Jump to content

NRA: Put an armed guard in every school, yeah guns!


injury

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Yeah, I bet those govt officials are a real concern for you, given that you are such an influential radical that takes the initiative right up to those tyrannical bastards, really fighting for your rights and your liberty to be your own man. Got me fucked how you can live the life you lead, always being hunted and harassed by those govt officials just for being the real, free American man that you are.

 

Props man, you fighting the good fight.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose this tyrannical rule did take place, how would we defend ourselves? or even locally.. suppose you live in a high crime area and your house gets broken into? what then? Calling the police wouldn't help sense they show up after the crime is committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/

 

Americans never give up your guns

 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

 

"Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that does is clarify that there is need for a legal definition for assault-weapon.

 

If thats the strongest rhetoric you have against it, I'm quite sure political legalese will find it defined soon enough. Its intentionally vague now, and I fear they will keep it vague but give it more breadth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death by making the choice to use tobacco is slightly different than not choosing to be shot by some retard with a gun

 

yeah, and? apparently its the difference between being #1 and #10. It's also slightly different than being beaten to death with a baseball bat, which is higher on the list.

 

 

 

Anyone who is anti gun isn't going to like statistics taken from the FBI, federal government or Centers for Disease Control because those unbiased statistics don't do a whole lot to advance your gun restriction agenda. plain and simple.

 

 

 

 

Morton, do you ever look into ANY of your own questions? old age in a top 10 in the US? really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who is anti gun isn't going to like statistics taken from the FBI, federal government or Centers for Disease Control because those unbiased statistics don't do a whole lot to advance your gun restriction agenda. plain and simple.

 

What?

 

I think those statistics are probably quite accurate and I don't think they're biased in any way. I have no problem with the stats whatsoever. I know more people die from smoking than from gun crime. The problem is--as I keep saying--apples and oranges. Comparing gun deaths and tobacco related deaths does not work because they are entirely different.

 

The numerical differences don't hold the weight you think. Every single person who has died from tobacco--ever--perhaps excluding fetal shit, has died because they chose to smoke. No one in the history of the world has been murdered with a gun because they decided to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fist, your argument is getting weaker and weaker.

 

 

realism - how about people who choose not to drink, yet get killed by drunk drivers? you're basically saying you can't compare causes of deaths because they are too different, when I don't see how that would matter during a time like now where gun control is the government's hot issue they are trying to ram through. Those people aren't going to discuss statistics like this on any media outlet because it's no good for their anti gun plans. None of them want to hear that the murder rate with baseball bats/knives/hammers/poisons is higher than the rate with firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

realism - how about people who choose not to drink, yet get killed by drunk drivers?

 

Drink driving is illegal, actively policed and alcohol is a heavily restricted item in large part because innocent people die from other people's stupid choices.

 

Also, I'd rather a person cut sick in a movie cinema, school, church, bus, etc., with a baseball bat or knife than a gun, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not enough, imo.

 

i'm going to troll this thread until something of merit happens.

but again, dying from participating in life and life's activities and being murdered are pretty incomparable.

 

yes, pools, tobacco, bathtubs, ladders, etc can be/are dangerous.

in theory a pool could be used to murder someone. public pools are fairly regulated as to their safety--appropriate chlorine levels and lifeguards are standard.

tobacco is heavily regulated by where it can be sold and used, not to mention age limits and taxes.

 

guns are tools for killing. i own guns, shooting is fun, and every time i shoot i work to improve or maintain my abilities with whichever weapon i shoot so that in case i use it for its intended use i can do so successfully and without causing injury to anyone but my intended target.

 

as someone who has been through the fog and friction of war i know firsthand that it might take more than one shot to kill the enemy. i know how to build and set up a weapon that is great for close quarters combat and how to use it in those scenarios.

 

and those weapons are pretty much completely unnecessary outside of warfare. if you can't defend yourself with a handgun and 10-15 rounds you don't know what you're doing and shouldn't be wielding deadly weapons in the first place.

 

statistics can be played to either side, they rarely prove anything except a single point in a sea of arguments.

 

i'm not going to say there is an ideal answer to this problem, i don't know that defining 'assault weapon' and then banning new sales of them will do much. however, the NRAs suggestion of doing nothing but adding more guns to the mix is idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not enough, imo.

 

i'm going to troll this thread until something of merit happens.

but again, dying from participating in life and life's activities and being murdered are pretty incomparable.

 

yes, pools, tobacco, bathtubs, ladders, etc can be/are dangerous.

in theory a pool could be used to murder someone. public pools are fairly regulated as to their safety--appropriate chlorine levels and lifeguards are standard.

tobacco is heavily regulated by where it can be sold and used, not to mention age limits and taxes.

 

guns are tools for killing. i own guns, shooting is fun, and every time i shoot i work to improve or maintain my abilities with whichever weapon i shoot so that in case i use it for its intended use i can do so successfully and without causing injury to anyone but my intended target.

 

as someone who has been through the fog and friction of war i know firsthand that it might take more than one shot to kill the enemy. i know how to build and set up a weapon that is great for close quarters combat and how to use it in those scenarios.

 

and those weapons are pretty much completely unnecessary outside of warfare. if you can't defend yourself with a handgun and 10-15 rounds you don't know what you're doing and shouldn't be wielding deadly weapons in the first place.

 

statistics can be played to either side, they rarely prove anything except a single point in a sea of arguments.

 

i'm not going to say there is an ideal answer to this problem, i don't know that defining 'assault weapon' and then banning new sales of them will do much. however, the NRAs suggestion of doing nothing but adding more guns to the mix is idiotic.

 

I could not have said it any better, cannot prop you but you seriously hit the nail on the head, especially with the protection aspect. Nothing wrong with a well trained person having a handgun but no rational person can justify the general public owning military quality weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not have said it any better, cannot prop you but you seriously hit the nail on the head, especially with the protection aspect. Nothing wrong with a well trained person having a handgun but no rational person can justify the general public owning military quality weapons.

 

military forces use semi-automatic handguns, in fact weapons of all types are or have been military quality weapons. So you probably think that some weapons are less lethal than others.

A 22. rifle semi-automatic carbine can be more deadly than a 50 bmg one shot rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

military forces use semi-automatic handguns, in fact weapons of all types are or have been military quality weapons. So you probably think that some weapons are less lethal than others.

A 22. rifle semi-automatic carbine can be more deadly than a 50 bmg one shot rifle.

 

I knew someone would be dickish about this. I mean a handgun is different to a semi or automatic rifle. A handgun is not gonna be rinsing through magazines in the same way a assault rifle would.

 

Fucking gun nuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...