9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2013, 10:16 AM
Re: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Thats a pretty cheap attempt at association. Why do you think Morgan ever had Alex Jones on his show?

The connection between racism and gun control is true in a lot of areas. N.C. "pistol purchase permit" is a Jim Crowe law still on the books from the days when the sheriff(ie Grand Wizard) didnt want certain people with firearms
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Oh, so it's cheap when I do it?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(17-01-2013 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Who said ban all guns?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Me, let's go! Where do I sign?

Let's ban all guns!

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(17-01-2013 10:38 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(17-01-2013 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Who said ban all guns?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Me, let's go! Where do I sign?

Let's ban all guns!
As can be said about most things, an out and out ban of all guns may not be necessary. I just think that guns are weapons designed to kill and should be treated as such. Cars are designed for transportation but some enthusiasts use them for different purposes. I understand that but that doesn't mean they should get special treatment from the law.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
17-01-2013, 11:50 AM
Re: RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(17-01-2013 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Oh, so it's cheap when I do it?

"They did it so I can do it too" is a terrible way to operate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 08:23 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
The title of this thread is exactly what you claim to be arguing as cheap.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 08:45 AM
Re: RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(18-01-2013 08:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The title of this thread is exactly what you claim to be arguing as cheap.

I didnt start this thread and have no want to ban guns(ie restrict magazine capacity) or beer. Keep back peddling !

People in the US have a constitutional and innate right to self defense and defense of country with arms that are commonly used for legitimate reasons. None of our rights should be limited to what a politician thinks we only "need" while they enjoy benefits of the very thing they are banning. "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBlackKnight's post
18-01-2013, 08:56 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Back-peddling? Look, I am not rescinding my comparisons for what is being argued here and by jackasses like Jones and Coulter, only pointing out that numerous attempts have been made to equate knife deaths to gun deaths and modern guns to muskets.

You don't get to pick who is on your side.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
But by all means, why did Piers Morgan have him on his show? I can only assume there is another conspiracy here to let lose upon the world?

I mean, all he did was let him spout off his babble on his show instead of how he normally spews it forth. And he used some of the same attempts at an argument that have been used here!

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2013 11:05 AM by Dark Light.)
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
I see I've missed a good bit of back and forth on this thread, buuuut, I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in anyhow.

I like having my guns.
I don't hunt (though I will, and have killed varmints and dangerous animals such as turtles, who devastate the fish population, and coyotes, who kill livestock, pets and potentially harm humans as well).
Whether I need my guns or not is irrelevant. (Though self-defense is a more than adequate reason for me)
I'm not a violent person.
If I don't harm people with my guns, excepting self-defense/defense of others I should be allowed to keep my guns.
It's that simple for the "should guns be banned?" question.

Should there be some limitations on what kinds of weapons I should be able to own? Yes, but this is where there is area for argument and debate (in my eyes.)
I don't want others to own a nuclear weapon, or a fully functioning tank/battleship.
I believe "high capacity" magazines...rifles holding 30 rounds or more...is perfectly fine. It only takes about one second (literally) to change a mag in a rifle. It really isn't going to help prevent madmen from being madmen, it's only going to inconvenience some people that like to target practice. Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, which is fine by me, they probably should be, especially belt-fed fully-automatic weapons. With that being said some fully-automatic weapons should probably not be so heavily regulated...those chambered for really tiny rounds like .22 and .17 (yes they do exist) are a fun toy for someone, but no madman is going to choose that to be their weapon of carnage, you'd do much more damage with a semi-automatic weapon of a larger caliber.

I still don't know what an "assault" rifle is. Anytime you shoot at someone with any weapon you're assaulting them. A black rifle with a collapsible stock is no more dangerous than the old M-1's or the rifle your uncle uses to go deer hunting. In some cases they are even arguably less dangerous depending on the caliber it's chambered for. The same goes for "sniper rifle" vs. "hunting rifle". The difference between these two rifles is what you are shooting at...an animal or a man. That's really the only difference. Therefore, it should be apparent to anyone who knows anything about firearms that there should be no ban on "assault rifles", whatever the hell that even means.

Terrible tragedies happen...they just do, I wish it weren't so but they happen. Taking away some guns may prevent some tragedies. It may also cause some tragedies. Whatever the case you cannot nerf the world. You could potentially prevent crime by criminalizing swords, bows, and any number of things, but it simply is not necessary, and we as a people do not have a good enough reason to prevent lawful, non-violent citizens from owning a firearm.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  How the NRA killed the debate. witerat 23 984 17-01-2013 06:04 PM
Last Post: TheBlackKnight
Forum Jump: