|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:29:25 GMT -6
It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that? unbelievable you can't possibly believe guns and cars are different, other than cars kill more people. cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you This is insane! You are actually going to equate cars with guns. How many people have been sent to death row for the use a car as a murder weapon? Now tell me how many people have been sent to death row because of guns? Your point is lunacy as your comparing traffic violations and accidents with cold blooded murder
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:37:19 GMT -6
Tell that one to a community after we read about another shooting. Uh Constitutional rights have pitfalls...all because somebody mixed a vendetta with an assault rifle. since you didn't answer my previous question on this, let's try again. how would you tell the families of the Virginia Tech shooting vicitms that although we can't protect you, we can't allow you to protect yourselves either. ? I would tell them that first we need stronger reforms and restrictions on gun control. We need to figure how the criminals are getting access to the guns without kicking out the NCIS. That is the place we need to start. Apparently, that is where the breakdown is occuring. Secondly, I would tell them that an armed campus would be very counterproductive to education. Thus, there is no place on a campus for armed weapons. I would then use metal detectors and campus police to ensure the campus is gun free. Now, its your turn. How would you explain and what would your solutions be?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:44:42 GMT -6
cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you Doctors are worse. ;D Doctors: - The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. - Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.) - Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.) Guns: - The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. - The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. - The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188. (Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.) Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.How in the blue hell are deaths caused by doctors even remotely related to DC vs Heller, or the issue of guns in general? If you want to discuss doctors causing death, start a separate thread. Otherwise, don't give such retarded stats in a post about guns.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 22:05:33 GMT -6
Who had an Uzi? Fully automatic weapons are quite rare in the U.S., and a special tax stamp is needed to own them. And yet again, we're not talking about need. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? We absolutely are talking about need. People feel threatened, so they feel the need to buy a gun. Further people need the gun with the most stopping power. Need is very relevent Using myself as an example, I own more than a dozen firearms. I've never felt the need to own a firearm-I just enjoy the shooting sports. Some have more "stopping power" than others, but so what? My home defense weapon is a 12-gauge pump shotgun, not a particularly powerful weapon, but deadly at close range. I remain unconvinced by any argument you'd made so far. Do keep trying, though, it's entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 22:29:38 GMT -6
Who had an Uzi? Fully automatic weapons are quite rare in the U.S., and a special tax stamp is needed to own them. And yet again, we're not talking about need. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? We absolutely are talking about need. People feel threatened, so they feel the need to buy a gun. Further people need the gun with the most stopping power. Need is very relevent Using myself as an example, I own more than a dozen firearms. I've never felt the need to own a firearm-I just enjoy the shooting sports. Some have more "stopping power" than others, but so what? My home defense weapon is a 12-gauge pump shotgun, not a particularly powerful weapon, but deadly at close range. I remain unconvinced by any argument you'd made so far. Do keep trying, though, it's entertaining. If I am following your point correctly, you said you do not NEED a firearm. So, if it is not a need, than would you call it a want? Like I said, I am ok with people needing guns or wanting them as long as they are for 1 hunting or self defence. You are contending that it is ok to have a gun simply because you want one. If a person isnt going to use the gun for hunting or defense, I can't see the logic in owning it
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 23:10:13 GMT -6
