Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 167

Thread: Let's see what happens this time - gun control

  1. #16
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevenco View Post
    The less weapons the less fatalities.
    I live on the lower west side and have no use for a gun.
    I don't lock my door.
    I'm safe.
    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

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,615
    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

  3. #18
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,594
    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.

  4. #19
    Member Save Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevenco View Post
    Okay, get a gun. Keep it loaded and be ready.
    Cgood would agree.
    http://www.famaas.org/stats.html
    how do you insert a jpeg here?

  5. #20
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevenco View Post
    Okay, get a gun. Keep it loaded and be ready.
    Cgood would agree.
    http://www.famaas.org/stats.html
    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.

  6. #21
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    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.
    Because an automobile's sole purpose is not to destroy. Firearms, however, are created for no reason than to cause damage.

    I'll put it another way: automobiles have an intended and useful purpose that has nothing to do with any sort of violence.
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

  7. #22
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    Because an automobile's sole purpose is not to destroy. Firearms, however, are created for no reason than to cause damage.

    I'll put it another way: automobiles have an intended and useful purpose that has nothing to do with any sort of violence.
    inb4 "I want to hunt with my AR15 and Hand cannon, or shoot clays!"
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  8. #23
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    Because an automobile's sole purpose is not to destroy. Firearms, however, are created for no reason than to cause damage.

    I'll put it another way: automobiles have an intended and useful purpose that has nothing to do with any sort of violence.
    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.

  9. #24
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    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...
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

  10. #25
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,594
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    Because an automobile's sole purpose is not to destroy. Firearms, however, are created for no reason than to cause damage.

    I'll put it another way: automobiles have an intended and useful purpose that has nothing to do with any sort of violence.
    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.

  11. #26
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenold View Post
    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?
    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.
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

  12. #27
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,594
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    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.
    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.

  13. #28
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    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.
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

  14. #29
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    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...
    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.

  15. #30
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    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.
    You know very well what the purpose of automobiles is...and you're being obtuse in trying to skew the point.

    How you do "record skill"? By how accurately you have DESTROYED the target.

    There is no way around that.
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Regular Part Time Employees - Collins Loses
    By Rocksimm in forum Erie County Politics
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: May 15th, 2009, 03:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •