From what I can see, he's a helluva lot saner than you are.
From what I can see, he's a helluva lot saner than you are.
joedirt wrote:
Check your facts and post again. US firearm homicide rates are at historic lows and are half of what they were in the early 90s, in spite of the fact that gun ownership has remained fairly steady and has actually increased under Obama. While motor vehicle deaths are also at a low, they are still about three times that of firearm deaths.
I don't know where you are getting your stats from but Blumberg.com has an article with the title "American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015". There were over 53,000 motor vehical death in 1979 compared to over 33,000 in 2012 a HUGE reduction. In 2000 there was a low for fire arm deaths at 28,000 but that has increased to a high of 31,000 in 2010. I think the confusion is that while the MURDER rate by firearms as decreased the OVERALL rate has stayed the same because the suicide rate has increased. In other words while the chances of dying in a car has dramatically decreased the chance of dying by gunshot has stayed the same because suicide by firearm has increased. Firearm advocates might say that doesn't count but dead is dead,lol.
I have a problem with many aspects of Homeland Security be it Bush or Obama. I also believe that he was an economic idiot for spending and not taxing. I am a proponent of low taxes as I believe in a small government and that businesses, not government do the best job of growing an economy. But if you are going to go on a spending spree you need to tax. That is one of my biggest issues with Obama is that he has not adequately reigned in the deficit, he has just let it balloon to the point where we are at the mercy of other nations and cannot act when Russia and China take aggressive actions on their neighbors.
I thought we were talking about gun violence, not suicide. And just as I stated earlier, you should be focused on the root cause which is mental illness, not guns. Should Asia ban pesticides and fertilizer which are the preferred form of suicide in the world? Should Hong Kong ban windows? Should greenland ban ropes? No, because all of those items have legitimate purposes and do not address the root cause of the problem which is mental illness.
joedirt wrote:
I thought we were talking about gun violence, not suicide. And just as I stated earlier, you should be focused on the root cause which is mental illness, not guns. Should Asia ban pesticides and fertilizer which are the preferred form of suicide in the world? Should Hong Kong ban windows? Should greenland ban ropes? No, because all of those items have legitimate purposes and do not address the root cause of the problem which is mental illness.
Guns HAVE NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE other than killing!
Super Jay Five wrote:
joedirt wrote:I thought we were talking about gun violence, not suicide. And just as I stated earlier, you should be focused on the root cause which is mental illness, not guns. Should Asia ban pesticides and fertilizer which are the preferred form of suicide in the world? Should Hong Kong ban windows? Should greenland ban ropes? No, because all of those items have legitimate purposes and do not address the root cause of the problem which is mental illness.
Guns HAVE NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE other than killing!
And killing can make the difference between living and dying.
Or as a deterrant to crime / murder. Your city, bank, country, etc. are all kept safe by the threat of force by guns. Unless you are a vegetarian, never use cosmetics, don't wear leather or use any other animal based product something had to die, usually by gun shot. You just prefer to have someone else do the killing for you and do not appreciate the true cost of your food you eat and the items you use on a daily basis. The liberties you enjoy were obtained for you by guns shot by the people you like to criticize that often learned to shoot by hunting. Again, you just like to have someone else do the killing for you. Powder based tools are used all the time in construction of buildings. So yeah, maybe there are a couple legitimate reasons to own a gun.
post-it wrote:
Credit Where It Is Due wrote:It would be an insult to your own intelligence to take the time to refute that "logic." You are more intelligent than that.
Thank you for spotting the hyperbole. We needed dearly for you, or another brave poster (read: "champion of human rights"), to keep this a "sensible" discussion.
Given that his post was nothing more than hyperbole, would it be fair to say we both agree that he (and you by association) had no real argument against gun laws?
Credit Where It Is Due wrote:
post-it wrote:Thank you for spotting the hyperbole. We needed dearly for you, or another brave poster (read: "champion of human rights"), to keep this a "sensible" discussion.
Given that his post was nothing more than hyperbole, would it be fair to say we both agree that he (and you by association) had no real argument against gun laws?
No. It was a comment about the arbitrary basis for wanting to ban something without carefully considering the (quantitative) facts behind it. Cars kill many people. No one needs a Ferrari or to drive too quickly, yet people are allowed to own Ferraris and people can exceed posted speed limits. Ridiculous, right? The same "logic" is thrust into the gun debate. In California your pistol cannot have more than 7 rounds in its magazine. Your semi-automatic modern sporting rifle cannot have more than ten rounds. Yet laws have no impact whatsoever on Eliott Rodger's rampage, or anyone like him.
