Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:55:20 AM
chalket-"I'm just wondering why you conveniently left out the next two lines in your reference:"
Because HolyGod wanted to compare Apples-to-Apples. So I gave the numbers for Accidental deaths. (and, you`ll note, I added the disclaimer `please note that the Firearm deaths are only listing accidental deaths (as with Motor Vehicle), as you wanted Apples to Apples.`)
For future reference: Accidental deaths due to auto`s vs. accidental deaths due to firearm = Apples-to-Apples. Accidental deaths due to intentional deaths due to firearms (i.e. homicides) = Apples-to-Homicide.
It was not `convenient`, it was a specific statement of accidental deaths. Now you would agree that there is a defference between `accidental ` and `intentional`, correct?
chalket-"Kinda changes your overly-rosy "138 per 100,000" doesn`t it?"
No, it does not change the number for Accidental firearm deaths at all (remember, Apples-to-Ap
"You say it jams but I've watched video of them being used to blow through high capacity clips in seconds."
Wow, so your extensive research on Youtube has suddenly made you an expert on the subject? Damn, I wasted so much time learning the components and how weapons operate when all I had to do was spend an afternoon on Youtube... F*ck me, what a waste of time!!!
Think about how many videos of these guys having their weapons jam never made it on Youtube while they were attempting it. You`re not going to post something like that because you don`t want to look like an a$$hole. That`s why you film all day hoping for a few minutes of usable footage.
Unless you come up with something better than the bump stock argument you always use don`t bother arguing with me when it comes to how weapons operate.