The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > USA gun massacre - we don't need guns.

USA gun massacre - we don't need guns.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. 20
  13. ...
  14. 34
  15. 35
  16. 36
  17. All
*You conveniently skate past the simple, incontestable fact that Switzerland has more guns and assault rifles in private homes than any country on Earth.*

I thought I explained it quite well, Cornflower, but perhaps you
don't quite realise what indoctrination by the Swiss Army, on how
to think of and treat that gun, actually entails. It is purely
a way for soldiers to fight their way back to their platoon, should
war break out. There are no tolerances. Anything else means
instant jail. There is no gun culture in Switzerland.

America is the land of loony tunes and Hollywood. Every second
dude wants to emulate Arnold Schwarzenegger. They watch this stuff
every day on TV. They also claim that owing weapons is their
right under the constitution.

Fact is, when people start to carry gunes, to protect themselves
from other people who might be carrying guns, all hell breaks loose.

Given that Australian youth copies alot of American culture, we watch
their tv shows etc, I would suggest that if guns were available
everywhere here, as there, we too would have a massive problem,
as our society takes on more of their habits.

You cannot compare other weapons with guns. They are not as
clinical or easy to use, your victim might respond too.

Clobbering somebody to death with a baseball bat, takes a bit of
doing. With guns it takes just a click, from a distance. Quite
different
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 14 January 2011 4:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/03/11/gun-deaths-measured-daily/

See above the % for Switzerland compared to the USA.

http://blogalwarning.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/30000-gun-deaths-per-year/

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

"Compared to other industrialized countries, violence and firearm death rates in the United States are disproportionately high. Of the approximately 50 upper- and middle-income countries with
available data, an estimated 115,000 firearm deaths occur annually and the U.S. contributes about 30,000.11 Among industrialized nations, the U.S. firearm-related death rate is more than
twice that of the next highest country (See Figure 4). The firearm death rate for this period in the U.S. (14.24 per 100,000) is eight times the average rate of its economic counterparts (1.76).12
Global non-conflict related firearm deaths are estimated to be 196,000 to 229,000 in 2000.13 Public data are not available for 122 countries, representing more than three billion (54%) of the
world’s population, predominately in lower and lower middle-income countries. Estimates of firearm death for the countries without data range from 33,200 to 66,200."

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.abstract
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 14 January 2011 5:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, "What part about "checks for" her prostate gland don't you understand?"

But there you go again!

What part of 'her prostate gland' don't you understand?

I can see that it's hard for you to grasp, but women DO NOT have them, simple as that.

So, why would your mythical drone (perhaps it's actually your doppelganger?) be 'checking' for one, unless, since you are his Creator, YOU actually believe that women do have them?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 14 January 2011 5:33:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok I see I have to spell it out for you.

I'll try to write s l o w l y _ f o r _ y o u.
He's "checks for" her prostate gland """ t o _ s e e _ i f _ s h e ' s _ g o t _ o n e. """ Do you get it now?

In any case, it can be argued whether a woman has a prostate gland or better known as the Skene's gland. Both male and female have them at the embryonic stage, they then develop differently.

Happy now, can we move on, or do you wish to continue derailing the original conversation by arguing human anatomy?
Posted by RawMustard, Friday, 14 January 2011 5:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, now you seem to understand there is no prostate in women, yes, we should move on.

You need to structure your sentences to reflect what is going on in your head.

I am glad that you understand, it will make your life a lot simpler.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 14 January 2011 5:58:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol!
RawMustard you didn't make that clear in your original comment at all!

So you were suggesting a guy puts his finger in the anus of the woman to find out if she is really a male, by checking for a possible
prostate gland?

Charming.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 14 January 2011 7:16:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. 20
  13. ...
  14. 34
  15. 35
  16. 36
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy