So if the aliens invaded tomorrow and said,"we are not going to apologize for our existence. We must eat humans." You would say,"do not eat the third world people. They have had it rough. Eat my people for we've only known comfort." Is that what you would say?
Nope.
I'd say, "Holy f**k. Where is Scruffy and Unsung? I gotta get my ass behind them so they can shoot the aliens for me."
* To your point... you're asking me to speak from the prey's perspective. I'm not the prey in our scenario. You'd have to ask the aliens the same question if they ever created a situation where they were harvesting human beings in cruel conditions or hunting them where the humans at a minimum had a chance to elude death and live some semblance of a free life.
* Are you suggesting factory farming is more humane than hunting for your meat?
I have buried my head in the sand when it comes to factory farming. I don't watch the documentaries, or videos, or read the articles. I know that it is less humane than shooting a deer. You were focusing on the manner of death and I was focusing on the prey's point of view, as you mentioned. I guess it just bothered me that killing could ever be considered respectable. Is that being overly sensitive?
I have buried my head in the sand when it comes to factory farming. I don't watch the documentaries, or videos, or read the articles. I know that it is less humane than shooting a deer. You were focusing on the manner of death and I was focusing on the prey's point of view, as you mentioned. I guess it just bothered me that killing could ever be considered respectable. Is that being overly sensitive?
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
I ve said it many times on this forum but one more: I live in New Jersey, we have the third strongest gun laws in the us. I don't agree with any sort of ban but here are some of my laws that I like. We have to go through these steps to buy a fire arm in nj. Now we still have shit ass cities like Camden, Newark, Atlantic city etc that continuely kill each other but these are the steps you need to follow to buy a gun legally in jersey: You must be finger printed You must get a criminal background check You must get a mental health background check You must get two references from non family members You must get a reference from your boss After you pass all this you get something called a firearms ID card. With the firearms ID card you can buy as many rifles and shotguns you want. But every time you buy a firearm you must pass one final background check. Whatever weapon you buy it is registered with the nj state police. The only thing nj doesn't have that i would like is you need to pass some sort of safety course in order to first buy a gun. Don't ban anything and don't ever hold me accountable for other people s actions if my firearm is stolen.
So that's it? Add a safety course to the existing NJ gun laws and gun related violence disappears?
I think that would be a could start on top of all the other requirements I mentioned. Pretty sure the vast majority of US do not have those types of laws. but you keep taxing the shit out of stuff and I'm sure things will change.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
Don't twist my words dirty. The thesis was: your gun gets stolen and you are responsible. No shit it s not a credit card. but if I have no kids and keep my 9mm under my pillow and a criminal steals how am I irresponsible?!
Well read everything I've said then.
I've said a mechanism should be in place for the incidents where negligence can be disproved.
As well, regardless of anything, the protocol for storing guns is as I described. If you don't secure a gun and it goes missing... you were irresponsible with it. I'm assuming someone had stolen the weapon from under your pillow when you weren't home in your scenario? Lock it up when you leave the house.
So based on your thinking I should probably lock up my prescription drugs too. Because God forbid that criminal who steals my drugs over doses on them I might be liable!
So why not lock up your weapons, if you lock up your weapons in a locked safe and thieves brake in and take them I'd say you should not be held responsible! But if you leave it on a table or underneath your pillow I'd say you should be held responsible...
This thread has fallen off the deep end. What gets me is I would bet a lot of the anti gunners out there that have never served their country in the military or law enforcement. Have never been a victim of violent crime when a gun or other weapon was used. They have no problem sleeping soundly at night when it was a gun or another destructive device that brought upon and continues to secure that freedom. They refuse to acknowledge that numbers that show that way more crimes are prevented by firearms then committed by firearms or the fact that countries that have instituted gun bans or very restrictive gun laws have seen an increase in violent crime and home invasions. Then they want to jump on the AR15 or the AK47 because they look scary or because their misguided thought pattern makes them believe they are military grade weapons. Um no their not. There are several variations of rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge but has wood furniture but nothing is said about those rifles. No one brings up a 50 caliber rifle. Much more destructive and deadly. Let's outlaw the Ford F-150 but let the semi trucks run free. People step outside your safety box that you've enjoyed because of firearms and educate yourselves on reality.
what I thought...you can't, a gun is a tool used for many reasons how it is used is dependent on who is using it and what circumstances they may be involved in......shocker !!!!!! gun's don't think for themselves.
