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.
So the legal right to own a car is worth 40,000 deaths a year then.
There's no logical flaw in my argument.
Thank you.
I don't know. And I don't care. It's not relevant.
You consider cars important enough to be worth 40,000 deaths per year. Right? Wrong?
You don't consider guns to be worth 30,000 deaths a year. Right? Wrong?
When I start to see a pattern of people using their cars for the express reason to take another's life or folks say they need 'em to hunt, or emotionally/mentally unstable people start driving them into classrooms....then we'll have a bit more to talk about concerning motor vehicles and their deadly intent.
Stupid threads and comparisons such as this is an insult to twenty young lives who won't live to see another Christmas.
Shame on you.
What do state by state comparisons have to do with this? Guess what, your stats prove that in other states, car deaths outpace gun deaths.
I'm not even making a specific argument here for more guns and less cars, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
And then you try to guilt me into agreeing with you?
Hey genius, I don't want to see more dead kids. Get it through your thick skull that not everyone who's an anti-gun bleeding heart liberal does so because they LIKE gun death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterkeaton
When I start to see a pattern of people using their cars for the express reason to take another's life or folks say they need 'em to hunt, or emotionally/mentally unstable people start driving them into classrooms....then we'll have a bit more to talk about concerning motor vehicles and their deadly intent.
So intentional death is bad. But death by car? Who cares? Those deaths are different. They don't matter as much.
So the legal right to own a car is worth 40,000 deaths a year then.
There's no logical flaw in my argument.
Thank you.
I don't know. And I don't care. It's not relevant.
You consider cars important enough to be worth 40,000 deaths per year. Right? Wrong?
You don't consider guns to be worth 30,000 deaths a year. Right? Wrong?
The logical flaw is that you brought up cars in the first place.
This debate isn't being had because a car mowed down a classroom full of kids.
The bottom line is that Americans are obviously willing to put up with a lot of sh*t, but they have their limits. The camel's back was broken, and something has got to give...even if its largely symbolic and ineffective.
I'm not a gun grabber, so I'm the wrong person to argue with. But something has got to change. I know that much.
OK, so since we're playing with numbers: how many Americans own guns vs. cars?
Guns: 40%? I think.
Cars: Not sure, but there are 250 million cars in America. So many more people own cars than guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
How many times a day, and for how long every day, do gun-owning Americans use their guns, as compared to how much car-owning Americans drive their cars?
See?
Logical argument. I applaud you.
Now there, you may have a point. But how can you define "use". Am I "using" a gun only if I shoot it? What if I carry it? Keep it in the house?
And I could argue that it's all irrelevant. We're talking about the ability to own, legally. We're not talking about how many are actually owned. No one here has argued that we should force people to own anything or otherwise, beyond the scope of the laws that govern said thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
And how many car deaths are intentional vs. the number of intentional gun deaths?
That doesn't matter at all, for reason I've explained numerous times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
The logical flaw is that you brought up cars in the first place.
Actually, the logical flaw is that you've now unilaterally declared that one can only argue about guns, and this specific incident.
This is a philosophical question for gun grabbers. Why is it, that easy transportation justifies death, but the second amendment does not?
-
Let me repeat again - this is all predicated on the acceptance of the theory that gun control works. A debate that is FAR from over.
Cars are a form of transportation, not intended as weapons. Swords, like hand guns, were designed with one intention: to kill people.
We already regulate guns and now the liberals want more regulations on guns...but we don't regulate swords at all.
...Yeah we do.
Most places have laws that make it illegal to actually carry a sharpened blade past a certain length on your person.
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.
