Yetti what you think about this?

here we go, fresh perspective..



Answer the wedding question please

What were you saying about a debate with no insults?

again you left Yetti little choice.  YOUR answers are filled with jokes and ridicule, So yetti moved to your level.. Read the thread.

Yetti asked to keep it civil But you cant, or wont, Im not sure why.

Alright so i quickly went through this thread, and i can't find a single post where i insulted you.
I did however come across something strange, hypocrisy on the part of yetti on many occasions.

1. You said lets keep the debate without name calling, then proceed to call me retarded several times lol
2. You said you'd answer all questions however majority of them you didn't even acknowledge, never mind answer them

Any facts we present to you are not facts, yet anything you say shall be viewed as fact without any backup, research or statistics.

How can ANYONE have a debate with you yetti given the above?

Yetti, you've posted a simplified question to a complex debate. There have to be more points to consider. Is the armed wedding law abiding c+c carriers or just ppl that are armed with illegal guns? If legal c+c carriers, I'd go to either party. If illegal guns or non-restricted like the wild west, then yes, that would be the party where a shooting has a higher "chance" of happening.

The debate is not allowing anyone to just carry a gun, but to allow completely trained and scrutinized individuals other than politicians and security guards to carry. Not a lot of ppl are going to go through the process that are not committed to it. There would be checks and cost involved. Someone not intending to be safe, etc. will just get an illegal gun. Happening already. Yes, more guns "may" have a chance of more shootings, but right now the shootings are from illegal guns. That's my understanding right now, correct me if that's wrong and the shooting aren't from illegal guns.


***edit***
Come to think of it.  At Chinese weddings, cops are almost always hired to be present...lots of jewelery worn and given.  So if it's known there were c+c carriers at wedding A and none at wedding B....which one would get robbed? 

Rice- the entire debate is flawed, Becasue if Guns were as readily availabe as they were in the states, Most would have them, Correct ?

Since we are in canada, and we have pretty tough gun laws, the number of weapons is greatly decreased.

So again, Same wedding same people, 2 dimesions. One dimension has guns, One doesnt. what party is safer.

You are wrong though... and I linked to stats that prove it. Areas that allow carry permits are safer than when those same areas didn't allow carry permits.

Weeeelllll....the graphs also show a US decline, if I'm reading it correctly.  So that would indicate a general decline with or without the c+c.

However, you will never be rid of guns.

So lets say someone at this unarmed wedding party has recently drawn a picture of Muhammad fucking a goat, and some nutbag jihadist breaks in to gun him and his family down.

Now which wedding party would you rather be at?