Ha!!! Color me evil, but between that DEA Cop shooting himself and earning his fame on YouTube or Dubya in the Iraqi Shoe Attack, the Internet clearly is the world source of true humor. (Still laughing at that gun clip, just watched, like 12 times!)
Maybe this agent should use this, bring a fake leg, lots of fake blood, load the Glock with blanks, pretend to shoot his leg off, THEN say, “You want your leg shot off, play with guns. G’head!”
There may have been “only” 789 accidental deaths in 2005, which some apparently find acceptable. There were 30,649 overall gun deaths in 2005. I suspect those same people will find that acceptable too.
I don’t give two shits about ExTank’s comparisons. As I’ve painfully explained several times, raw number comparisons are retarded. A gun sitting in an attic never used will kill exactly the same number of people as a car sitting in the garage unused.
If something is used millions of times and results in 1,000 deaths, and something is used thousands of times resulting in 1,000 deaths, are they equally dangerous? For most, it is painfully obvious that they are not.
Also, again, very few people were killed by anthrax in 2005, so we should have unfettered access to anthrax.
I ask you to please think about these things before offering nonsense.
And your inane arguments are a shining light to the rest of “us”.
Regards,
Gun Nutters
Gimme a break! Nell Carter demands you do so!
If you can’t parse the two diverging sets of stats, then…OK.
“And that’s why you don’t yell in the car…”
Stranger
Read the above, and ask who is talking nonsense.
Still, no one will talk about the 20/20 program.
And thank you luci I do believe that I have been calm and civil.
Whoosh or not.
You threw the term liberal bias, added a hair flip and stated you were done. Funny, I assumed that you actually watched to show and you were claiming that there was no bias in the piece, which I showed there clearly was.
The you added this gem:
Exactly which facts are you speaking of? Have you even seen it yet?
Nonsense? Firearms are used at least millions of times a year for hunting, recreational target shooting, and competition shooting.
The range I frequent is packed, with waiting times of up to two hours for a range slot, every weekend the weather is even half-assed decent.
Climb off of your high horse, and use the squishy bits between your ears. While I freely admit that firearms aren’t used as frequently as automobiles in this country, they are used considerably more than you seem to think, or want to admit.
And that’s just hunting. God alone knows how many people just go to the range (or, in many cases, just step out their back door in the country) of weekends to “plink.”
But if you’d rather just rant and rave, go back to the Pit where the conversation is more to your level of cognizance. Frankly, I’m sick of looking at the nonsensical ranting of a loon so miserable in his prejudicial hatred that the only expression you have for it is self-righteous bile.
This hate’s not good for you.
Post 78. You can’t read, not my problem.
Yeah, whatever… :rolleyes: You came off like a fucking know it all ASSuming that someone was calling “liberal bias” to which you knee jerked. You got caught, not having seen the show or not reading the post correctly, and declared that you knew exactly what it was about so you didn’t need to bother yourself with it.
Then again, maybe I read you wrong too. Ultimately, who cares huh?
Just because I have this song stuck in my head:
The Ilithid’s Lament
(to the scarecrow’s song)
I could waste away the hours, polishing my powers
Inflicting lots of pain
do do duh do do do do
But my tummy’s kinda rumbly, some grey matter would be yummy
If I only had a brain.
I don’t disagree. My rough estimate, just a few days ago, was that if firearms were used a million times a year, they would be 33 times more likely to result in a fatality than cars. How often do they eat food? How often do people swim? Orders of magnitude more often than they use a firearm? I think so.
Cars have gone through a process of becoming safer and safer. We recognized the danger and took steps to make them safer. They are crash tested to a safety std. They now have seat belts and air bags.
Gun fans attempt to win by defining the arguments away. But since I am not a gun user, I will offer my definition. A pistol is a weapon that shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. If you stick a magazine in and when you hold the trigger down bullets come flying out, you have an automatic weapon. Same for rifles. If you take time to aim and shoot it is a rifle. Stick a magazine in and shoot it away, you are using a machine gun.
Gun fans talk about how they are target shooting . But if they buy a gun to shoot a person who might break into their homes ,the end point is shooting a human being. You can not wave away the connection. Add in the real crazies who think they are a militia protecting the country from an oppressive government, and you have people who are actually training themselves to shoot people.
They try to win via defining the argument! Those underhanded bastards! Now here’s my attempt to define the argument…
Uh, yep…
But wait. What happens when you take time to aim something that’s also “a weapon that shoots every time you pull the trigger”? Is it a pistolrifle then?
You can be adorable sometimes Gonzo.
You say that as if it was a negative thing…
Seriously, we went into this in the notorious “shooting the intruder” thread. Those who defended the use of guns to guard their homes freely admitted that under certain conditions, they would shoot someone dead and not feel the least bit guilty about it. Human life is precious but it’s not infinitely precious; and under certain rare circumstances a person can forfeit any further consideration for them on my part, up to and including respecting their life. If that makes me a rightwing redneck yahoo sociopath, so be it.
Yes, you did.
For instance: my remark about the shooting victims brother isn’t about refusing to be interested in information. Its about using personal pathos to make a point that is not enhanced by pathos, a technique that, while not actually being dishonest, is a bit suspicious. I already know that guns are too easily available, this is not information for me.
Now, granted, the shooting victim’s brother is directly, personaly involved in an effort to show how easy gun purchases are, so its justifiably relevent, but I would have avoided it, it taints the demonstration.
And if there had been some argument-shattering revelation…something along the lines of proof positive that there really are >5,000 defensive gun uses per day, despite that fact that 98% of them leave no corroborative evidence…I had no doubt that it would be discussed here. Either as revelation or evidence of media bias, depending on whose Gore is oxed.
How rare? Granted, we have a duty to resist evil, I am not a doctrinaire pacifist, but where is that line? You state the blindingly obvious as revelation, that one must be willing to defend against evil, but you don’t give us any guidance.
Clearly, you would be willing to use lethal force to protect your family, hell, who wouldn’t? But what about protecting a toaster? If you would refuse to kill someone to take his money, would you scruple at killing to stop him from taking yours?
So, then, how rare? How common are these home invasions so anxiouxly protected against? And how often is a lethal threat posed?
I’m with you now.
Good! More tea? A scone, perhaps?
