speaking of, I would like to ask how you can make the argument with a straight face that the states with the most gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths. Of course they do. - markharr" What I actually said is

Speaking of, I would like to ask how you can make the argument with a straigh face that the states with the most gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths. Of course they do. Just like states with fewer cars have fewer traffic related deaths, and states without sharks have fewer shark related deaths. The idea is to reduce crime, and the states with the most restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates. If the goal is to reduce accidental death we better start banning more than just guns.

2). He/she accused me of picking Chicago as a comparison city because of it's association with Barak Obama. At no time did I state that I picked Chicago because of its association with barack Obama. What I did say is that it is generaly considered to be the city with the most restrictive gun laws, and I provided a source to back that up.

3) He/she accused me of using the NRA Tom Lott, and Ted Nugent as sources when at no time have I ever used the NRA, Tom Lott, or Ted Nugent as sources. My sources were clearly posted. This does not believe that I agree with AgaetisTakk's assertion that any of those individuals or organiations would be bad sources. I base my arguments on truth not some unfounded belief that because someone is associated with guns it means that they have no credibiltiy.


It is my strong opinion that all three of these examples are examples of intellectual dishonesty, and that whether or not AgaetisTakk is right, he/she has destroyed any credibilty that he/she had.

AgaetisTakk wrote:
You should ask Robin Hood how many firearm deaths by accident, and by crime the UK has had over 10 years. Then ask yourself why the USA had
316,000 firearm deaths over the past 10 years, compared to 313 terrorism deaths. Terrorism need to step it up if you're going to use the "enjoy your freedom" bit.

Serragon wrote:
In short, trying to compare some isolated, homogenous, elitist, and tryanical country who has never had a history of individual freedom and liberty to the US is asinine.

Most Brits want to be ruled.

Fox News reporting: ONLY ONE SECURITY OFFICER ON CAMPUS TODAY AND HE WAS UNARMED.
My message to the administration of this college:
* You disarmed the students with your gun free zone policy..
* Your ONE security guard on duty for a campus of 3000 students was unarmed..
* If you are going to disarm the students and faculty, then YOU are directly responsible for providing security for those people.
YOU FAILED.
* .. THE BLOOD OF THOSE DEAD STUDENTS IS ON YOUR HANDS.
At least 9 are dead.. Many more people wounded..
Lesson to be learned here:
MASS SHOOTINGS ALWAYS HAPPEN IN GUN FREE ZONES
In the United States, Since 1950, all of the mass shootings with the exception of one, happended in gun free zones…
Umpqua Community College is a posted Gun Free Zone. With the college security page stating the following:
“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.
Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4” is prohibited.
Brandishing weapons is prohibited.
Misuse of personal defensive weapons – e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.”
Crazy people intent on killing will ALWAYS be able to get guns.
The only way to stop bad people with guns is to allow law abiding citizens to carry.
This is why I am a strong proponent for the organization College Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
These are students of age who have had training, been through the background checks, and are legally armed for self defense.
One law abiding responsibly armed college student could have stopped this.
Unfortunately.. too many college campuses disarm the good kids so they are defenseless victims waiting to happen for a crazy gun toting criminal.

Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2015/10/gun-f ... v0zUWkl.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AgaetisTakk wrote:

Serragon wrote:The problem isn't the guns. If it were, this would have been happening at similar rates in the past. It it were the guns, then communities like one where I live where guns outnumber people 5 to 1 would have all been killed off long ago.

We have created a monster in the US with our brand of feminism, leftism, and PC Culture. Boys and normal adolescent male behaviour have been under attack for decades now. Fatherless boys. Boys without honor. Boys seeking fame. Boys with no idea where they fit in to the modern society created by leftists and feminists.

Even if you remove the guns, you won't remove the problem.

I'm confused, are mass shooting caused by feminism and liberals?

Also, can you provide me with the normal male behavior pattern you are referring to; are we talking the 16th century male behavior pattern, or the early 20th century?

Overall I think what you are trying to say is that if feminism, liberalism, and PC culture weren't in their current state, a real man would have stood up and gone Jason Bourne on the Oregon shooter. This renders everyone who didn't do that in your fatherless boys, boys without honor, boys seeking fame, and boys with no idea where they fit in to the modern society created by leftists and feminists category. Am I correct?

Robin Hood wrote:Because his comments are so ridiculous.
Does he really want a country that has armed guards at kindergarten and even teachers packing guns?
Surely not. He must have been joking!
Please tell me he was not being serious.

skmo wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:Because his comments are so ridiculous.
Does he really want a country that has armed guards at kindergarten and even teachers packing guns?
Surely not. He must have been joking!
Please tell me he was not being serious.

