rhaig 0
Recommended Posts
DaVinci 0
QuoteThe link I provided does exactly that. Throw in Loughner, Cho and the Santa Claus gunman for good measure.
Compare them against the MILLIONS of citizens that own guns (polling organizations come up with ~40 Million admitted gun owners in the US) and you are crying wolf about the dangers.
Hell, "U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms" -- Small Arms Survey, (2007), Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
Fact is that unless you are suicidal (58 percent of firearms fatalities are suicides) or a criminal, your chances of being killed by gunfire in any given calendar year are approximately 1 in 32,000.
So while each death is tragic, the sky is not falling and you are clearly crying wolf.
DaVinci 0
QuoteYes
One method of dead is worse than the other?
DaVinci 0
Quote"Registering" <> "grabbing" (or != for some)
Might want to check your facts here.
It did equal that in Germany, England, Australia.... Even in NY city and in California......
So you can't say it does not when it has in fact happened.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteNow that would situationaly dependant now wouldn't
No, it wouldn't.
If bats were more effective than guns, your army would be outfitted with them. Putting the two at the same level in terms of effectiveness at killing is just stupid.
The better a tool is at killing, the more rules, regulations and laws are involved.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteNow that would situationaly dependant now wouldn't
No, it wouldn't.
If bats were more effective than guns, your army would be outfitted with them. Putting the two at the same level in terms of effectiveness at killing is just stupid.
The better a tool is at killing, the more rules, regulations and laws are involved.
You didnt say anything about rules or regs
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteQuote>Plenty of politicians in this country would still love to take away our guns.
I think after all the "IF OBAMA IS ELECTED HE WILL GRAB YOUR GUNS!" speeches no one really buys that any more. The boy who cried wolf and all that.
There are plenty of politicians besides just Obama, and at all levels of government.
Just look at that new long gun registration that is now in effect in California. Canada is just now getting rid of theirs after wasting $44 million on it without solving a single crime. But in liberal California, they still think it's a great idea! Will you be registering YOUR long guns to comply with the new law?
"Registering" <> "grabbing" (or != for some)
Anyone who fails to register when it IS the law ceases to be a "law abiding gun owner", of course.
And what invariably comes after registration? Confiscation.
California has already done this also. After requiring registration of so-called "assault weapons", they then changed their minds about some of them being legal, and since the registration told them exactly who had them, those people now either had to turn in their newly-"illegal" guns, or become felons.
If the BATF required registration of everyone who purchased hobby rocket motors, would you be okay with that?
And if they subsequently made it illegal to own those rocket motors and you had to turn yours in and give up your hobby, would that be okay with you also?
And would you then conclude that the registration was harmless?
kallend 2,027
Quote
If the BATF required registration of everyone who purchased hobby rocket motors, would you be okay with that?
When hobby rocket motors are used in thousands of homicides each year, yes, I shall definitely be in favor of it. In fact, if they were involved in just 100 homicides a year I would.
Now try a different silly argument.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteIf the BATF required registration of everyone who purchased hobby rocket motors, would you be okay with that?
When hobby rocket motors are used in thousands of homicides each year, yes, I shall definitely be in favor of it. In fact, if they were involved in just 100 homicides a year I would.
How about if we register criminals instead of guns? They're the ones committing the homicides.
My guns haven't been used to shoot anyone, so why should I have to register them? Why spend our time registering innocent people and things, that have never done anything to harm anyone? Shall we treat everyone as if they are potential criminals, including yourself? Is that a good way to treat people in a free society? Knives are used in over 100 homicides per year, so does this mean that you are in favor of knife registration? Since at least one person had a plan to use rocket motors in a terrorist bomb, under your philosophy, why should other users of rocket motors be exempt from scrutiny?
QuoteNow try a different silly argument.
Please try and debate without the insults.
QuoteQuoteThe link I provided does exactly that. Throw in Loughner, Cho and the Santa Claus gunman for good measure.
Compare them against the MILLIONS of citizens that own guns (polling organizations come up with ~40 Million admitted gun owners in the US) and you are crying wolf about the dangers.
The government thinks that there are 80 million of us.Quote
Fact is that unless you are suicidal (58 percent of firearms fatalities are suicides) or a criminal, your chances of being killed by gunfire in any given calendar year are approximately 1 in 32,000.
Assuming that you have average chances for involvement in the illegal drug trade, youth gangs, and risk factors associated with being black where I suggest economic disparity is the causal factor.
To cite an infamous anti-gun "researcher," Kellerman's data in "Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide: A tale of two cities." shows that as a white guy in Seattle my chances of being murdered (6.2 per 100K in 1980-1986) are about the same as a white guy in Vancouver (6.4 per 100K).Quote
So while each death is tragic, the sky is not falling and you are clearly crying wolf.
Right. The numbers are insignificant.
My neighbors are much more likely to mow me down with their SUVs after drinking a few too many beers than they are to shoot me, and I'm much more likely to kill myself slowly with too much fast food and too little exercise than quickly with a bullet to the head.
Of course mundane causes of death like those don't make for exciting news coverage or push as many peoples' emotional buttons.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteNow that would situationaly dependant now wouldn't
No, it wouldn't.
If bats were more effective than guns, your army would be outfitted with them. Putting the two at the same level in terms of effectiveness at killing is just stupid.
The better a tool is at killing, the more rules, regulations and laws are involved.
Might want check with the Tutsis about how effective a non-firearm weapon can be, what with half a million of them being massacred in the course of 3 months with machetes.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
The better a tool is at killing, the more rules, regulations and laws are involved.
I agree completely that's how things should be. Unfortunately that's not how things currently work.
Firearms are involved in approximately 11,000 homicides each year and under 1000 fatal accidents.
Motor vehicles kill over 30,000 people each year in the United states with alchol involved in 1/3 of those.
Living in a country where that sort of thing is acceptable we need to treat guns like cars. People should be able to own any gun they want (bb gun to Howitzer) and be allowed to use it in public after taking a simple practical test (good for a life time) and written test (repeated every decade or so) leading to a license which is honored in all 50 states.
If that's not how we want to live cars need to be treated like guns. Federal licensing for high-powered cars capable of illegal speeds (75 is enough for any road in America) with chief law enforcement officer sign-off, a $200 federal tax on transfers, and notification prior to any road trips where these dangerous goods cross state lines would be a start. One serious moving violation should lead to a lifetime ban on driving.
Suicides are a problem with firearms involved in nearly 19,000 of them.
In 2005 the CDC revised their prior estimates from 400,000 deaths due to obesity in 2000 down to just 112,000. Heart disease claimed nearly 600,000 lives
If we care about what people are doing to themselves, stricter controls on fast food would be a much better place to start. Maybe we can require all of them to have narrow doors "You must be this thin to eat" and a timed run to the feeding trough where the slow and unfit aren't allowed.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteMight want check with the Tutsis about how effective a non-firearm weapon can be, what with half a million of them being massacred in the course of 3 months with machetes.
I said "more effective", not "not effective". You either can't read or your prolonged employment as a mercenary outside of the country is effecting your language skills.
QuoteQuoteMight want check with the Tutsis about how effective a non-firearm weapon can be, what with half a million of them being massacred in the course of 3 months with machetes.
I said "more effective", not "not effective". You either can't read or your prolonged employment as a mercenary outside of the country is effecting your language skills.
A weapon that was used to kill 3 million people is very effective IMO. One swing and you are dead. Unless you have a different definition of effective.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteI agree completely that's how things should be. Unfortunately that's not how things currently work.
Firearms are involved in approximately 11,000 homicides each year and under 1000 fatal accidents.
Motor vehicles kill over 30,000 people each year in the United states with alchol involved in 1/3 of those.
Comparing apples to oranges. Just because currently more people are being killed by motor vehicles compared to firearms does not mean the motor vehicle is a more effective killing tool.
Why is it that the pro-gun crowd cannot even admit that firearms are more effective killing tools than bats, knives, cars, ballpoints, paperclips etc.?
How your army is outfitted is a pretty decent indication of what is effective at killing and what is not. I doubt many of the soldiers would like to trade in their firearms for a bat and a prius.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteA weapon that was used to kill 3 million people is very effective IMO. One swing and you are dead. Unless you have a different definition of effective.
Sure, lets put total people killed by bat, total people killed by machette and total people killed by firearms in one table and see which one has the bigger number. Lets use the last decade.
Another progunner who isn't able to face facts.
rushmc 23
You are afraid of guns
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
I just sat through a weapons safety and training course.
There was one guy in there that , through his actions and statments, caused the instructor to call local LE.
They are going to pull his carry permit and have, for now, taken all the weapons he has (that they know of anyway) He was a bit scarry
So, "they" acted as plaintiff, prosecutor, judge and jury?
There must be more to the story.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Of course not... didn't he lose them in that tragic boating accident?
Rob
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites