In Norway gun ownership is common; violence and homicide are not

[jpak]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-naw-norway-gun-policy-20110724,0,7974761.story

The shooting rampage that left at least 85 dead at a youth camp near Oslo stunned Norway, a nation of about 4.9 million residents who are far less accustomed to gun violence than the U.S.

Authorities have described the 32-year-old man arrested in connection with the shootings, as well as a bombing in downtown Oslo that left at least seven others dead, as a far-right Christian fundamentalist. A chilling manifesto attributed to the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, that was discovered Saturday contains an image of him pointing a weapon toward the camera.

Homicide -- whether gun-related or otherwise -- is rare in Norway, which reports one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe.

A report released last year by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services examined the role of mental illness in the actions of known perpetrators there, and also noted that in more than 80% of the killings the victims were known to the assailant.

<more>

[Upton]

1. Tell that to the families of the dead..

Maybe you could also explain to them why, thanks to gun control, nobody in charge of those kids was armed..leaving them at the mercy of a cold blooded killer..

[baldguy]

5. What a sick & conniving post.

Those children weren't killed because of gun control - they were killed by a gun-loving RW terrorist.

Stop trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to push your political agenda on the blood of innocents.

[Upton]

7. Give me a break..

look up and down the first page. You antis can't wait until the blood is dry before posting tragic incidents in an attempt to further your own political agenda. An agenda that has been rejected by the American people and is quickly going nowhere...and nothing could please me more.

This dude had 90 minutes to walk around and kill kids...with no one there to stop him. He wouldn't have had that kind of time in a country such as ours that believes in the right of self defense and cherishes it's 2nd Amendment rights. Norway is a failure of gun control..

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bellcrank]

32. I wonder how many of the control advocates would take a walk alone in Jamaica

these days. Guns are banned and gun crime is out of control...what's wrong with that picture?

[Cirque du So-What]

38. Yes, everyone knows that guns just spring from the ground, fully-formed & functional

Guns are in the hands of gangsters in Jamaica because there's profits to be made, and the gun lobby does everything in their power to ensure their unimpeded flow - nevermind whose hands they end up in! Not the concern of gun-company execs or their lobbyists, yunno. The fact that guns are readily available to Jamaican gangsters is testimony to the effectiveness of the 'iron pipeline.'

I'll answer your question by saying that I stay out of risky situations, and that includes walking certain Kingston neighborhoods. As far as risk vs. reward goes, there's no benefit to be gained from it.

[bellcrank]

44. All this bloviating and you still have not come up with any sort of "solution"...

not even one with an infinitesimal chance of success. It reminds me of the people who hate Obama's policies with a white-hot passion but have no alternatives to offer.

[Cirque du So-What]

46. I don't claim to have all the answers

Hell, I don't have even ONE answer, but does that preclude me expressing my opinion? Apparently, it does, as I appear to have evoked the wrath of 'the swarm,' seeing that I can't even form one reply without a dozen more popping up in the meantime. Besides, my suggestions won't get anywhere anyway, considering that there's too much money to be made from proliferation of firearms. The gun-industry lobbyists have fucking well won, but neither you - nor anyone else who has been duped by their appeals to 'freedom' - will stop me from expressing my dissatisfaction with the situation.

[HankyDubs]

22. another racist right wing gun "enthusiast"

shoots a buncha kids. What else is new?

[eqfan592]

62. Ummm, wtf?!?!

I mean seriously?? Wow, HankyDubs, you've hit a new, disgusting, low.

[HankyDubs]

63. always angrier at me for telling the truth

than the gunmen for blowing innocents away.

[LonePirate]

6. Our exceptionally and irrationally loose gun laws didn't stop the slaughter in Texas last night

I would trade the Norwegian gun culture for the American one any day.

[Hangingon]

9. What slaughter? Didn't make my paper.

[LonePirate]

10. This one (link below) - 6 dead, 4 injured in Grand Prairie

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-texas-shooting-idUSTRE76N0JR20110724

Just because it didn't make the Dallas paper doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Hangingon]

12. Dallas is nearly 500 miles from me.

[tucsonlib]

65. No, NOT "thanks to gun control"

There are plenty of Norwegians who own guns. Ever consider that maybe their country is so civilized, prosperous and safe (until now at least) that they never felt it NECESSARY to arm themselves every time they left the house?

Maybe this tragedy will fill the Norwegians with fear and paranoia. Just like US! That's progress, eh?


Was the murderous rampage in Arizona, where Rep. Giffords was injured, also "thanks to gun control"? Arizona HAS no gun control to speak of. Still, no one in the crowd happened to be packing that morning.


For so many here to turn Norway's tragedy into a gun control issue, while oh-so-predictable, is outrageously misguided and in incredibly poor taste.

[onehandle]

2. They likely don't have a giant aggressive radical-right gun culture and a 24-hour news channel...

...supporting their neo-biblical fantasy of superiority.

[Cirque du So-What]

11. Not to mention a robust gun lobby

with one overriding concern: selling more firearms. Nothing else matters to the gun lobby. Nothing. Bidness is on the line, and in America, profit is king...and that explains why swarms of paid bloggers & posters infest the internet, pushing - HARD - against any measures contrary to the aims of the gun lobby. Following this post, the volume & low pH of vitriol that will be directed my way for daring to disturb the hive will provide ample evidence of an organized effort to stifle all dissent. All threats to corporate profits must be met head-on, yunno. The sentiment in the post to which you're replying is echoed throughout the blogosphere: 'if only more Norwegians had guns strapped-on 24/7, the gunman could have been stopped.' Initial efforts to portray the attack as coming from radical Muslims reflect a desire not to alienate their customer base...can't have blue-eyed blonds running amok, yunno...doesn't fit the narrative, after all.

Back to the OP...if there's a discernible gun lobby in Norway (and there isn't, AFAIK), it doesn't have a firm grip on politicians & useful idiots like in this country. As the profit motive isn't such a fervent drive in Norway, people have more sensible attitudes toward gun ownership:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

I would challenge the paranoids who parrot the cry that 'they're coming to grab our guns!' to apply Occam's Razor. Who's going to steal your guns? The government? Why? To prevent an armed insurrection among the citizenry? Why would the government NEED to protect against armed insurrection? Because they've enacted repressive laws? Couldn't repressive government get overturned by the people? What would prevent the people from overturning repressive government by peaceful means, i.e., the ballot box? A dictatorship, you say? Who typically heads dictatorships? Those representing corporate power, and - let's get realistic here - would corporations allow anyone BUT a tool of their interests to take control of the US government? Among corporate lobbyists, who is a 600-lb gorilla, throwing their weight around with threats to take down politicians in the next election? The gun lobby, you reluctantly admit? Think the government is going to allow any politician to usurp enough power to outlaw gun ownership & confiscate firearms? Ain't gonna happen? Not in this universe...perhaps in some bizarro world, but not in the one we're currently occupying.

[gejohnston]

54. Actually

relative to population, their equivalent to the NRA has over twice the membership. (Norway's population is about five million, the Det frivillige Skyttervesen has about 160,000 members. We have about 300 million. Multiply 160K by 60) Do they lobby Parliament? They might.

The gun lobby being corporate? Umm, Brady/VPC is astroturf as astroturf as it gets. No members, money from a few foundations and corporations. NRA? 4 million members supporting the interests of 35-40 percent of the population. Sorry, money is not always the reason.

[Blown330]

60. You would be well challenged...

...to stop parroting the tired shtick that an armed insurrection is the primary reason people own guns in this country. I've never been worried about gun confiscation, there are no records tying me to the ones I own anyway. You are also seriously misguided in your notion that the gun lobby's sole interest is selling firearms. If you new your history, you'd understand that the anti-gun lobby has done the best job of boosting firearm sales by far.

[gejohnston]

48. more like 24 news channel or local news with

it bleeds it leads sensationalism, even when crime is dropping. What biblical fantasy has to do with it escapes me.

[tucsonlib]

64. Even Though They've EARNED The Right To Brag!

The United Nations Development Program, in its annual Human Development Index - a report that highlights education, health and income of nations - once again rated Norway the best place to live.

I guess if you're happy, healthy, wealthy and educated, you're likely to view "bragging" as lowbrow and in poor taste.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

67. I have to agree with this assessment . . .

that channel is a shit-stirrer.