Godfather.
what you thought? you didn't give me anything to disprove. that was my point.
a gun is used for many reasons? like to open a bottle of beer? or to help you find your keys? what uses does this "tool" have other than to shoot at things living or inanimate?
be a hell of a bottle opener LOL ! believe it or not there are some guns collected that never get used, just owning them and collecting them brings satisfaction it's like collecting anything else old records, knives, art, etc. just because a small percentage of this country dislikes guns means nothing to me and a lot of other people, the anti gun crowd love throwing around drummed up "facts" and posting and re-posting gun related crimes and as silly as the outlaw car's argument sounds they do kill more people than guns and for you climate change believers what does a car's emissions do to future life and health ? ...I don't believe it either lol ! anyway a gun a car or a hammer are only as dangerous as the person using it. also drug and alcohol related deaths far exceed gun deaths but some of the same anti gun folks would like to legalize drugs...now that's just illegal drugs what about prescription or prescribed drugs ? or alcohol poisoning or drunk driver related deaths ? our society seems to be fine with these things, prescribed drugs flood the market with little long term effects and even short term effects and many are sold knowing full well that they are addicting (Xanax, oxycotton, etc) so in my opinion a gun debate is meaningless if one is going to use death toll's and accidents when there are other things just as dangerous and more readily available to the general public.
Godfather.
So, what if I wanted to collect nuclear warheads? Just owning them and collecting them brings me satisfaction! It's no different than old records.
I think you're mistaken in thinking that people don't like guns just because people don't like guns. People don't guns because people don't like murder, and the statistical facts show that the more guns in a society, the more murder in a society, both by volume and per capita (and don't put facts in quotations like they're some fictional story - you can ignore facts as long as you'd like, but they're still facts, and not your romantic view of them).
Guns - primary use case: to wield power by fear of and facilitation of injury or death. Cars - primary use case: to move people between various geographic locations when walking is impermissible Hammers - primary use case: in conjunction with nails, to construct (and on occasion, to crucify) Drugs and alcohol - I agree we should do a better job of restricting these, especially the ones with addictive properties. Instead of saying that gun debate is meaningless because of rampant drug and alcohol abuse, I'd say that gun debate is meaningful in addition to issues surrounding rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
. ....wrong, your also adding self defense deaths as well and that's not murder. most of the "facts" about guns are a fictional story told by anti gun folks, what ever you dig up on the internet I can probably find something on the internet to counter it but what would be the point you will believe what you will as will I.
Godfather.
so more guns equals less death in your eyes? your murder rate by use of guns per capita tells a wildly different story. it is indisputable. but hey, "facts" and "science" are just things used by nerds to "prove" things.
everyone else can just wipe their ass and tell a story from it.
MOST of the facts on this topic spewed by anti gun folks are not fact at all.....as I've said before for every fact you post from the internet I can find one to counter it.
what I thought...you can't, a gun is a tool used for many reasons how it is used is dependent on who is using it and what circumstances they may be involved in......shocker !!!!!! gun's don't think for themselves.
Godfather.
what you thought? you didn't give me anything to disprove. that was my point.
a gun is used for many reasons? like to open a bottle of beer? or to help you find your keys? what uses does this "tool" have other than to shoot at things living or inanimate?
be a hell of a bottle opener LOL ! believe it or not there are some guns collected that never get used, just owning them and collecting them brings satisfaction it's like collecting anything else old records, knives, art, etc. just because a small percentage of this country dislikes guns means nothing to me and a lot of other people, the anti gun crowd love throwing around drummed up "facts" and posting and re-posting gun related crimes and as silly as the outlaw car's argument sounds they do kill more people than guns and for you climate change believers what does a car's emissions do to future life and health ? ...I don't believe it either lol ! anyway a gun a car or a hammer are only as dangerous as the person using it. also drug and alcohol related deaths far exceed gun deaths but some of the same anti gun folks would like to legalize drugs...now that's just illegal drugs what about prescription or prescribed drugs ? or alcohol poisoning or drunk driver related deaths ? our society seems to be fine with these things, prescribed drugs flood the market with little long term effects and even short term effects and many are sold knowing full well that they are addicting (Xanax, oxycotton, etc) so in my opinion a gun debate is meaningless if one is going to use death toll's and accidents when there are other things just as dangerous and more readily available to the general public.
Godfather.
So, what if I wanted to collect nuclear warheads? Just owning them and collecting them brings me satisfaction! It's no different than old records.
