Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I was wondering how long it would take for some moron to make this stupid argument. I have to say, it took longer than I thought.
Why is it stupid? As public transportation zealots will tell you, there are alternatives to private car ownership. Explain why the argument is stupid.
And how about the fact that knives kill more people than rifles and shotguns? If you wanna ban rifles, including assault rifles, because of their death toll, why not ban private knife ownership or limit the knives that people can own to 1-inch blades? People could always get their meat, bread, and veggies sliced at the store. This would be a small price to pay to save so many human lives, right?
It is stupid because when it was determined that too many people were dying on our roadways we didn't just say, "well, this is the price of freedom and there is nothing we can do about it". We passed common sense laws from speed limits to safety features on cars to a higher requirement to get a license. And the result is that the number of deaths has been steadily declining since a high in the late 60s early 70s thanks to those common sense laws.
It is stupid because you are comparing apples to hand grenades. Last year, Americans drove over 3 trillion miles. There is nothing to compare to this in the realm of firearms.
And this is coming from a firm defender of the 2nd amendment.
Some facts:
* Highway deaths increased from 2015 to 2016.
* Even with all the safety features and speed limits, etc., tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents.
* Cars are also used as weapons and even in terrorist attacks a times, as we have seen in the last two years alone.
* Go talk to public transportation extremists and you will be told that you are complicit in manslaughter for supporting private car ownership because there are, they say, feasible alternatives.
* Guns serve useful, valid purposes, such as recreation and self-defense. At least hundreds of people each year defend themselves or ward off would-be attackers with a gun. Some people use guns to hunt some of the food they eat.
* You say your side has never said car deaths are the price we pay for private car ownership, but (1) that is, in effect, the position you're taking, and (2) you accuse conservatives of casually dismissing gun deaths as "the price we pay" for gun ownership.
* I noticed you skipped over the issue of stabbing and blunt-object deaths, which in 2016 more than doubled the deaths caused by rifles and shotguns.
* So what if Americans drive trillions of miles each year. Is that worth 30,000-plus deaths per year, not to mention 1-million-plus serious injuries? Again, go chat with some public transportation zealots. There are alternatives, albeit expensive ones.
So the argument is not stupid. It's just that you don't like it because it exposes the irrational and illogical argument against private gun ownership.
I was wondering how long it would take for some moron to make this stupid argument. I have to say, it took longer than I thought.
Why is it stupid? As public transportation zealots will tell you, there are alternatives to private car ownership. Explain why the argument is stupid.
And how about the fact that knives kill more people than rifles and shotguns? If you wanna ban rifles, including assault rifles, because of their death toll, why not ban private knife ownership or limit the knives that people can own to 1-inch blades? People could always get their meat, bread, and veggies sliced at the store. This would be a small price to pay to save so many human lives, right?
It is stupid because when it was determined that too many people were dying on our roadways we didn't just say, "well, this is the price of freedom and there is nothing we can do about it". We passed common sense laws from speed limits to safety features on cars to a higher requirement to get a license. And the result is that the number of deaths has been steadily declining since a high in the late 60s early 70s thanks to those common sense laws.
It is stupid because you are comparing apples to hand grenades. Last year, Americans drove over 3 trillion miles. There is nothing to compare to this in the realm of firearms.
And this is coming from a firm defender of the 2nd amendment.
Some facts:
* Highway deaths increased from 2015 to 2016.
* Even with all the safety features and speed limits, etc., tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents.
* Cars are also used as weapons and even in terrorist attacks a times, as we have seen in the last two years alone.
* Go talk to public transportation extremists and you will be told that you are complicit in manslaughter for supporting private car ownership because there are, they say, feasible alternatives.
* Guns serve useful, valid purposes, such as recreation and self-defense. At least hundreds of people each year defend themselves or ward off would-be attackers with a gun. Some people use guns to hunt some of the food they eat.
* You say your side has never said car deaths are the price we pay for private car ownership, but (1) that is, in effect, the position you're taking, and (2) you accuse conservatives of casually dismissing gun deaths as "the price we pay" for gun ownership.
* I noticed you skipped over the issue of stabbing and blunt-object deaths, which in 2016 more than doubled the deaths caused by rifles and shotguns.
* So what if Americans drive trillions of miles each year. Is that worth 30,000-plus deaths per year, not to mention 1-million-plus serious injuries? Again, go chat with some public transportation zealots. There are alternatives, albeit expensive ones.
So the argument is not stupid. It's just that you don't like it because it exposes the irrational and illogical argument against private gun ownership.
The problem with your stupid little rant is that I fully support private gun ownership. You assume because I do not support your stupid argument that I am against guns, nothing could be further from the truth. I am just against stupid arguments.
I was wondering how long it would take for some moron to make this stupid fucking argument. I have to say, it took longer than I thought.
I was wondering how long it would take for some moron to make this stupid argument. I have to say, it took longer than I thought.
Why is it stupid? As public transportation zealots will tell you, there are alternatives to private car ownership. Explain why the argument is stupid.
And how about the fact that knives kill more people than rifles and shotguns? If you wanna ban rifles, including assault rifles, because of their death toll, why not ban private knife ownership or limit the knives that people can own to 1-inch blades? People could always get their meat, bread, and veggies sliced at the store. This would be a small price to pay to save so many human lives, right?
It is stupid because when it was determined that too many people were dying on our roadways we didn't just say, "well, this is the price of freedom and there is nothing we can do about it". We passed common sense laws from speed limits to safety features on cars to a higher requirement to get a license. And the result is that the number of deaths has been steadily declining since a high in the late 60s early 70s thanks to those common sense laws.
It is stupid because you are comparing apples to hand grenades. Last year, Americans drove over 3 trillion miles. There is nothing to compare to this in the realm of firearms.
And this is coming from a firm defender of the 2nd amendment.
Some facts:
* Highway deaths increased from 2015 to 2016.
* Even with all the safety features and speed limits, etc., tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents.
* Cars are also used as weapons and even in terrorist attacks a times, as we have seen in the last two years alone.
* Go talk to public transportation extremists and you will be told that you are complicit in manslaughter for supporting private car ownership because there are, they say, feasible alternatives.
* Guns serve useful, valid purposes, such as recreation and self-defense. At least hundreds of people each year defend themselves or ward off would-be attackers with a gun. Some people use guns to hunt some of the food they eat.
* You say your side has never said car deaths are the price we pay for private car ownership, but (1) that is, in effect, the position you're taking, and (2) you accuse conservatives of casually dismissing gun deaths as "the price we pay" for gun ownership.
* I noticed you skipped over the issue of stabbing and blunt-object deaths, which in 2016 more than doubled the deaths caused by rifles and shotguns.
* So what if Americans drive trillions of miles each year. Is that worth 30,000-plus deaths per year, not to mention 1-million-plus serious injuries? Again, go chat with some public transportation zealots. There are alternatives, albeit expensive ones.
So the argument is not stupid. It's just that you don't like it because it exposes the irrational and illogical argument against private gun ownership.
The problem with your stupid little rant is that I fully support private gun ownership. You assume because I do not support your stupid argument that I am against guns, nothing could be further from the truth. I am just against stupid arguments.
You still have not provided a persuasive explanation of why it's a "stupid argument." You made no attempt to respond to my replies to your argument. Every argument that you can make against guns you can make against cars.
You sought to draw a distinction between the usefulness of cars vs. that of guns; but, as I pointed out, public transportation zealots make the argument that the huge death toll, the million-plus injury toll, the noise pollution, and the air pollution of cars do not justify the convenience of personal driving, especially since there are viable (but expensive) alternatives. Furthermore, guns are very useful: they are useful for self-defense, for recreation, and for food hunting, not to mention for giving the people the means to defend themselves against tyranny.
And I notice you once again passed on dealing with the anti-gun inconsistency of not addressing the thousands of stabbings each year. If the solution to gun violence is to ban guns, then the solution to stabbings should be to ban private ownership of knives. Slicing machines could be used instead of knives; or, all food that people slice could be sold sliced.
There is nothing "stupid" about pointing out the illogical, irrational, and inconsistent nature of the anti-gun argument by pointing out that most liberals refuse to join the small minority of their fellow liberals who claim that private vehicle ownership is unnecessary and also destructive to man and the environment. Both arguments focus on inanimate objects instead of on those who use them.
No no no! He is right! We should regulate, insurer, register, license guns just like we do cars !
Liberals, here is a fact that will surely cause you to organize massive protests to demand immediate action: In 2016, cars killed three times more people than did all kinds of guns combined. The death tolls:
Cars: 37,461
Handguns: 7,105
Unknown Gun Types: 3,077
Rifles: 374
Shotguns: 262
"Other" Guns: 186
By the way, more people were killed by knives (1,604) and clubs and hammers (472) than were killed by rifles and shotguns (636). Knives, clubs, and hammers killed 2,076 people, while rifles and shotguns killed 636.
Murder - number of victims by weapons used 2016 | Statistic
USDOT Releases 2016 Fatal Traffic Crash Data
So, liberals, is the car carnage just "the price we pay" for private car ownership? Are you gonna get over your car fetish and do something about this slaughter? Similarly, what are you going to do about the thousand-plus stabbings per year? Surely it is time for us to get serious about knife control? Right? Right? Right?
Liberals, here is a fact that will surely cause you to organize massive protests to demand immediate action: In 2016, cars killed three times more people than did all kinds of guns combined. The death tolls:
Cars: 37,461
Handguns: 7,105
Unknown Gun Types: 3,077
Rifles: 374
Shotguns: 262
"Other" Guns: 186
By the way, more people were killed by knives (1,604) and clubs and hammers (472) than were killed by rifles and shotguns (636). Knives, clubs, and hammers killed 2,076 people, while rifles and shotguns killed 636.
Murder - number of victims by weapons used 2016 | Statistic
USDOT Releases 2016 Fatal Traffic Crash Data
So, liberals, is the car carnage just "the price we pay" for private car ownership? Are you gonna get over your car fetish and do something about this slaughter? Similarly, what are you going to do about the thousand-plus stabbings per year? Surely it is time for us to get serious about knife control? Right? Right? Right?
/----/Because owning a gun is a RIGHT, owning a car is a privilege.You have to pass a driving test and register your car.
I need a ride to work. Could you come pick me up in your AK-15?/----/Because owning a gun is a RIGHT, owning a car is a privilege.
Liberals, here is a fact that will surely cause you to organize massive protests to demand immediate action: In 2016, cars killed three times more people than did all kinds of guns combined. The death tolls:
Cars: 37,461
Handguns: 7,105
Unknown Gun Types: 3,077
Rifles: 374
Shotguns: 262
"Other" Guns: 186
If a ‘right’ can be taken away, is it still a right?/----/Because owning a gun is a RIGHT, owning a car is a privilege.
/----/ "If a ‘right’ can be taken away, is it still a right?"If a ‘right’ can be taken away, is it still a right?
If you go to prison for a crime, you may not have a gun. Gonna fight it?Only if you willingly forfeit the right without a fight.
Pretty sure I wasn’t born yet.Here are some guys fighting to portect the rights to vote, pray, assemble and other stuff another guy was trying to take away. Which side did you root for?
/-------/If you go to prison for a crime, you may not have a gun. Gonna fight it?
Pretty sure I wasn’t born yet.
When it comes to war, I don’t root for anyone. This is the same Government that forbade us from keeping our name keeping our long hair, speaking our language and living on our land. The military was fighting for YOUR rights, not mine./-------/
Yeah, if you commit the crime, you gotta do the time. No one argues that felons should have the right to own a gun or vote. And my second question was rhetorical. So, what side would you have rooted for IF YOU WERE ALIVE IN 1944?
