When did quiet become quite?

Post Reply New Topic

Why, you naughty thing!

A contraction is grammatically correct, though. It's an informal construction, but still grammatically correct, so you can't really compare its use to the use of incorrect grammar.

Around here, so many spell suit (as in what you wear) as S-U-I-T-E and pronounce it as "suit" when they are talking about a SUITE (an in the set of furniture).

Very annoying.

Well, if you want to be technical, ain't, which is actually hain't, was a regional pronunciation of haven't. So its use too is correct--right???

The origins of "ain't" sound rather complex, and I know too little about them to be able to comment.

Actually,ain't, along with it be, it do, it don't, aks for ask, etc., were not the linguistic creations of American blacks. This was considered standard English in the area between London and Wales--one of the last parts of England to practice feudalism. This was the area the orginal Cavalier culture of the slave plantations came from. So, "ebonics" is largely blacks mimicking the English of their slave masters, though there are some exceptions.

By the same token, terms such as fixin' for getting ready, or honey as a term of endearment, are Scots-Irish terms.

Naked weather women? Is this a common thing?

Criminals will get guns. And yes there will be deaths, however if the everyday person did not have guns then there would be considerably less. It is easier to pull a trigger than it is to create a bomb.

No worries; no offence taken ^_^

It's easier to create a bomb than it is to actually hit something with a gun, unless it's a shotgun. Creating a bomb is not hard at all. You clearly know nothing about weapons or else you would've stopped talking. The time it takes to create a bomb vs the time and money it takes to learn to shoot a weapon are huge in difference.

Have you ever wondered why people do drive by shootings and never hit anything? It's because criminals don't know how to shoot. They see it done in movies and assume you just point and shoot. This is why less LEOs are killed by guns and more criminals are killed. Even the LEOs I've talked to are only required to shoot once each year. Many of them shoot more because they enjoy it...getting off topic.

Your entire "there will be considerably less deaths" theory is foolish and unsupported by facts. Guns are safe to have around if the people who have them are responsible with them. You've just fallen into a propaganda from people who think that it's safer without them.

If you're a criminal what is the main reason you avoid police? Because they have a gun. The fact that you KNOW they have a gun deters you from doing crime. Let's imagine that everyone in the world carried a gun. Would you attack someone if you knew they had the ability to kill you with the pull of a trigger? Or even if they didn't the person around the corner could stop you? Now let's think about a world without guns. A man is walking down the street and sees a woman alone. He's bigger, stronger, and faster than her. He knows this and because of this he rapes and murders her. He knew she had no way of defending herself against his superior strength.

How does this not make sense to you? You don't NEED a gun to kill someone. I know of at least 32 different ways to kill someone attacking me WITH MY BARE HANDS. This doesn't include the ability to pick up ANY object laying around and fight the attacker off. However, if someone pulls a gun on me, and I have a gun of my own I know I'll come out on top. I've trained with my gun and know how to use it much better than your average criminal.

Maybe read this:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

or these

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... tates.html - Murder rates in USA

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html - Murder rates in the UK

In 2010 in the UK the murder rate per million people was 11.1 or 11.5. I can't really tell because they made this data look kind of stupid. Either way there were over 600 murders in the UK. The population of the UK is around 63 milliion as of 2011 (I couldn't find 2010 and it didn't seem like it was worth digging too deep) and around 307-310 million in the USA. There were just short of 13,000 murders in the USA. The percentage was much lower than that of the UK with around 4 kills per million people. And you're trying to tell me that guns cause a higher murder rate? Obviously having guns causes a higher murder rate WITH guns. But it lowers the murder rate overall...

The main reason for the murder rate increasing in the human population is because of overpopulation. If you cram millions of people into a few square miles obviously there are going to be some difficulties

Kudos for Sckuf. Where I live, it is legal to carry a weapon in your vehicle without any kind of permit. Ammunition is sold in convenience stores right next to the cigarettes. And our murder rate is so low as to be almost nonexistent. In fact, if the inner cities are excluded, the US has a murder rate lower than that of Belgium.

As Chairman Mao noted in his Little Red Book, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The reason the liberal elites want to disarm their own citizens is to ensure we have no political power. If the liberal elites were really concerned about murder, would they not crack down a lot harder on crime?

Same situation here with the handgun in the vehicle (recently moved from PA to GA). I've got a mossberg 500 on my christmas list so I can move my FNX .45 to my fiancee's car. I want her to be able to defend herself in our apartment as well as on the road. If I don't get a 500 for christmas I'm going to have to get one of those pretty 590s...I might get one even if I do get the 500 .

I live out in a very rural area, so I have a S&W .357 magnum with a six-inch barrel. It not only tolerates dirt better than an auto, but has a lot more range. Of course, the downside is it is all but unconcealable.

Yeah the FNX is pretty tough to hide as well. It's got a 15 round mag of .45 double stacked so it's not small. I'm thinking of getting a glock 26 or something for carry. Never really had an issue where the dirt risk was worth losing the extra rounds. Although the first handgun I shot was exactly as you described. It was my brother's first.

Yeah the FNX is pretty tough to hide as well. It's got a 15 round mag of .45 double stacked so it's not small. I'm thinking of getting a glock 26 or something for carry. Never really had an issue where the dirt risk was worth losing the extra rounds. Although the first handgun I shot was exactly as you described. It was my brother's first.

I agree. I sacrifice ammo capacity to have the revolver. I've just had too many automatics jam on me. It's one thing on a range; it would be another matter altogether if a self defense situation.

I carried the Colt .45 while in the Navy. I'm told it has awesome stopping power, but it has very poor range, even with the five inch barrel. There are tradeoffs no matter how you go.

Tl;dr, summary please.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/

Look at the above link and how America considerably has the highest gun amount per 100 people, and deaths per 100,000. These are the highest in the world.

Facts don't like

Tl;dr, summary please.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/

Look at the above link and how America considerably has the highest gun amount per 100 people, and deaths per 100,000. These are the highest in the world.

Facts don't like

Sir, you need to be a little more careful on where you get your information on weapons. The MSM has demonstrated time and again that not only are they ignorant of weapons, but harbor a strong bias against them. This is a bad combination for a media that is more concerned with instilling liberal attitudes than reporting the news.

You also didn't read what I said. IF the ghettos are excluded, THEN the US has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

It is also the case that South Africa and Guatemala have by far the highest homicide rates in the world, though I don't know if most of them are caused by guns.

How is blaming me for gun crimes committed by others different than "stereotyping"? The real reason you liberals are horrified at "stereotyping" is that you are so poor at doing it.

The information I provided is correct. If you do not want to believe facts, then you are in denial.

Of course I did not read what you said; this is the first time you have spoken to me. I was talking to another person and not reading what you were saying. You cannot exclude parts to suit your cause.

Are you sure you quoted the right person?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013 ... udy-finds/

This link has the facts.

Liberalism started out by asserting that the individual had certain rights against the state. Then liberalism asserted the individual was above God and society. Now liberalism is asserting that the individual is above reality itself; it's all about what the individual liberal wishes to believe rather than facts and truth, which have become things to scorn. I can't help you, sir.

Here are the homicide rates by country, and the US is nowhere near the top of the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 11 Oct 2013, 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.