Doctors are worse. ;D Doctors: - The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. - Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.) - Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.) Guns: - The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. - The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. - The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188. (Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.) Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.How in the blue hell are deaths caused by doctors even remotely related to DC vs Heller, or the issue of guns in general? I was just pointing out some of the hazards of everyday life (like a doctor's office visit) as opposed to your hysterical shrieking about firearms. Did I strike a nerve? ;D Yeah? Sez who? "Retarded?" How so? Care to refute them?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 23:15:10 GMT -6
If I am following your point correctly, you said you do not NEED a firearm. Perhaps you're smarter than your posts so far seem to indicate. You are correct. Sure. That's mighty white of you. Question: Who died and made you king? How do you feel about target shooting, or gun collecting? I'm also a hunter and use some of my firearms for self-defense. Also, how do you feel about just shutting your mouth about my lawful hobbies and interests?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 12, 2008 14:39:30 GMT -6
How in the blue hell are deaths caused by doctors even remotely related to DC vs Heller, or the issue of guns in general? I was just pointing out some of the hazards of everyday life (like a doctor's office visit) as opposed to your hysterical shrieking about firearms. Did I strike a nerve? ;D Yeah? Sez who? "Retarded?" How so? Care to refute them? Like I said, it is a logical fallacy to be discussing one topic and give stats on a completely different topic. I do not need to refute them because they are completely irrelevant to the discussion on guns. Why waste the time?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 12, 2008 14:53:05 GMT -6
How do you feel about target shooting, or gun collecting? I'm also a hunter and use some of my firearms for self-defense. Also, how do you feel about just shutting your mouth about my lawful hobbies and interests? I am okay with both. However, it is my point that since guns sales are regulated by the ATF, there has to be some breakdown in the regulations and restrictions because guns are still falling into the hands of criminals. How are people who use guns unlawfully getting them? Couple of possibilites: A) Criminals stole them from people who use them lawfully B) Somebody else brought the guns for the criminals C) A person who uses them lawfully gets fed up with life, work, etc. and goes on a shooting sphree D) Criminals are able to walk into a store and buy a gun with maybe a stolen creds or cash to a struggling owner. Who knows? I would suggest to you that if any of the possibilities are true, then we need tighter restrictions and regulations to keep the gun use lawful.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 12, 2008 19:27:22 GMT -6
I was just pointing out some of the hazards of everyday life (like a doctor's office visit) as opposed to your hysterical shrieking about firearms. Did I strike a nerve? ;D Yeah? Sez who? "Retarded?" How so? Care to refute them? Like I said, it is a logical fallacy to be discussing one topic and give stats on a completely different topic. I do not need to refute them because they are completely irrelevant to the discussion on guns. Why waste the time? No, it's entirely relevant. LTDC and I pointed out two much riskier scenarios that you engage in in your everyday life that are much more of a danger to you than firearms. I'm sorry your powers of reasoning are so limited.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 12, 2008 19:34:05 GMT -6
I am okay with both. However, it is my point that since guns sales are regulated by the ATF, there has to be some breakdown in the regulations and restrictions because guns are still falling into the hands of criminals. How are people who use guns unlawfully getting them? Couple of possibilites: A) Criminals stole them from people who use them lawfully B) Somebody else brought the guns for the criminals C) A person who uses them lawfully gets fed up with life, work, etc. and goes on a shooting sphree D) Criminals are able to walk into a store and buy a gun with maybe a stolen creds or cash to a struggling owner. Who knows? A. Criminals don't obey the law. That's why we call them "criminals." B. A straw purchase is in fact a criminal act, a felony. See "A." C. We don't place restrictions on legal acquisition of firearms before people display criminal behavior. This is called "prior restraint" in our Constitution. It's really impossible to know anyway, isn't it? D. Undemonstrated and unsupported by any facts. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. How could that be?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 12, 2008 22:01:32 GMT -6
[quote
No, it's entirely relevant. LTDC and I pointed out two much riskier scenarios that you engage in in your everyday life that are much more of a danger to you than firearms.
