Should adults have the right to carry a concealed weapon? (132)
Not here, we're banking on the fact that the WWC(White Working Class)is physically harder than most of the barbarian horde. Apart from the Slavs the toughest White men on the Earth are Northern English and Scottish men; British thugs are amongst the best around. Anyway, guns would be the equaliser that allow the lesser to beat the greater, that allow quantity to beat quality.
Obstinance_Works: Not here, we're banking on the fact that the WWC(White Working Class)is physically harder than most of the barbarian horde. Apart from the Slavs the toughest White men on the Earth are Northern English and Scottish men; British thugs are amongst the best around. Anyway, guns would be the equaliser that allow the lesser to beat the greater, that allow quantity to beat quality.
In the street battles to come the indigenous and naturalised will be outnumbered by the anti-British; We'd lose to the aliens if both sides were armed.
And actually if the bourgeoise Hipsters, Leftoids and Liberals had any foresight they'd be encouraging guns as this way they could ensure the extermination of that wrong kind of White people which subconsciously motivates everything they say and do. White suburbians of Britain will cry a river for Africa or some marginalised group which supports their posturing cred, but they wouldn't piss on one of their own if he was on fire.
lalasierra: Should adults, without a criminal record, have the right to carry a concealed weapon?
Why or why not?
Why or why not?
I voted Yes. There's a wild, wild world, out there.
Criminals minds, they have better fire arms
than authotrity. So, is up to us, to defend ourselves
families and property.
The Law, can't beeverywhere at the same time, or when we need them.
Surely carrying a gun is only a very small part of it.Having the common sense,discipline and vision to use it only if and when needed is where the problem arises.
rebel2: Surely carrying a gun is only a very small part of it.Having the common sense,discipline and vision to use it only if and when needed is where the problem arises.
who shot JR
Obstinance_Works: Not here, we're banking on the fact that the WWC(White Working Class)is physically harder than most of the barbarian horde. Apart from the Slavs the toughest White men on the Earth are Northern English and Scottish men; British thugs are amongst the best around.
I generally find even here when people say they're from 'Hard' areas, the only thing 'hard' about those areas is a general disregard for consequence of actions. So when someone tells me he's hard, or from hardville, him and his fellow misfits just don't care if the coppers come 'round and he ends up in a remand prison the week after.
I also find a lot of these so called hard areas are populated by men that were chronically malnourished as children.... fed on their mothers cigarette smoke, Linden Village Cider, and Friday dinner from the chipper. It gave them brittle Collar bones I learned.
rebel2: Surely carrying a gun is only a very small part of it.Having the common sense,discipline and vision to use it only if and when needed is where the problem arises.
How true. My country has one of the highest, if not the highest crime rate in the world. Approximately 90 people die violently everyday. And, yes, we have the right to carry guns. This is not the means to defence that most think it is. You forget, you not only have to carry a gun, but also be prepared to use it, correctly and wisely. The stories of people killing family members thinking they were intruders are common here. Besides, criminals are now armed to the teeth in order to defend themselves against their victims' guns. Violence begets violence.
LadyDiz: How true. My country has one of the highest, if not the highest crime rate in the world. Approximately 90 people die violently everyday. And, yes, we have the right to carry guns. This is not the means to defence that most think it is. You forget, you not only have to carry a gun, but also be prepared to use it, correctly and wisely. The stories of people killing family members thinking they were intruders are common here. Besides, criminals are now armed to the teeth in order to defend themselves against their victims' guns. Violence begets violence.
I understand your country can be a bit violent!Its a shame,because what i have seen,it is a beautiful country.As far a guns,knifes,machettes or any other weapon is concerned,allowing them to carried is easy to legislate for,but the mental state of each individual cannot be.
online today!....I always carry a sawn off shotgun....just in case I get attacked by vampires......
truheart1941: ....I always carry a sawn off shotgun....just in case I get attacked by vampires......
Garlic is more effective I believe......but being English you're probably as vulnerable to it as the vampires..
online today!LadyDiz: Garlic is more effective I believe......but being English you're probably as vulnerable to it as the vampires..
hi D.... ..no actually I hate the stuff.my mate loves it....phew....his breath could knock your eyebrows off
justjim63: Good point Jac, of course all of these deaths whether combat related or civilian are a tradgedy, I meant no disrespect to anyone. By quoting the numbers of combat deaths in Afghanistan, I was trying to use that as a comparison to the firearms related deaths in America for 2013, The point I was trying to get across was that if in a war environment where the likelyhood of deaths by firearms, ied's etc would in theory be much greater than in a nation that isn't at war within the confines of it's own borders. How then would allowing more people to carry more firearms make sense when the victims of gun related crime far out weigh the loss of those being lost on operations against an enemy combatant. And I know that it's a ratio of how many deaths per head of population and so forth, but over 7000 deaths at home? Soldiers understand the nature of their duty and realise the dangers and consequences of military service, that doesn't make their loss any less significant, but in a developed nation like the United States one would hope that the statistics could be a lot better.As for the people killed by U.S combatants, yes that is terrible thing, terrible if they are non-combatants, ie civilians caught up in the war and not those that like to pass themselves off as being non-combatants, but sadly the insurgents in Afghanistan have no qualms about siting weapons or ambushes in civilian areas as they know full well that ISAF rules of engagement are designed to afford maximum protection to the civilian population, hence ISAF forces are hamstrung when they are engaged from such areas, The insurgents don't care who gets harmed as a result of their activity, civilian or military.
