 |
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 Tiredofnicks
Male, 30-39, Europe
 3995 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 9:23:19 AM
McGovern1981: And by Godwin's Law, you've now lost this discussion. |
|
 QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
1797 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 9:20:18 AM
I'd also like to take the time to point out that yesterdays shooting in Cali wasn't done with an assault weapon with a gigantic magazine meant only to kill *people*. In large numbers. It was done with a shotgun, only two people were even shot, and most importantly NOBODY DIED. Which I will take over the deaths of 26 innocent women and children any day.
Would it perhaps help the gun nutters if we stopped activating their Pavlovian response to the phrase "Gun Control" and instead started using the term "Massacre Control" instead??? |
|
QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
1797 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 9:12:20 AM
V I'm confused, gun nutters first say that gun control doesn't work and never can work in any situation, folks will just get guns anyway no matter what. And then they go all full Godwin and start spluttering and foaming at the mouth about Nazis and Hitler.
Which one is it folks? You can't have both. (Also, Germany isn't the UK. The More You Know). |
|
 McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10539 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:54:39 AM
Ya go to the UK no guns fro citizens just the government what could go wrong....
 |
|
 HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1211 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:52:58 AM
However do you really feel it is such a detriment to the second amendment to do things like make it illegal to buy a gun in this country without a background check?
Not if it's implemented by the states (though I still wouldn't support it)... However, I have to ask: why do you suppose that it would be effective in the least?
Afterall, we have background checks and licensing to determine whether or not a person is proficient to safely operate a motor vehicle. Despite this, roughly 6 million accidents occur each year and roughly 25% of drivers experience an accident each year.
Why do we suppose such measures would be anything more than a massive waste of funds? Evidence shows that the government is not particularly good at determining an individual's proficiency. |
|
 madduck
Female, 40-49, Europe
2964 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:48:06 AM
HolyGod- just come over here, you might get punched, and Dappy might spit on you- but your chances of being shot are negligible. Much safer I promise you- and as for the idea that we are the top of the violent crime league I would like to remind you that being shouted at or pushed are both counted as violent crimes... |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10539 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:41:17 AM
Yet it's the evil "assualt weapon" they want to get rid of.
Don't we already? Smoking is banned in a lot of places.
Yet people still do it hmmmm interesting. |
|
 HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
3058 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:33:33 AM
OldOliie
"The day I can walk into his studio without encountering an armed guard is the day I will listen to his arguments."
I have not heard a single person say lets take guns away from guards, or police, or the military. Why do you guys keep saying that. I am very much in favor of well trained professionals having guns. Why bring up something NOBODY is arguing against?
I'm not even saying let's make it so people can't own guns. I own a gun.
However do you really feel it is such a detriment to the second amendment to do things like make it illegal to buy a gun in this country without a background check?
Let's try some little things. Can we try SOME little things to try to help the situation without you guys acting like it is the death of the second amendment?
|
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
3058 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:26:50 AM
McGovern1981
"More than 500,000 Americans die from smoking-related causes each year."
They kill THEMSELVES. They don't kill 20 kindergarteners.
You get the difference right? I fully support every individuals right to make personal choices with consequences for themselves. |
|
 FoolsPrussia
Male, 18-29, Western US
2984 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:23:13 AM
"Do you want to control that aspect of peoples lives too?"
Don't we already? Smoking is banned in a lot of places. |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10539 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:15:40 AM
More restrictions on guns because an individual can't be trusted with such power and responsability but allow people to have children without question..... |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10539 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 8:10:30 AM
More than 500,000 Americans die from smoking-related causes each year. Do you want to control that aspect of peoples lives too? |
|
FoolsPrussia
Male, 18-29, Western US
2984 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 7:59:15 AM
"You cited suicide statistics, care to backpedal any further?"
CAjun, why don't you go back in the conversation and see where 5Cats claimed the 30,000 gun deaths was a lie? That's all I was refuting. Suicides are deaths, no? |
|
 dm2754
Male, 30-39, Western US
2821 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 7:57:35 AM
i could take out 20 kids with a musket and a bayonet.
but everyone knows wheels kill more kids then any other man made object |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5325 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 7:15:51 AM
@5cats: Still not staying on topic. Stewart didn't say "gun homicides" he said "gun deaths" and just because you are likely accurate that gun control won't decrease overall suicide rate, you still can lump it in with other causes of death. Is this somewhat disingenuous to do? Perhaps, but that wasn't what @FP was contending. You disputed the figure and @FP sourced it. He wasn't engaging in the morals of gun statistics, he was providing the source, and although roughly 30,000 deaths has an asterisk beside it, it is *technically* correct, and your accusation of Stewart as a liar was false. I happen to agree with you 100%, that gun control won't affect overall suicide, and I also think that lumping it in with homicides is overly simplistic, but that's why people have the ability to look things up for themselves and not just parrot whatever Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly or whoever else says without looking into it first yourself. |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
17442 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 7:06:04 AM
@patchy: "killed by guns" is open to interpritation: it USUALLY means someone else killed you, not self-inflicted death.
Suicide is a seperate catagory: accidental poisonings and suicidal poisoning are different, ok?
So would "more gun control" LOWER overall suicide rates? NO. The studies show it does not.
So why "lump in" suicide with the homicide? Dishonesty, that's all. He talks about one thing, then quotes stats about a completely different thing.
Saying it's "America's #1 problem" is stupid beyond all measure.
Fact: "Gun Suicides" outnumber "Gun Homicides" by 2:1? So what's the solution? Eh? How about suicide prevention rather than gun-grabbing?
|
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5325 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 6:29:52 AM
@5cats: You are engaging in strawman tactics when @FP called you out and proved you wrong. I must have missed the part where Stewart said gun control would completely eliminate all deaths caused by guns, maybe because he didn't say that. All he said was "in a country with 30,000 gun deaths a year" which says nothing about eliminating deaths from guns, mkay? The issue of contention was the number he gave, not any inferred intent behind it. Just suck it up and admit you were wrong, because you were. Just because people would probably have used other methods if guns weren't available is irrelevant. They DID use guns, so that number is included in the category of "method of suicide" which happens to be guns. Stop changing the subject so you don't appear to be wrong when you most in fact were. Stay on topic cupcake. |
|
Tiredofnicks
Male, 30-39, Europe
3995 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 6:02:00 AM
Colbert/Stewart 2016. |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10539 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 5:55:53 AM
He's a puppet and has never been funny. Imagine if he could have a thought on his own and see a majority of the US dosen't support this push. |
|
 bigfatdynamo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
259 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 5:36:57 AM
I am sure people put their fingers and in their ears and said "la la la" under real Hitler's rule, too. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14458 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 5:22:27 AM
klaxor: Your John Adams quote was taken out of context. Adams was NOT saying that 'arms in the hands of citizens' would 'demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate' as you're trying suggest by your selective extrication of text.
Adams was warning that individual cities, counties and states could become tyrannical and force it's own militia into service against another city, county, or state. Adams was saying the militias should only be commanded to follow the law and not become rogue groups of vigilantes. |
|
 Ripper398
Male, 18-29, Western US
1314 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:50:10 AM
Just as I suspected, nothing but mindless yammering underneath a video. |
|
 onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
1303 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:43:20 AM
How can a dystopian future not happen? This anger towards the gun bans is because the government can't keep it's own house in order. Why should they have a say in anyone else's? |
|
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9496 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:22:07 AM
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Who's being ignorant here? The website you cite doesn't even outright support the idea of stricter gun laws.
except in private self-defense
That does not necessarily exclude protecting oneself from wrongdoing by the government. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:07:06 AM
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
|
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}