I'm sorry your powers of reasoning are so limited. [/quote]
That point is too stupid to even pursue -even for your standards. Once again, the topic is about guns- not about doctors, earthquakes, or any of the other million things that causes death. Can you instruct your tiny mind to stick to the topic at hand?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 12, 2008 22:06:49 GMT -6
I am okay with both. However, it is my point that since guns sales are regulated by the ATF, there has to be some breakdown in the regulations and restrictions because guns are still falling into the hands of criminals. How are people who use guns unlawfully getting them? Couple of possibilites: A) Criminals stole them from people who use them lawfully B) Somebody else brought the guns for the criminals C) A person who uses them lawfully gets fed up with life, work, etc. and goes on a shooting sphree D) Criminals are able to walk into a store and buy a gun with maybe a stolen creds or cash to a struggling owner. Who knows? A. Criminals don't obey the law. That's why we call them "criminals." B. A straw purchase is in fact a criminal act, a felony. See "A." C. We don't place restrictions on legal acquisition of firearms before people display criminal behavior. This is called "prior restraint" in our Constitution. It's really impossible to know anyway, isn't it? D. Undemonstrated and unsupported by any facts. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. How could that be? Since you can not comprehend multiple points at once, lets start with Point A, which is criminals stealing the guns. Your answer is that " criminals don't obey the law, that is why they are called criminals" Well, duh!! However, you didn't answer the question, so lets try again: My guestion is how do you suppose we stop criminals from stealing guns?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 13, 2008 8:06:51 GMT -6
My guestion is how do you suppose we stop criminals from stealing guns? We can't, any more than we can stop any other kind of theft. Thieves will be thieves.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 13, 2008 8:13:50 GMT -6
[quote No, it's entirely relevant. LTDC and I pointed out two much riskier scenarios that you engage in in your everyday life that are much more of a danger to you than firearms. I'm sorry your powers of reasoning are so limited. That point is too stupid to even pursue -even for your standards. Once again, the topic is about guns- not about doctors, earthquakes, or any of the other million things that causes death. Can you instruct your tiny mind to stick to the topic at hand?[/quote] I understand that you're not willing to embrace the fact that life is dangerous, period, and some inventions we use are more dangerous than others. I'm pointing out that despite your prattling about guns, at least several things you use every day are much more of a danger to you than guns. I know it blunts your arguments, but then, that's why I raise the issue. Tell me, do you have a swimming pool? ;D
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 13, 2008 19:22:02 GMT -6
That point is too stupid to even pursue -even for your standards. Once again, the topic is about guns- not about doctors, earthquakes, or any of the other million things that causes death. Can you instruct your tiny mind to stick to the topic at hand? I understand that you're not willing to embrace the fact that life is dangerous, period, and some inventions we use are more dangerous than others. I'm pointing out that despite your prattling about guns, at least several things you use every day are much more of a danger to you than guns. I know it blunts your arguments, but then, that's why I raise the issue. Tell me, do you have a swimming pool? ;D I have raised the issue because, quite frankly, I am tried of turning on the 6 o'clock news to see a child's outline in chalk. How many people have to be gunned down before we say enough is enough? I maintain that serious reform to our gun laws are needed and long overdue.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 13, 2008 19:25:16 GMT -6
My guestion is how do you suppose we stop criminals from stealing guns? We can't, any more than we can stop any other kind of theft. Thieves will be thieves. That sounds very reactive instead of proactive. Sounds as though you figure since you can't stop thieves, you will simply wait until the stolen gun is used in a crime. Don't you think that could be problematic?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 10:20:01 GMT -6
