Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 my point is that one kid killed because a gun was not kept properly is more than enough.. 202383[/snapback] Really? Shall we outlaw cars and bicycles? Both of which are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to kill children than guns. Can't wait to hear the brilliant argument against that. As far as stats go, feel free to actually give some instead of pretending you've done it at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 A 64-year-old Buffalo, N.Y., man was having his regular night out at a seniors social club when two armed, masked men approached a card table and demanded money. After a round was fired from an assailant’s shotgun, the intended victim, thinking his friend who had fallen to the floor had been killed, pulled out his handgun and shot and killed one of the robbers. As the robber was hit with the bullet, his shotgun went off and hit his accomplice in the arm. The accomplice fled the scene but was later apprehended at a local medical center and charged with first-degree burglary. (The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY, 09/26/04) 202385[/snapback] So, teach every old man to be able to shoot one of two assailants, thus making his shotgun go off and shoot the OTHER assailant, and and NOT HIM OR HIS FRIEND or anyone else in the room(luckily), then you have one hell of an gument for seniors to be carrying guns. That's some fancy shootin! !! How about this? GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY and no one gets shot. Wow - you must catch heat about this alot, huh? having to keep articles from 4 months ago? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Really? Shall we outlaw cars and bicycles? Both of which are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to kill children than guns. Can't wait to hear the brilliant argument against that. As far as stats go, feel free to actually give some instead of pretending you've done it at some point. 202388[/snapback] This is the dumbest argument of all time. I love these arguments because they make you gun nuts look so f-cking stupid. Since cars and bikes have lead to more deaths should we ban them? Yes, Darin, we should. Because as everyone knows, guns are juuust as necessary to have as a car. Oh, and let's look at the real numbers. How about instead of "how many kids are killed with a gun vs. how many kids are killed on bikes" why don't we look at the fact that kids don't generally have access to guns, as they shouldnt. But, if they did as much as bikes, I think even someone as thick headed as you could see where more danger would come from. My point? Per incident of irresposible gun ownership vs incidents of a kid riding a bike, i think the numbers would be differnt. What's funny though is that you have it your way: guns are legal. But you find a need to keep fighting for a cause which you have already won... baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is the dumbest argument of all time. I love these arguments because they make you gun nuts look so f-cking stupid. Since cars and bikes have lead to more deaths should we ban them? Yes, Darin, we should. Because as everyone knows, guns are juuust as necessary to have as a car. Oh, and let's look at the real numbers. How about instead of "how many kids are killed with a gun vs. how many kids are killed on bikes" why don't we look at the fact that kids don't generally have access to guns, as they shouldnt. But, if they did as much as bikes, I think even someone as thick headed as you could see where more danger would come from. My point? Per incident of irresposible gun ownership vs incidents of a kid riding a bike, i think the numbers would be differnt. What's funny though is that you have it your way: guns are legal. But you find a need to keep fighting for a cause which you have already won... baffling. 202392[/snapback] Kids don't generally have access to guns? Since there are well over 200,000,000 guns in America I'd say you're quite wrong about that and the majority of rural kids have access to guns from a very young age. Once again, your lack of worldly experience rears its ugly head. Not that I'd expect you to be wily enough to even understand that. The "cause" as you put it, is an ongoing battle and as long as there are people like yourself who base arguments on emotion rather than rational thought, it'll continue to be waged. Virtually every society on this planet disarms their citizens at some point in their history (for the citizen's "safety") that generally leads to loss of freedom and the fall of that society. It has happened a couple of times in the last decade and led to mass murder, but it wasn't on a cool prime time show, so I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it. You "laugh" because you don't even have enough sense to understand the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 So, teach every old man to be able to shoot one of two assailants, thus making his shotgun go off and shoot the OTHER assailant, and and NOT HIM OR HIS FRIEND or anyone else in the room(luckily), then you have one hell of an gument for seniors to be carrying guns. That's some fancy shootin! !! How about this? GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY and no one gets shot. Wow - you must catch heat about this alot, huh? having to keep articles from 4 months ago? Wow. 202389[/snapback] This is the most absurd response I've read yet. Silly Steve, they teach us all to shoot like that in Conservative School. What a load of off-base assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Kids don't generally have access to guns? Since there are well over 200,000,000 guns in America I'd say you're quite wrong about that and the majority of rural kids have access to guns from a very young age. Once again, your lack of worldly experience rears its ugly head. Not that I'd expect you to be wily enough to even understand that. The "cause" as you put it, is an ongoing battle and as long as there are people like yourself who base arguments on emotion rather than rational thought, it'll continue to be waged. Virtually every society on this planet disarms their citizens at some point in their history (for the citizen's "safety") that generally leads to loss of freedom and the fall of that society. It has happened a couple of times in the last decade and led to mass murder, but it wasn't on a cool prime time show, so I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it. You "laugh" because you don't even have enough sense to understand the argument. 202400[/snapback] keep fighting the good fight DArin... one day, guns will be legal... now, step away from the keyboard and teach those kids something about putting people down, never being wrong, or how they can continue the fight to make guns legal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 It has happened a couple of times in the last decade and led to mass murder, but it wasn't on a cool prime time show, so I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it. 202400[/snapback] Come on Darin, you can do it.. step AWAY from the computer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Come on Darin, you can do it.. step AWAY from the computer... 