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.
The fact that you are okay with the government "tightening down" in order to deny citizens of their constitutional right is really all we need to know about your attitude to see which side of tyranny you stand on.
If you are really tired of "mass death" you'd be worried about the things that are actually causing mass death rather than the isolated incidents the media hypes. You'd be for banning the automobile, which causes far more deaths than a gun ever has in the US. You'd be much more concerned with funding cancer research, heart disease research, respiratory disease research, influenza research, etc.
Here are the cause of death stats for 2016 for you:
And here are the general firearm homicide numbers: Number of deaths: 12,979
And how many of those firearm homicide deaths were via "assault rifles" you ask? Well, here you go--number of "assault rifle" deaths: 267 (according to HuffPo, a liberal rag).
So, statistically, let's compare this to the number of automobile crash deaths, estimated at 40,000 for 2016.
Let's try percent of "assault rifle" deaths compared to auto deaths: that is 0.006675, which is 0.668% percent rounded to the nearest thousandth percent.
So roughly a bit over a half percent. Yet, what are you worried about when you think of "mass death"? "Assault rifles," of course. And why are you worried more about that? Because the media has conditioned you to be.
So, back to the original quandary: what is causing more in the way of "mass death," auto accidents or "assault weapons"? Well, I think you can figure that out even if you are mathematically challenged. The "assault weapon" is just over a half percent. And yet, that is the "mass death" that concerns you most. But, logically speaking, what should concern you the most? Well, look at the above stats and take a REASONABLE pick. The flu should concern you far more, statistically. And car crashes...
I'll tell you what, I'm far more concerned about car crashes than I am some freak shooting me with an "assault rifle." It's getting to where I'm afraid to even drive around here. Not to mention the insane auto insurance rates, thanks to idiot (murderous) drivers, and I've never been in a crash in forty years. Why should I pay for their stupidity? Stuff like that is what concerns me when I think of "mass death." Mass death on the highways of America.
BAN ALL CARS... is what you should be chanting. That would immediate save 40,000 lives rather than 267. Then again, you aren't thinking logically about it, are you? You are running purely on emotionally charged media overreaction. I've never seen them react to the bigger killer... auto crashes. Or even the flu.
The argument about banning cars because more people die is one I am so TIRED of hearing! Automobiles were not created to inflict bodily injury.
And on the other side, why are bombs banned and we are good with it but not SOME firearms that can do as much if not more damage?
The fact that you are okay with the government "tightening down" in order to deny citizens of their constitutional right is really all we need to know about your attitude to see which side of tyranny you stand on.
If you are really tired of "mass death" you'd be worried about the things that are actually causing mass death rather than the isolated incidents the media hypes. You'd be for banning the automobile, which causes far more deaths than a gun ever has in the US. You'd be much more concerned with funding cancer research, heart disease research, respiratory disease research, influenza research, etc.
Here are the cause of death stats for 2016 for you:
And here are the general firearm homicide numbers: Number of deaths: 12,979
And how many of those firearm homicide deaths were via "assault rifles" you ask? Well, here you go--number of "assault rifle" deaths: 267 (according to HuffPo, a liberal rag).
So, statistically, let's compare this to the number of automobile crash deaths, estimated at 40,000 for 2016.
Let's try percent of "assault rifle" deaths compared to auto deaths: that is 0.006675, which is 0.668% percent rounded to the nearest thousandth percent.
So roughly a bit over a half percent. Yet, what are you worried about when you think of "mass death"? "Assault rifles," of course. And why are you worried more about that? Because the media has conditioned you to be.
So, back to the original quandary: what is causing more in the way of "mass death," auto accidents or "assault weapons"? Well, I think you can figure that out even if you are mathematically challenged. The "assault weapon" is just over a half percent. And yet, that is the "mass death" that concerns you most. But, logically speaking, what should concern you the most? Well, look at the above stats and take a REASONABLE pick. The flu should concern you far more, statistically. And car crashes...
