Oralloy, you said that roughly the same amount of people would be killed by knives as guns. I called you on it, and the best you can do is call me a LIAR?
I looked back to where you made that comment, and that's all it was. A comment. You didn't back it up with a link, you didn't provide any other information. Someone asked for proof, and your only follow up was,
"Not experiments as such, but it is possible to compare homicide rates to levels of gun possession in various countries, and see that there is only a weak correlation between gun possession and homicide rates.
"
If your going to make a comment like that, then back it up. Otherwise, don't get pissed when someone calls you out on it.
Oralloy wrote: After all the crap you've spewed here, that you would have the audacity to complain about my calling you a freedom hater, is simply amazing. You really have no shame.
True, I throw around a lot of sh*t. But I reserve it for people who refuse to recognize when they've been proven wrong, or just make random, pointless inflammatory comments. If you stayed within the realm of reality, there would be no need to treat your arguments as the joke that they are.
oralloy wrote: Banning cars would save a LOT more lives than banning guns.
If someone wants to use saving lives as a reason to ban guns, then it is fair to point out to them that they are trying to ban the wrong thing.
Again with this nonsense. You're not paying attention.
I'm not advocating banning guns. I'm advocating proper regulation of guns.
If you must insist on using the car analogy, I can play that game.
Millions of people use cars
every day. They are necessary for people to get to work, make a living and stay employed. And guess what?
They're regulated.
Can you imagine how many more people would die if we just let anyone who wanted to drive, drive? Not to mention, when people are in automobile accidents or "hit and runs", most times we know who was involved because we can trace the owners information from a license plate or vin number.
Now this is where you need to think critically. Take off the blinders, put two and two together here, and maybe you'll get my point.
oralloy wrote: Your use of the word "illegal" in that sentence is highly disingenuous.
If I remove your disingenuous language, there is something worth responding to, however:
How is the use of "illegal" disingenuous? I don't have a problem with properly registered firearms. I have a problem with the
illegal ones.
Your insistance on making this an "all or nothing" argument is foolish. But I can understand why your doing it. It's the only way you can really make your point, so you have to stick with it.
oralloy wrote:JustanObserver wrote:
If you can't tell the difference between the importance of a car and it's role in society and ... guns, you're further off the deep end than I thought.
A car may be more important in your opinion, but that is merely your opinion. You shouldn't assume that everyone shares your opinion.
What a piece of work you are.
You actually took out a word from my comment to have an argument to reply to.
Yeah. If you removed the one word that
supports my point and what I've been basing my opinion on, then sure. You might have something.
Unfortunately, the one thing you clearly don't have is integrity.
) so just save it. 