Okay, I don't know that I've got this right, but let's do some rough maths.
The number of US citizens killed so far in 2013 with firearms is 7133. Divide that by the total population of the US of 316, 600, 575 at the time of typing this and you get a figure (rounded up) of 0.0023% of the population.
The number of US troops killed in Afghanistan (assuming that's where your figure came from) is 95. There are just under 100,000 troops from all 50 NATO nations currently in Afghanistan which works out at 0.095% of the total troop population. Taking out the other 49 nations, obviously that percentage will be higher.
So, a greater percentage of US troops were killed in Afganistan than US citizens in the US, but somehow this shows, despite the insurgents using dirty tactics, the insurgents are more responsible and less crazed concealed weapon users than the US citizens according to you?
Its safer for a US passport holder to be in a combat zone than it is to be in their own homes because 7133 is a much bigger number than 95, according to you?
I'm not sure that's a very good argument for suggesting Americans don't think straight.
rohaan: Uncool. You can respectfully disagree with someone without name calling and insults.
You tell him, Ro.
Its okay to be obnoxious and insulting as long as you don't use naughty words.
But, hey, Ocee's an American, so I don't suppose he's capable of thinking straight.
rohaan: Uncool. You can respectfully disagree with someone without name calling and insults.
You can, there's no doubt, but sometimes...there's just no better way to emphasise your point than being blatantly rude.
I'm all for it, even done it myself.
kidatheart: You can, there's no doubt, but sometimes...there's just no better way to emphasise your point than being blatantly rude.
I'm all for it, even done it myself.
You could use words like "bounder", "cad", "rascal" instead I'm all for it, even done it myself.
online today!rebel2: You could use words like "bounder", "cad", "rascal" instead
....morning Reb...rebel2: You could use words like "bounder", "cad", "rascal" instead
You wascally wabbit, you.
jac379: You wascally wabbit, you.
good morning to you fair maiden!
online today!rebel2: You missed out "git"
..sorry.... ....I,m fine Reb.....really .any luck so far....?????(woman).....?????truheart1941: ..sorry.... ....I,m fine Reb.....really .any luck so far....?????(woman).....?????
No, i am still looking for that very desperate,short sighted,easily fooled woman. 
online today!rebel2: No, i am still looking for that very desperate,short sighted,easily fooled woman.
....yer and the pope is jewish........ rebel2: good morning to you fair maiden!
I'm geting fairer by the day, but only because you lot of webelious wepwobates are turning my hair white.
Good morning.
truheart1941: ....yer and the pope is jewish........
Oh good.
I won't get ex-communicated then.
online today!bodleing: And some sweet music to wake up to...
....Morning B......great song....whats it called again...???????..might buy it....... online today!jac379: Proper growling, they are.
Best have a bath and quieten them down again.
only dirty people wash..........Best have a bath and quieten them down again.
truheart1941: ....Morning B......great song....whats it called again...???????..might buy it.......
Morning T, I doubt you could buy that version...remix and all.
truheart1941: only dirty people wash..........
I wash a lot.........
More Threads
rarotonga
Salami, Salami, Baloney
1830's Music
Nature
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
everything is changing
Reality Check
How far is too far?
Icebergs Still Around
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
I'm not sure what maths I should be doing here.
How many of the combat deaths were a result of firearms? Or, if you're going to compare all deaths in combat caused by US weapons, why specifically compare that with civilian firearms and not all civilian weapons?
What is the ratio of "weapon, or firearm carrrying US civilians" to the "weapon, or firearm carrying US 'enemy'"? Or perhaps the number of people who have died at the hands of US combatants and the ratio of US weapon carriers to US combatants?
I'm really not sure what you were trying to say here because you don't seem to be cpmparing like with like in any shape, or form. Would that imply that the 95 US combat deaths were in good taste? I wonder what those 95 families would think.
How about the number of people killed by US combatants and what their families think about how tasteful that is?
Good point Jac, of course all of these deaths whether combat related or civilian are a tradgedy, I meant no disrespect to anyone. By quoting the numbers of combat deaths in Afghanistan, I was trying to use that as a comparison to the firearms related deaths in America for 2013, The point I was trying to get across was that if in a war environment where the likelyhood of deaths by firearms, ied's etc would in theory be much greater than in a nation that isn't at war within the confines of it's own borders. How then would allowing more people to carry more firearms make sense when the victims of gun related crime far out weigh the loss of those being lost on operations against an enemy combatant. And I know that it's a ratio of how many deaths per head of population and so forth, but over 7000 deaths at home? Soldiers understand the nature of their duty and realise the dangers and consequences of military service, that doesn't make their loss any less significant, but in a developed nation like the United States one would hope that the statistics could be a lot better.As for the people killed by U.S combatants, yes that is terrible thing, terrible if they are non-combatants, ie civilians caught up in the war and not those that like to pass themselves off as being non-combatants, but sadly the insurgents in Afghanistan have no qualms about siting weapons or ambushes in civilian areas as they know full well that ISAF rules of engagement are designed to afford maximum protection to the civilian population, hence ISAF forces are hamstrung when they are engaged from such areas, The insurgents don't care who gets harmed as a result of their activity, civilian or military.