perhaps you forgot that the virginia tech students and both schools teachers/adults were forbidden to defend themselves by the schools. Heller now says they can't do that. maybe next time the students/faculty/anybody will not wait to be killed huddling in a corner. you're OK with that, right? certainly you'd rather see these people live than die, right? you're not that messed up, right? Of course the students etc had a right to defend themselves. Howeve, my point is that the presence of guns is the root and cause of the problem. If guns were properly regulated and controled, there would be no need for the students even worry about self defense right guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. guns are not regulated?? gimme a break here show me one other consumer product that requires the FBI's permmission to purchase. just one 20,000 state, local and fedaral guns laws are in place, and yet still someone falls throught the cracks. that is why students, or anybody for that matter should have at least the option to defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 10:23:39 GMT -6
perhaps you should hire a competant teacher to explain reading comprehension to you. I am fully aware of restrictions and regulation, I'm in the restriction and regulation business. I said "legal object". if you are a restricted person then that firearm is NOT a "legal object" now is it?? this is why I asked you earlier about the infringement clause in the second amendment, because we do have sensible infringements in place, i.e. felons, illegals, dopers ect., and I agree with them. a background check, does NOT require a "need", a background check does NOT require an explanation of why I want said firearm. and you're understanding or acceptance of my reasons for owning or wanting such is completely unecessary and irrelevant. Ah, so you think there should be some restrictions on guns. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about restrictions. That is precisely the argument I been making. If you go back and read my orginial post, I said that people should be able to own guns for 1 hunting and 2 self defense but we need restrictions. You may want to give that reading comprehension teacher a call your self there pal. never said there was no place for some restrictions. I said, and still you can't grasp this, I said there is not a "need" to explain to you or anybody why I want a particular, legal item. would you like me to come into your life and decide for you what I think you "need" I rather doubt it
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 10:32:04 GMT -6
It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that? unbelievable you can't possibly believe guns and cars are different, other than cars kill more people. cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you This is insane! You are actually going to equate cars with guns. How many people have been sent to death row for the use a car as a murder weapon? Now tell me how many people have been sent to death row because of guns? Your point is lunacy as your comparing traffic violations and accidents with cold blooded murder I wasn't talking about death row. simply death. apparantly in your world there is good death and bad death. I've attended funerals for car death and murder by gun death and suicide by gun death. the people at the car death funerals didn't seem all that more happy about it.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 10:39:23 GMT -6
since you didn't answer my previous question on this, let's try again. how would you tell the families of the Virginia Tech shooting vicitms that although we can't protect you, we can't allow you to protect yourselves either. ? to ensure the campus is gun free. Now, its your turn. How would you explain and what would your solutions be? gun free campus. do you suppose maybe this is why nut cases choose to shoot up a school?? does it ever cross your mind why these nut cases DON'T shoot up police stations or gun shows?? is it really this hard for you to see?? I've given you my options, you're not interested in them. solutions? no such thing
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 10:52:02 GMT -6
I understand that you're not willing to embrace the fact that life is dangerous, period, and some inventions we use are more dangerous than others. I'm pointing out that despite your prattling about guns, at least several things you use every day are much more of a danger to you than guns. I know it blunts your arguments, but then, that's why I raise the issue. Tell me, do you have a swimming pool? ;D I have raised the issue because, quite frankly, I am tried of turning on the 6 o'clock news to see a child's outline in chalk. How many people have to be gunned down before we say enough is enough? I maintain that serious reform to our gun laws are needed and long overdue. so what do you jump up and scream at the television when this same child is killed in a car wreck?? what laws do you propose to halt the highway slaughter?? I'm tired of seeing people die because they either were not allowed to defend themselves or chose not to because they really thought the police or government would prevent any danger to them. and again, what law would you add to the current 20,000 existing gun laws that will stop all this?? hey, I know let's just make it against the law to murder??
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 10:59:16 GMT -6
How do you feel about target shooting, or gun collecting? I'm also a hunter and use some of my firearms for self-defense. Also, how do you feel about just shutting your mouth about my lawful hobbies and interests? there has to be some breakdown in the regulations and restrictions because guns are still falling into the hands of criminals. and apparantly there is a need for overhauling a number of laws as there is a breakdown in the regulations and restrictions for: drugs. people still seem to get them stop signs. people still run them drunk driving. people still do it speeding. people still do it burglary. still happens theft. #1 law enforcement problem in this country killing. still happening so quit dancing around and let's hear this magic law that will prevent all bad things from happening?? inquiring minds want to know
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 11:12:21 GMT -6
Using myself as an example, I own more than a dozen firearms. I've never felt the need to own a firearm-I just enjoy the shooting sports. Some have more "stopping power" than others, but so what? My home defense weapon is a 12-gauge pump shotgun, not a particularly powerful weapon, but deadly at close range. I remain unconvinced by any argument you'd made so far. Do keep trying, though, it's entertaining. If a person isnt going to use the gun for hunting or defense, I can't see the logic in owning it this is exactly why we argue with you, because you have no problem doing away with items YOU can't understand. yet I'm pretty sure you participate in activities I can see "no logic" to. but I doubt that you are putting them on the chopping block. it's human nature to restrict others, yet rarely ourselves, hence the comparison of guns to cars
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 11:14:03 GMT -6
Like I said, it is a logical fallacy to be discussing one topic and give stats on a completely different topic. I do not need to refute them because they are completely irrelevant to the discussion on guns. Why waste the time? No, it's entirely relevant. LTDC and I pointed out two much riskier scenarios that you engage in in your everyday life that are much more of a danger to you than firearms. I'm sorry your powers of reasoning are so limited. perfectly wrapped up in one post, I guess I should have just said ditto and been done with it.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 14, 2008 15:06:29 GMT -6
and yet it appears you didn't know this. they've been legal since their invention, lately with some restriction. so since it appears that you didn't know this, and you can't point to a single full automatic school, mall, public shooting, why are you now discomforted? the people who own these obviously are not the problem So tell me, what is, exactly, the problem and what is your grand solution? well one problem is apparantly NOT the people who own full automatic weapons, which again you haven't mentioned why this bothers you the problem, EXACTLY, is people. it's always been people. not objects we could start by raising our kids better. but then stupid people breed stupid people, and even the best raised families sometimes have one who goes south. but overall you can't argue that this is not working pretty good so far. (simple mathematic equation here: those who killed last year vs those who didn't) while you are waiting for the magic solution pill, we will continue to teach, to correct, to punish, to remove freedoms and privileges, to remove from society, to even kick off the planet, and then start all over. again all while you wait for the magic solution pill.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 14, 2008 18:58:09 GMT -6
seems pretty straightforward. since your ideas of personal ownership and militia are now moot, what is your opinion here? I said the people should be able to own firearms. However, why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? Like I said, the Constitution is outdated. If you do not accept that a document written 232 years ago needs to be changed to reflect society, then you probably are going to tell me slavery is ok too. Like I said, the Constitution is outdated. If you do not accept that a document written 232 years ago needs to be changed to reflect society, then you probably are going to tell me slavery is ok too. that is an ignorant statement on it's face. the constitution means EXACTLY what it did 227 years ago when it was adopted. the notion that because society changes the constitution should also is simply abject stupidity
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 14, 2008 19:06:04 GMT -6
I said the people should be able to own firearms. However, why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that? that is even dumber yet. in the first place, BOTH are deadly weapons, among the hundred other similarities. your inability to comprehend simple reality really is foolish
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 14, 2008 19:09:51 GMT -6
why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about needs. It's about rights. If someone is law-abiding, there's no problem with that person having an automatic weapon. But society hasn't changed regarding firearms, and neither has the need to keep the government in check. quote] Oh, please provide your plan for keeping the gov in check and I will define it as 'extremist' and possibly 'terrorist' If the people think they can control gov with by using guns, tell me what law and order there is? along with your other failings, you are obviously deluded that the police have some sort of duty to protect you. that absurdity was wiped out back in 1981 lad. it has been settled law for 27 years that the police do NOT have a duty to protect anyone go read warren vs district of columbia
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 14, 2008 19:17:10 GMT -6
It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that? unbelievable you can't possibly believe guns and cars are different, other than cars kill more people. cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you This is insane! You are actually going to equate cars with guns. How many people have been sent to death row for the use a car as a murder weapon? Now tell me how many people have been sent to death row because of guns? Your point is lunacy as your comparing traffic violations and accidents with cold blooded murder you truly ARE daft
|
|