64
   

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 06:47 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
We don't let cars drive 200mph?
Why do we need guns that can fire 200 bullets per minute?


What guns are firing 200 bullets a minute?

In any case, there is a difference between "banning cars that can go 200MPH" and "not letting people drive 200MPH on public roads".

We do not actually ban cars that can go 200MPH. Go see your local Ferrari dealer.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:06 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
One study, reported in Southern Medical Journal in 2010, found that a gun is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member or guest than in the death of an intruder. Another study in 1993 found that gun ownership creates nearly a threefold risk of a homicide in the owner’s household.


Quack conclusions from quack studies.



Quote:
it’s also true that guns are more likely to cause tragedies than to avert them.


No it isn't.



Quote:
David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard, says that having a gun at home increases the risk of suicide in that household by two to four times.


Quack quack quack. Does he fly south for the winter?



Quote:
But in the same spirit as what we’ve accomplished to make driving safer, President Obama has crafted careful, modest measures


Nonsense. All he's trying to do is violate the Constitution as badly as he can possibly get away with.

Thankfully we have the NRA to protect our freedom, so he can't get away with it at all.



Quote:
If we could reduce gun deaths by one-quarter, that would be 7,500 lives saved a year.


No it wouldn't. They would just be killed with other weapons, and would be just as dead as the people who were killed with guns.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:10 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Joe Nation already pointed out that you can't have a conversation when only one side is listening. Which is why there is no real conversation possible with you


You can't have a conversation with anyone who insists on needlessly banning harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips.

The only thing to do is vote out of office any Congressman who dares to go along with such schemes.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:19 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
BillRM wrote:
Christmas trees in homes cause around four deaths a year so do you wish to give up Christmas trees Firefly.


Christmas trees kill 4 people.
Guns kill 30,000 people

What an idiotic comparison Bill.


Nonsense. Guns are not what killed those 30,000 people. The people who pulled the trigger are what did the killing.

Now if you want to compare gun accidents to Xmas trees, then you might have something.

How about comparing gun accidents to car accidents?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:20 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
The science of Big Data in relation to the rapidly lowering cost of certain aspects of the Genome Project ($10 a test) is moving towards identifying those unfit to be granted a gun licence simply from a sample of their DNA with a progressively diminishing margin of error.


Nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The only thing to do is vote out of office any Congressman who dares to go along with such schemes.


@Firefly

Oralloy almost makes it sound like he goes along with what the voters decide, doesn't he?

Perhaps he would be willing to show that he does feel that way by indicating he goes along with the policies the voters decided on in the last election. Ya know...the one that decided Barack Obama would be president.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:22 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Let's hear it oralloy--Are you in favour of gun ownership being dependent on providing a DNA sample?


No. Unconstitutional.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:24 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
You claimed to answer questions.


I've never made any absolute promises to answer every question.

But if a question is reasonable, I'll likely give it an answer.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 08:18 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Christmas trees in homes cause around four deaths a year so do you wish to give up Christmas trees Firefly.

Christmas trees kill 4 people.
Guns kill 30,000 people

What an idiotic comparison Bill.
It seems unlikely, Parados.
What is the source of that alleged statistic??
Mc3don6ald
 
  3  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:02 pm
the gunman is dead, so at least there is one less armed whack-job walking the streets...http://www.nektkan.info/17.jpg
BillRM
 
  -1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:16 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Christmas trees kill 4 people.
Guns kill 30,000 people

What an idiotic comparison Bill.


So having trees in living rooms for a few weeks a year is worth four human lives a year so the value of four humans seem to be petty small in your eyes so how many not all that valuable humans lives can we loss to keep out guns in your opinion?
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  -2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:18 pm
@Mc3don6ald,
How come there is a broken image at the end of everyone of your posts?

Would you like me to explain how to post an image?
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:32 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
how many not all that valuable humans lives can we loss to keep out guns in your opinion?

You got it backwards mate...How many valuable lives will be lost because of Guns? Do you think that guns save more lives? Or cause more deaths? Even in saving lives, Does someone have to kill someone? Or wound someone? For it to have an affect...

Is there no more humane answer than someone to wound or kill someone with a gun...to be protecting themselves?

There is only a need for a gun to protect oneself...Because there is fear...Or is the fact that another has a gun...
BillRM
 
  -1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:41 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
How many valuable lives will be lost because of Guns? Do you think that guns save more lives? Or cause more deaths? Even in saving lives, Does someone have to kill someone? Or wound someone? For it to have an affect...


Guns been in my life and my family life long before I happen to had been born in 1948 with zero harm to anything but a few game animals.

There are guns in my family that been in our hands since the 187os as a matter of fact.

With half the homes in this nation with firearms in them and around 300 millions firearms that seems to be the case for the vast majority of households with guns in them generation after generation.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:45 pm
@BillRM,
And my family has never had a gun...generation after generation...And all is well...So what are your guns actually doing for you? Besides hunting?

What if you never have malicious intent...But some psycho breaks in when you are not home...and now has them? And they are legit...(purchasing wise)
BillRM
 
  -2  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:56 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
And my family has never had a gun...generation after generation...And all is well...So what are your guns actually doing for you? Besides hunting?


Well when my wife was traveling around the country years ago either with her plane or RV by herself the riot shotgun along was a good insurance policy to say the least for example.

We also both enjoy target shooting as did both my mother and father before did, with special note of how shameful happy my mother was that she could mostly out shoot him.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:58 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Let's hear it oralloy--Are you in favour of gun ownership being dependent on providing a DNA sample?

A matter, with us now thanks to science, the Founding Fathers had no possibly way of understanding or legislating for.
Thay understood the concept of equality of the citizens before the law.

Thay understood that everyone has an equal right
to defend his or her life.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Fri 18 Jan, 2013 01:06 am
http://www.a-human-right.com/quacks_s.jpg
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jan, 2013 01:12 am
@oralloy,
Why would she have to use a gun against anyone, if there were no guns to be used against her?

The only reason a person would have to use a gun like that...Is for fear of another gun, Or certainty another is going to use a gun against her...

If there were no guns...She, nor anyone else, would have or try to use one...for or against her or anyone else...
oralloy
 
  -2  
Fri 18 Jan, 2013 01:36 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Why would she have to use a gun against anyone, if there were no guns to be used against her?


Presumably she would not want to be raped and/or murdered, even if her attacker did not have a gun.



XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
The only reason a person would have to use a gun like that...Is for fear of another gun, Or certainty another is going to use a gun against her...


Wrong. Defense against criminal attack is a reason to have a gun.

There is no requirement that a criminal have a gun before you can defend yourself from their attacks.



XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
If there were no guns...She, nor anyone else, would have or try to use one...for or against her or anyone else...


Instead, she would just have to let criminals rape and murder her as they pleased.

No thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.63 seconds on 11/28/2024 at 12:49:20