[Mass]

3. They have serious controls on the sales of weapons and ammunitions,

and the rate of ownership is nearly 3 times less than in the US. Both facts are in your article.

In addition, homicide is low, period.

[mogster]

4. Gun ownership is not common

And also strictly regulated.

[Cirque du So-What]

13. In Norway, the need for gun ownership must be documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway#Ownership

To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far, the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self defence, but the first is rare and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.

Lettuce examine the bolded words in that excerpt. Why is self-defense an invalid excuse for gun ownership? Because there isn't a gun lobby that has been pushing HARD to get guns into as many hands as possible - legality be damned?

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11978

With no gun lobby fomenting a culture of shoot-or-be-shot, there simply is no need to walk around with a firearm strapped to one's thigh lest a thug attempt to take your money or life on a whim. Despite fevered arguments that it could still happen - even in Norway - the odds of such a thing happening are very small, even in this country. I've lived the better part of five decades without ONCE getting mugged at gunpoint, and there's not one instance I can recall where I've believed a situation could be improved IF ONLY I had the forethought to strap on a firearm beforehand.

[MicaelS]

14. You don't want to own or carry a gun, don't do so, BUT

You are not going to decide for me and others in this country. I don't care what your life experience has been, that is your life and your choices. Others differ.

[Cirque du So-What]

15. I beg to differ

First of all, you are laboring under a misconception. I am a gun owner, but according to some hereabouts, all dissent must be met with vitriol & derision, right? Next, I have as much right to express my opinion as anyone else; yours is not the Alpha opinion, yunno. If I believe it's a threat to public safety to allow unrestricted carry in all public places, then I will fucking well say so! Your rights do not supersede my own, and if I take exception to people packing around firearms, and I'm within range, then I will also fucking well object! I WILL attempt to decide for others - as fervently as those who insist on imposing their will on the rest of us downrange.

[Upton]

16. "I WILL attempt to decide for others"

Yes we know. And isn't that a revealing, though hardly surprising, peek into the mindset of a gun control advocate..

What makes you any different from the RWers who say they "WILL attempt to decide for others" when it comes to something like a woman's right to have an abortion?

[Cirque du So-What]

18. You're doing the same thing, aren't you?

When you attempt to impose your will on the rest of society, how does that make you any different from the RWers? How is advocacy for ANY revision of a law anything other than an attempt to impose your will on others? At least I admit it; persist in wallowing in denial if you must, but you're doing the same thing.

[PavePusher]

29. No anti-gun control person is attempting to impose anything but freedom of choice.

Chose as you wish for yourself, and I will chose as I wish for myself.

If you have any serious evidence to the contrary, please cite it.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Like the equality in marriage movement imposes their will on society? n/t

[hack89]

68. Imposing our will on those who want to restrict civil rights is a progressive value

If you want to stand on the authoritarian side of the equation then you should be opposed. The history of the world is for the expansion of civil rights. The right to bear arms is going down that path - as it should.

[DWC]

20. Touche' n/t

[aikoaiko]

69. This is why gun control advocates (especially the extremists) fail.

All liberties get abused, but we still demand our liberties.

[MicaelS]

17. The difference is people like me want choice and you don't.

We know for a fact you don't want choice, you just stated it. You're just another Authoritarian. And your POV has been losing for 15 years now. I bet that just eats at you, doesn't it?

And here's some points about "packing" as you so put it:

If people are carrying CCW, just HOW do you know who is carrying and who isn't? The whole point is the guns are CONCEALED.
You might object to Legal Open Carry, OK. So just who do you plan to object to? The Police? For what? Engaging in a lawful activity?
You go up to someone and "object" as you put it, YOU could charged with a crime.

[Cirque du So-What]

19. Oh, yeah, gettin' your jollies on a pleasant Sunday morning,

name-calling, fantasizing about others being miserable because they're not getting their way. Yep, sounds perfectly healthy to me :eyes:

If I ever become so paranoid that I cannot function in society without carrying a weapon concealed on my person, then I will fucking well do so - laws be damned! I accept the fact that people are going to carry - legal or not - if their compulsions (whether paranoia or desire to do bodily harm in the commission of a crime) demand it. I admit that point, and all of this fucking name-calling doesn't intimidate me from expressing my opinions.

I want laws to limit the sheer number of people who are carrying weapons on their person, and I'm not apologizing for my opinion. As I've already admitted, lawbreakers will continue to carry, but the fact that any number of people are CC and could feasibly begin shooting in retaliation - putting bystanders at risk - doesn't compensate for whatever perceived 'good' is obtained. I can see situations where a person fires a weapon, others return fire, and yet others begin firing at those attempting to stop the original shooter. I don't want to be in the path of stray bullets, which are just as deadly - regardless of whether they're fired by criminals or good samaritans.

If you fail to grasp this simple concept, that I don't want to end up in someone's gunsights - even inadvertently - then we've got nothing else to discuss. I don't consider myself an 'authoritarian,' yet some insist that their 'right' to put everyone within their sphere of range usurps the rights of those who don't want to be their target. You might wanna do something about that 2 X 4 in your own eye before complaining about the speck of sawdust in mine!

[DWC]

24. A measured response

You state:

"If I ever become so paranoid that I cannot function in society without carrying a weapon concealed on my person, then I will fucking well do so - laws be damned!"

Law abiding citizens in this country do not arbitrarily violate the Law. If they don't like the Law they are free to work at changing it.

You are stating that your Personal opinion / decision supersedes the Law. With all due respect, IMHO that is about as Authoritarian as it gets.

Semper Fi,

[Cirque du So-What]

26. Yet it is NOT authoritarian

to labor toward getting laws enacted that IMO put all bystanders within range of a firearm at risk of getting shot? How is it NOT authoritarian to demand that all within range be subjected to the whim of the person holding the gun?

My statement about breaking the law was intended as hyperbole unrelated to the 'authoritarian' part of the argument. I have no intention of breaking the law, rather, it was an admission that those who want to CC badly enough will do so regardless of the law.

Remember the old saw, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? I feel that way about CC, and I maintain that society is no safer by having any number of people capable of returning fire in a way that endangers others nearby. If that's 'authoritarian,' then by all means keep calling names & deflecting; I've come to expect it in this venue, and you're not 'getting a cherry' by any stretch of the imagination.

[PavePusher]

30. Freedom of choice is, by definition, pretty much the polar opposite of authoritarianism.

And no-one has proved that legal carriers are a significant part of the problem. Accomplish that task (as my math teachers would say, "show your work") and you'll have a valid talking point. But until you you have evidence, your feelings and unfounded conjecture are only worth the vapour they were pulled from.

[Cirque du So-What]

34. You might wanna turn your head...

wouldn't want any inconvenient truths abutting your preciously-held preconceived notions, yunno:

<snip>

The tragedy could have been even worse had an armed bystander not thought twice before shooting the hero that disarmed Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter.

<snip>

"Sir, when I came through the door, I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him. But I didn't have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn't have to go to that place," Zamudio replied.

<snip>

"To be clear, everybody who's reacted to this shooting by saying, they wish there had been someone other than the killer with a gun at the scene," MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted Thursday. "There was someone other than the killer with a gun at the scene. And the person he almost shot was one of the heroes who had just disarmed the killer."

<snip>

"I understand there are a lot of fantasies about guns and about heroism and about heroism involving guns," Maddow continued. "The fantasy that an armed responsible gun owner is all that would have been needed to have prevented this tragedy, that is disproved by what actually did happen."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/14/armed-bystander-shot-hero-disarmed-az-shooter/

For most of us, encountering a situation like the massacre in Tucson is a once-in-a-lifetime event, yet here we see that the person who took down Laughner was nearly shot by a 'good samaritan.' Q.E.D.

[PavePusher]

49. So, the legally armed Citizen acted and decided exactly correctly, by his training and practice....

as so many anti's scream for, and now you want to use it as an excuse to disarm us?

Fuck. That. Noise.

You are no longer debating in good faith, if you ever were. Good day to you.

[gravity556]

51. Of course the armed citizen was inside a store

across the parking lot from where Loughner was shooting. Instead of turning tail and running away, he ran to the sound of the gunfire. He did NOT shoot the individual who had picked up Loughner's gun (ooops, there goes your "All gunowners are bloodthirsty psychos looking to murder someone for any reason), but realized that the guy being tackled was the bad guy. Had he been in the crowd watching the speech rather than inside Walgreens, do you think he would have tried to stop the assailant before he slaughtered those unarmed innocents?