I'll tell you what, I'm far more concerned about car crashes than I am some freak shooting me with an "assault rifle." It's getting to where I'm afraid to even drive around here. Not to mention the insane auto insurance rates, thanks to idiot (murderous) drivers, and I've never been in a crash in forty years. Why should I pay for their stupidity? Stuff like that is what concerns me when I think of "mass death." Mass death on the highways of America.
BAN ALL CARS... is what you should be chanting. That would immediate save 40,000 lives rather than 267. Then again, you aren't thinking logically about it, are you? You are running purely on emotionally charged media overreaction. I've never seen them react to the bigger killer... auto crashes. Or even the flu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walker1962
The argument about banning cars because more people die is one I am so TIRED of hearing! Automobiles were not created to inflict bodily injury.
And on the other side, why are bombs banned and we are good with it but not SOME firearms that can do as much if not more damage?
Which firearms can do as much damage as a Bomb?
And how many rounds fired are you also referring too; to do the same damage or more as a Bomb?
The argument about banning cars because more people die is one I am so TIRED of hearing! Automobiles were not created to inflict bodily injury.
And on the other side, why are bombs banned and we are good with it but not SOME firearms that can do as much if not more damage?
If one takes your post above literally, the fact that automobiles kill more than 3 times the # of people each year compared to firearms (40,000+ to less than 13,000), it seems like your principal concern is what the items were designed for, not what they're used for or how many they actually kill each year. You're entitled to your opinion because it is your opinion but it does seem like a narrower focus.
On your bombs versus "SOME firearms" question, the answer is a bit more complex. In general most people (I guess one can always find some exceptions) don't use bombs for target practice, hunting matches or plinking while the overwhelming majority of AR15's and other similar weapons are used for just that. If you found a bomb lying at the side of the road, in a parking lot, etc., almost all of us would call the police department as we are not likely going to feel comfortable trying to make the bomb safe. With an AR15, on the other hand, there are millions of AR15 owners and former military vets who would be quite capable to making sure such a weapon was safe. The bomb is used mainly for killing or destroying probably 99+% of the time whereas AR15's are used for non-violent purposes 99.9+% of the time. I'm sure other can list more reasons but these are some of the differences.
The argument about banning cars because more people die is one I am so TIRED of hearing! Automobiles were not created to inflict bodily injury.
And on the other side, why are bombs banned and we are good with it but not SOME firearms that can do as much if not more damage?
You're right.
Driving cars is a privilege
Owning guns is a right that is protected by the 2a.
Anything can be used for bad if an evil person wants to. Farming supplies can be used to kill people in a bomb. They can mow a bunch of people over in a truck. They can kill with kitchen cooking devices etc. You can't out legislate evil.
Thsts the point of the 2a. It gives everyone the ability to defend their natural right to life and safety. There are plenty of evil people out there where no amount of laws will stop them.
This new sentiment about pushing gun control isn't about saving lives. Its about control. The left is trying to disarm law abiding good people. The only people that would follow more gun laws are regular citizens. Criminals won't. So all these laws are only going to disarm people that don't need to be disarmed that aren't a threat to anyone.
Guns in the hands of good people save lives. No one on the left ever talks about how many people end up "not victims" because either they or someone else owned a gun which prevented a crime.
The left loves the victim mentality. They behave as if they want everyone to be a victim of something. They don't want people to be responsible for themselves and want people to depend on the government for everything.
Maybe the left should spend more energy on enforcing laws that already exist. Like, murder.
The argument about banning cars because more people die is one I am so TIRED of hearing! Automobiles were not created to inflict bodily injury.
And on the other side, why are bombs banned and we are good with it but not SOME firearms that can do as much if not more damage?
Bombs are banned. You are correct. Did the guy that just blew himself up in Austin care? Did it stop him from making them? Did it stop him from using them?
Based on you HONEST answers to the above question, what are you logically led to believe about the effectiveness of banning law-abiding citizens from having items such as firearms (or bombs) in order to stop criminals from using said items? And if there were no ban on bombs, would we all immediately run out and start blowing things up? Or would it still be criminals who do that sort of thing?
It's the criminal you want to stop, not me. I have no intention of going postal and playing shoot-em-up or blowing your house up. There is no need to deny me MY constitutional rights. Don't blame me for the actions of criminals. Blame THEM. Stop THEM. Passing a law restricting law-abiding citizens isn't going to stop them. They already BREAK laws. Duh. There is already a law against murder.
The ACA doesn't get passed without Congress and that you don't care about SCOTUS proves my point that it was not just a one man show. Committing treason? Trump is aligned with a Despot/KGB man, or should I saw OWNED by him. I assume you mean Hilary. Not a big fan. Frankly, she sold her soul(looking the other way while Bill played) to be in position to run for POTUS. She wasn't really worthy, riding Bill's coattails. I doubt she could have the personality to have reach Senator on her own. But having Bill on board, at least I knew he could deal with Congress if Hilary couldn't. But she wouldn't list to him during the campaign because it was payback time for his transgressions and SHE was in charge! Stupid!
I don't care if Trump makes money either, I just don't want his incompetent behind at 1600 Penn. His whole administration has been one truly devoid of competent leadership. If the House or Senate turns Democratic, I don't see him sticking around beyond 2019.
The way the ACA was passed was a disgrace, gutting one bill and inserting the Obamacare stuff and returning it back for approval with no discussion or review and it was ONLY democrats who voted for it, a done deal by the way it was manipulated through the legislative bodies. Disgusting.
This is not just a bunch of “gun nuts” on that link. It’s a group of people fighting desperately to preserve our rights, many of them are attorneys actively involved in litigation.
“...This allows anyone to go down to District Court, hold up their right hand and swear you are a danger to them, to yourself, or to others, and have your guns seized. The bill allows "any interested person" to take out an order. And that means just what it says....”
The federal government has its own ERPO bill in the works, Maryland doesn’t need to do this. It’s just their latest attempt to put into law ANY reason to confiscate your guns.
I'm more of a moderate and look at the whole guns thing with wonderment. I have a shotgun and a .380 semi-auto pistol. I like guns, I'm not the type to go crazy, but something needs to happen... sure the argument is always made that boy those guns must be jumping up and firing on their own and killing people, or if guns were banned then people would use knives and baseball bats. The thing is, semi-auto rifles like AR-15's and the modified AK-47's that we have in our country can kill a lot of people very fast (or heck, semi-auto pistols). It wouldn't take much to modify an AK-47 back to its full auto mode. A psychopath with a few hours and some machining ability could do it easily.
In all reality, our society in America and Europe is at the point that I highly doubt we would ever see new dictators like we saw in Stalin or Hitler. I'd be ok with getting rid of semi-automatics across the board, including pistols, and maybe getting rid of pump-action shotguns. I'm ok with staying with rifles like 30-30s and breech-loading shotguns, etc. There's no need for anything else... there really isn't. I'm also not convinced that there would be enough people to rise up and overthrow the government either, should the US decide to tighten down. A few wackjobs might do things, but in the end, it would take millions, and millions aren't going to march on Washington.
The US can give a year to turn everything in, and give you a check, then cut the receivers up with metal saws like Australia. I'm tired of the mass death.
The Australian fiasco was just that. It accomplished NOTHING. There are two separate studies out of U. Sydney and U. Melbourne attesting to that since the law was passed and 10s of millions of dollars of private property were forcefully confiscated by the government (oh, wait, that can never happen).
The argument about banning cars because more people die is one I am so TIRED of hearing! Automobiles were not created to inflict bodily injury.
And on the other side, why are bombs banned and we are good with it but not SOME firearms that can do as much if not more damage?
So, you’re only real concern is people who die by firearms. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were concerned about people dying in general.
People die by drunk drivers, blame the driver who got drunk.
People die from mad bombers, blame the mad bomber.
People die from being stabbed, blame the perp with the knife.
People die from being shot, blame the gun.
Go figure
Last edited by LesLucid; 03-23-2018 at 11:27 AM..
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.