I would hope he was. As a teacher, I have carried a firearm on me almost every day I've worked. I've never had a need to use it, I've never taken it out, allowed others to see it, nor even let anyone know it was there. It served the same purpose as the insurance on my car, my spare tire, and the cigarette lighter in my pocket: To provide with the tools I need to protect myself in an emergency. Unlike so many liberals in this country and a majority of sheeple in many other countries, I don't have a fear of inanimate objects. I don't misuse them, either. However, I realize not everyone shares either of those qualities with me, so I remember my Boy Scout training (the kind that existed before the rainbow merit badges and the flowery sashes) and I take steps to be prepared.

Robin Hood wrote:You have obviously spent most of your working life living in fear.
Can't understand why people think that is freedom.
It's twisted logic.

skmo wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:You have obviously spent most of your working life living in fear.
Can't understand why people think that is freedom.
It's twisted logic.

(assuming that doesn't make you a felon in bendover-and-kiss-the-queen land)

skmo wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:You have obviously spent most of your working life living in fear.
Can't understand why people think that is freedom.
It's twisted logic.

What's twisted is your sense of logic. I'm not the one in fear of an inanimate object, you seem to be. Do you fear the pocketknife you carry? (assuming that doesn't make you a felon in bendover-and-kiss-the-queen land) Do you have food storage like we're told to by the church? Why, isn't there a store nearby you can get food from? Oh, you're being prepared for an emergency, Why are you living in fear of hunger?

Do you have insurance on your auto? Why are you living in fear of an accident? Oh, you're being prepared.

Do you have bandages in your house? Why are you living in fear of cuts? Oh, you're being prepared.

I'm fat, over 50, and have a lot of injuries. If a 25 year old gang banger walked into my classroom with even just a baseball bat, I'd be ill-prepared to do anything to defend my kids. Is it likely to happen? No. Is it a possibility? Yes, so I prepare for it. I've had angry people storm into my classrooms before, nothing I couldn't handle, but it could happen. I don't fear it, I just prepare for it against the slim likelihood of it happening.

It's like a parachute: If you need one and you don't have one, you'll certainly never need one again.

Robin Hood wrote:The difference is I'm not motivated by fear.
I have a food store so that I can help my neighbours if times get tough.
I have insurance for by car so that if I make a mistake and cause an accident I can make good the other persons loss.
I have bandages in order to heal, not because I am in fear of cuts.

Like I said, in my view your logic is twisted and you appear to live in perpetual fear; which that must be an awful way to live.
I feel very sorry for you.

skmo wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:The difference is I'm not motivated by fear.
I have a food store so that I can help my neighbours if times get tough.
I have insurance for by car so that if I make a mistake and cause an accident I can make good the other persons loss.
I have bandages in order to heal, not because I am in fear of cuts.

Like I said, in my view your logic is twisted and you appear to live in perpetual fear; which that must be an awful way to live.
I feel very sorry for you.

No need, I'm a citizen, not a subject. Like I said, it seems to be you who lives in fear. Fear of an inanimate object. All those things you're doing? You're doing them to be prepared in case of an unfortunate incident. Same thing I'm doing, but I'm not afraid of a tool I can use to defend myself if I need to. When I was in Alaska teaching, we'd often go out for an activity, and we lived in a place where bears and wolves walked the same streets we did. Seeing one was always a very real possibility. Living in Utah, there's much less chance of that happening, but there's still a chance of a Charlie Hebdo or a Ft. Hood incident happening, so I'll stick to being prepared. You may hold on to your object fears. I'll stick to thinking fear of objects is silly.

skmo wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:Because his comments are so ridiculous.
Does he really want a country that has armed guards at kindergarten and even teachers packing guns?
Surely not. He must have been joking!
Please tell me he was not being serious.

I would hope he was. As a teacher, I have carried a firearm on me almost every day I've worked. I've never had a need to use it, I've never taken it out, allowed others to see it, nor even let anyone know it was there. It served the same purpose as the insurance on my car, my spare tire, and the cigarette lighter in my pocket: To provide with the tools I need to protect myself in an emergency. Unlike so many liberals in this country and a majority of sheeple in many other countries, I don't have a fear of inanimate objects. I don't misuse them, either. However, I realize not everyone shares either of those qualities with me, so I remember my Boy Scout training (the kind that existed before the rainbow merit badges and the flowery sashes) and I take steps to be prepared.