Only cowards need guns

[eternal cynic]

Great White Snark wrote:

<quoted text>Denny just said we should get rid of pools to save children. Are you that selfish you can't budge an inch to save the lives of millions? There is no need for automatic guns in society.

You really are clueless. How many people in this nation own automatic weapons? How many crimes have been committed with automatic weapons?

Save the life of millions? Who's ass are you pulling that from?

Denny was being sarcastic.

[eternal cynic]

Force Majeure wrote:

<quoted text>
They also put the tape around the body (and the gun) of the armed idiot who watched too many Joan Wayne shoot-em-up films. He could have given up his wallet but he pulled out his pop gun instead and payed with his wallet and his life.
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
Do I?
<quoted text>
Smoking in a public setting increases the risk to others too. I have grave difficulties believing you don't understand that.
<quoted text>
"Through the windshield" was not my point, but someone else's. The main point is that any freely ejected object within an automobile is a danger to all passengers, most pointedly to the driver whose responsibility it is to be "in control". Furthermore, it ought to be common knowledge that parents (adults) have responsibility for children in most (all?) situations. If you see a child in a dangerous situation do you try to stop it from happening? Of course you do.
<quoted text>
I've read other posts by you and I know you're not an idiot. This sentence of yours is a cop-out.

You’re advocating we should all play the role of victim?

I’m not really surprised though. Your nation allowed Nazi Germany to use Swedish infrastructure to carry out atrocities against the people of Europe. That’s right, keep playing the victim.

I choose not to play the role of victim. To end crime we must stand up against it.

You’re missing the larger picture. So what if some people are exposed to smoke if they voluntarily enter an establishment which allows smoking. They were forced to go inside, they chose to go inside.

I in no way advocate the removal of seatbelts. I do support laws which require children to be restrained until they’re old enough to make their own decision.

Our governments’ powers are supposed to be restricted by our constitution. Too many Americans are willing to look the other way if they feel new restrictions may save a few lives. Freedom is more important than safety.

[eternal cynic]

Force Majeure wrote:

<quoted text>
The ability to remain in control of an automobile depends 100% upon the drivers stability behind the wheel. There are any number of situations where the driver's capabilities are diminished without the aid of a seat belt. That means an automobile is "out of control" and in direct danger to all passengers within and those outside, whether other drivers or pedestrians.
The bottom line is that "it should NOT be your choice" to endanger the lives of others.

I’ve driven substantially more than a million miles in my lifetime. It’s incredibly rare for someone to be taken from behind the wheel restrained or not. You’re grasping for the proverbial straw.

Not wearing a seatbelt in no way endangers the lives of others. You do indeed have minimally greater risk of personal injury. Did you know sometimes seatbelts actually kill?

[Honestly]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
You really are clueless. How many people in this nation own automatic weapons? How many crimes have been committed with automatic weapons?
Save the life of millions? Who's ass are you pulling that from?
Denny was being sarcastic.

That's Geno, and yes, he's an idiot. He probably pulled it out of Fairyman's butt. He once claimed to be a Republican, but falling in love must have changed him somehow.

[eternal cynic]

Force Majeure wrote:

<quoted text>
As is very well known, Americans murder more people than any other nation in the entire world. And I'm not even including the American military! Just civilians murdering other civilians. So .......
You say, "Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous". The obvious message then is that guns in the hands of Americans is dangerous. Your country does not have the right balance of education, gainful opportunity, civil justice and community care. Therefore, you have an increasing percentage of citizens who have "no way out" other than crime. The consequence of that is an equal number of people who feel "unsafe". However, the escalation of arms IS NOT the solution to your problems any more than distributing F16's to the public in order to prevent another 7/11 attack on NYC.

You must adjust for population. Aside from that we do not have the most murders despite our population of over 300,000,000.

Our murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000, there are more than 70 countries with a higher rate. 7 nations have raw murder numbers higher than the US. Of those 7, 6 of them have substantially smaller populations.

[Ted Stevenson]

In fairness- if the media were being fair- they would report school shootings as they do the life-saving efforts of gun owners. This is to say, not at all! It has been documented that two and a half million times a year lives have been saved by people having guns. The very reason the Japanese didn't invade us was be cause we have guns! But, you don't hear about that from the lame stream media because all they want to do is make guns look bad instead of good. Well, if they stop going on about school shootings then those won't be a problem! I want to hear more stories about heroes with guns! Come on, media- join us!

[Brian_G]

Cowards need bulletproofing, heroes need guns.

[REDNECK HIPPIE]

I don't expect the anti gun, pro gun ban crowd to even open these links, but if by chance one of them wants to actually learn something, then here are the statistics, first per capita and last by total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit...

[Denny CranesPlace]

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:

I don't expect the anti gun, pro gun ban crowd to even open these links, but if by chance one of them wants to actually learn something, then here are the statistics, first per capita and last by total.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit...

Pearls before swine

[REDNECK HIPPIE]

Denny CranesPlace wrote:

<quoted text>Pearls before swine

True, I should not try to give them facts, since their minds are already made up and closed.

[eternal cynic]

Force Majeure wrote:

<quoted text>
I take back what I said about you not being an idiot.

Can’t argue the point so you resort to name calling?

Keep playing the role of victim. I’ll protect myself and my family.

[barefoot2626]

eternal cynic wrote:

If the government wants no smoking in those establishments then smoking should be banned.

If 'the government' decides smoking in restaurants should be banned, then the government should and does ban it.

And these smoking bans- for the most part- come from the VOTE of the people, that is how democracies work.

You might notice that drinking is legal yet in some places it is banned.

E.G.: parks.

Since now smoking and drinking is (in some places) banned in parks, I guess it would make sense to you take neither should be restricted.

[barefoot2626]

eternal cynic wrote:

Also, there are cases where the seatbelt actually contributes to the fatality.

Right... it saves ten thousand lives a year but you heard of a case ten years ago when someone drove off a bridge and couldn't get it unbuckled... gosh!

So why buckle up children?

[barefoot2626]

eternal cynic wrote:

The smoker’s piece on this will vary according to their beliefs.

Now that smoking pot is legal in Colorado, there's no need to put restrictions on where they can smoke, eh?

[barefoot2626]

Denny CranesPlace wrote:

More kids drown in swimming pool accidents than with gun accidents.

No, they don't, and 2,700+ children die a year as a result of firearms, do stop pretending you can restrict the number of deaths you are willing to count.

PS: Most places require fences around swimming pools to help prevent accidental drownings. Why do gun gnutters insist on special rights?

[barefoot2626]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
That’s exactly correct. The market will dictate if smoking is allowed or not.

Democracy outranks the market.

We say: no smoking.

For those of us who travel, it takes but a minute to know when we are in a state that still allows a handful to foul the air with their filthy habit.

[barefoot2626]

eternal cynic wrote:

Can’t argue the point so you resort to name calling?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[eternal cynic]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
If 'the government' decides smoking in restaurants should be banned, then the government should and does ban it.
And these smoking bans- for the most part- come from the VOTE of the people, that is how democracies work.
You might notice that drinking is legal yet in some places it is banned.
E.G.: parks.
Since now smoking and drinking is (in some places) banned in parks, I guess it would make sense to you take neither should be restricted.

Most smoking bans are not the result of a vote. Regardless of a vote what right does anyone have to tell another they’re not allowed to permit a legal act within the confines of their privately owned property?

Then you bring in parks? Wouldn’t that be public land?

You don’t get out much, do you?

[barefoot2626]

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:

<
So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?
Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use

And statisticians laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and anyone who has a drop of common sense know that Kleck is a moron and those who cannot do the math behind the numbers idiots.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

Funny how close to SEVEN THOUSAND "self-defense" uses can go unreported EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Kleck's methodology includes: taking surveys PEOPLE WITH GUN MAGAZINES subscriptions and extrapolating the results as "average" HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!


Funny how these "defenses" fail to make their way to police reports...

How unfortunate for the gun gnutters that the 32,000 dead bodies are counted and cannot be refuted.

[barefoot2626]

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:

<quoted text>
True, I should not try to give them facts, since their minds are already made up and closed.

You mean like your 2.5 million defense uses?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

How do you get around the 32,000+ dead bodies, ya DOPE?