What would you have done? Called 911 and run away?

[bellcrank]

37. I would pay a thousand dollars to anyone who can produce a rational explanation of how

making the possession of a gun in public illegal will prevent bad people from possessing them in public. Would you care to give it a shot (so to speak)?

[Cirque du So-What]

41. Nice strawman

I never suggested any such thing, but thanks for playing.

[MicaelS]

25. You are making the same failed argument

That has been made since the advent of the CCW movement:

"There will be rivers of blood in the streets because of CCW holders."

"There will be shootouts over parking places between CCW holders."

"There will be shootouts between CCW holders and bystanders will be shot."

These things simply have not happened.

As to you wanting laws to limit the number of CCW holders, you can want all you want, but, your POV is LOSING. We now have 49 of the 50 states with CCW.

And you complainng about name calling then do the exact same thing, by inferring any who wants to carry is paranoid. Here's a definition of paranoia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia

Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state.

So who is more paranoid?

Those who carry because they "cannot function in society without carrying a weapon concealed"?

Or those who believe they're going to get shot by CCW holders when the evidence is against it?

[Cirque du So-What]

33. Is the following 'delusional?'

<snip>

The tragedy could have been even worse had an armed bystander not thought twice before shooting the hero that disarmed Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter.

<snip>

"Sir, when I came through the door, I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him. But I didn't have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn't have to go to that place," Zamudio replied.

<snip>

"To be clear, everybody who's reacted to this shooting by saying, they wish there had been someone other than the killer with a gun at the scene," MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted Thursday. "There was someone other than the killer with a gun at the scene. And the person he almost shot was one of the heroes who had just disarmed the killer."

<snip>

"I understand there are a lot of fantasies about guns and about heroism and about heroism involving guns," Maddow continued. "The fantasy that an armed responsible gun owner is all that would have been needed to have prevented this tragedy, that is disproved by what actually did happen."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/14/armed-bystander-shot-hero-disarmed-az-shooter/

How frequently do situations like the massacre in Tucson arise? Over time, not too frequently...yet here's a situation where a 'good samaritan' almost opened fire on the person who took down Laughner. Paranoid? My stance is all too rooted firmly in reality!

[petronius]

42. As far as I can tell, Mr. Zamudio never drew his firearm, and he grabbed the

wrist of the responder holding Loughner's gun, how is that "almost opened fire"? Zamudio accurately assessed the (lack of) need to use deadly force - to the extent that this case says anything about CCW, it's positive...

[AzWorker]

58. This is correct

I have spoken with Joe face to face about this, he never drew his firearm. No one even knew he had a firearm until the police arrived.

He assesed the situation just like the responding officers did.

[X_Digger]

28. With 10M+ licensees, surely your 'what-if' bystander bullshit must be common, right?

I mean, you wouldn't be basing your opinion on an irrational notion, correct?

Cough em up.

[Cirque du So-What]

35. Here's one instance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439795&mesg_id=439908

It's only because massacres like the one in Tucson are relatively infrequent that 'friendly fire' incidents don't occur more often. 'What if' is now established fact, but if you must persist in characterizing your opponent's stance as 'bullshit,' by all means proceed. You do what you gotta do, I'll do the same.

[X_Digger]

40. Who was shot, again?

Oh that's right. The permit holder didn't draw, didn't fire.

Your 'what-if'-- is still broken.

[Cirque du So-What]

45. He had his hand on the weapon in his pocket

He didn't actually draw and fire, but he admitted that it was definitely on his mind. That alone provides evidence that the potential for mayhem - despite the best of intentions - exists.

Up until the time that the first person gets their arm yanked off in a combine, is the risk any less real? Should we then allow combines to be operated without guards in place - simply because 'it hasn't happened yet'?

[gejohnston]

47. You picked a piss poor example for two reasons,

First, the innocent was holding the gun. A cop would be thinking the same thing, but more likely would have fired. That why you kick the weapon out of the bad guy's reach and leave it on the floor until the cops show up to secure it.

Second, no bystanders were hurt.

