To you perhaps. Don’t chose for me.
But you can choose for others, right?
Nope, I wouldn’t presume to tell other people what they can and can’t own.
Mea culpa. I meant you, not Thudlow. My apologies.
nm
Do your bookmakers offer odds of when the next mass shooting will occur and maybe the death toll?
Seems like there is a business opportunity here.
I mean, if nothings going to change, and it isn’t, then why not make a commercial enterprise out of it?
I’m sure we can pay out the widows and orphans out of some sort of betting tax we can levy, well lets not call it a tax, more of a charitable donation, price of doing business and all that.
That way we are all winners, the right wingers get to keep their guns, everyone gets paid off and we also have a national sport - at the moment the news channels are making a killing out of this, I think we could sell the rights - can you imagine the advertising opportunities.
After all, its about freedom isn’t it, so lets really have freedom - no limits at all, people can be as free to be responsible or irresponsible as they wish - they might get shot, others will get shot, but its all about personal responsibility isn’t it?
As I’ve said before, if German civilians had had more guns, they would have used them to kill more Jews.
Is that *all *you’re gonna do? :rolleyes:
Glad you feel so proud of your righteousness.
One more: crazed man with machete attacks a schoolyard full of children. Three children and four adults were injured (one seriously) before the attacker was driven off and later arrested. No fatalities.
Compare that to the Dunblane massacre five years earlier, in which sixteen children and one adult were killed in a school attack in Scotland because the attacker had (legally-obtained) guns. Crazy people we shall always have with us, but guns are a well-known force multiplier. How many dead or injured would there have been in Orlando if the attacker only had a machete or sword?
Quite. It’s a breath of some kind of air that he’s back. Not necessarily “fresh”.
Fun fact: laws are not about you personally.
For someone who complains about people misrepresenting his position all the time, you certainly do it a lot to others. Nobody is asking for all risk to be removed. But even the most basic cost/benefit risk analysis shows that your position includes ludicrously high risks for nebulous benefit. The other extreme also exists - one could set all speed limits to 15mph to increase road safety, for example - but again, I’m not making that argument. You appear to want to live in a world where you can do anything you want regardless of the wider consequences to others. That’s not “freedom”; that’s “being a petulant child”. Grow up.
Back on topic again: House Republicans are pondering what to do about various anti-anti-discrimination votes currently pending. Presumably even the most tone-deaf amongst them have realized that blocking or negating anti-discrimination legislation aimed at protecting LGBT people at the moment would look kind of bad. Best to wait until a few more mass murders have gone through the news cycle before they go back to treating LGBT people as second-class citizens again.
Many, many gun owners tell themselves that, right up until the day they do. But you’re *different *… somehow … right? :rolleyes:
You refuse to trade off anything at all, don’t you?
As long as you create a danger for me, then yes, you are.
The worldview that life is precious. Yes indeed. And that’s how law and civilization work.
Woosh!
I was kidding. I don’t pray. I’m agnostic. I couldn’t care less.
I was just giving you a hard time because this thread is showing you to be a more colossal asshole than I previously knew. I mean, I knew most people often thought of you as a dick, and now I know why…dick.
If people want to offer thoughts, prayers, hope, and kindness to victims, you’re nobody to say they should be doing any different. Feel free to reply to this now telling me how wrong I am and how I’m the problem and monster and yadda yadda, blah blah, I won’t be replying back. Dick.
Ironically, the Orlando shooter could have made the same argument last Friday. And, hey, who wouldn’t trust a lawful gun owner who was a trained security guard with full firearm licensing?
The fact that you think this says a lot about you.
This sort of reminds me of the fundamentalist preachers railing against the “temptation” of homosexuality - when, for most people, there is obviously no temptation at all.
You might be such an unhinged, angry asshole that you can’t imagine the idea of a person being confident (and correct) in stating they will never use their gun to commit a crime. But don’t project your own insanity onto the rest of us.
All you people frothing at the mouth about guns and how gun owners are selfish assholes who choose their own freedom over your (perceived) safety: what do you think about alcohol?
Broadly speaking, alcohol is responsible for as much or more death and misery in the US than guns. It provides essentially no benefit whatsoever and it’s primary effect is to diminish a person’s capacity for rational thought and impulse control. Why no outrage over all the selfish assholes who are endangering you by producing, selling and consuming alcohol?
Other than some kind of philosophical assertion that guns are inherently evil and alcohol is not, what is the difference? Are the people killed by alcohol any less dead because alcohol isn’t intended to be lethal?
Why are you not posting these outraged screeds about the hundreds of thousands of people killed by drunk drivers, beaten by alcoholic spouses or parents, or killed by their own addiction and the “easy availability” of alcohol?
The puritanical sort did try to get rid of alcohol. What did they learn? Rather, what should they have learned? That humans are as they are not as they wish they would be. And these humans didn’t care about the so-called law and the prohibition. Why do you think Mexican cartels kill so many in Mexico? In order to profit from the people of the USA’s degeneracy.
I’ll wager they can spell past correctly though.
Unfortunately, the daily obituaries don’t list people by “long-time gun owner who never committed a gun crime”. I do suspect the list would be much longer than the “gun owner who eventually committed a gun crime” obituaries.
Not this shit again.
I challenge you to a duel. I get a .22, you get a case of Budweiser. What do you say? What are you going to do? Hold me down for 40 years and force me to drink it until my liver fails?
Drinking and driving has no impact on society does it? Drinking and ugly people breeding has no impact?
In 2014, approximately 5,000 people were killed by a drunk driver (half of them were passengers in the drunk driver’s car, and the other half were pedestrians or occupants of another vehicle). This is comparable to the approximately 10,000 people killed by guns in the US. I can’t find any specific statistics, but given that the CDC reports alcohol was responsible for 80,000 deaths in the US in 2014, it is reasonable to assume that if you include the influence of alcohol on violent crime, domestic abuse, etc., you would easily match or exceed the 10,000 killed each year by guns.
Are the 5,000 - 10,000 people killed by alcohol users each year any less dead than the 10,000 killed by guns? What difference does it make that a gun is a weapon and alcohol is not? The effect is the same.
Obviously, the argument for continued availability of alcohol is that the benefits outweigh the costs. That is a fairly uncontroversial position in the US - no one is seriously proposing banning alcohol.
Even if you don’t agree with the perspective, why is it so outrageous and offensive that someone might perform the same cost/benefit analysis for guns? Why do you think that a person who believes guns are worth the societal cost is evil and sociopathic, while a person who believes alcohol is worth the societal cost is not?