RE: Why is it?

RE: Why is it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 3:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Blaze orange requirements would not be necessary, and required by law, if most gun hunters obeyed the single most basic rule of shooting. Case closed. Cue dance music: "most gun owners" just changed to "most gun hunters". And furthermore, the legislating of safety precautions hardly consititues proof that "most" people disobey basic safety rules. In short, you don't have a case to close. K. I dare you to go out in the woods where deer hunters are without wearing blaze orange or the equivalent.

Politesub53 -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 4:13:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Why is it that when there is a terrorist attack by a Muslim group, the liberals scream that we should not judge a group by a small number of fanatics. I do it, and there are a lot of liberal users on this board that also do it. Now, when some angry or mentally unstable individual uses a gun, all gun owners are judged as irrational, immoral and they should not be allowed to own guns. There are over 8 million gun owners in this country. And everyone one of us are judged on the actions of an individual. We are told that our right to own firearms should be eliminated. That we are barbaric and dangerous. A stance that I consider hypocritical at best. If we are not to judge all Muslims on the actions of a few, then by god give gun owners the same respect, or shut the fuck up. Most criticism regards guns, isnt about all the owners, just some of them, or some of the types of guns available. Sadly, that doesnt suit the premise of your OP.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 4:20:36 PM)
could have something to do with the fact that dumbarse people using guns, kill more americans every year than ANY terrorist attack in the US has. How many times over? had to add something and punctuation. Adding that...... by that I mean people that get killed by dumbarse people with guns, not that all gun owners are dumbarses.... yano just for the sticklers

Politesub53 -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 4:30:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic could have something to do with the fact that dumbarse people using guns kill more americans every year than ANY terrorist attack in the US has. How many times over? By jove I think youve got it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 4:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Blaze orange requirements would not be necessary, and required by law, if most gun hunters obeyed the single most basic rule of shooting. Case closed. Cue dance music: "most gun owners" just changed to "most gun hunters". And furthermore, the legislating of safety precautions hardly consititues proof that "most" people disobey basic safety rules. In short, you don't have a case to close. K. I dare you to go out in the woods where deer hunters are without wearing blaze orange or the equivalent. Yeah, that's proof. Take away something that is being relied on (humans wearing blaze orange) and attempt to state that those not wearing orange getting shot (or shot at) is proof that hunters are reckless.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 8:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Blaze orange requirements would not be necessary, and required by law, if most gun hunters obeyed the single most basic rule of shooting. Case closed. Cue dance music: "most gun owners" just changed to "most gun hunters". And furthermore, the legislating of safety precautions hardly consititues proof that "most" people disobey basic safety rules. In short, you don't have a case to close. K. I dare you to go out in the woods where deer hunters are without wearing blaze orange or the equivalent. Yeah, that's proof. Take away something that is being relied on (humans wearing blaze orange) and attempt to state that those not wearing orange getting shot (or shot at) is proof that hunters are reckless. What is the most basic rule of using a firearm?

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 8:49:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What is the most basic rule of using a firearm? I see you are still trying to dance around having to provide support for your sweeping claim that, "most gun owners should never be allowed to even touch a firearm," a claim which you pronounced to be a "fact". So at this point I think it safe to conclude you don't have any, and never did. K.

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 9:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic could have something to do with the fact that dumbarse people using guns, kill more americans every year than ANY terrorist attack in the US has. How many times over? had to add something and punctuation. Adding that...... by that I mean people that get killed by dumbarse people with guns, not that all gun owners are dumbarses.... yano just for the sticklers just so I understand, WHICH regulation are they trying to pass thats going to PREVENT this from happening? also how bout we compare apples to apples as opposed to apples and oranges dumbasrse killing people with guns are ACCIDENTS, terrorist acts are DELIBERATE how bout we compare gun accidents to say another ACCIDENTAL injury or death like ohhh AUTO accidents when 50 people are killed in say a buss accident I don't hear anyone talking about banning high capacity vehicles when a sports car causes a huge pileup with mutiple vehicles and the death/injury rate is high I don't hear anyone talking about banning FAST CARS BTW, in 2011 the fatalities by gun & auto were both 10.3 per 100K of population coming to roughly 32K total, so I think thats a more fair comparison

