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.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,501
  • Reputation: 3,467
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,155
  • Reputation: 513
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 17,910
  • Reputation: 6,257
  • LocationMatthews, NC
Administrators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,155
  • Reputation: 513
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,874
  • Reputation: 5,780
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,874
  • Reputation: 5,780
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,925
  • Reputation: 8,855
SUPPORTER

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 .


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users