Heretic Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 thats not an everyday occurance, the u.s. isn't grand theft auto or something outliers of society make the news, but 99% of people don't do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 True...but it only takes one bullet to have a loved one removed from your life forever...through no fault of yours nor theirs...so it doesn't have to be every day - only 1 out of 22,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I've not seen much opposition even down south in the states relating to assault weapon bans but living in SF for many years before moving back gun control is a euphemism for ban on guns entirely which is both asinine and unconstitutional. Given I value all my rights, not just the ones I personally use, a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm. The reason an intelligent (legally abiding too I might add) person would be against such stringent gun control/gun bans are because it hinders every law abiding persons ability to exercise their right of bearing arms and self defence. Law abiding people haven't done anything wrong to have their rights abridged, non law abiding people don't care about laws in the first place so gun control at best means nothing to them.. at worst empowers them to commit more heinous crimes knowing the other person is likely following the law and is unarmed. The notion that gun control in the states prevents gun crime has long been unfounded and is living in fantasy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 People think that they can defend themselves with a gun, but the odds are that they're going to shoot themselves or one of their family members with that gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I've already conceded to "reasonable limits", if you ever read posts rather than, like several of the resident conspiracy nuts here, only what you want to read, you'd see me the likening to "limits" here is more akin to "banning" guns, which you quoted and based most of your response and thus pointless reiterations around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 And for them to accidently shoot people and for other people to grab their guns and shoot them or other people.... What I hear a lot is not "I need a gun for a particular purpose" but "it's my right to carry one so I will". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 That's a myth borne by selectively playing with statistics, if guns were really so poor a personal protective means do you thinkpolice and military units would bother issueing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Law abiding people don't take explosives onto airplanes, but you still have to have your bags checked and go through a metal detector, don't you? And how is gun control a "euphemism" for an all-out ban on guns? Is that what they told you at the least NRA meeting? "If we let them take away our Rocket Launchers, next thing you know, they'll be after our M-16s and before you know it, they'll take away out hunting rifles and target pistols!" What a load of garbage.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 True...but it only takes one bullet to have a loved one removed from your life forever...through no fault of yours nor theirs...so it doesn't have to be every day - only 1 out of 22,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Nope...you've just side-stepped what my initial post and my follow up reply's point was which, once again, not being that I disagree with your assertion that people in the U.S. aren't against regulations...but instead against these comments of yours. And 'likening' limits to banning is not even close to being 'alike'. And it's totally not what you said....I mean i'm literally quoting your own words saying "a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm" How does that even remotely liken you to supporting giving up handguns or assault weapons entirely, though they're over-reachingly protected under the 2nd amendment?? You're either a very confused person or you're a blatant opposite mouth sided double-talker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you. Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 That's a myth borne by selectively playing with statistics, if guns were really so poor a personal protective means do you thinkpolice and military units would bother issueing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The "tobacco" part of this viewpoint is a myth. Tobacco itself doesn't harm you, it's the addictive additives, such as tar, that actually causes serious risks to your health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you. Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 When you can actually read posts and not cherry-pick parts of them to fit your pre-conceived childish biases, I'll bother caring about our personality conclusions too. The "average (gun owning) person" isn't going out shooting people either, but I doubt you objectively care about averages as they don't cater to your hilariously convenient hyperbole. More selective quotes please. I would if you'd bother quoting the other parts, but it's impossible to take you seriously because you're trying so hard to take cherry-picking pot shots, and failing miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I think i've bothered with this 'tête-à-tête' long enough. Your miserable horse has been sufficiently beaten. Take care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'm really going to be able to protect my family with a firearm thats locked up in my RCMP approved, triple redundancy, gun safe that is supposed to protect children that have long gone and were taught firearm safety as children who grew up to be hunters and crack shots. As for the concealed carry permits, those were abolished by order of some very nervous politicians. And rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Does a fap-a-fap follow patting self on the back for nothing? Might calm you down a bit too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 canada has more guns per person than the u.s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Police and military receive extensive training in their use. A chain saw is safer in the hands of a logger than it is in the hands of an accountant who wants to cut up some wood on the weekend.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.