- Messages
- 116
- Reactions
- 30
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Ultumately You get a single shot if you prove you hunt. No more.
- Thread Starter Pauly
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,799
- Reactions
- 1,225
I've only watched the opening statement by Ms. Peters (anti-gun) and part of the opening statement by the NRA guy.
I have to say I am not impressed with the NRA guy so far. I am certain that his approach is going above the heads of the audience, as most are Brits and Europeans and have a completely different way of looking at the world.
He used way too many sentences that contained a lot of idealistic words but said absolutely nothing. He also mentioned her name and the organiazation that she represents way too many times, which made his opening statement seem too much like a personal attack on her instead of her ideology.
Nowhere in the part of the opening statement thst I've watched did he rebuttal her statistcs beyond saying that they were twisted and the audience should use their intuition. How about pointing out that even though gun deaths in England have declined that is just a partial crime statistic. What about deaths by knifes and other means.
I would have pointed out that those statistics are flawed. Not every death by a gun is bad. I would have painted a scenario. A family is at home when a couple of criminals break in. They tie up the father, then rape his 2 young daughters and his wife, beat up his 7 year old son who was trying to help the sisters. Then they take some stuff and leave. No one died.
Same family and same criminals, but this time as they enter one of the family members shoots them dead. Family is not harmed. The UN types prefer outcome number one. I prefer outcome number 2.
I have to say I am not impressed with the NRA guy so far. I am certain that his approach is going above the heads of the audience, as most are Brits and Europeans and have a completely different way of looking at the world.
He used way too many sentences that contained a lot of idealistic words but said absolutely nothing. He also mentioned her name and the organiazation that she represents way too many times, which made his opening statement seem too much like a personal attack on her instead of her ideology.
Nowhere in the part of the opening statement thst I've watched did he rebuttal her statistcs beyond saying that they were twisted and the audience should use their intuition. How about pointing out that even though gun deaths in England have declined that is just a partial crime statistic. What about deaths by knifes and other means.
I would have pointed out that those statistics are flawed. Not every death by a gun is bad. I would have painted a scenario. A family is at home when a couple of criminals break in. They tie up the father, then rape his 2 young daughters and his wife, beat up his 7 year old son who was trying to help the sisters. Then they take some stuff and leave. No one died.
Same family and same criminals, but this time as they enter one of the family members shoots them dead. Family is not harmed. The UN types prefer outcome number one. I prefer outcome number 2.
- Messages
- 116
- Reactions
- 30
- Thread Starter
- #3
That's not the point of the post.
The point of the post, is she spells out exactly what the UN small Arms Treaty is intended to mean for Americans.
All doubt or room for discussion about its intent is removed. She lays it out in black & white of one were to take the time to listen.
The point of the post, is she spells out exactly what the UN small Arms Treaty is intended to mean for Americans.
All doubt or room for discussion about its intent is removed. She lays it out in black & white of one were to take the time to listen.
Similar threads
