Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#421 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,033 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:52 PM

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.

#422 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:55 PM

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?

#423 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,516 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

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

#424 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

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.




#425 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,516 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

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.

#426 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

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...

#427 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,516 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

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).

#428 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,619 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:28 PM

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.

#429 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,619 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

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).



Posted Image

#430 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,178 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

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 .

#431 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:40 PM

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 :(

#432 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,217 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

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. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves 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/

#433 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,619 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:49 PM

Why's it gotta be like that :(

I like italics

#434 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,619 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:50 PM

Debunking the Gun Culture Propaganda


swiping

#435 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,178 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

Why isn't this plausible?



Ban assault rifles

Ban the manufacturing and sales of ammunition that are excessive in destruction i.e. hollow tip, armor piercing, etc.

Reduce magazine sizes

Ban hand guns that are deemed to go beyond basic need for stopping power for self defense i.e. .50 caliber Desert Eagles, .357 Magnum

Create meaningful and sweeping new regulations on the ability to purchase a gun.

Close gun show loopholes

impose a stiff federal sales tax on all weapons

Use revenue from that tax to create and aggressive educational program to educate the public on signs of mental illness that could result in a person doing these things.

Use new revenues from that tax to subsidize companies making non-lethal defense products, i.e. stun guns, pepper spray, etc. to make these alternatives even more affordable

Use revenue from tax to increase access and coverage for mental health care.

And cap the number of guns households can legally own. You don't need 10+ guns to protect your family. 1 per member will do the trick. If you already have more than the cap you can keep those guns, but cannot purchase additional guns.




There. Everyone is happy. Done and done. Your 2nd amendment right is not taken away, the power and lethalness of the guns available is greatly reduced, the access to guns is more difficult, and mental health care is expanded.

Surely everyone could get on board with that right??


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.