Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gun controlFollow

#177 Oct 28 2008 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
Kaelesh wrote:
Baron von tarv wrote:
Are you satified to let 1500 people die a year so that you can have a gun at home rather than keep it at a gun club?


Yea.

1500 is a drop in the bucket. How many people die from choking while ************* My point is the absurdity of throwing a number like 1500 people around. Woopie, a small town dies every year from mismanaging a firearm. It's nothing compared to other stupid sh*t.

BUT, I am for gun control. Strict gun control. I just don't see the big deal about the 1500.


The math behind deaths is really a bad argument for banning or controlling anything.


I mean, obesity (well the health issues it causes) kills more Americans than anything together, but you don't hear about special taxes, restrictions, and regulations being placed on fattening foods. Yet these things are placed on tobacco, alcohol, guns, and pornography when the combined death tolls don't even scratch the deaths unhealthy food causes.

There are good arguments for pro-gun control; death toll is not among them.



#178 Oct 28 2008 at 10:16 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
2.5 million people died in 2005 - 30,694 of which were firearm related.


Quote:

The point is that the number of people killed by guns is rather insignificant when looking at the big picture,



10% of that number were killed on 9/11.


The US was pissed off enough about that to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands more people in response.

Odd priorities you guys got there!

Carry on.....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#179 Oct 28 2008 at 10:29 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
The point is not specifically about automobiles, Tarv. The point is that the number of people killed by guns is rather insignificant when looking at the big picture, and there are far greater causes to fight for. I mean, go back and read 2 or 3 posts ago where I quoted percentages
Ok tell me how many of these are medical conditions and have every offort to prevent them taken by the medical profession:
Quote:
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
Diabetes: 75,119
Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
Septicemia: 34,136
Right all bar one, which is the subject we are talking about, what causes exactly are you talking about? Universal health care? well bugger me with a fishfolk sidewards I'm a supporter of that too.
#180REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 10:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yea, and I guess we should have never went to war with Japan either since it was such a low death toll in comparison right? Come on, don't be that idiotic.
#181 Oct 28 2008 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
AmorTonight wrote:
Yea, and I guess we should have never went to war with Japan either since it was such a low death toll in comparison right? Come on, don't be that idiotic.
Actually, it should never have taken you until then to get involved in the war.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#182 Oct 28 2008 at 10:38 AM Rating: Default
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
2.5 million people died in 2005 - 30,694 of which were firearm related.


Quote:

The point is that the number of people killed by guns is rather insignificant when looking at the big picture,



10% of that number were killed on 9/11.


The US was pissed off enough about that to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands more people in response.

Odd priorities you guys got there!

Carry on.....


Ok, stupid. If I go with your analogy, then we should ban planes. Right? Because it's not the terrorists and criminals misusing the guns or the planes that we should go after, but the guns and the planes themselves.

#183 Oct 28 2008 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Ok, stupid. If I go with your analogy, then we should ban planes. Right? Because it's not the terrorists and criminals misusing the guns or the planes that we should go after, but the guns and the planes themselves.

You can go after Google for buying a fighter jet, but if you're talking about passenger jets, again,w e fall back on to the intended purpose of the item by design.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#184 Oct 28 2008 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
2. Car have a purpose that is Necessary to the wealth and day to day activity of the country, without them the whole country would come to a grinding halt.


Just a point: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Private gun ownership was considered to be so necessary that they guaranteed it in the Bill of Rights of our nations founding document. Where exactly is the amendment protecting the right to own a car? Oh wait! It's not there...

Quote:
3. Cars are not designed to be a WEAPON


And yet, more people die from them than die from guns, which *are* designed to be a weapon. That doesn't exactly lend strength to your argument...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Oct 28 2008 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
3. Cars are not designed to be a WEAPON


And yet, more people die from them than die from guns, which *are* designed to be a weapon. That doesn't exactly lend strength to your argument...
You're just playing tit for tat right? Because it would take an idiot to not realize that the amount of time spent in a car by the number of people on a daily basis grossly outweighs the amount of time guns are held in people's hands.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#186 Oct 28 2008 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
3. Cars are not designed to be a WEAPON


And yet, more people die from them than die from guns, which *are* designed to be a weapon. That doesn't exactly lend strength to your argument...
You're just playing tit for tat right? Because it would take an idiot to not realize that the amount of time spent in a car by the number of people on a daily basis grossly outweighs the amount of time guns are held in people's hands.
Not to mention the fact that cars hadn't been invented yet...
#187 Oct 28 2008 at 11:08 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
In what fUcking centuary do you think you are living in d*ckhead.
#188 Oct 28 2008 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes, Guardian of the Glade wrote:
Not to mention the fact that cars hadn't been invented yet...
Gbaji lives in the 1700's.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#189 Oct 28 2008 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
AmorTonight wrote:
Quote:
10% of that number were killed on 9/11.


The US was pissed off enough about that to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands more people in response.

Odd priorities you guys got there!

Carry on.....


Yea, and I guess we should have never went to war with Japan either since it was such a low death toll in comparison right? Come on, don't be that idiotic.



Your analogy only works if it was Iraq that had actually attacked us, darlin'. Smiley: schooled
#190 Oct 28 2008 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Ok, stupid. If I go with your analogy, then we should ban planes. Right? Because it's not the terrorists and criminals misusing the guns or the planes that we should go after, but the guns and the planes themselves.


Its not meant to be an anology.

I was pointing out the irony (pointless it would seem to a person whose mind runs on rails) in the situation where you managed to get yourselves all wound up so tight that you managed to allow yourselves to get talked into illegally invading the wrong country to get revenge for 9/11 and the 3000 deaths that occurred, and yet you manage to be quite content with the 30 odd thousand deaths caused by yourselves upon yourselves, to the point that you will argue till you're blue in the face, that guns are a desirable part of US life.

Like I said earlier. Its not guns that kill people. Its Americans with guns that kill people.

Or to put it a bit simpler for the hard of thinking.....

There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that thinks nipples are bad and freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#191 Oct 28 2008 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that thinks nipples are bad
Word Smiley: nod

Sorry what was your other point?

#192 Oct 28 2008 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
I think everyone should have a look at this, if reinforces my point Life without gun control is bad.
#193 Oct 28 2008 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
Ok, stupid. If I go with your analogy, then we should ban planes. Right? Because it's not the terrorists and criminals misusing the guns or the planes that we should go after, but the guns and the planes themselves.


Its not meant to be an anology.

I was pointing out the irony (pointless it would seem to a person whose mind runs on rails) in the situation where you managed to get yourselves all wound up so tight that you managed to allow yourselves to get talked into illegally invading the wrong country to get revenge for 9/11 and the 3000 deaths that occurred, and yet you manage to be quite content with the 30 odd thousand deaths caused by yourselves upon yourselves, to the point that you will argue till you're blue in the face, that guns are a desirable part of US life.

Like I said earlier. Its not guns that kill people. Its Americans with guns that kill people.

Or to put it a bit simpler for the hard of thinking.....

There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that thinks nipples are bad and freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.



First, the war on Iraq had very little to do with 9/11. You and I and everyone else knows that. And generally speaking, educated Americans never really supported the war on Iraq. It was a stupid president with a one-tracked mind and his mindless colleagues who convinced a small minority of people that it was a just cause. You cannot pin that mistake on the general public and certainly not me, so it really bears little relevance to my stance on gun ownership.

Second, 57% of that 30,000 killed themselves. I don't give a rat's *** if someone wants to take their own life, and I'm certainly not going to give up my rights and my freedoms just to make it harder for them to do so. Less idiots in this world is, generally speaking, a solution to most of our problems anyway.

I do have a problem with people who misuse guns to harm others, but unlike you, I'm smart enough to realize that it's the people using the guns that cause the problem, and not the guns themselves. The fact that the number of deaths caused by handguns amounts to less than one tenth of a percent of all privately owned firearms in this country is a testament to the fact that people here generally know how to be safe and responsible with guns. A few bad seeds is not going to convince me to give up a freedom that I fully enjoy to appease the uneducated folk who think that making guns illegal will somehow solve the problem of those who illegally obtain them in the first place and use them to commit acts which are already prohibited by law.

Examples of why this line of thinking is a complete failure in intelligence can be found in:

Marijuana
Alcohol
Cocaine
PCP
Meth
LSD
etc...

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, especially in America, no matter how much you wish that might be the case.


Edited, Oct 28th 2008 3:06pm by BrownDuck
#194 Oct 28 2008 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Shut up and watch my link BD.
#195 Oct 28 2008 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
Shut up and watch my link BD.


ITT: Tarv gets kinky.
#196REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 12:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) My point was that numbers themselves cannot quantify our reaction. It is the intent of the action itself that we must act upon. I thought that was generally thought, but I guess I was wrong, either or you were being a smartass.
#197 Oct 28 2008 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
First, the war on Iraq had very little to do with 9/11. You and I and everyone else knows that. And generally speaking, educated Americans never really supported the war on Iraq. It was a stupid president with a one-tracked mind and his mindless colleagues who convinced a small minority of people that it was a just cause. You cannot pin that mistake on the general public and certainly not me, so it really bears little relevance to my stance on gun ownership.


That's not quite true. The propaganda worked amazing well. I remember polls in 2003 were saying that over 60% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. It certainly wasn't a minority.

I do agree with your argument that making something illegal doesn't make it go away if there's enough demand for it regardless of legality. But it's also worth noting that by making firearms illegal, simply carrying a weapon becomes an imprisonable offence. Which means that anyone caught carrying a gun can go to jail. It makes life for criminals that little bit harder, and it makes life for the average citizen that little bit safer.

I don't think this debate is a question of education or intelligence, but of sensitivity. Some people can't see past the fact that most guns have only one purpose which is to kill other human beings, while others can't see past the fact that ultimately it all depends upon the individual to pull the trigger.

Having said all that, I still can't quite believe it's legal to take your 8 year old kid to gunshow in the US. Someone shows a nipple on primetime TV and half the country is in shock, but taking 8 year olds to see Uzis and Assault rifles is just fine. There are some things in the US I'll never understand, I think...

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#198 Oct 28 2008 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
In what fUcking centuary do you think you are living in d*ckhead.


The wording of the amendment hasn't changed.

Next, we argue that "freedom of the Press" should no longer exist unless it's actually printed with a "press"...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Oct 28 2008 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
The wording hasn't changed because a crap ton of people still believe (for whatever reason) they they are going to over throw the government some day with pistols and small caliber rifles. It's delusional really.
#200REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 12:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You bet if anything radical happened within our country damn right we will. Many of our National Guard are gasp citizens and if against their principles would join the cause they felt just. That leaves only the military and I suspect if many did not feel that it was just would also desert.
#201 Oct 28 2008 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
baelnic wrote:
The wording hasn't changed because a crap ton of people still believe (for whatever reason) they they are going to over throw the government some day with pistols and small caliber rifles. It's delusional really.


No. We believe (as the founding fathers did), that if enough of the private citizens are armed, we wont ever have to...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 238 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)