|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 1, 2015 0:17:27 GMT 1
So you carry it, loaded and in a fast-draw holster, at all times? Or do your rapists and murderers phone ahead for an appointment? Ah, the comfortably cushioned bien-pensant middle classes. Never been assaulted, and smugly assume they never will be. A liberal is a republican who's never been mugged. Would you care to answer the questions instead of insulting the questioner?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 6, 2015 18:47:33 GMT 1
Wow, that's really amazing isn't it? Well, it would be if it was true. But it isn't. But your link shows that it is! Read it carefully.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 6, 2015 18:55:31 GMT 1
Oh, no, another faux innocent in the mold of Fascinating and Miss Hartrick! Alan, they're quite evidently deeply unsatisfied and resentful old women, looking back with empty distaste on their lifetime of mediocrity: what's your excuse?
Alright. I'll play this game, according to the new rules laid down by the Thicky Police.
No, I don't phone ahead for an appointment. Who exactly would I phone? Why would I want to make an appointment for my family to be assaulted?
Happy now? Polite and reasonable enough? Are you content with this answer to your "perfectly reasonable and polite" question? Now, please answer my questions in return; and, while you're at it, please explain why you were apparently dim-wittedly extraterrestial enough to ask them, and then demand that they be taken at face value?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 6, 2015 23:37:22 GMT 1
Cut the sixth-form insults, stop whining, and grow up, man.
So, having no idea whether the person behind you in the street is about to beat you over the head and rob you, or whether the knock on the door is from a rapist with an AK47, you keep your weapon loaded and in your hand at all times? I think not, but that's just me being charitable.
One of the statistics that eludes me, and which I am sure you have to hand (the other hand, of course) is the number of perpetrators who have actually been shot by civilians in self-defence. We know it doesn't happen much in the UK because if you shoot some scum who have been threatening and persecuting you for years and have broken into your house with evil intent, you go to prison. But the law is far more reasonable in the USA and there is an entire, booming and legitimate industry providing pistols and assault weapons for home defence and deterring muggers. So just how effective are they? I'm not interested in third parties (police and the like) attending an affray or guarding premises, but just how many people like your goodself have out-drawn and outgunned a real criminal in the act of attacking them at home or in the street?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 7, 2015 9:17:35 GMT 1
Wow, that's really amazing isn't it? Well, it would be if it was true. But it isn't. But your link shows that it is! Read it carefully. I have, and I cannot find anywhere it backs up your claim. So why do you think it does? Quote where it says that. It does say "What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. Clearly, these figures are problematic. We’re talking about arrests not convictions, and high black arrest rates could be taken as evidence that the police are racist. But academics have noted that the proportion of black suspects arrested by the police tends to match closely the proportion of offenders identified as black by victims in the National Crime Victimization Survey."
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 5, 2015 17:47:12 GMT 1
As we seem to have drifted to the more interesting general case of an armed citizenry, and in the absence of any numerical response from Mr S, it is worth noting that the the score in the 45th US school shooting of the year was Bad Guy 9, Good Guys 1. This was a particularly important case because, unsurprisingly, the Good Guys were the police and, surprising to those who support the constitutional bearing of arms, this college permits its students to carry concealed firearms - indeed Oregon State law will not allow them to ban firearms on campus!
So why were they, as usual, useless?
OK, the quote is from the atheistic commie-loving ecofascist Grauniad, but I kinda think the kid had a point.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 8, 2015 8:16:25 GMT 1
I think he has a point too.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 28, 2016 14:31:00 GMT 1
Reading this at the moment - a fascinating book. I agree with every word of it, and not just because I've been arguing the same simple points for a decade on these boards. As with the current move to discriminate against "posh" people in the public services, and for university entrance, and just as the lunatic moves of the Liberal-Left in the 60s (shamelessly swallowed by an almost equally deluded Conservative Party) to demolish any route to social mobility in our education system engineered exactly the opposite outcome, so-called racial discrimination in the US must squarely be laid at the door of Democrats - and the self-interested machinations of those on the Left who have propagandised to achieve measures that have had precisely the opposite effect. www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/frontpage_progressive_racism
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 31, 2016 14:27:36 GMT 1
And if you're thinking that's just some middle-class white Jew like Ben Shapiro (we all know they're racist, don't we?):
|
|