• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Somebody Robbed me =[

shadowninty said:
I never said you owned them :)

As for calling people stupid, I didn't say or imply that, unless they genuinely were crazy paranoid people.
Click to expand...

I generally vote republican and do not believe humans have any great effect on climate change. I don't deny climate change but my taxes could be alot more beneficial to tangible efforts.

Do I qualify for stupid?
 
InstantKarma said:
Don't take this the wrong way, but there were several times in my recent visit to London that I was uncomfortable that I didn't have one.

Just a few days after we visited Trafalgar Square, three young people beat a gay man to death there. In broad daylight. In Trafalgar wall-to-wall-people Square.

Your country isn't any safer than mine.
Click to expand...

My country isn't safer than yours by a long shot. People are people, the majority of people don't want to hurt anyone, nevermind kill anyone, but in society there are going to be 1%(?) that are harmful, and if guns are available they will use them, why give them easy access? If those 3 people had guns, how many people do you think would be dead? Im sorry for the lost life, of course I am.

I'm not saying I am against guns in culture, as in American culture I feel its probably impossible to control firearms due to the extent it has been incorparated into society. But I do think that having easy access to guns means there is more of a risk of violent crime, especially homicidal. (Statistics may prove me wrong on this bu I doubt it).

Anyhow, the way you responded it looks to me like you took it the wrong way
 
Crude said:
I generally vote republican...

Do I qualify for stupid?
Click to expand...


It wouldn['t be polite for me to answer in the affirmative. :D

I don't know whether you are stupid but considering that the GOP is bereft of ideas to improve the economy or the quality of life for most Americans, and has as leaders, elected and otherwise, the biggest collection of ignorant, race-baiting, ethnic-hating slimeballs I have ever seen in one political party in my adult lifehood...

Well...:rolleyes:
 
Crude said:
I generally vote republican and do not believe humans have any great effect on climate change. I don't deny climate change but my taxes could be alot more beneficial to tangible efforts.

Do I qualify for stupid?
Click to expand...
Yeah
Who cares about all those poor people
 
hakr100 said:
It wouldn['t be polite for me to answer in the affirmative. :D

I don't know whether you are stupid but considering that the GOP is bereft of ideas to improve the economy or the quality of life for most Americans, and has as leaders, elected and otherwise, the biggest collection of ignorant, race-baiting, ethnic-hating slimeballs I have ever seen in one political part in my adult lifehood...

Well...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL
Tragic but true
 
IOWA said:
This is why I carry this in my pocket. (Illegally, but in chicago on the trains, I really don't give a rats ass about the law when my life may be on the line)

Walther_PPK_1664.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know whether I should be afraid of you when I go to Chicago (I live in the western suburbs), or flock towards you for protection...
 
Tino said:
I'm not saying I am against guns in culture, as in American culture I feel its probably impossible to control firearms due to the extent it has been incorparated into society. But I do think that having easy access to guns means there is more of a risk of violent crime, especially homicidal. (Statistics may prove me wrong on this bu I doubt it).
Click to expand...
you are partially correct. guns in american culture are so prevalent that it is nothing for that "1%" to get them. laws or no laws, there are so many guns here that criminals will always have access to them. even if all guns were band it wouldnt matter. the black market would supply those willing to break laws with weapons and law abiding citizens would be that much more of a weaker victim.
that leaves a law abiding citezen in our society only a few options to defend ones self and family. obviously to meet fire with fire is one of those options.
where you are incorrect is that if by "easy access" you refer to those that are licensed to carry legally causing more violent crime just by there being more guns; the statistics would show you that as conceal carry becomes legal violent crime goes down.
obviously criminals realize that now their would be victims may be armed as opposed to places that conceal carry is not legal.

things change when a person with bad intentions realizes that granny may possibly be packing a gun....
 
Please don't be rude in your discussions.

I would feel safer knowing that the "criminals" are the only ones with guns. They would maybe feel less threatened and be less likely to use their firearm. Just my opinion, I don't really have anything to back it up.
 
DaSchmarotzer said:
Please don't be rude in your discussions.

I would feel safer knowing that the "criminals" are the only ones with guns. They would maybe feel less threatened and be less likely to use their firearm. Just my opinion, I don't really have anything to back it up.
Click to expand...

That excludes police, of course, right?
 
DaSchmarotzer said:
Please don't be rude in your discussions.

I would feel safer knowing that the "criminals" are the only ones with guns. They would maybe feel less threatened and be less likely to use their firearm. Just my opinion, I don't really have anything to back it up.
Click to expand...
^one would like to think, but using logic with a person willing to rob you in the first place may not so much work.

here are some facts.

"* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%."

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:



Florida.................United States
homicide rate
-36%........................-0.4%
firearm homicide rate
-37%..........................+15%
handgun homicide rate
-41%...........................+24%
(3)​

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)"
-------------------------

im gonna stop at this point as it is easy to find many facts on the subject.
please do some research before formulating an opinion.
meant with all do respect.

Gun Control

and on a personal level, as you can see where i stand, but now to see where i come from;
-depression runs in my family; 2 members committed suicide by gun. (but i understand it is a sickness and they likely would have found another way had there not been guns around).
-my father was a nam vet. he hated guns. look what violence did to him. he was all messed up. (but i also understand that he went to war for our country and suffered from it).
-my parents were divorced and i was raised by a well educated single mother, she did not own a gun. there were no guns in the house as i grew up. (but i understand that was her choice, my choice is to keep one around for protection).

so you can see i wasnt brought up a gun nut. i simply believe in the facts, and what seems common sense. i believe in the law abiding citizens right to protect themselves from criminals and their government as well.
- now before someone scoffs at the government comment, then ill go ahead and list examples of some countries with strict gun control in the past and the types of things that occurred to their citizens.
 
OfTheDamned said:
I'm not agreeing with or condoning shooting anyone in the back, but I will say that a fleeing criminal is still a criminal and therefor still a threat. The threat may no longer be mine, but they are still a threat to others. Someone who is will to walk up to a person, stick a gun in their face and take their belongings is not doing this for the first time or the last.

I will also say, that once you have been a victim of a violent crime, you views on these matters change a little.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I would have easily agreed that violence isn't the answer, but when it happened to me, that went right out the window.

I am not violent by any means, but after been held by gunpoint, that's traumatizing enough to stay with you for the rest of your life. Anytime i step out late at night, I think about it happening again. I am not a small person, or weak, but i'm not delusional enough to think that i can take someone that is prepared to hold a weapon to my forehead. Would owning a gun change my feelings when i'm out late at night? No, but If i had the chance, it's worth it not to let that person ever harm anyone else again.

If you choose to put someone else's life at risk, you forfeit your own. I'm not saying that violence is the answer, but that safety i once had is gone, and i'll never get it back. That's something that can't be replaced.

Until you've had it happened to you, you can't sit and say that you wouldn't at least consider making it so that said person doesn't traumatize, or hurts someone else cause they're too lazy to get their own shit.
 
GodFlow said:
Bingo. I would have easily agreed that violence isn't the answer, but when it happened to me, that went right out the window.

I am not violent by any means, but after been held by gunpoint, that's traumatizing enough to stay with you for the rest of your life. Anytime i step out late at night, I think about it happening again. I am not a small person, or weak, but i'm not delusional enough to think that i can take someone that is prepared to hold a weapon to my forehead. Would owning a gun change my feelings when i'm out late at night? No, but If i had the chance, it's worth it not to let that person ever harm anyone else again.

If you choose to put someone else's life at risk, you forfeit your own. I'm not saying that violence is the answer, but that safety i once had is gone, and i'll never get it back. That's something that can't be replaced.

Until you've had it happened to you, you can't sit and say that you wouldn't at least consider making it so that said person doesn't traumatize, or hurts someone else cause they're too lazy to get their own shit.
Click to expand...

This is a common observation with victims of a gun crime. Many go through life "with their head on a swivel". I'm glad you're alright.
 
mcatdtDROID said:
"I can't fight you because I would be charged with a felony because I am trained at fighting" while I buy your woman a drink right in front of you.
Click to expand...

How nice of you... You can buy my girl a drink as well. In fact, I'll go ahead and let you pick up her entire tab. Thanks buddy!
 
Tino said:
Lmao, so civilians with guns are going to overcome military trained armies, with military equipment and armour if you are invaded...
Click to expand...

and I guess that unarmed civilians are going to have a better chance than an armed populace.... seems quite the opposite to me.
 
Red_nose said:
and I guess that unarmed civilians are going to have a better chance than an armed populace.... seems quite the opposite to me.
Click to expand...


I'm saving some of my ammo to assist the feds in case some crazed "secessionists" take over one of the dumb states. Nothing shooting-wise would please me more than cleaning up the gene pool. :D
 
shadowninty said:
Have fun shooting at the nukes as they rocket towards you :rolleyes:


P A R A N O I D :)
Click to expand...
allow me;

Government: Ottoman Turkey
Dates: 1915-1917
Targets: Armenians (mostly Christians)
Civilians Killed: 1-1.5 million
"Gun Control" Laws : Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 •
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession
------------------------------------
Government: Soviet Union
Dates: 1929-1945
Targets :Political opponents; farming communities
Civilians Killed: 20 million Resolutions,
"Gun Control" Laws: 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: Licensing of owners•Ban on possession•Severe penalties
--------------------------------
Government: Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe
Dates: 1933-1945
Targets: Political opponents; Jews; Gypsies; critics; "examples"
Civilians Killed: 20 million
"Gun Control" Laws: Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme:•Registration & Licensing•Stricter handgun laws•Ban on possession
-----------------------------------------
Government: China, Nationalist
Dates: 1927-1949
Targets: Political opponents; army conscripts; others
Civilians Killed: 10 million
"Gun Control" Laws : Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: •Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership
---------------------------
Government: China, Red
Dates: 1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976
Targets: Political opponents; Rural populations Enemies of the state
Civilians Killed: 20-35 million
"Gun Control" Laws: Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme:•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
-------------------------------------------
Government: Guatemala
Dates: 1960-1981
Targets Mayans & other Indians; political enemies
Civilians Killed: 100,000-200,000

"Gun Control" Laws: Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932 Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: •Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools
•Confiscation powers
------------------------------
Government: Uganda
Dates: 1971-1979
Targets: Christians, Political enemies
Civilians Killed: 300,000
"Gun Control" Laws: Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: •Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers
------------------------------------
Government: Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)
Dates: 1975-1979
Targets: Educated Persons;Political enemies
Civilians Killed: 2 million
"Gun Control" Laws : Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: •Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints
•License inspected quarterly
----------------------------------
Government: Rwanda
Dates: 1994
Targets: Tutsi people
Civilians Killed: 800,000
"Gun Control" Laws: Decree-Law No. 12, 1979
Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme: •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

----------------------------------------
"
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.
In the 20th Century:

  • Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
  • Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed."


Death by "Gun Control"

--------------------

it took me zero time to research and find this. please feel free to verify the link as i had to move it around a little since it wouldnt copy and past off the chart and post right.
obviously you can see that being "paranoid" isnt really paranoia at all.
these are facts, not opinions, on what can happen to a society that allows itself to be disarmed.
it is not paranoia to not trust your own government. actually, as you can see from historical facts....it would be foolish to trust your own government completely when you can look back and see the results of some things that have occurred.

i believe it says in The Bible somewhere to pray for our leaders.
im not against our government. im for being prepared for the worst.

feel free to add up the number of dead people affected here.

now your next debate will be that they couldnt have fought the army, etc.
at least there would have been a fight, is my reply.

i can continue to research if anyone likes, but it seems to me a person would want to know facts themselves before coming to a conclusion.

​
 
DaSchmarotzer said:
Of course.

And I stand corrected, it seems like crime rates are going down when carrying guns becomes legal. Although I did say that I would "feel safer", which is my personal opinion. ;)
Click to expand...
understandable, no one wants to get shot in the back standing in line at wal mart because grandma was going through her purse and accidentally fired a round out of it....
 
Firstly, from reading this, there were only two educated developed countries in that list, Turkey & Germany.

TBH I know feck all about the Ottomans so I'll talk about Germany.

After WWI due to the unfair Treaty of Versailles and its knock-on economic implications, the people of Germany elected the facists to power.

The majority of the populace supported them.
I somehow doubt a few hundred thousand armed Jews and other persucted people could have defeated the might of the German army or the 30million people who supported Hitler
 
shadowninty said:
I somehow doubt a few hundred thousand armed Jews and other persucted people could have defeated the might of the German army or the 30million people who supported Hitler
Click to expand...
again, only with opinions.

what does a people's education level have to do with a right to protect themselves?

but ill bite. basically to rephrase what you just said;
because you dont believe that "a few hundred thousand armed Jews"
could have put up a fight for their own lives; it is o.k. for it to have been illegal for them to posses the opportunity to do so.

we, sir, are going to have to seriously disagree on this one....
i dont care if they could have defeated them or not, my thoughts are that the right to attempt it should have been there.

and on a side note, did you notice the link with that information is to a website put up by jews?
why do you suppose that is?
 
faber78 said:
again, only with opinions.

what does a people's education level have to do with a right to protect themselves?

but ill bite. basically to rephrase what you just said;
because you dont believe that "a few hundred thousand armed Jews"
could have put up a fight for their own lives; it is o.k. for it to have been illegal for them to posses the opportunity to do so.

we, sir, are going to have to seriously disagree on this one....
i dont care if they could have defeated them or not, my thoughts are that the right to attempt it should have been there.

and on a side note, did you notice the link with that information is to a website put up by jews?
why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

Its not "the right to protect themselves" but I basically mean these things dont occur in developed countries in the last eighty years.
Obviously the Axis powers are an exception to this though, but I really dont get why this means every Canadian/European/American should own a lethal weapon in the twenty-first century

Someones been watching too much Red Dawn


On a sidenote, I have Israeli Jewish cousins before I get accused of being Anti-Semite or sth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom