That would be a good idea! Statistics show that owning a gun greatly increases the chances of the owner's family being injured or killed.
Canadians and Western Europeans manage to avoid succumbing to tyranny without owning guns.
California shooting and usefulness of escorts
- Thread starter gan
- Start date
That would be a good idea! Statistics show that owning a gun greatly increases the chances of the owner's family being injured or killed.
Canadians and Western Europeans manage to avoid succumbing to tyranny without owning guns.
Hi all the topic is
California shooting and usefulness of escorts?
Certainly a very sad situation but it is always sad when it involves human death what ever the reason maybe!
Linking the usefulness of escorts to does type of events is certainly very strange, having been involve in the escort industry for years as many different roles Booker was one I would certainly not send one of my girls to a mentally derange maniac thinking that if he had sex with a 18 years old cutie he be would be cured !
Some escorts where killed by derange maniacs the most famous escort killer is Robert Pickton . It is estimated that he as killed over 100 prostitute/escort over a span of 30 years or so!
Did sex help that mentally derange individual control is crave in killing?
When I was booking a escort I did care about her safety so I filtered the clients she was meeting !
Sending a young debutante to a guy that ask you for" a dirty slut " I quote It would be foolish to believe that a person speaking like this would respect the lady your sending .
That being said we have to recognize that man made laws do have flaws .That democratic government must weigh many factors while promoting new laws can those type of situation be avoid in the future .Certainly hope so .
What is the right law?
I do not know !
Do we need to abolish all our civil liberties guarantied by our charter of rights ?
If this happens they might not be any escorting possible ?
Thank you for reading me
California shooting and usefulness of escorts?
Certainly a very sad situation but it is always sad when it involves human death what ever the reason maybe!
Linking the usefulness of escorts to does type of events is certainly very strange, having been involve in the escort industry for years as many different roles Booker was one I would certainly not send one of my girls to a mentally derange maniac thinking that if he had sex with a 18 years old cutie he be would be cured !
Some escorts where killed by derange maniacs the most famous escort killer is Robert Pickton . It is estimated that he as killed over 100 prostitute/escort over a span of 30 years or so!
Did sex help that mentally derange individual control is crave in killing?
When I was booking a escort I did care about her safety so I filtered the clients she was meeting !
Sending a young debutante to a guy that ask you for" a dirty slut " I quote It would be foolish to believe that a person speaking like this would respect the lady your sending .
That being said we have to recognize that man made laws do have flaws .That democratic government must weigh many factors while promoting new laws can those type of situation be avoid in the future .Certainly hope so .
What is the right law?
I do not know !
Do we need to abolish all our civil liberties guarantied by our charter of rights ?
If this happens they might not be any escorting possible ?
Thank you for reading me
Canadians and Western Europeans are not speaking German only because of the efforts of the US armed forces and its guns............
True, but irrelevant. The US didn't send in individuals with hand guns to bail us out. Nobody disputes the necessity of the army employing guns.
I understand why the NRA and their financiers, the gun manufacturers, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, perpetrate the lies that guns protect law abiding individuals from violence and tyranny. I don't see why anyone else does.
Oh boy,
As a historian, I can say with 100% certainty that as written your statement is false. Had you not used the word "only" one could make a pretty good argument with this view that would hold up fairly well, and still only on a narrow level. But as is there are so many absolutely critical elements that are not included in your statement it becomes quite false.
Just a few very broad critical reasons:
1. Failure to take over Britain when nearly all of their equipment had been lost at Dunkirk.
2. British technological and intelligence achievements.
3. German failure to maintain it's military and technical development advantage.
4. Gross German misuse and misdirection of critical resources on all levels.
5. Unnecessarily declaring war on the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
6. A 3-front war in Russia, Africa-Italy, France.
7. Continued German submission to a sick moronic fool like Hitler on incredibly bad strategies and policies.
8. German failure to develop an effective intelligence system, while also weeding out enemy intelligence infiltration.
GUNS and resources are tools. Without intelligent use and application they are just so much raw material.
Even if you had not used the word "only" it was really the American ability to mass produce weapons on an unheard of scale rather than the guns themselves.
You mean as in China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, Lebanon, Somalia...all places where American guns and/or troops were employed and often ample at the time.
By that logic why shouldn't everyone have grenades, flamethrowers, RPGs, napalm, bombs, ricin, nerve gas?
Correct! No one knows who is a real threat until they use a gun, yet anyone can get one...if one doesn't see the fatal flaw in that they are just deluded that the existence and availability of guns is not the problem or that having a gun is a deterrent to crime. A gun as a deterrent works only IF you know when you need one. The dead in this case didn't know the threat, so if they had had a gun they'd still be dead.
Wild Bill Hickok was an expert with a gun, gifted in fact, far beyond what anyone here will ever dream of being. Yet he was shot in the back of the head because he missed the approaching threat. And you guys think you can always do better...PFFFFSSSSST!
The home of a friend was broken into at night. While he slept he was surprised and shot five times. How did his gun help him???
THREAD QUESTION: Would sex with an escort have changed anything in this case? NO! Sex with an escort is such a temporary satisfaction. The video shows this guy was just too far gone for a simple paid sexual experience to change anything in his twisted thinking.
Merlot
As a historian, I can say with 100% certainty that as written your statement is false. Had you not used the word "only" one could make a pretty good argument with this view that would hold up fairly well, and still only on a narrow level. But as is there are so many absolutely critical elements that are not included in your statement it becomes quite false.
Just a few very broad critical reasons:
1. Failure to take over Britain when nearly all of their equipment had been lost at Dunkirk.
2. British technological and intelligence achievements.
3. German failure to maintain it's military and technical development advantage.
4. Gross German misuse and misdirection of critical resources on all levels.
5. Unnecessarily declaring war on the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
6. A 3-front war in Russia, Africa-Italy, France.
7. Continued German submission to a sick moronic fool like Hitler on incredibly bad strategies and policies.
8. German failure to develop an effective intelligence system, while also weeding out enemy intelligence infiltration.
GUNS and resources are tools. Without intelligent use and application they are just so much raw material.
Even if you had not used the word "only" it was really the American ability to mass produce weapons on an unheard of scale rather than the guns themselves.
You mean as in China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, Lebanon, Somalia...all places where American guns and/or troops were employed and often ample at the time.
By that logic why shouldn't everyone have grenades, flamethrowers, RPGs, napalm, bombs, ricin, nerve gas?
Correct! No one knows who is a real threat until they use a gun, yet anyone can get one...if one doesn't see the fatal flaw in that they are just deluded that the existence and availability of guns is not the problem or that having a gun is a deterrent to crime. A gun as a deterrent works only IF you know when you need one. The dead in this case didn't know the threat, so if they had had a gun they'd still be dead.
Wild Bill Hickok was an expert with a gun, gifted in fact, far beyond what anyone here will ever dream of being. Yet he was shot in the back of the head because he missed the approaching threat. And you guys think you can always do better...PFFFFSSSSST!
The home of a friend was broken into at night. While he slept he was surprised and shot five times. How did his gun help him???
THREAD QUESTION: Would sex with an escort have changed anything in this case? NO! Sex with an escort is such a temporary satisfaction. The video shows this guy was just too far gone for a simple paid sexual experience to change anything in his twisted thinking.
Merlot
Hi all
Excellent reasoning Merlot!
Your conclusion unfortunately reflects the reality!
Best regards
BookerL
Excellent reasoning Merlot!
Your conclusion unfortunately reflects the reality!
Best regards
BookerL
There is an assault rifle in every home in Switzerland.
who's statistics? Your left wing statistics? Read Freakonomics. Statistics also say that allowing your child to play in a home with a swimming pool is something like 100 times more dangerous then letting that child play in a home with a firearm. And I don't believe the author works for the NRA either.
Go live in Mexico where they have the strictest gun laws in the Americas. Gangs toting guns roam with impunity. Only the law abiding citizens can't have guns. When a drug gang takes out a town I'll bet those people wish they could have a gun.
I have a business associate who grew up in North Africa and now lives in Montreal. He said in North Africa you can bolt your doors shut and put bars on the windows and when the guy with the gun pounds on the door there is nothing you can do. And he said what are your neighbor's doing? They are on their knees praying. He wishes he could own an assault rifle.
In WWII, After Dunkirk, all they had in England were a few double barrel shotguns. We sent over rifles so they could defend themselves .
Governments do not confiscate guns to protect the populace they do this to enslave them.
According to the following, there were ten times as many deaths in the US from firearms as from swimming (including lakes and oceans, not just pools). You seem to be in error by a factor of 1 million.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
I am not going to reread Freakonomics to verify that your "right wing statistic" is cited there. In any case, it is irrelevant to the issue of whether having a firearm saves or risks lives.
Here is a link from a medical journal. I don't know how to determine the editors' political orientations.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_4
Here is another fact: The proportion of gun owners in Canada and the UK is far less than in the US. There is also far less violent crime in those two countries than the US and also far fewer gun accidents.
It is obvious that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to enforce its gun laws. Are you asserting that it is difficult for an otherwise law abiding citizen to obtain one there?
I doubt if Canadians and Britons feel enslaved. I suppose that I have been brainwashed by my government as I am don't see the world as does the NRA. (which, despite being funded by gun manufacturers, is indubitably unbiased).
If everything which could injure was outlawed, there would be virtually nothing left. Even paper can cut. The problem is that guns, unlike hands, have no other function.
Obviously, you have no respect for facts or logic. You think that the Leafs are a good team, but have been unlucky for ten years. You also asserted that your Joe T. was honest despite Joe himself having boasted that he was dishonest. Since them, I rejoice when you disagree with me.
Do you think with your gut like the most accomplished of all US presidents, George W Bush?
Obviously, you have no respect for facts or logic. You think that the Leafs are a good team, but have been unlucky for ten years. You also asserted that your Joe T. was honest despite Joe himself having boasted that he was dishonest. Since them, I rejoice when you disagree with me.
Do you think with your gut like the most accomplished of all US presidents, George W Bush?
http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/
Mexico has even stricter gun laws and yet they have more violent crime than the USA, Canada, and the UK. Only the law abiding citizens in Mexico cannot own a gun to protect themselves.
citizens cannot own one there!
Yes, and there are plenty of examples of gun confiscation followed by totalitarianism.
Superb point Anon. Iggy knows no principle...never has.
As written this is false. That's besides the fact that every male between the ages of 20-30 are part of the militia and required to keep their weapons at home because it's a small country that needs most men trained to fight, which makes using them as an example is quite disingenuous.
When was the last time you or any of your friends successfully defended yourselves from an intruder with your gun, or had any need to??? Since you should have mentioned that by now given the passion of this subject the answer is probably never.
Surely a lot of gun owners believe they need it for defense, but it's also true that for many it's hardly more than a cool toy they are addicted to that they never use. When I sold my 1852 Sharps I swear the guy treated it like he had just gotten a much bigger cock...pretty much stroked it like one.
To the point: when I was considering buying a gun I ask a long time collector what I should get to defend myself? I was thinking about a semi-auto hand gun. He said no, they are tricky to aim and fire. Assault rifle? NO. Most are too long and you may be in a situation where you can't swing around to get a fix on the target, especially at home. He said get a shotgun and cut it down, it's got firepower and good aim is not critical. I know a guy who said he had one shoved into his face. His reaction...Holy F'ing Shit!!!!!!!!!!
Merlot
Superb point Anon. Iggy knows no principle...never has.
As written this is false. That's besides the fact that every male between the ages of 20-30 are part of the militia and required to keep their weapons at home because it's a small country that needs most men trained to fight, which makes using them as an example quite disingenuous.
When was the last time you or any of your friends successfully defended yourselves from an intruder with your gun. Since you should have mentioned that by now given the passion of this subject the answer is probably never.
Surely a lot of gun owners believe they need it for defense, but it's also true that for many it's hardly more than a cool toy they are addicted to they never use. When I'm sold my 1852 Sharp's I swear the guy treated it like he had just gotten a much bigger cock...pretty much stroked it like one.
Merlot
Yep, Merlot, your correct. it is everyone that is in the Militia. I stand corrected.
I was going to say that I have not used a gun to defend myself but that is not true. I had a Grizzly trying to hone in on an animal I shot in Montana. I had my .300 Win mag at the ready. How does a guy go into Detroit without a handgun? Staying out would be wise but suppose you have to go there? How about the poor people that can't afford to move anywhere else? If they confiscate guns in Detroit the criminals are not going to turn in theirs. even if they did how are the old and infirm supposed to defend themselves against the gangs or criminals in the prime of their lives? The fact that a house may have a firearm in it or the guy walking down the street may be carrying concealed can keep you and Anon safe.
Shame on that guy for admiring an 1852 Sharps. I guess you do not believe in collecting either? I admire a classic firearm like a liberal admires a new law or any law that further restricts the rights of law abiding citizens.
I think this was edited from 100 thousand to 100.
In any case, it appears to be contradicted by:
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...factsheet.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_4
Also, the Freakonomics quote you cited only compares child deaths in pools with child deaths from guns. Obviously, tens of thousands of adults die from gun violence, far more than the number of children who die in swimming pools. Overall, the number of firearm deaths dwarfs that of drowning deaths.
In any case, as I mentioned before, it is irrelevant to the question of whether the presence of guns at home saves or risks lives.
Getting back to the subject of this thread......Elliott Rodger's parents have now issued a statement through the family rep to ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-santa-barbara-killer-distraught-speech-stuttered/story?id=23908059
http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-santa-barbara-killer-distraught-speech-stuttered/story?id=23908059
Saltydog,
Your statement, intentionally or unintentionally has nothing to do with what I said. I compared a shotgun to hand guns and automatic weapons on a couple of points. One, being able to maneuver quickly without hitting something as you move; two, the comparative necessity of being trained to fire accurately. I said aim is not as critical with a sawed-off shotgun and it works better on both points. No one said aiming is unnecessary, as your badly distorting quote does. My statement referred to the advice of a long experienced significant collector licensed to carry firearms, and does often.
Do you have such credentials?
All this stuff about comparisons to accidental pool drownings or whatever is nothing but irrelevant distraction. People slipping in bath tubs or anything else has nothing to do with what a gun is specifically designed for.
The fact is the killer either slipped through the system of mental health checks or wasn't considered at risk, and he was able to escape suspicion by direct police questioning during a visit to his home while he had a stash of guns. That shows two big problems. a) even mentally sick people can handle pressure situations to throw off suspicion. b) there was a clear failure to know just how well armed the guy was. Both indicate solid reasons why the availability of guns is very dangerous.
Gun advocates often blame the deadly incidents on mental instability and failure to detect risks while doing everything they can to promote total free access to weapons...a deadly combination of circumstances. That's besides the fact there were at least 80 gun deaths in the week prior to the tragedy. When you can't go to a high school graduation party or sit outside hospital without being shot it's insane. That's 80 we never heard of. Rodger was just one that got broadly publicized.
So PEOPLE are the problem NOT the GUNS? Solution: separate people from guns. :thumb:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/gun-violence-elliot-rodger_n_5400910.html
vraiment,
Merlot
Merlot, you ask if I have credentials. I do not concider myself a collector. I have guns that I use. Many guns. I have been licensed to carry for over thirty years. I get a lot of range time. Your source said " get a shotgun and cut it down, it's got firepower and good aim is not critical". Good aim is CRITICAL EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU USE A WEAPON. That is why I called bullshit on your anti gun rant. How can you say that aim is not a critical factor, and in the same breath call responsible gun owners irresponsible?
SD
The words were "not as critical" so the BS is in your intentional dishonesty about what I have said. An honest reader seeing "not as critical" would know the meaning does not deny at all that aim still important. Why the silly distortion attempt? If you read the line honestly instead of going for bogus talking points this would not be an issue. My collector source and I were taking about someone breaking into a home. Obviously it would be a very short range theoretical confrontation and his view was about how to better guarantee putting the other guy down effectively with the least effort. I'm not even sure I agree with him, but that was his view. If you don't understand why a shot gun has more impact then your experiences are in question.
I owned guns and have fired rifles, pistols, shotguns. To say this person is "anti-gun" is, again, quite dishonest. Pro-gun control is not anti-gun, except in the minds of those who irrationally fear losing them. I wish I had my own collection. I didn't like selling my vintage Sharps. But if you trust anyone with having a gun(s) then you have little regards for the lives of others.
This subject is over for me. Go deal with your fear of losing your guns.
Cheers,
Merlot
Similar threads