If cars could not exceed 20 mph they may still be used by a person bent on using one as a weapon. It doesn't matter what you legislate. If something exists, and it is relatively common, no law will prevent its ill-intended use.
The car example follows identical logic but is somehow "absurd" to imagine because idiots don't transpose the logic, applying to to what becomes an illustrative example.
It's all scared pvssies wanting to impose their tiny little minds and sensitivities onto the nation at large without actual basis.
Super Jay, you're an idiot. Read the FBI statistics. Bloomberg is to gun policy as Al Gore is to climate science. You'll find your slant wherever you look. I'd say the FBI is a neutral, non-interested source of information.
So the constitutional right of thousands to fire guns for sport or to kill others may be infringed on someday?
I am okay with that.
Yo Momma wrote:
So the constitutional right of thousands to fire guns for sport or to kill others may be infringed on someday?
I am okay with that.
You'd probably have supported Executive Order 9066 too; it's what's best for the majority that matters.
Lib'ruls. Short-sighted and self-righteous scum of the Earth.
lolll the conservatives of today would support such an order
post-it wrote:
Credit Where It Is Due wrote:Given that his post was nothing more than hyperbole, would it be fair to say we both agree that he (and you by association) had no real argument against gun laws?
No. It was a comment about the arbitrary basis for wanting to ban something without carefully considering the (quantitative) facts behind it. Cars kill many people. No one needs a Ferrari or to drive too quickly, yet people are allowed to own Ferraris and people can exceed posted speed limits. Ridiculous, right? The same "logic" is thrust into the gun debate. In California your pistol cannot have more than 7 rounds in its magazine. Your semi-automatic modern sporting rifle cannot have more than ten rounds. Yet laws have no impact whatsoever on Eliott Rodger's rampage, or anyone like him.
If cars could not exceed 20 mph they may still be used by a person bent on using one as a weapon. It doesn't matter what you legislate. If something exists, and it is relatively common, no law will prevent its ill-intended use.
The car example follows identical logic but is somehow "absurd" to imagine because idiots don't transpose the logic, applying to to what becomes an illustrative example.
It's all scared pvssies wanting to impose their tiny little minds and sensitivities onto the nation at large without actual basis.
Super Jay, you're an idiot. Read the FBI statistics. Bloomberg is to gun policy as Al Gore is to climate science. You'll find your slant wherever you look. I'd say the FBI is a neutral, non-interested source of information.
You come across as the type of person I would not want to own a firearm.
You want to qualify that or just concede that you've had to resort to personal insults and have just thrust your head into the sand?
FWIW, I'm legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in my state. Never had to use it. Almost certainly never will. Never had an issue.
post-it wrote:
You want to qualify that or just concede that you've had to resort to personal insults and have just thrust your head into the sand?
FWIW, I'm legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in my state. Never had to use it. Almost certainly never will. Never had an issue.
I would not have doubted for a second that you would be the type of person to imagine the need for carrying a concealed weapon.
I guess I am a good judge of character after all. Insecure men should not be allowed dangerous toys.
I don't know if you did a before and after measurement, but FBI statistics reveal that owning a concealed weapon hasn't actually made your penis any bigger.
Oh so clever. Who is compensating? Who is projecting? You don't speak like that when you're face to face with men. Let out your little frustrations anonymously, boy.
post-it wrote:
Oh so clever. Who is compensating? Who is projecting? You don't speak like that when you're face to face with men. Let out your little frustrations anonymously, boy.
You never know when a "man" could be carrying a concealed weapon. Well, unless they go around telling everyone about it. But, who would do that?
The dad is grief-stricken. Try losing a child. Don't leverage his grief for political purposes. We all know that the shooter acquired the guns legally and had small magazines. I think this scenario bears a striking resemblance to Virginia Tech, from a manifesto to misogyny.
California has the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet a higher gun murder rate than Texas.
Explain.
Credit Where It Is Due wrote:
post-it wrote:Oh so clever. Who is compensating? Who is projecting? You don't speak like that when you're face to face with men. Let out your little frustrations anonymously, boy.
You never know when a "man" could be carrying a concealed weapon. Well, unless they go around telling everyone about it. But, who would do that?
Looks like you know better than to go around provoking people in real life. The law works. It's keeping you in line; serving as a deterrent. Sad that the same law you disagree with is the very law that makes you act like a decent human being...