You obviously live an exciting life, so don’t be a tease, let me know the context in which you saw them.
If you were using an airport you no doubt would have seen them, so I suppose I should have added the disclaimer to my post *“outside of an airport or other port of entrance to the country and any weapons museum you may have visited.”
*
Interesting fact to add to the discussion.
Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.
More children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms.
Facts you never hear from the liberal media.
Looks like we should outlaw football, cars, pools and food to me.
If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn’t object being searched. Since you object, you must be guilty. QED.
Regards,
Shodan
Bolding mine.
Yes, that’s right, make them think the idea is theirs. It’s Psychology 101.
And some wonder why gun owners don’t trust those that want to add additional regulation.
At least you are honest about trying to trick people.
John_Stamos’_Left_Ear is being accused of poisoning the well by the way he phrased his query, and he claims that the well is already poisoned and he was pointing out how in his op, so let’s put that to the test. Could one of you who think he phrased his title and op wrong please rephrase both title and OP in such a way that neither poisons the well? I’ll start a thread in Great Debates using that same title and OP, and we’ll see if it goes in a different direction than the one currently running in GD. Any takers?
That’s because you don’t understand the nature of the analogy. To compare swimming pool deaths and firearm deaths, you must consider the following: of all the children who swim in a year, what percentage drowns? Of all the people who play football in a year, what percentage suffers a fatal injury? Of all the people shot in a year, what percentage dies? These are the comparisons you should make. To pretend that being shot at is less dangerous than swimming or football is foolish.
You’ll have passed through an airport or two I guess, and perhaps central London? Our dimmy is wrong anyway, there’s plenty of legal guns in private hands here in Britain, mostly shotguns. It’s not hard to get a shotgun certificate if you want one - it’s a bit of paperwork with character references, a police officer visits to make sure you have a secure storage cabinet (and aren’t a lunatic/criminal) and that’s about it. It’s a little bit harder to get a general firearm certificate for a rifle, but I know a few people who have one.
The major restriction is on handguns (and I guess automatic weapons, but those are restricted in loads of countries) post the Dunblane massacre.
Sure, I’ll take a shot at that. Instead of the original title, ask ‘What measures could society take to reduce gun violence in the US…and would those measures be worth the return on investment for society as a whole?’
That’s pretty contentious and inflammatory there, but it’s a serious call for a discussion, and one where anti-gun folks can bring in their argument for regulation, licensing or banning of specific types of guns…or all guns, if that’s what they think would do the trick…and pro-gun types can counter. Nothing will be resolved, but there are a good balance of pro and anti gun folks, with a lot somewhere in the middle on this board, so it should be an interesting discussion even if it gets heated as folks at the extremes blast away and get frustrated.
Then, instead of all that weasely ‘Can we have a discussion’ and well poisoning ‘without accusing me of being Satan, burning baby cats or trying to swipe all your guns’, just come right out and lay out the actual question you want to ask without all that silly preamble…which, actually, was the entire OP. Lay out what you want to actually discuss wrt your thoughts on a good discussion concerning different methods that might have an effect on gun violence in the US. Maybe post some statistics or your own thoughts, demonstrate that gun violence is in fact on the rise in the US to show why we need to do more (or explain why it’s falling and why we need more despite that and despite the fact that there are actually more guns in the US today than when gun violence in the US was at it’s peak)…whatever your thoughts are.
Just, please, for the sake of small furry animals, don’t repeatedly ask if we COULD have such a discussion…just have the fucking thing already and let the chips fall where they will. Maybe the time is ripe to get into this can of worms yet again, since there are a number of threads dancing around the edges of this topic both in GD and here in the Pit.
That’s my two cents worth.
I like the title, and if no one has any changes or objection they would like to add, I’ll use it.
Now I need an OP written out that I can copy word-for-word. I’d rather not just repeat the one from the previous thread-too much baggage.
I’m not convinced you do, either. How about this. Which would save more children’s lives per year: outlawing swimming pools or outlawing handguns? Pools and handguns are both inanimate objects; swimming and shooting are both volitional human actions.
Yes you finally get it. While some generalizations can be drawn, the UK and the USA are not the same countries. And the more specific you get to make your argument the more obvious the apple and orange relationship becomes. The UK is not an indicator that violence reduction through firearm confiscation in the USA would be successful.
As far as I can see, the point that the “swimming pools should be outlawed, right?” crowd tries to make is that pools are more dangerous than guns. I disagree. Imagine if as many kids were shot at in a year as went swimming or sat in a car. The only way to compare these things in any meaningful way is to normalize them.
OK, then let’s make shooting at kids illegal.
I have a better idea: let’s not pretend the claim that swimming is more dangerous than being shot at has merit.
Pinko.
Regards,
Shodan
The comparison would be ..How many kids go shooting and get shot to how many kids go swimming and drown. Your analogy is just flat out dishonest. Which is one reason …one of many we don’t care to debate any infringement on our gun rights. Your side are proven lier’s about the facts and goals of gun control. A little gun control is like a little pregnant.
Which brings me to one of the most asinine conflicts liberals commit.
If gun control is about the safety of the citizenry why do they condom the whole sale slaughter of children? Millions have been murdered by abortion but some wacko takes a gun into a gun free (self defense free) zone and they get all bent out of shape.
The comparison does work, though, in certain circumstance. Kids get shot often because there is a gun in the house, and someone is playing with it or otherwise using it for what it was not intended to do. Same with pools. Young kids, especially, drown because there happens to be a pool in the backyard to which they should not have had unsupervised access.
Are you saying the only way to use a gun is to shoot at someone?
Yup and a visit through London’s popular tourist attractions.