Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

616 posts in this topic

Posted

Watching CNN and some congressman is on:

"Now is the time for immediate action. There will be no more debates, there will be no more committees. If we can save one child we must ban guns in this country now."

Reminds me of 9-11. This is the liberal 9-11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Seat belts don't prevent 100% of driving related deaths. Therefore, don't wear a seat belt?

I thought we weren't comparing cars and guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Guys I'm sorry.

Your willingness to freely give away your rights absolutely terrifies me.

Del, Panthro, I've met you both and thing you are both pretty intelligent people, but your stances on this completely terrifies me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Watching CNN and some congressman is on:

"Now is the time for immediate action. There will be no more debates, there will be no more committees. If we can save one child we must ban guns in this country now."

Reminds me of 9-11. This is the liberal 9-11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I thought we weren't comparing cars and guns?

We can in an apples to apples comparison.

I'll be glad to show the fallacy of saying that just because a legislation does not prevent 100% of all accidents/crimes/deaths it is not worth exploring with whatever example requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We can in an apples to apples comparison.

I'll be glad to show the fallacy of saying that just because a legislation does not prevent 100% of all accidents/crimes/deaths it is not worth exploring with whatever example requested.

What I'm hearing you say here is that it's ok to make the comparison as long as it supports what you want it to...

And post any links you'd like, I've never said I'm against the legislation... I've simply stated I think the bigger issue is mental illness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What I'm hearing you say here is that it's ok to make the comparison as long as it supports what you want it to...

And post any links you'd like, I've never said I'm against the legislation... I've simply stated I think the bigger issue is mental illness...

Guns do not compare to directly to cars, because the primary use of cars is transportation while the primary use of guns is killing/maiming things.

Therefore the statement, "Cars kill people. Why not ban all cars?" is not really a legit statement. The fact that cars kill people is an unfortunate side effect of the speed and bulk of automobiles. If you could magically wipe out all cars (not realistic), you would have a bunch of people who couldn't get to work. If you could magically wipe out all guns (not realistic), you would have a bunch of people who could not shoot things. Big difference.

Seat belts compare directly to gun legislation because the primary purpose of both is to limit deaths/injuries (regardless of effectiveness).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Guys I'm sorry.

Your willingness to freely give away your rights absolutely terrifies me.

Del, Panthro, I've met you both and thing you are both pretty intelligent people, but your stances on this completely terrifies me.

Who is giving away rights?

Why is it all or nothing with you people. We've done it your way long enough....time to try something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Guns do not compare to directly to cars, because the primary use of cars is transportation while the primary use of guns is killing/maiming things.

Therefore the statement, "Cars kill people. Why not ban all cars?" is not really a legit statement. The fact that cars kill people is an unfortunate side effect of the speed and bulk of automobiles. If you could magically wipe out all cars (not realistic), you would have a bunch of people who couldn't get to work. If you could magically wipe out all guns (not realistic), you would have a bunch of people who could not shoot things. Big difference.

Seat belts compare directly to gun legislation because the primary purpose is to limit deaths/injuries (regardless of effectiveness).

2642171-rudy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If this nation had an epidemic of people getting into cars with the sole purpose of killing people I would get behind banning cars or at least some cars or making it harder to own a car.

But as far as I know, most deaths by automobile not from people getting into cars with the direct intent of killing themselves or other people.

Also automobiles are considered essential for your livelihood and economic stability, guns are no longer essential for livelihood .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why is it all or nothing with you people. We've done it your way long enough....time to try something else.

Why's it gotta be like that :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Debunking the Gun Culture Propaganda

By Bob Cesca · December 18,2012

PROPAGANDA: It’s safer to have a gun in the house, or concealed on your person.

REALITY: Nope. Not true. I’ll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:

A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (
.) An American is
than to be shot dead
. More than 30,000 Americans
with guns every year.

And here’s Science Daily:

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Need more? Here’s the American Journal of Lifestyle:

Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. “Whereas most men are murdered away from home,” wrote Hemenway. “Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization.”

One more…

PROPAGANDA: Banning guns won’t stop mass shootings because of the outlaws.

REALITY: Once again, totally not true. Australia, May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23. Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault rifles and other arms — 20 percent of all the known firearms in Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn’t a valid excuse. What happened after that?

Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

I think that’s enough for now. If you spot any more of these slogans and arguments, drop me a note via Facebook, Twitter or in the comments below and we’ll work together to debunk this specious clap-trap once and for all. Doing so will help to unravel the deeply entrenched gun culture in America, and this must be an ongoing commitment, running concurrently with any and all legislation that comes as a result of these horrifying gun massacres.

http://thedailybante...ist-propaganda/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites