How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

2 words for you : Fuck Off

the tool a sick fucker uses is not the problem. the mentally fucked douche bag piece of shit that wants to harm another for no decent moral reason. Go to any time in human history and you will find murderers and violent personality's. The only thing we can do is identify the scumbag, and drag him to a fence post and cull them from the herd.


We are human, put any more than 2 of us on the planet and theres to many.. as the two famous brothers show us.


pick something else to get all roweled up over... like government corruption.... but i get it... that would be to productive for your efforts. fuckin you liberals make me sick... go around thinking you know how everybody should live.. as long as you make the rules its all good... go fuckin slit your wrists....

canndo said:

The consequences of a dead document.

Click to expand...

Only dead in your little mind....

canndo said:

The consequences of a dead document.

Click to expand...

Dead thinking

zambonic said:

Maybe you should pose this question to the Jews in Germany during Hitlers rein, or the Russian people during Stalins time...need I go on?

Click to expand...

You probably should, as you are equating this population in this time in history with the Jews in Germany, who if memory serves, deluded themselves into thinking that the Germans weren't really doing what they were doing, and no amount of guns would have altered the result. I don't have as much of a grasp of Russian history except to know that there is little similarity between Russia and the u.s. with or without the weapons.


All of the gun folk tend to use these historical occurances as though all situations involving guns, the dismarmament of a population, tyranny and eventual saughter of civilians are all the same.

It gets absurd when I say "how about limiting magazine capacity" and the person I am talking to says "yeah, but.... what about the Jews in Germany in the late '30s."


There just aren't enough similarities. If your gun is not registered, no one can take your gun away and no u.s. government will ever try, so why are so many so afraid they will? Why do they insist that any regulation at all is the wholesale equivalent of a demand that all citizens surrender all guns?

Dr Kynes said:

no it does not.

a regular shotgun is even dangerous when used on snakes unless youre a "Snake Sniper shooting froom 50+ yards...

pellets bounce. if you see a snake coiling up at your feet and shoot at it with a sawed off shotgun, then youll blow your own foot off, or ricochet pellets will perforate you.

if the snake is close enough to be a hazard, it's too damned close for a sawed off, if it's menacing somebody else, THEY are too damned close to the snake for a sawed off.

sawed of shotguns are wildly inaccurate, and essentially only useful as a threat to everybody in that bank you are robbing.

if youre worried about snakes, pack a .22 loaded with a shotshell round full of dove shot. thats what .22's are for.

Click to expand...

that's the dumbest shit ever. do you even shotgun?? riccocete back to you off the dirt my lord. You'll shoot your eye out

Mindmelted said:

Only dead in your little mind....

Click to expand...

Actually, it is dead in yours - in mine it lives. Or have I got that wrong, perhaps you believe in that living breathing Constitution that all us liberals hold to be the basis of our government.

canndo said:

There just aren't enough similarities. If your gun is not registered, no one can take your gun away and no u.s. government will ever try, so why are so many so afraid they will? Why do they insist that any regulation at all is the wholesale equivalent of a demand that all citizens surrender all guns?

Click to expand...

because they'll scale back 10 rounds to five then they'll only allow single shot rifles. that's why it's the equivalent of demanding us all to surrender our guns

Dr Kynes said:

no it does not.

a regular shotgun is even dangerous when used on snakes unless youre a "Snake Sniper shooting froom 50+ yards...

pellets bounce. if you see a snake coiling up at your feet and shoot at it with a sawed off shotgun, then youll blow your own foot off, or ricochet pellets will perforate you.

if the snake is close enough to be a hazard, it's too damned close for a sawed off, if it's menacing somebody else, THEY are too damned close to the snake for a sawed off.

sawed of shotguns are wildly inaccurate, and essentially only useful as a threat to everybody in that bank you are robbing.

if youre worried about snakes, pack a .22 loaded with a shotshell round full of dove shot. thats what .22's are for.

Click to expand...

i carry a taurus judge

Not another damn gun thread , oh the kids you say .. I tell you what , my children will learn to respect weapons and they will be properly trained with them in self defense as well they will learn to hunt with lead ..

unohu69 said:

2 words for you : Fuck Off

the tool a sick fucker uses is not the problem. ..

Click to expand...

Wrong, the "tool" the sick fucker uses IS the problem. Had he had that hammer, or that knife that so many seem to compare with guns when they want to call a gun a "tool", or had he used a chain saw or a machete or a crow bar he would have been stopped after his 2nd or 5th or 9th little kid.

It was the empowerment of the weapon that made this sick guy something more than a violent individual and that is the discussion at hand.

canndo said:

10.1 gun deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. (2009)

11.7 auto related deaths in the U.S. (2009)


Now this would not be an accurate representation for a normal argument EXCEPT that what you said was "by accident or intentionally".

Better update that argument ASMALLVOICE.

Click to expand...

No need, if it is beaten by even a miniscule percentage, it is still a larger threat and that is what the debate is about. and this is 2013, not 2009, you need to update your info.

Peace

Asmallvoice

unohu69 said:

2 words for you : Fuck Off

the tool a sick fucker uses is not the problem. the mentally fucked douche bag piece of shit that wants to harm another for no decent moral reason. Go to any time in human history and you will find murderers and violent personality's. The only thing we can do is identify the scumbag, and drag him to a fence post and cull them from the herd.


We are human, put any more than 2 of us on the planet and theres to many.. as the two famous brothers show us.


pick something else to get all roweled up over... like government corruption.... but i get it... that would be to productive for your efforts. fuckin you liberals make me sick... go around thinking you know how everybody should live.. as long as you make the rules its all good... go fuckin slit your wrists....

Click to expand...

" fuckin you liberals make me sick... go around thinking you know how everybody should live.. as long as you make the rules its all good..."

Right, like telling a woman what she can/can't do with her own body. Like telling two men that love one another that they can't get married. Like telling us all what drugs we're allowed to ingest.

All causes championed by liberals. ><

Give your fucking head a good shake, then come to your sense and admit that both sides are guilty of it .... you just tolerate one side over the other because of your own selfish interests.

canndo said:

Wrong, the "tool" the sick fucker uses IS the problem. Had he had that hammer, or that knife that so many seem to compare with guns when they want to call a gun a "tool", or had he used a chain saw or a machete or a crow bar he would have been stopped after his 2nd or 5th or 9th little kid.

It was the empowerment of the weapon that made this sick guy something more than a violent individual and that is the discussion at hand.

Click to expand...

or if a teacher had a gun they could have stopped him too

ASMALLVOICE said:

No need, if it is beaten by even a miniscule percentage, it is still a larger threat and that is what the debate is about. and this is 2013, not 2009, you need to update your info.

Peace

Asmallvoice

Click to expand...

Actually, 2013 stats will show an even closer percentage of deaths, and it is estimated that by 2015 gun deaths will surpass auto deaths.

NLXSK1 said:

All of them...

Click to expand...

My complements - you are the only one who had the complete balls to come out and say it. It makes no difference. It isn't about the children it is about the right and it being about the right means that the children are collateral damage to that right.

The quicker we agree rather than changing the subject the better.

So the next question is, how many children is your 100 round magazine worth?

Hopefully, quite a few less.

canndo said:

There is always the car and knife argument from the gun toters. This is not about cars nor knives. Should the government with our help opt to ban all knives it could be done without any legal problem. Same with cars, we could for the sake of lives ban all cars.

Not so with firearms that are the only possession specifically singled out as being protected. But what is of interest to me is the tendancy to avoid the direct question. You say that your kids and your own life is worth more than the lives of an unknown number of others. Now you present a set of givens (I have already said I had). You do not know if you or your family will ever be endangered in such a way as to require your ownership of a firearm. The question remains.


If you knew for certain that surrendering your weapon would save children's lives, how many would it take for you to exchange your glock for a k-cup coffee maker?

Click to expand...

Two observations.
1) Firearms are not a specific protected class ... "arms" are, and that includes swords, tanks and the odd trebuchet.
2)Regarding your last sentence, I'd need to know more about the scenario. If I knew for certain that giving up a specific gun would save the lives of a child or more (whose, by the way?) would i also know for certain that the protection the gun afforded me against any sort of violent assault could be afforded by a stand-in device or agency? Which one, and how? cn

canndo said:

My complements - you are the only one who had the complete balls to come out and say it. It makes no difference. It isn't about the children it is about the right and it being about the right means that the children are collateral damage to that right.

The quicker we agree rather than changing the subject the better.

So the next question is, how many children is your 100 round magazine worth?

Hopefully, quite a few less.

Click to expand...

the zog stops killing little babies over in the mid east maybe then they could open up the discussion about saving our kids from the evil gun monster

st0wandgrow said:

" fuckin you liberals make me sick... go around thinking you know how everybody should live.. as long as you make the rules its all good..."

Right, like telling a woman what she can/can't do with her own body. Like telling two men that love one another that they can't get married. Like telling us all what drugs we're allowed to ingest.

All causes championed by liberals. ><

Give your fucking head a good shake, then come to your sense and admit that both sides are guilty of it .... you just tolerate one side over the other because of your own selfish interests.

Click to expand...

Is it possible there are more than two points of view?

CrescentFresh said:

that's the dumbest shit ever. do you even shotgun?? riccocete back to you off the dirt my lord. You'll shoot your eye out

Click to expand...

i used to pack mules, and more than a few muleskinners carried a .22 loaded with dove shot specifically for rattlesnakes.
NONE carried a sawed off, or even a regular shotgun.

you see, "dirt", unless it is a well maintained farmer's feild, often contains these things called "Stones". These "Stones" are made of "Rock" and rock is much harder than "Dirt". shotgun pellets can easily bounce off of these "Stones" resulting in injury to any dimwitted person so buffleheaded as to shoot a shotgun right at their feet.

it is interesting to note that snakes often use these "Stones" as a place to bask, since "Rock" (a neccessary component of "Stones") holds heat quite well, in addition to it's ability to send your pellets right back into your own "Nutsack".

even more worrisome is the advent of Steel Shot, which is much livelier on the rebound than lead shot, and the poor judgement of anyone who would fire a shotgun (sawed off or otherwise) at a snake which is presumably less than 6 feet from themselves or someone else.

canndo said:

I've been thinking a lot about guns, gun violence, mass shootings on the one hand, U.S. civil rights and the 2nd amendment on another hand and on a third hand, the explosive, reactionary, irrational responses to any percieved threat to most gun owners ability to do as they please with firearms, buy as they wish, and be held completely unaccountable for their ideological contribution to gun violence.


But the question finally draws down to a very simple one: how many innocent deaths is each one of your guns worth?

I know I am making some critical presumptions, that the removal of law abiding citizen's guns does not directly correlate with a reduction in gun violence and that there is the counterbalancing factor of self protection and perhaps an offset for potential governmental tyranny.

But that aside, presuming that a number could be established,


If you knew for certain that surrendering your firearm would keep a given number of children from being shot, what would that number be?

How many children is your right to keep and bear worth to you?

Click to expand...

Nice appeal to emotion.