9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.

[germanyt]

(05-01-2013 07:37 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 01:27 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I guess alcohol isn't on the 'agenda'.

Clearly not.. Instead of alcohol which results in deaths daily, why not swap it out with Marijuana?

The use of Marijuana has never resulted in a single death that I am aware of, perhaps drug dealers that killed people, but if it was legal we wouldn't have that problem.

I bet we would see a immense decrease in deaths due to guns if it was legalized.

Oh absolutely. You have to consider how many of those gun death numbers are related to drug crime. Specifically black on black youths who live in a hip hop culture that basically promotes drug dealing and gun toting. And since so many impoverished youths already have no regard for the law they obtain guns illegally and pull it out whenever someone call their momma fat.

[germanyt]

(05-01-2013 07:42 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:27 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Why are you so concerned with guns and not with knives, hammers, clubs, drunk drivers, etc? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are fixated specifically on firearms.

It's just a random selective stat.. since Rifles =/= all possible guns and Knives, Hammers, club s=/= all blunt instruments.

This thread is lacking in discussion on combating drunk driving.

But there are many who propose an 'assault rifle' ban. And the components of the law are pretty much based on aesthetics. And the parts that aren't associated with how the gun looks don't do anything to prevent shootings. Restricting magazine capacity does nothing but increase the demand for smaller magazines. Perhaps the goal is to stimulate the economy through the sale of additional magazines. I dunno.

And the reason there isn't a lot of drunk driving discussion is because drunk driving isn't the point. The point is the media and certain lawmakers' fixation on gun. A shooting happens and it's hands across America to ban guns/certain guns. 100 people die in 1 day as a result of 2nd hand smoke and not even a FB post against cigarettes was seen that day.

[ClydeLee]

(05-01-2013 07:58 PM)germanyt Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:42 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's just a random selective stat.. since Rifles =/= all possible guns and Knives, Hammers, club s=/= all blunt instruments.

This thread is lacking in discussion on combating drunk driving.

But there are many who propose an 'assault rifle' ban. And the components of the law are pretty much based on aesthetics. And the parts that aren't associated with how the gun looks don't do anything to prevent shootings. Restricting magazine capacity does nothing but increase the demand for smaller magazines. Perhaps the goal is to stimulate the economy through the sale of additional magazines. I dunno.

And the reason there isn't a lot of drunk driving discussion is because drunk driving isn't the point. The point is the media and certain lawmakers' fixation on gun. A shooting happens and it's hands across America to ban guns/certain guns. 100 people die in 1 day as a result of 2nd hand smoke and not even a FB post against cigarettes was seen that day.

The people who want the Assault Rifle ban just want it because it existed.. Which doesn't even ban assault rifles. It's just a simple measuring stick to put a sign on the bulletin boards as "progress" that they see as possible. It's an irrelevant point to solve anything which most media/political speakers I've heard on liberal stations speak of are aware of(don't listen to all but have too some); there isn't as nearly big of a functional media campaign against Guns as they is against drunk driving/smoking.

Apart from a rare add about the dangers of unsafe household gun control with a kid shooting his friend or self on accident, you don't see the message sought after people with deep passion. While they definately is a desire for it, it just doesn't exist in functionally yet.

The goal of the bills is to demonstrate that simply having the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can't limit what, how, and when you can get guns to stronger degrees. In the same way that the 1st amendment doesn't allow you to legally say anything and do as you please when situations apply; such as assault.

[Janus]

(05-01-2013 07:19 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 05:12 PM)Janus Wrote:  If by '1756' you really mean 1789 we're on the same page again as far as historic facts are concerned. Pitchforks, axes, knives, and clubs proved excellent and very adequate revolution starters.

Overrun a couple of army bases, raid their arsenals, and you can take over the country.

I'd love to see people try to fight against our military with such weaponry.

Those 'people' are your own 'people'. Do you realise that? And you would enjoy seeing them, your own people, slaughtered by military weaponry?
You're sick, buddy!

But the good news is your people may not have to fight against your military "with such weaponry". Any revolution worth its salt always included the rank and file of the army. They know about being fucked around. They always opened the army barracks' gates wide...

[TheBlackKnight]

(05-01-2013 07:19 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 05:12 PM)Janus Wrote:  If by '1756' you really mean 1789 we're on the same page again as far as historic facts are concerned. Pitchforks, axes, knives, and clubs proved excellent and very adequate revolution starters.

Overrun a couple of army bases, raid their arsenals, and you can take over the country.

I'd love to see people try to fight against our military with such weaponry.

Former Delta guy Paul Howe shows you why they wouldnt have to.

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2...paul-howe/

[Logica Humano]

(05-01-2013 10:28 PM)Janus Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:19 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I'd love to see people try to fight against our military with such weaponry.

Those 'people' are your own 'people'. Do you realise that? And you would enjoy seeing them, your own people, slaughtered by military weaponry?
You're sick, buddy!

But the good news is your people may not have to fight against your military "with such weaponry". Any revolution worth its salt always included the rank and file of the army. They know about being fucked around. They always opened the army barracks' gates wide...

If those people are rebelling against my nation, they would desire the same thing towards me and my father. I would, ultimately, take part in killing them.

And if anyone is taking on the military with the lowly tools you have described, it would not be much a fight.

[Janus]

(06-01-2013 04:45 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:28 PM)Janus Wrote:  Those 'people' are your own 'people'. Do you realise that? And you would enjoy seeing them, your own people, slaughtered by military weaponry?
You're sick, buddy!

But the good news is your people may not have to fight against your military "with such weaponry". Any revolution worth its salt always included the rank and file of the army. They know about being fucked around. They always opened the army barracks' gates wide...

If those people are rebelling against my nation, they would desire the same thing towards me and my father. I would, ultimately, take part in killing them.

And if anyone is taking on the military with the lowly tools you have described, it would not be much a fight.

So if your 'nation' fucks its people you would side with the 'nation'?
Yep, like I said: you're sick, buddy.
Adolf Hitler would love you.

[TheBeardedDude]

(05-01-2013 07:27 PM)germanyt Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 06:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And the connection with not changing gun laws is?...

Are you intentionally being thick?

Why are you so concerned with guns and not with knives, hammers, clubs, drunk drivers, etc? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are fixated specifically on firearms.

So you are being intentionally thick? You start a thread making a comparison between drunk driving deaths and gun deaths, while ignoring the fact that they are not comparable in their cause or prevention. And then you want people to focus on other things that kill people instead of guns. You have still ignored my question.

How about this, I am just as concerned by all instruments of death and potential instruments of death. My fixation with guns is because A)this thread is about that and B)knives, cars, food, and even alcohol serve other purposes besides to kill. Hell, none of those were designed with killing in mind, unlike the gun. I mean knives were an instrument of food preparation. Guns date back to the Chinese using them to...kill other Chinese.

[Janus]

(06-01-2013 12:59 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:19 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I'd love to see people try to fight against our military with such weaponry.

Former Delta guy Paul Howe shows you why they wouldnt have to.

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2...paul-howe/

Former Delta guy Paul Howe's frame of reference is evident an simplistic. He thinks, in your face, in terms of force only: "who's gonna come take my gun away from me!". Caveman mentality.

Well, Mr Howe and Black Knight, the point is that by due political process, a.k.a. democracy and justice, and after a couple dozen more of these massacres, the people, your people, in majority will eventually (but far too late in any case) want to give up their guns. And they will voluntarily come to the police station to hand them in. Then they will make it into (federal) law and the minority – the gun-crazy hold-outs – will eventually have to comply too. It's the law, after all. But nobody will be taking anything illegally!
Sure, there will be some terrible gun fights. Much worse than Al Capone's Chicago. But that's what you get with gun-crazy hold-outs that have been armed to the teeth by farcical legislation. You won't get this toothpaste back into the tube without making a terrible mess!

[TheBlackKnight]

(07-01-2013 05:33 PM)Janus Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 12:59 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Former Delta guy Paul Howe shows you why they wouldnt have to.

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2...paul-howe/

Former Delta guy Paul Howe's frame of reference is evident an simplistic. He thinks, in your face, in terms of force only: "who's gonna come take my gun away from me!". Caveman mentality.

Well, Mr Howe and Black Knight, the point is that by due political process, a.k.a. democracy and justice, and after a couple dozen more of these massacres, the people, your people, in majority will eventually (but far too late in any case) want to give up their guns. And they will voluntarily come to the police station to hand them in. Then they will make it into (federal) law and the minority – the gun-crazy hold-outs – will eventually have to comply too. It's the law, after all. But nobody will be taking anything illegally!
Sure, there will be some terrible gun fights. Much worse than Al Capone's Chicago. But that's what you get with gun-crazy hold-outs that have been armed to the teeth by farcical legislation. You won't get this toothpaste back into the tube without making a terrible mess!

Thats a cool story and all, but laws dont mean anything when the guys who enforce them don't show up for shift that day. The ones who do would quickly realize the deal and not want to commit suicide.