Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I'm saying is that if someone is shot, and their family demands gun control, liberals will gladly stand by them.
But someone who's family was killed in a car wreck, demanding car control, would be ignored at best.
Absolutely untrue. How do you think we were able to band together as one voice and push for more car safety over the last 100 years? In fact, even today many people are still fighting for installation of stop signs in their neighborhoods to make roads safer. Don't expect that from a libertarian! Same for pedals that stick (Toyota). Same for gas tanks that explode (Pinto), etc. Who do you think was demanding "car control" because of those deaths? Conservatives? Give me a break!
To the OP: Why the silly metaphors? A sword takes a lot more work to wipe out 28 people. Even if one gets killed the others can run away.
Here's a thought to accept, if someone wants you dead, they WILL figure out away. If someone wants to rob you, they will also figure out a way. There were robbers and rapists prior to the development of gunpowder. Carrying a gun around is a bit like carrying around a security blanket.
On the other hand, guns enable stupid, tempermental or inebriated individuals to make bad permanent decisions.
Absolutely untrue. How do you think we were able to band together as one voice and push for more car safety over the last 100 years? In fact, even today many people are still fighting for installation of stop signs in their neighborhoods to make roads safer. Don't expect that from a libertarian! Same for pedals that stick (Toyota). Same for gas tanks that explode (Pinto), etc. Who do you think was demanding "car control" because of those deaths? Conservatives? Give me a break!
Wow, you still don't get it? Does society accept death as a tradeoff? Yes or no?
Wow, you still don't get it? Does society accept death as a tradeoff? Yes or no?
I give up.
Yes, we must accept SOME percentage of risk to the lives of drivers, but we must always do everything we can to minimize it as much as humanly possible. Does that answer your question?
By the way, the amount of time the average person drives a car vs. the amount of time one uses a gun is not even comparable, so the argument is absurd from the outset.
We should at least regulate guns as much as we do cars, don't you think?
By the way, the amount of time the average person drives a car vs. the amount of time one uses a gun is not even comparable, so the argument is absurd from the outset.
More irrelevant dribble which has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline
We should at least regulate guns as much as we do cars, don't you think?
We regulate guns quite a bit. I never said we shouldn't. What I said was that you all need to drop the highly emotional and morally superior crap that you've been spewing for the last few days.
More irrelevant dribble which has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
How can it be "irrelevant dribble" when YOU are the one trying to compare completely different items with non-equivalent death statistics? Using your logic, hot dogs are more dangerous than nukes because more people have died from accidental choking compared to those intentionally killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 7 billion people eat every day, but those 2 bombs fell in a very short period of time. This is how your argument works!
You don't seem to like comparing apples to apples.
How can it be "irrelevant dribble" when YOU are the one trying to compare completely different items with non-equivalent death statistics? Using your logic, hot dogs are more dangerous than nukes because more people have died from accidental choking compared to those intentionally killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 7 billion people eat every day, but those 2 bombs fell in a very short period of time. This is how your argument works!
You don't seem to like comparing apples to apples.
The only error in your analogy is that nuke dropping causes such substantial death in each instance, it's virtually impossible to draw out statistics like this with such a limited data set, given that nukes have not been around forever, and there aren't that many of them owned by that many different governments. Whereas with guns and cars, we have infinitely more reliable data to work with given their widespread existence and low rate of death per gun/car in existence.
But if everyone had a nuke, and hot dogs killed more people than nukes over a substantial period of time, then yes, the legalization of hot dogs would be not potentially, but effectively, more dangerous than the legalization of nukes.
Never mind swords, what about the next best alternative, the bow/crossbow?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact, even today many people are still fighting for installation of stop signs in their neighborhoods to make roads safer. Don't expect that from a libertarian! Same for pedals that stick (Toyota). Same for gas tanks that explode (Pinto), etc. Who do you think was demanding "car control" because of those deaths? Conservatives? Give me a break! 
