nibor
Senior Member
So... I suggest that we 'control' guns like we 'control' cars.
What do you think?
Hell yes........................install rear view mirrors on guns so that women can put make up on while shooting..................
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So... I suggest that we 'control' guns like we 'control' cars.
What do you think?
There's nothing in what I said that can lead you to that conclusion.If X kills, then we should ban Y and Z
You dont think so?Clearly we should lump everything that kills into this argument.
Vehicles are primarily for transportation.
Guns are primarily for shooting people.
Ive never driven a gun anywhere, just because there is a higher death rate associated with vehicles, doesnt make it a valid argument.
If you could buy a car, and its main use was to kill, then yeah sure, ban cars.
Cars on the other hand, are sightly more versatile, and our society accepts the negative risks invloved in their use.
Whats yer point?, why not lump every other thing that kills people into your argument.
Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/traffic_crashes_costs
So which is worse?
No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.
If X kills, then we should ban Y and Z
Clearly we should lump everything that kills into this argument.
I have offered the idea of treating guns as we do cars.Lets do the same for guns shall we? All I need do is take an eye test, pass a simple test on rules for using a gun and fire a couple rounds down range.
No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.
The anti-gun loons dont care about the "costs" of anything.
They just like the idea of a disarmed populace, dependent on the government for protection.
IMHO, this stems from their not having the intellectual, emotional or physical capacity to protect themselves and an overwhelming, fear-based need to impose those weaknesses on those of us that do.
I believe in the right to own guns, but the analogy with cars is not a valid argument in my opinion.
How many people are killed by medical errors in hospitals? We should close all hospitals? (The answer is approximately 195,000 a year.
This is exacltey the point we're trying to make. It is a perfectly acceptable analogy. There are all kinds of things that cause death. From cars, to guns, to cholesterol. 2 of them cause far more deaths per capita than the other, yet there no fringe groups trying to heavily regulate them or downright ban them. Where are the Sara Brady's and Rosie O'Donnellls for those things. THE argument for controlling guns or even banning them is that they cause death, period. Yet no one is willing to apply that same ire to things that cause far more death. Again, why are guns different than cars, or cholesterol? We aren't asking for hospitals, cars, cigarettes, cholesterol, trans fats, etc. to be banned or severly restricted. We're asking why guns are so different that people think they have to be?
Lumping gun control in with total banning of guns is a bit disingenous. I'm strongly in favour of gun control (in my country) and strongly opposed to banning guns. I'm strongly in favour of making cars as safe as possible and making drivers more skilful and therefore safer and in strong traffic law enforcement in order to make our roads as safe as possible. I'm strongly opposed to banning cars.
I am in favour of risk management of these things.
Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?
So which is worse?
What you;re REALLY arguing here is that the argument that guns should be banned because of the number of deaths involving them is invalid.I believe in the right to own guns, but the analogy with cars is not a valid argument in my opinion.
How many people are killed by medical errors in hospitals? We should close all hospitals? (The answer is approximately 195,000 a year)
Its an opinion. I dont need to back it up.Seems a little far to the right for me and more name calling than relying on any data...
Its a rifleman's rifle, as opposed to the M16 series, which are an infantryman's rifle.I will admit, however, that the M-14 was one hell of a good rifle. We fired the match condition ones at Quantico on the range. They could hit so nicely in the bulleyes at 600 yards.
What you;re REALLY arguing here is that the argument that guns should be banned because of the number of deaths involving them is invalid.
I think you may have misuderstood what I said.Where did you get that from my post? I said I believe in gun ownership.
No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.