[X_Digger]

50. Again, you're pointing to 'coulda's

I 'coulda' mowed down pedestrians at the local wal-mart parking lot. I 'coulda' lit my neighbor's house on fire.

Hint: Nobody's denying that the 'potential for mayhem' exists. You might want to take that up with someone who thinks so.

The reality, with 10M+ permit holders (as your example clearly demonstrates) is that it doesn't happen with any statistically significant frequency.

Feel free to piss and moan about 'coulda's.. Here, have some spread for that sandwich..

[Cirque du So-What]

52. Go ahead - do your superiority dance and claim victory

...this time, but the transcript shows how close it came to disaster compounded upon disaster. Point & laugh at me to your heart's content if it appeases The Swarm, but I don't see anything even remotely funny about the possibility of someone getting shot in a chaotic situation. I still contend that the more firearms that are being carried by more people, the greater the likelihood that tragic mistakes are going to be made.

As an aside, ironic that Laughner was NOT taken down by gunfire, isn't it?

[X_Digger]

55. If the incidence of such events increases, it can be re-evaluated.

You'll forgive me if I don't buy the 'blood in the <whatever>' schtick. We've been hearing it for at least the last 24 years (since FL changed to 'shall issue').

Maybe it would be more effective if it hadn't been trotted out every fucking time some law, somewhere, is relaxed. When the predicted violence that is promised "Real Soon Now (TM)" fails to materialize, rarely does anyone come back and say, "You know what? I was wrong. This change hasn't caused more mayhem."

Hats off to Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin..

http://www.gunpundit.com/161.php (the original detroit free press link is dead..)

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

Who would have ever guessed this in a million years? Here we were all preparing for Wild West shootouts over parking spaces and minor workplace disputes as well a huge increases in accidental shootings. Well-meaning permit holders shooting down innocent bystanders left and right. Streets running red with blood. End of the world. Blah blah blah.

“I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected,” said Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin, cochair of the legislative committee for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. “There are problems with gun violence. But … I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn’t happen.”

[bellcrank]

31. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the imaginary right to not be

frightened is not. Maybe you can get a coward congresscritter to introduce a new amendment. Good luck with that.
Otherwise, what would be your preferred "solution"? I've only been here a short while but I've looked very closely for some constructive specifics from the pearl-clutching gallery. So far, zilch.

[Cirque du So-What]

36. So now I'm being characterized as a coward, I see

I served my nation for 20 years in the armed forces, and if you persist in calling me a coward, it's going to get really fucking intemperate 'round here! I'd suggest that you to eat shit and die, but that's against the rules.

[bellcrank]

39. Where did I call you a coward? By the way, I'm a 30 year vet so you

can shove it, bub.

[Cirque du So-What]

43. What's all that 'pearl-clutching' bullshit then?

if not a half-assed attempt to portray all who dare to oppose your opinion? What, then, DOES 'pearl-clutching' signify if not an allusion to cowardice (with a dose of misogyny thrown in for good measure)? Please DO enlighten me!

[petronius]

53. 'Pearl-clutching' refers to indignant expressions of moral outrage, often

over trivial causes. The image is a shocked society lady clutching her pearl necklace in horror. It's not a compliment, necessarily, but it's not about cowardice...

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. You remind me of a quote from 'The Handmaids' Tale' : "They were dying from too much freedom".

The issues differ, but the mindset is the same...

[gejohnston]

21. is common and strictly regulated

the two are not always mutually exclusive. If the Dutch had Vermont's gun laws, I doubt there would be much of a change.

[hack89]

23. So safe and responsible gun ownership is possible?

thanks for seeing light.

Now we know it is not the guns, shall we fix the real problem?

[bellcrank]

27. We've been trying to explain that to you, that the presence and ownership of guns

is not the problem. If anything, that post makes the case FOR RKBA and 2nd Amendment rights.
:shrug:

[AzWorker]

57. Your thread title makes Sarah Brady cry....

Because you just destroyed their argument

Thanks for playing

Come again

[krispos42]

66. Well, it has a full social safety net...

...progressive prisons, and a great Gini index.






Offhand, I would guess that there's a really strong correlation between the equality of income distribution of a nation and homicide rates.




Of course, you would guess it's the states with concealed carry or something.