In 2010, Automobile accidents claimed 32,885 lives. Is being able to travel at 70 miles per hour worth 32,000 lives per year?
Cars certainly enable things within our economy and our personal lives. Guns, not so much. Guns enable personal defense, and the defense of the land as a whole. I would say security is much more important to trade than speed. Try locking your door at night. And how is that supposed to stop someone from stealing cargo? You'll note that Brinks guards, when transporting money, use both cars, and guns. As well they should - they might be carrying your money or my money. But are you carrying a million dollars in cash and simultaneously advertising the fact? Please answer. |
|
|
|
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces. Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers. And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four. There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces. |
|
|
|
I went shooting this weekend. Put about 100rnds. through each of my assault rifles. But I must be doing it wrong because I didn't kill anything. In fact none of the guns I currently own have ever killed anything. With the exception of my CC weapon, they are for competitive shooting at targets.
Thank you for sharing these insights into your character and personal life. When I was a kid, like many other boys, I liked to squash, damage and destroy things. Like most adults, I outgrew such things. Suggestion: find a hobby which is stimulating to mind and/or body. Try hiking, cooking, sailing, photography, reading, movie watching, painting, gardening, design, tennis, whatever. And when a mugger tries to take your wallet, you'll convince him to leave you alone with your impressive movie knowledge? No, I know, you'll paint him away! I've never encountered a mugger in all my life. I don't know a single person who has. Maybe there are intelligent and sensible ways to reduce ever encountering a mugger in the first place. In 2010, Automobile accidents claimed 32,885 lives. Is being able to travel at 70 miles per hour worth 32,000 lives per year?
Cars certainly enable things within our economy and our personal lives. Guns, not so much. Guns enable personal defense, and the defense of the land as a whole. I would say security is much more important to trade than speed. Try locking your door at night. |
|
|
|
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces. |
|
|
|
In 2010, Automobile accidents claimed 32,885 lives. Is being able to travel at 70 miles per hour worth 32,000 lives per year?
Cars certainly enable things within our economy and our personal lives. Guns, not so much. |
|
|
|
I went shooting this weekend. Put about 100rnds. through each of my assault rifles. But I must be doing it wrong because I didn't kill anything. In fact none of the guns I currently own have ever killed anything. With the exception of my CC weapon, they are for competitive shooting at targets.
Thank you for sharing these insights into your character and personal life. When I was a kid, like many other boys, I liked to squash, damage and destroy things. Like most adults, I outgrew such things. Suggestion: find a hobby which is stimulating to your mind and/or body. Try hiking, cooking, sailing, photography, reading, movie watching, painting, gardening, design, tennis, whatever. |
|
|
|
Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.
No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.  That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime. Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to. There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons. So? So your argument is invalid. In what way? You said that guns are for killing, and have no other purpose. I showed that guns, first off, do not have that purpose at all, unless given to them by the user (not the manufacturer). To quote William Gibson (from off his twitter feed, just now, @GreatDismal), A gun is like a very long, very fast temporary finger, but of very limited utility: instantly pokes a hole in a distant object. That's all it does. Secondly, I showed that that distant object is almost never a person. Usually it's a piece of paper, or a fruit, or a milk jug full of water. Once in a while it's an animal. So guns a) have a purpose which is not killing: Poke a hole in something far away, and b) are rarely used to poke holes in people, and c) almost never are they used by civilians to poke holes in people. So William Gibson is now spokesperson for why guns are manufactured? So having devices which allow us to put holes in things at distances for recreational value is worth 12,000 lives per year? Do paintings kill 12,000 people per year? Does playing a violin put people in danger? Do R/C cars cause 12,000 people to lose their lives per year? Your argument is desperate. Stupid. Comical. Pathetic. Without value. |
|
|
|
Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.
No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance. That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime. Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to. There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed another human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons. So? So your argument is invalid. In what way? |
|
|
|
Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.
No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance. That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime. Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to. There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed another human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons. So? |
|
|
|
You can ban every gun in the world people are still going to die.
What about the children in the recent school knifing incident? I think it's just luck that no one died in the China school knifing incident. I see. So if one or two (or three or four or five or six) were unlucky enough to die, the two events would be equivalent? |
|
|
|
I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.
Knives have other practical uses besides killing... Oh, like a say... a gun.  Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers. So the law should be that you may own things that have practical uses?
I would, in general, prefer a limit on devices whose sole purpose is killing. Art, flowers and pastries don't necessarily have practical uses, but I don't see any serious problems with them. Just playing devils advocate here.
Then play it well, if you're going to do it at all. |
|
|
|
I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.
They are a tool with utilitarian value. Just like cars. I can't believe you think your argument is any type of argument at all. |
|
|
|
Thankfully, he could not get a gun. If ever there was an argument for gun control, this is it. In a timely manner, this event juxtaposes with the Connecticut shooting. Nobody was killed in this knife attack. |
|
|
|
You can ban every gun in the world people are still going to die.
What about the children in the recent school knifing incident? |
|
|
|
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them. Have you? Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper. And I assume by your smuglier than thou tone, you found something to disprove the title? That seems a reasonable conclusion. Would you like to share it with the rest of the class, or are these cookies only for your own enjoyment? Like everything else I share, if I can find it, you can find it. Question: do you think your own claims would be more credible if you presented a less biased view and set of citations from various sources? You go find things which discredit Lott's claims, and then proceed to discredit those findings. I cannot respect your claims otherwise. Are all the facts, charts, and data that Lott has presented unimpeachable? Do you have evidence he did not massage, manufacture and misinterpret data? Or do you take what he has said at face value? If you do take what he has said at face value, why? |
|
|
|
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them. Have you? Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper. And I assume by your smuglier than thou tone, you found something to disprove the title? That seems a reasonable conclusion. |
|
|
|
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them. Have you? Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper. |
|
|
|
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them. |
|
|
|
But in mentioning this in the way you did, you really outdone yourself. Just couldn't resist pushing your own agenda, even after posting a very sincere and fundamental message by Morgan Freeman, pointing to the very core of the problem. And you, in a most sickening way, used this piece of information in another sad attempt to get your pathetic and flawed point across.
With every post you make you reveal yourself to be the most insidious of fundamentalist there is.
Yeah, fucking fundamentalists, wanting to protect innocent life using the most effective tool to do so in existence... Oh yeah keep on pushing that agenda, couldn't care less, but I'm just making sure that the twisted irony of using a quotation about the media using a tragedy for their own end, and simultaneously using a tragedy as a means to shove those flawed ideals in someones face once more, is not lost on you. And I'm sure you'll have another semi-clever reply exactly missing this point and focusing on something that happens to suit your agenda. My "agenda" is saving INNOCENT lives, rather than CRIMINALS' lives. No more, no less. I should hope so. Given this admission from you, then please be sure to analyze any data you use in defense of your position regarding guns objectively. You can start with data provided by John Lott. |
|
|
|
|
No answer? Is that because you don't know anything but what you've been fed by your conspiracy loving "sources"?
Melting point of steel: explain the significance (and your understanding).
Jet fuel quantity: explain why you think the quantity of jet fuel does not matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