I think you're mistaken in thinking that people don't like guns just because people don't like guns. People don't guns because people don't like murder, and the statistical facts show that the more guns in a society, the more murder in a society, both by volume and per capita (and don't put facts in quotations like they're some fictional story - you can ignore facts as long as you'd like, but they're still facts, and not your romantic view of them).
Guns - primary use case: to wield power by fear of and facilitation of injury or death. Cars - primary use case: to move people between various geographic locations when walking is impermissible Hammers - primary use case: in conjunction with nails, to construct (and on occasion, to crucify) Drugs and alcohol - I agree we should do a better job of restricting these, especially the ones with addictive properties. Instead of saying that gun debate is meaningless because of rampant drug and alcohol abuse, I'd say that gun debate is meaningful in addition to issues surrounding rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
. ....wrong, your also adding self defense deaths as well and that's not murder. most of the "facts" about guns are a fictional story told by anti gun folks, what ever you dig up on the internet I can probably find something on the internet to counter it but what would be the point you will believe what you will as will I.
Godfather.
so more guns equals less death in your eyes? your murder rate by use of guns per capita tells a wildly different story. it is indisputable. but hey, "facts" and "science" are just things used by nerds to "prove" things.
everyone else can just wipe their ass and tell a story from it.
MOST of the facts on this topic spewed by anti gun folks are not fact at all.....as I've said before for every fact you post from the internet I can find one to counter it.
Godfather.
Yah but the ones you find don't make any sense though. Right?
This thread has fallen off the deep end. What gets me is I would bet a lot of the anti gunners out there that have never served their country in the military or law enforcement. Have never been a victim of violent crime when a gun or other weapon was used. They have no problem sleeping soundly at night when it was a gun or another destructive device that brought upon and continues to secure that freedom. They refuse to acknowledge that numbers that show that way more crimes are prevented by firearms then committed by firearms or the fact that countries that have instituted gun bans or very restrictive gun laws have seen an increase in violent crime and home invasions. Then they want to jump on the AR15 or the AK47 because they look scary or because their misguided thought pattern makes them believe they are military grade weapons. Um no their not. There are several variations of rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge but has wood furniture but nothing is said about those rifles. No one brings up a 50 caliber rifle. Much more destructive and deadly. Let's outlaw the Ford F-150 but let the semi trucks run free. People step outside your safety box that you've enjoyed because of firearms and educate yourselves on reality.
I'd bet you're wrong.
Where are the numbers in regards to crimes being prevented by guns?
Post edited by Degeneratefk on
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
The second strongest argument the pro side has: it's fun.
Lol
you know after you shoot my ar you are going to want one. don't lie to yourself.
Of course I'd want one.
Hey I'm not going to deny that ownership of such a gun wouldn't be cool. I'm just saying that as cool as it might be... there's no need for it in civilian hands.
And as condescending and poorly worded as I might be at times in this topic, I've got nothing against the pro crowd. Nothing at all. I see where they're coming from, but I disagree with their perspective. That doesn't make either side better than the other.
I would say that some pro gun people plead not to characterize all pro gunners as irresponsible given the brutal actions of a few... yet at times they characterize and cast judgement in the same manner (like in the Islam threads).
This thread has fallen off the deep end. What gets me is I would bet a lot of the anti gunners out there that have never served their country in the military or law enforcement. Have never been a victim of violent crime when a gun or other weapon was used. They have no problem sleeping soundly at night when it was a gun or another destructive device that brought upon and continues to secure that freedom. They refuse to acknowledge that numbers that show that way more crimes are prevented by firearms then committed by firearms or the fact that countries that have instituted gun bans or very restrictive gun laws have seen an increase in violent crime and home invasions. Then they want to jump on the AR15 or the AK47 because they look scary or because their misguided thought pattern makes them believe they are military grade weapons. Um no their not. There are several variations of rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge but has wood furniture but nothing is said about those rifles. No one brings up a 50 caliber rifle. Much more destructive and deadly. Let's outlaw the Ford F-150 but let the semi trucks run free. People step outside your safety box that you've enjoyed because of firearms and educate yourselves on reality.
You are wrong with regards to your assertion about gun laws and restrictions resulting in an increase in violent crime and home invasions.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
Dude, it's not enough that your house was locked. It's your fault, not the criminal's. The left prefers blaming the victim.
I am completely willing to accept a certain level of responsibility, and that my guns should be stored properly. In California you have to sign a statement that you own a gun safe and will store it in there. Seems fair enough to me.
But you completely lost me, and hopefully everyone else, when you say its not the criminals fault if he breaks into my house and steals a gun? How is the criminal not responsible? Surely the criminal himself will share some of the responsibility for stealing my gun and killing someone?
Anti gunner here. Don't think a gun owner shoukd be held liable if their gun was stolen and used in a crime. Not black and white of course; if it was stored properly, as someone else said, not just laying on a table in your back yard, etc.
If someone stole a hammer out of my garage and bludgeoned their gramma to death with it, I am not responsible for that.
The second strongest argument the pro side has: it's fun.
Lol
you know after you shoot my ar you are going to want one. don't lie to yourself.
I have shot an AR. I wasn't impressed. But I don't get hard ons from gun fire.
Me either. It s very tough to shoot with one. Instead of an ar I ll let you try one of my garands. Now that s a manly gun! Trust me, you ll be impressed. Ping!
what I thought...you can't, a gun is a tool used for many reasons how it is used is dependent on who is using it and what circumstances they may be involved in......shocker !!!!!! gun's don't think for themselves.
Godfather.
what you thought? you didn't give me anything to disprove. that was my point.
a gun is used for many reasons? like to open a bottle of beer? or to help you find your keys? what uses does this "tool" have other than to shoot at things living or inanimate?
be a hell of a bottle opener LOL ! believe it or not there are some guns collected that never get used, just owning them and collecting them brings satisfaction it's like collecting anything else old records, knives, art, etc. just because a small percentage of this country dislikes guns means nothing to me and a lot of other people, the anti gun crowd love throwing around drummed up "facts" and posting and re-posting gun related crimes and as silly as the outlaw car's argument sounds they do kill more people than guns and for you climate change believers what does a car's emissions do to future life and health ? ...I don't believe it either lol ! anyway a gun a car or a hammer are only as dangerous as the person using it. also drug and alcohol related deaths far exceed gun deaths but some of the same anti gun folks would like to legalize drugs...now that's just illegal drugs what about prescription or prescribed drugs ? or alcohol poisoning or drunk driver related deaths ? our society seems to be fine with these things, prescribed drugs flood the market with little long term effects and even short term effects and many are sold knowing full well that they are addicting (Xanax, oxycotton, etc) so in my opinion a gun debate is meaningless if one is going to use death toll's and accidents when there are other things just as dangerous and more readily available to the general public.
Godfather.
So, what if I wanted to collect nuclear warheads? Just owning them and collecting them brings me satisfaction! It's no different than old records.
I think you're mistaken in thinking that people don't like guns just because people don't like guns. People don't guns because people don't like murder, and the statistical facts show that the more guns in a society, the more murder in a society, both by volume and per capita (and don't put facts in quotations like they're some fictional story - you can ignore facts as long as you'd like, but they're still facts, and not your romantic view of them).
Guns - primary use case: to wield power by fear of and facilitation of injury or death. Cars - primary use case: to move people between various geographic locations when walking is impermissible Hammers - primary use case: in conjunction with nails, to construct (and on occasion, to crucify) Drugs and alcohol - I agree we should do a better job of restricting these, especially the ones with addictive properties. Instead of saying that gun debate is meaningless because of rampant drug and alcohol abuse, I'd say that gun debate is meaningful in addition to issues surrounding rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
. ....wrong, your also adding self defense deaths as well and that's not murder. most of the "facts" about guns are a fictional story told by anti gun folks, what ever you dig up on the internet I can probably find something on the internet to counter it but what would be the point you will believe what you will as will I.
Godfather.
so more guns equals less death in your eyes? your murder rate by use of guns per capita tells a wildly different story. it is indisputable. but hey, "facts" and "science" are just things used by nerds to "prove" things.
everyone else can just wipe their ass and tell a story from it.
MOST of the facts on this topic spewed by anti gun folks are not fact at all.....as I've said before for every fact you post from the internet I can find one to counter it.
Godfather.
Yah but the ones you find don't make any sense though. Right?
? lost me on that one Amigo, but then again most facts posted by anti gun folks on here make no sense to me. the right thing to do would be this, if a person don't like guns then they are 100% within their rights not to buy any. problem solved.
what I thought...you can't, a gun is a tool used for many reasons how it is used is dependent on who is using it and what circumstances they may be involved in......shocker !!!!!! gun's don't think for themselves.
Godfather.
what you thought? you didn't give me anything to disprove. that was my point.
a gun is used for many reasons? like to open a bottle of beer? or to help you find your keys? what uses does this "tool" have other than to shoot at things living or inanimate?
be a hell of a bottle opener LOL ! believe it or not there are some guns collected that never get used, just owning them and collecting them brings satisfaction it's like collecting anything else old records, knives, art, etc. just because a small percentage of this country dislikes guns means nothing to me and a lot of other people, the anti gun crowd love throwing around drummed up "facts" and posting and re-posting gun related crimes and as silly as the outlaw car's argument sounds they do kill more people than guns and for you climate change believers what does a car's emissions do to future life and health ? ...I don't believe it either lol ! anyway a gun a car or a hammer are only as dangerous as the person using it. also drug and alcohol related deaths far exceed gun deaths but some of the same anti gun folks would like to legalize drugs...now that's just illegal drugs what about prescription or prescribed drugs ? or alcohol poisoning or drunk driver related deaths ? our society seems to be fine with these things, prescribed drugs flood the market with little long term effects and even short term effects and many are sold knowing full well that they are addicting (Xanax, oxycotton, etc) so in my opinion a gun debate is meaningless if one is going to use death toll's and accidents when there are other things just as dangerous and more readily available to the general public.
Godfather.
So, what if I wanted to collect nuclear warheads? Just owning them and collecting them brings me satisfaction! It's no different than old records.
I think you're mistaken in thinking that people don't like guns just because people don't like guns. People don't guns because people don't like murder, and the statistical facts show that the more guns in a society, the more murder in a society, both by volume and per capita (and don't put facts in quotations like they're some fictional story - you can ignore facts as long as you'd like, but they're still facts, and not your romantic view of them).
Guns - primary use case: to wield power by fear of and facilitation of injury or death. Cars - primary use case: to move people between various geographic locations when walking is impermissible Hammers - primary use case: in conjunction with nails, to construct (and on occasion, to crucify) Drugs and alcohol - I agree we should do a better job of restricting these, especially the ones with addictive properties. Instead of saying that gun debate is meaningless because of rampant drug and alcohol abuse, I'd say that gun debate is meaningful in addition to issues surrounding rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
. ....wrong, your also adding self defense deaths as well and that's not murder. most of the "facts" about guns are a fictional story told by anti gun folks, what ever you dig up on the internet I can probably find something on the internet to counter it but what would be the point you will believe what you will as will I.
Godfather.
so more guns equals less death in your eyes? your murder rate by use of guns per capita tells a wildly different story. it is indisputable. but hey, "facts" and "science" are just things used by nerds to "prove" things.
everyone else can just wipe their ass and tell a story from it.
MOST of the facts on this topic spewed by anti gun folks are not fact at all.....as I've said before for every fact you post from the internet I can find one to counter it.
Godfather.
Yah but the ones you find don't make any sense though. Right?
? lost me on that one Amigo, but then again most facts posted by anti gun folks on here make no sense to me. the right thing to do would be this, if a person don't like guns then they are 100% within their rights not to buy any. problem solved.
Godfather.
Not quite.
The problem isn't solved when their children are gunned down by some looney that wants to buy guns.
what I thought...you can't, a gun is a tool used for many reasons how it is used is dependent on who is using it and what circumstances they may be involved in......shocker !!!!!! gun's don't think for themselves.
Godfather.
what you thought? you didn't give me anything to disprove. that was my point.
a gun is used for many reasons? like to open a bottle of beer? or to help you find your keys? what uses does this "tool" have other than to shoot at things living or inanimate?
be a hell of a bottle opener LOL ! believe it or not there are some guns collected that never get used, just owning them and collecting them brings satisfaction it's like collecting anything else old records, knives, art, etc. just because a small percentage of this country dislikes guns means nothing to me and a lot of other people, the anti gun crowd love throwing around drummed up "facts" and posting and re-posting gun related crimes and as silly as the outlaw car's argument sounds they do kill more people than guns and for you climate change believers what does a car's emissions do to future life and health ? ...I don't believe it either lol ! anyway a gun a car or a hammer are only as dangerous as the person using it. also drug and alcohol related deaths far exceed gun deaths but some of the same anti gun folks would like to legalize drugs...now that's just illegal drugs what about prescription or prescribed drugs ? or alcohol poisoning or drunk driver related deaths ? our society seems to be fine with these things, prescribed drugs flood the market with little long term effects and even short term effects and many are sold knowing full well that they are addicting (Xanax, oxycotton, etc) so in my opinion a gun debate is meaningless if one is going to use death toll's and accidents when there are other things just as dangerous and more readily available to the general public.
Godfather.
So, what if I wanted to collect nuclear warheads? Just owning them and collecting them brings me satisfaction! It's no different than old records.
I think you're mistaken in thinking that people don't like guns just because people don't like guns. People don't guns because people don't like murder, and the statistical facts show that the more guns in a society, the more murder in a society, both by volume and per capita (and don't put facts in quotations like they're some fictional story - you can ignore facts as long as you'd like, but they're still facts, and not your romantic view of them).
Guns - primary use case: to wield power by fear of and facilitation of injury or death. Cars - primary use case: to move people between various geographic locations when walking is impermissible Hammers - primary use case: in conjunction with nails, to construct (and on occasion, to crucify) Drugs and alcohol - I agree we should do a better job of restricting these, especially the ones with addictive properties. Instead of saying that gun debate is meaningless because of rampant drug and alcohol abuse, I'd say that gun debate is meaningful in addition to issues surrounding rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
. ....wrong, your also adding self defense deaths as well and that's not murder. most of the "facts" about guns are a fictional story told by anti gun folks, what ever you dig up on the internet I can probably find something on the internet to counter it but what would be the point you will believe what you will as will I.
Godfather.
so more guns equals less death in your eyes? your murder rate by use of guns per capita tells a wildly different story. it is indisputable. but hey, "facts" and "science" are just things used by nerds to "prove" things.
everyone else can just wipe their ass and tell a story from it.
MOST of the facts on this topic spewed by anti gun folks are not fact at all.....as I've said before for every fact you post from the internet I can find one to counter it.
Godfather.
Yah but the ones you find don't make any sense though. Right?
? lost me on that one Amigo, but then again most facts posted by anti gun folks on here make no sense to me. the right thing to do would be this, if a person don't like guns then they are 100% within their rights not to buy any. problem solved.
Godfather.
Interesting. So the problem of getting mowed down by a gun happy fucktard is solved by me not owning one? Your deductive reasoning is impeccable.
This thread has fallen off the deep end. What gets me is I would bet a lot of the anti gunners out there that have never served their country in the military or law enforcement. Have never been a victim of violent crime when a gun or other weapon was used. They have no problem sleeping soundly at night when it was a gun or another destructive device that brought upon and continues to secure that freedom. They refuse to acknowledge that numbers that show that way more crimes are prevented by firearms then committed by firearms or the fact that countries that have instituted gun bans or very restrictive gun laws have seen an increase in violent crime and home invasions. Then they want to jump on the AR15 or the AK47 because they look scary or because their misguided thought pattern makes them believe they are military grade weapons. Um no their not. There are several variations of rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge but has wood furniture but nothing is said about those rifles. No one brings up a 50 caliber rifle. Much more destructive and deadly. Let's outlaw the Ford F-150 but let the semi trucks run free. People step outside your safety box that you've enjoyed because of firearms and educate yourselves on reality.
You are wrong with regards to your assertion about gun laws and restrictions resulting in an increase in violent crime and home invasions.
This thread has fallen off the deep end. What gets me is I would bet a lot of the anti gunners out there that have never served their country in the military or law enforcement. Have never been a victim of violent crime when a gun or other weapon was used. They have no problem sleeping soundly at night when it was a gun or another destructive device that brought upon and continues to secure that freedom. They refuse to acknowledge that numbers that show that way more crimes are prevented by firearms then committed by firearms or the fact that countries that have instituted gun bans or very restrictive gun laws have seen an increase in violent crime and home invasions. Then they want to jump on the AR15 or the AK47 because they look scary or because their misguided thought pattern makes them believe they are military grade weapons. Um no their not. There are several variations of rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge but has wood furniture but nothing is said about those rifles. No one brings up a 50 caliber rifle. Much more destructive and deadly. Let's outlaw the Ford F-150 but let the semi trucks run free. People step outside your safety box that you've enjoyed because of firearms and educate yourselves on reality.
I'd bet you're wrong.
Where are the numbers in regards to crimes being prevented by guns?
This thread has fallen off the deep end. What gets me is I would bet a lot of the anti gunners out there that have never served their country in the military or law enforcement. Have never been a victim of violent crime when a gun or other weapon was used. They have no problem sleeping soundly at night when it was a gun or another destructive device that brought upon and continues to secure that freedom. They refuse to acknowledge that numbers that show that way more crimes are prevented by firearms then committed by firearms or the fact that countries that have instituted gun bans or very restrictive gun laws have seen an increase in violent crime and home invasions. Then they want to jump on the AR15 or the AK47 because they look scary or because their misguided thought pattern makes them believe they are military grade weapons. Um no their not. There are several variations of rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge but has wood furniture but nothing is said about those rifles. No one brings up a 50 caliber rifle. Much more destructive and deadly. Let's outlaw the Ford F-150 but let the semi trucks run free. People step outside your safety box that you've enjoyed because of firearms and educate yourselves on reality.
You are wrong with regards to your assertion about gun laws and restrictions resulting in an increase in violent crime and home invasions.
Since the Port Arthur massacre (the catalyst for change in Australia)... "The number of Australia's mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since."
The extreme and its effectiveness: "Gun-control advocates regularly cite Japan’s highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun-homicide rate, which is the lowest in the world at one in 10 million, according to the latest data available. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite small, reflect this."
The UK's gun laws are a matter for debate, but the link you offered only speaks to the side of the issue which pleases you. In short, more brainwashing versus an unbiased piece open to critical interpretation. One thing can be said about the UK: "The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland. In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures."
Comments
I'd say, "Holy f**k. Where is Scruffy and Unsung? I gotta get my ass behind them so they can shoot the aliens for me."
* To your point... you're asking me to speak from the prey's perspective. I'm not the prey in our scenario. You'd have to ask the aliens the same question if they ever created a situation where they were harvesting human beings in cruel conditions or hunting them where the humans at a minimum had a chance to elude death and live some semblance of a free life.
* Are you suggesting factory farming is more humane than hunting for your meat?
I have buried my head in the sand when it comes to factory farming. I don't watch the documentaries, or videos, or read the articles. I know that it is less humane than shooting a deer. You were focusing on the manner of death and I was focusing on the prey's point of view, as you mentioned. I guess it just bothered me that killing could ever be considered respectable. Is that being overly sensitive?
The world needs more people like you.
WAKE UP SUNSHINE it's only a bad dream LOL !!
Godfather.
Godfather.
Where are the numbers in regards to crimes being prevented by guns?
we will find a way, we will find our place
Hey I'm not going to deny that ownership of such a gun wouldn't be cool. I'm just saying that as cool as it might be... there's no need for it in civilian hands.
And as condescending and poorly worded as I might be at times in this topic, I've got nothing against the pro crowd. Nothing at all. I see where they're coming from, but I disagree with their perspective. That doesn't make either side better than the other.
I would say that some pro gun people plead not to characterize all pro gunners as irresponsible given the brutal actions of a few... yet at times they characterize and cast judgement in the same manner (like in the Islam threads).
we will find a way, we will find our place
Really wrong.
But you completely lost me, and hopefully everyone else, when you say its not the criminals fault if he breaks into my house and steals a gun? How is the criminal not responsible? Surely the criminal himself will share some of the responsibility for stealing my gun and killing someone?
If someone stole a hammer out of my garage and bludgeoned their gramma to death with it, I am not responsible for that.
www.headstonesband.com
Instead of an ar I ll let you try one of my garands. Now that s a manly gun! Trust me, you ll be impressed. Ping!
I know how much you guy's like Ted.
Godfather.
the right thing to do would be this, if a person don't like guns then they are 100% within their rights not to buy any.
problem solved.
Godfather.
The problem isn't solved when their children are gunned down by some looney that wants to buy guns.
He's too extreme, but I like his stance on crime and punishment.
www.headstonesband.com
Educate yourself
Educate yourself
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251
The extreme and its effectiveness: "Gun-control advocates regularly cite Japan’s highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun-homicide rate, which is the lowest in the world at one in 10 million, according to the latest data available. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite small, reflect this."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711/
The UK's gun laws are a matter for debate, but the link you offered only speaks to the side of the issue which pleases you. In short, more brainwashing versus an unbiased piece open to critical interpretation. One thing can be said about the UK: "The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.
In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/
Canada's has been effective as well... except we've lapsed a bit and to boot... we have a smuggling problem from the wild west (your country).
But I'm done here. You failed. Nice try.
Edited to add last link.