Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Faun]

Wrong. There are twice as many guns as there are motor vehicles of all types.

LOL

Idiot, that's not what I said, now is it?

 

[westwall]

LOL

Idiot, that's not what I said, now is it?

Who cares. There are orders of magnitude fewer DRUNK drivers than there are guns, and gun owners.

And they kill more.

DURRRRRR

 

[Faun]

Who cares. There are orders of magnitude fewer DRUNK drivers than there are guns, and gun owners.

And they kill more.

DURRRRRR

No, they don't, ya fucking moron.

There are about 10,000 deaths by drunk drivers in a year.

Last year, there were about 21,000 murders by guns.

And you're such an idiot, you're proving my point without even realizing it. I point out that cars, unlike guns, are designed to kill -- and here you are, comparing gun deaths to car deaths. Forget your ignorance above about drunk drivers, you're talking about car deaths where the vast majority are by accident and gun deaths where the vast majority are intentional. Means car deaths are caused by a device not designed to kill; whereas gun deaths are.

 

[westwall]

No, they don't, ya fucking moron.

There are about 10,000 deaths by drunk drivers in a year.

Last year, there were about 21,000 murders by guns.

And you're such an idiot, you're proving my point without even realizing it. I point out that cars, unlike guns, are designed to kill -- and here you are, comparing gun deaths to car deaths. Forget your ignorance above about drunk drivers, you're talking about car deaths where the vast majority are by accident and gun deaths where the vast majority are intentional. Means car deaths are caused by a device not designed to kill; whereas gun deaths are.

You are so full of shit. The average is 34,000 drunk driving deaths per year, and 10,000 murders.

Put another way, I have lost 6 friends to drunk drivers, and one nephew to murder.

So you are simply wrong.

 

[Faun]

You are so full of shit. The average is 34,000 drunk driving deaths per year, and 10,000 murders.

Put another way, I have lost 6 friends to drunk drivers, and one nephew to murder.

So you are simply wrong.

I just gave you a link to MADD. I'm confident they know more than you about drunk drivers. And I gave you a link regarding gun deaths.

What I love about the way you post is no matter how much of a beating you take, you keep coming back for more punishment.

 

[westwall]

I just gave you a link to MADD. I'm confident they know more than you about drunk drivers. And I gave you a link regarding gun deaths.

What I love about the way you post is no matter how much of a beating you take, you keep coming back for more punishment.

Who cares. They are wrong. There are plenty of credible sources for drunk driving deaths.

 

[Faun]

Who cares. They are wrong. There are plenty of credible sources for drunk driving deaths.

And I posted 2 links corroborating my claim while you posted nothing but spittle.

Here's 2 more...

Gun deaths...

​

Drunk driving deaths...

Drunk Driving Statistics 2022

Each day about 28 people in America die in drunk-driving car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). So over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk driving car accidents, says NHTSA. In 2019, drunk driving

www.forbes.com

Each day about 28 people in America die in drunk-driving car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

So over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk driving car accidents, says NHTSA.

In 2019, drunk driving deaths in the United States reached their lowest level since 1982, the year the NHTSA began collecting data on drunk driving fatalities, with 10,142 fatalities​

That's now 4 links from me, nothing from you. Are ya feeling stupid yet??

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Glad it was stolen ? Why would you put that in that way ? I can't stand the corrupt government we have now, but looking back I see lot's of traitor's who helped the Democrat's achieve their goals. It's a sick situation after taking in the whole picture, and knowing now all the player's that were involved looking back on it all now. Sad situation.

I was using sarcasm, progressives hate sarcasm.

 

[bripat9643]

Which is all very fine. What you don't need to stop an intruder is an AR-15 style weapon which is designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, without being an automatic firearm.

Yes you do. Do you believe people should use some puny .22 that holds one shot to defend themselves? Why should anyone take any such risk with his life?

 

[Faun]

Yes you do. Do you believe people should use some puny .22 that holds one shot to defend themselves? Why should anyone take any such risk with his life?

There are plenty of guns more powerful than a .22. You don't need a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a minute and without reloading.

 

[bripat9643]

There are plenty of guns more powerful than a .22. You don't need a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a minute and without reloading.

Who are you to say what people need? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the government gets to determine what kind of guns you can buy.

 

[Faun]

Who are you to say what people need? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the government gets to determine what kind of guns you can buy.

The 2nd Amendment has restrictions on what guns civilians can have. Guns legally designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, should be added to that list. These types of guns have been banned before; they'll be banned again.

 

[bripat9643]

The 2nd Amendment has restrictions on what guns civilians can have. Guns legally designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, should be added to that list. These types of guns have been banned before; they'll be banned again.

No, it actually doesn't. Leftists politicians have added those after the fact.

 

[Faun]

No, it actually doesn't. Leftists politicians have added those after the fact.

Fucking moron, yes, some guns are illegal for civilians and the Supreme Court has upheld they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Again, weapons like AR-15's have been banned before and they'll be banned again.

 

[bripat9643]

Fucking moron, yes, some guns are illegal for civilians and the Supreme Court has upheld they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Again, weapons like AR-15's have been banned before and they'll be banned again.

Fucking moron, the SC rules incorrectly all the time. The fact that the government ignores your constitutional rights proves nothing. If the court strikes down the Roe v Wade decision, are you going to support that? Of course you won't, dumbfuck.

 

[Faun]

Fucking moron, the SC rules incorrectly all the time. The fact that the government ignores your constitutional rights proves nothing. If the court strikes down the Roe v Wade decision, are you going to support that? Of course you won't, dumbfuck.

Fucking moron, the Supreme Court didn't rule incorrectly merely because you disagree with them.

 

[hadit]

Which is all very fine. What you don't need to stop an intruder is an AR-15 style weapon which is designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, without being an automatic firearm.

You do not have standing to decide what someone else "needs" to defend their home.

You have to love it when someone thinks conditions are the same in a home at 2:30 am as they are at a shooting range where the lighting is ideal, the shooter has come prepared to shoot, is fully awake and there is no threat.

There's a reason why the police are notorious for shooting a LOT of bullets when a suspect charges at them, despite their training with their firearms. Quite frankly, a lot of bullets miss under stressful conditions. How many bullets would you need to stop 3 armed intruders in your home?

 

[bripat9643]

Fucking moron, the Supreme Court didn't rule incorrectly merely because you disagree with them.

Fucking moron, either it ruled correctly when it decided Roe v. Wade, or it will rule correctly when it repeals Roe v. Wade. Either way, it ruled incorrectly at least once. Your theory that the court is infallible is obviously absurd.

 

[Faun]

You do not have standing to decide what someone else "needs" to defend their home.

United States v. Miller says otherwise.

 

[Faun]

Fucking moron, either it ruled correctly when it decided Roe v. Wade, or it will rule correctly when it repeals Roe v. Wade. Either way, it ruled incorrectly at least once. Your theory that the court is infallible is obviously absurd.

Fucking moron, I never said the court is infallible. I said they're not wrong just because you disagree with them.