202408[/snapback] Like I said hero, I'm at work waiting for something to finish running. You're on at 11:00 at night. Yeah, I'm the loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoho Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 so, if bledsoe had a gun and losman was anti-gun, would you guys want shane matthews to start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Re-read my post. We are arguing this over what we read in the Buffalo News. unless we know ALL the facts, it is pointless to be saying one thing or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 my point is that one kid killed because a gun was not kept properly is more than enough.. You guys will never get that, though. I already know how Darin is going to respond. He will say, yes, but 1,000s of others were saved because there WAS a gun in the house. The problem with BOTH of you is that if someone uses stats or numbers found somewhere which MAY go against your point, you say "so, you'll believe everything the media or the government tells you? what a joke!" But when you use those same sources, you use them freely and then say "facts suck". You both need to start you own board of holier-than-though, pompous long winded arguments that no one wants to listen to... it would be sweet. Lots of people would come. 202383[/snapback] So all you know about the subject is that one child was killed by one irresponsibly handled gun? And because one child was killed by one irresponsibly handled gun, you can generalize that to virtually no one should be allowed to own a gun? Or, in other words, you don't know sh--, but your outrage at a single incident gives you the inalienable right to pretend you do. Well...it is an inalienable right, after all, but the right to be heard does not automatically preclude the right to be taken seriously. Frankly, you have to go out and educate yourself on the topic before anyone can even begin to intelligently discuss it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is the dumbest argument of all time. I love these arguments because they make you gun nuts look so f-cking stupid. Since cars and bikes have lead to more deaths should we ban them? Yes, Darin, we should. Because as everyone knows, guns are juuust as necessary to have as a car. Oh, and let's look at the real numbers. How about instead of "how many kids are killed with a gun vs. how many kids are killed on bikes" why don't we look at the fact that kids don't generally have access to guns, as they shouldnt. But, if they did as much as bikes, I think even someone as thick headed as you could see where more danger would come from. My point? Per incident of irresposible gun ownership vs incidents of a kid riding a bike, i think the numbers would be differnt. What's funny though is that you have it your way: guns are legal. But you find a need to keep fighting for a cause which you have already won... baffling. 202392[/snapback] Actually, Steve, there's a bigger correllation between gun violence and car ownership than there is between gun violence and gun ownership. And if you actually had to work to survive, you'd soon find that a gun is substantially more necessary than a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 How about this? GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY and no one gets shot. right, because that generally works out pretty well. People never get shot when they go along with the bad guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Steve...your thoughts are useless.....Everyone has a human right to defend themselves....If you side with the criminals... you are one..........Anyone who threatens me with violence will meet the same or worse. If you can't understand that...you area victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Pesky facts. British crime rise after ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm Other pesky stuff. http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html 201721[/snapback] The rise in gun crime was due to a whole host of factors - you seem to be implying that gun crime rose due to the ban which is highly unlikely as the self-defense argument is pretty null and void since the vast majority of the population over here didn't own handguns before the ban. The ban was brought in with massive public support after the Dunblane massacre to prevent similar incidents and, in that respect, seems to have succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The rise in gun crime was due to a whole host of factors - you seem to be implying that gun crime rose due to the ban which is highly unlikely as the self-defense argument is pretty null and void since the vast majority of the population over here didn't own handguns before the ban. The ban was brought in with massive public support after the Dunblane massacre to prevent similar incidents and, in that respect, seems to have succeeded. 202521[/snapback] Maybe we should stop building cities near fault lines. That'll stop earthquakes. Same basic premise. Good thing we took guns off the streets after Columbine, since it hasn't happened again. Oh yeah, we didn't. Making a new law to deal with the behavioral exceptions of a society don't make them less likely to happen - they rarely happen ANYWAY. Whenever something is easily discernible by name (like Dunblane, Columbine, Ruby Ridge), that is clue enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Maybe we should stop building cities near fault lines. That'll stop earthquakes. Same basic premise. Good thing we took guns off the streets after Columbine, since it hasn't happened again. Oh yeah, we didn't. Making a new law to deal with the behavioral exceptions of a society don't make them less likely to happen - they rarely happen ANYWAY. Whenever something is easily discernible by name (like Dunblane, Columbine, Ruby Ridge), that is clue enough. 202630[/snapback] Remember gun control only works if it is all or not... You know my postion, no need to argue... There is no 1/2 way here unfortunately. And YES! STOP building on fault lines, flood plains, and mud-slide prone hills!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Remember gun control only works if it is all or not... You know my postion, no need to argue... There is no 1/2 way here unfortunately. And YES! STOP building on fault lines, flood plains, and mud-slide prone hills!! 202740[/snapback] I guess we better abandon the entire east coast of the US then, just in case that volcano on the western edge of Africa decides to collapse into the ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I guess we better abandon the entire east coast of the US then, just in case that volcano on the western edge of Africa decides to collapse into the ocean. 202771[/snapback] Okay... I guess I can reconsider fault lines and only say "potentially active fault lines." All others are okay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Remember gun control only works if it is all or not... You know my postion, no need to argue... There is no 1/2 way here unfortunately. And YES! STOP building on fault lines, flood plains, and mud-slide prone hills!! 202740[/snapback] EIL, this is NOT a dig, just a question...Why do you want so many things to be banned? Is it: 1)That you think people are stupid and that you (and govt) are more equipped to decide for them? 2) General intolerance, and if you dislike something, you want it banned? 3) Do you think Americans have too much freedom? Btw, illegal aliens ARE banned. Do you support immediate deportation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts