Okay, get a gun. Keep it loaded and be ready.
Cgood would agree.
http://www.famaas.org/stats.html
Gun laws don't work. They just keep law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals don't pay them any homage.
What do you think would have happened to Charles E. Gidney Sr if he did not have a firearm the day two thugs broke into his house? You think they would have given him a massage and left?
Homeowner kills burglar, wounds accomplice
Okay, get a gun. Keep it loaded and be ready.
Cgood would agree.
http://www.famaas.org/stats.html
The evil hide even when no one is chasing them.- Proverbs
Subscribe to the NRA and you will find thousands of similar stories of people defending their homes and family by having a gun on hand. Without the gun they very likely would not be able to tell any story. We would be reading the story in the obituaries.
**free is a trademark of the current U.S. government.
Silly stats - suicide rate won't drop by outlawing guns. They'll just kill themselves with cars - which by the way kill way more people every year than both legal and illegal guns - so why doesn't the FAMASS advocate the outlawing of cars? Because they are silly hoplophobics.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
That is just more silly logic based on more misinformation
According to the Center for disease control, the top ten causes of accidental death for children under 18 years old are as follows:
Number of accidental deaths of children age 1-17:
MV Traffic 3,845 (which represent 56.4% of all deaths from MV Traffic)
Drowning 883
Fire/burn 429
Poisoning 310
Suffocation 293
Other Land Tansport 191
Pedestrian Other 189
Fall 107
Firearm 102
Other Transport 93
A child is 37 times more likely to die from an auto accident than a firearm, 8 times more likely to drown, 4 times more likely to die from fire, 4 times more likely to burn, and 3 times more likely to be poisoned.
Overall, a child is 61 times more likely to die from accidental causes other than a firearm.
If FAMASS really wanted to save children from accidental deaths they would focus on the actual causes of accidental death in children instead of being blinded by their hoplophobia.
The problem with hoplophobics is that they can't recognize their disease or are in denial of it like alcoholics, so instead they come up with inane arguments to justify their disease.
The problem is compounded because hoplophobics want those of us not inflicted with their disease to be required to live as if were inflicted with disease.
BTW - get your facts straight - Firearms are used for recreation and hunting in addition to self defense and a host of other legit and important functions to individuals and society. They have served those functions way longer than automobiles have been around.
Shooting events have been in the Olympics since 1896.
You asked why a certain organization (and I would assume any organization) is more concerned with firearms than other potention causes of harm. Firearms are used for destruction, period. If you're shooting at a clay pigeon (and manage to hit it), you destroy it. If you fire at a paper target, you put large holes in it and destroy it. Again, the sole use and purpose of firearms is destruction. Period.
Just because there are bigger dangers doesn't mean the smaller ones shouldn't be addressed. A child is however many hundred times more likely to be just injured in a car accident than be molested by a pedophile...but we still have laws against molestation, don't we?
Talk about silly logic...
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
I disagree with you here. Haven't you been listening to the news in the past couple of years. Headlines like:
SUV swerves off road and kills three.
SUV cuts of bus, 13 injured.
SUV careens down embankment and bursts in flames, one dead.
SUV drives off parking ramp, kills passerby.
Notice they never mention a driver. Ever wonder why these SUV's are causing damage for what seems like no reason?
**free is a trademark of the current U.S. government.
You havent disagreed with my premise. You tried to deflect the argument (a frequent gambit for you).
The point remains: firearms are created solely for the purpose of destruction. Automobiles are not.
This obvious truism in response to a question of why groups are more focused on the danger of guns as opposed to the danger of cars.
On a side note, groups HAVE been focused on the danger of automobiles as well. We have seatbelt laws, higher vigilance for DWI, ongoing reviews of traffic laws/controls, etc.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
Just a few facts about cars and guns:
We don't use cars to defend our home from intruders. We do not use cars to stop a bank robber (although in the right circumstances...). We do not use cars to hunt deer. Far more people are killed by car's than guns. Guns do not waste gas and destroy our precious environment. Cars cause far more property damage than guns. Cars are not covered under the second amendment. The right to own a gun is guaranteed by the bill of rights. The right to own a car is a privilege.
A couple "little known" facts that prove guns are better than cars:
A car will not fit in my gun cabinet but my gun will fit in the garage. A gun can stop a car.
**free is a trademark of the current U.S. government.
And yet you still fail to face the fact that guns are created solely for the purpose of destruction.
The question was, why are certain people fixated on the dangers of guns rather than the dangers of cars. I answered the question. You cannot deny that guns are made solely for the purpose of destruction...I see you haven't even TRIED to. Nor can you deny that cars are NOT made for the purpose of destruction AT ALL. I also argued that, just because the threat of guns are lesser in raw numbers than those of cars, doesn't mean that we should just ignore the lesser dangers. Again, you were wise enough to not argue (or maybe just trying to ignore the fact). Lastly, I pointed out that cars (which for some reason some of you seem to be fixated on) HAVE been regulated to be more safe for people. So the original premise is incorrect: various people and groups have NOT focused solely on firearms as objects of regulation due to safety issues.
Again, no one has in any way refuted these facts, nor can you.
On a side note, I still find wonderfully ironic that someone who professes to be a "Christian", and so would assumedly understand the beauty of God's full creation, gets such a hardon for things meant solely to destroy such creation. But then, we know you're not much of a "Christian" anyway.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
More inane logic, by which one would have to conclude that sole purpose of a car is to burn fossil fuels and pollute the environment because every time a car is used fossil fuels are burned and the environment is polluted.
We don't shoot at clay pigeons, paper targets,or game animals to destroy them. We shoot at targets to record skill, and game animals for food. Your silly notions lead to silly conclusions.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)