sloguy02246 -> RE: Why is it? (9/8/2013 10:23:43 PM)
Referring to all such events as "ACCIDENTAL" is, I believe, also a mixing apples and oranges. I believe the cause of the majority of such events is more properly designated as "NEGLIGENCE," i.e., someone ends up injured or dead because someone else was negligent in their use of the firearm, automobile, or whatever instrument caused the tragedy.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 12:51:01 AM)
Lets compare cars to guns [image]http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-vs-cars.jpg[/image]

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 2:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What is the most basic rule of using a firearm? I see you are still trying to dance around having to provide support for your sweeping claim that, "most gun owners should never be allowed to even touch a firearm," a claim which you pronounced to be a "fact". So at this point I think it safe to conclude you don't have any, and never did. K. Get back to me after your adventure in the woods. Unless you don't really believe the stupid dumbass shit you're slinging.

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Get back to me after your adventure in the woods. Unless you don't really believe the stupid dumbass shit you're slinging. Get back to me when you figure out that not all gun owners are hunters. But rest first, it's difficult. In case you're still stuck after giving it a good try, here's the deal. Only about 1 in 6 gun owners hunts. So (follow me closely now) even if every single hunter was a total and complete idiot, that still wouldn't be anywhere near being "most" gun owners. Thanks for playing. K.

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:40:51 AM)
nm

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:40:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic could have something to do with the fact that dumbarse people using guns, kill more americans every year than ANY terrorist attack in the US has. How many times over? had to add something and punctuation. Adding that...... by that I mean people that get killed by dumbarse people with guns, not that all gun owners are dumbarses.... yano just for the sticklers just so I understand, WHICH regulation are they trying to pass thats going to PREVENT this from happening? also how bout we compare apples to apples as opposed to apples and oranges dumbasrse killing people with guns are ACCIDENTS, terrorist acts are DELIBERATE how bout we compare gun accidents to say another ACCIDENTAL injury or death like ohhh AUTO accidents when 50 people are killed in say a buss accident I don't hear anyone talking about banning high capacity vehicles when a sports car causes a huge pileup with mutiple vehicles and the death/injury rate is high I don't hear anyone talking about banning FAST CARS BTW, in 2011 the fatalities by gun & auto were both 10.3 per 100K of population coming to roughly 32K total, so I think thats a more fair comparison Oh dear oh dear oh dear, again you pretend to understand to know what I mean Dumbarse people also deliberately kill and maim people, yanno, like I mentioned in another post about a chap shooting an 8 year old in the mouth. If I had meant accidental gun death I would have said accidental, I didnt say it , so I dont mean it. Please stop trying to bypass the dumbarsedness of people to turn into killers. One word about accidents by car...when a gun has to go through as many safety checks to be safe, get back to me. When a bus accident kills 50 or so people it is examined by safety people to reduce it happening again. When a car causes a multi car crash, you can bet that the car is examined to find out if it was user error, environmental actions in play(fog, slick roads, ice etc) or an issue with the car itself, plus there are laws covering driving, yearly or two yearly tests on the machine for safety reasons..there are laws against driving drunk, using a cell phone, etc etc etc There was a series of deaths caused by truck wheels causing death and mayhem on the roads a few years back, you bet your life there are regulations in place now about tyre safety right now. Recently there was a great hullabaloo about a car being driven into a crowd deliberately, it made the news for weeks. I haven't followed the story , but if the person who did it made a claim that the car made him do it, you can bet that car was gone over with a fine toothcomb. From your claim about the regulations they are trying to pass...I'll let you look up the states that are trying to pass laws. And the people who are blocking them. sweet mother of pearl...

MasterCaneman -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets compare cars to guns [image]http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-vs-cars.jpg[/image] The problem with that is, driving and car ownership is a privilege, not a right.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 8:41:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets compare cars to guns [image]http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-vs-cars.jpg[/image] If you are over the age of 21 in many states, you dont need driver training to get a license. When you buy a gun you fill out the registration form at POS, that is sent to the state government, placed in a database, which is why if you are a suspect in a shooting they already know you own a gun. If you apply for a CCP, you have to take firearm training, pass a written test as well as a test on the range before you get the certification to take to the local law enforcement agency who then run a back ground check, process the application, and then still may deny you the permit. Just what do you hope to achieve with physical inspection of a firearm? Unlike cars which need working lights, brakes, windshield wipers, turn signals etc, a firearm is a fairly simple construction, you know, point and shoot. As for registration renewals, if you park your car and dont drive it, it dont need tags, they dont come and take it from you, they just ticket you for driving with expired tags. The registration fees are usually used for road maintenance, what do you propose to use registration fees on a gun?

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 9:19:58 AM)
A couple of points I would like to make. A mandatory firearms safety course is not a bad idea, but it will not put a stop to idiots and guns, just like driver's education does not eliminate idiots and cars. An idiot is going to be an idiot with or without training. Their are two gun dealers in town that have access to ranges, and they take a first time gun owner to the range so they have an understanding of what they are dealing with, and in the case of handguns, to determine which caliber is best suited for the buyer. These two dealers also offer a basic firearms training course for a flat fee that will allow the buyer to actually get comfortable with the weapon of choice. But seriously, in my lifetime I have seen idiots with guns who have had training in firearms, in the military, in law enforcement and people who were former military and law enforcement. All the training in the world will not eliminate the genetic problem of terminal stupidity. And since there no test to determine if a person suffers from that problem, well shit out of luck applies in the situation. The number of accidental gun deaths in the US is less than a thousand, in 2011 it was 851. That includes 222 deaths involving a gun that the exact cause is inconclusive. There are an estimated at between 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 privately owned guns in 43-55 million households. In 2009, speeding caused 22,456 deaths, the number of deaths caused by distracted driving is much higher. So by all means, compare cars to guns, the numbers favor gun owners.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 9:56:38 AM)
A three year old just shot herself in a state park, thanks to the wonderful rule freeing up guns http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/mother_reports_daughter_3_fata.html and a 1 year old shot in a strolller http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/child-shot-head-brownsville-brooklyn-article-1.1443212 and an 188 yr old dies playing a prank http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/girl-18-shot-dead-friend-2261461 and a 12 yr old shot playing outside for "jealousy" from a 33 yr old http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/kenis-green-detroit-killed-alvin-conwell_n_3881546.html?utm_hp_ref=crime add those to your figures but hey... its a right not a privilige right?

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 12:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Get back to me after your adventure in the woods. Unless you don't really believe the stupid dumbass shit you're slinging. Get back to me when you figure out that not all gun owners are hunters. But rest first, it's difficult. In case you're still stuck after giving it a good try, here's the deal. Only about 1 in 6 gun owners hunts. So (follow me closely now) even if every single hunter was a total and complete idiot, that still wouldn't be anywhere near being "most" gun owners. Thanks for playing. K. So? Go to a shooting range or trap or anywhere else the public shoots and observe the goings on. You'll see that the people who obey the safety rules for firearms are in the minority.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 12:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If you apply for a CCP, you have to take firearm training, pass a written test as well as a test on the range before you get the certification to take to the local law enforcement agency who then run a back ground check, process the application, and then still may deny you the permit. That's the rule in a "may issue" state but is not the case in "shall issue" states. There are even some states that do not require a permit of any sort to carry concealed. quote: Just what do you hope to achieve with physical inspection of a firearm? Verifying the weapon is still in the possession of the registered owner, the weapon is not worn to the point of being dangerous, that the weapon has not been illegally modified etc.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02