Check this anti gun bullshit out.

[Guest]

It is not a stupid argument. It is to show how hippocritical you anti gun people are. There are lots of very dangerous things out there and a TON of preventable deaths out there. But they are allowed because they enhance the quality of life for those who use them. Be it cars, ATVs, Sky diving, swimming pools, skiing, etc. Do you realize the number of Boating deaths per 100,000 people is higher than that of the US Gun death rate? 5.8 to 5.1. BUt why isnt anyone trying to ban boats?

 

I don't know how you can't see the difference. ATVs kill ATV users. Skydiving kills skydivers. Boating kills boaters. Guns don't kill gun users. They kill people that the gun user doesn't like.

 

If I work the night shift at a gas station, I'm not scared of being killed by an ATV or a faulty parachute. I'm scared of guns. If I get into an argument with a drunk guy at a bar, I'm not worried about him throwing me out of a boat. I'm worried about him pulling a gun.

 

All of the things you mentioned cause deaths almost exclusively for people who choose to take the risk of doing that activity. Guns kill everyone.

[Guest]

The USA takes things which are dangerous and puts them in prison The land of the free having 2.3m of 311m of its population behind bars. That's 1 in 100 adults (http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0). China coming in a dismal second place at 1.6m. Them commies don't know nuthin' bout freedom.

 

Dunno where you get your boating statistics, although your proven track record involving poor reading skills is probably to blame here... The US Coast Guard puts boating fatalities at 758 in 2011. That's, 758 (http://www.uscgboating.org/). Not quite the ~8500 or so gun homicides. Close though, right?

 

Now don't get me wrong you're starting to speak some sense when it comes to restrictions, training, basic safety issues and I wish to support and help nurture this perspective as it grows, but you've really got to get your facts straight because nothing you've passed off as 'fact' in this thread has actually ever been proven to be one.

 

As for your sins... some people look at adultery as a sin, others look at it as entertainment. God is pretty chill with individual interpretation, just don't do drugs kids.

 

 

You cant have freedom if people are out there trying to infringe on your freedoms. Yes we lock up the people who cause problems in society. I am free to own a car. If you steal it so i cant have that freedom then you go to jail. There is a reason such a high rate of prisoners end up going back. They cant control themselves. They cant be productive people and fit in with society and follow the laws that 90% of people follow. I think more people need to be locked up not less. I also strongly believe they need to reinstall the old chain gang system. Get the prisoners off their ass and work the hell out of them. They maybe they will not want to come back. Currently it is a haven for people who want no responsibility so they have no consequence for their action. They break the law to avoid work and end up in jail where they again avoid it. Work their ass off and they will beg for a 9-5 job when they get out.

 

As for the boating stats i provided. Those are the raters per 100K. Can you not read? Not everyone has a boat in the US and the ones wo do do not use it every day. But for the rate to be that high among boaters on a seasonal water craft is alarming. Well to me. Apparently you anti gun tards could careless. You want to ban guns as a power trip. You dont really care about saving lives. Just a moral victory over conservatives is all your looking for.

 

Also i have states plenty of facts and provided sources. You just choose to not accept them and provide your own convoluted numbers.Rather than admit we just have different opinions and perspectives who both have reasons to support our stances. You want to think you are right and everyone else is wrong and you are better than everyone else.

[Guest]

I don't know how you can't see the difference. ATVs kill ATV users. Skydiving kills skydivers. Boating kills boaters. Guns don't kill gun users. They kill people that the gun user doesn't like.

 

If I work the night shift at a gas station, I'm not scared of being killed by an ATV or a faulty parachute. I'm scared of guns. If I get into an argument with a drunk guy at a bar, I'm not worried about him throwing me out of a boat. I'm worried about him pulling a gun.

 

All of the things you mentioned cause deaths almost exclusively for people who choose to take the risk of doing that activity. Guns kill everyone.

 

 

Cars were already brought up and you guys backpeddle and change the subject. Innocent people are killed all the time with cars even people who are not even using them. But because a ban would effect your rights, lifestyle, and freedom you wont think of it. Only if it is someone elses rights, lifestyle, and freedom that is effected.

[MMATycoon]

Everyone's best pal Piers Morgan was on Richard Bacon the other day talking about gun control

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/dailybacon

 

I wasn't aware that the US has 25% of the world's prison population. That's pretty nuts.

[Guest]

As for the boating stats i provided. Those are the raters per 100K. Can you not read? Not everyone has a boat in the US and the ones wo do do not use it every day.

 

In your very own words... "Do you realize the number of Boating deaths per 100,000 people is higher than that of the US Gun death rate? 5.8 to 5.1"

 

Now, there are 311 000 000 people in the USA, and there were 758 boating fatalities in 2011. I am still not seeing how this becomes 5.8 or how the number 758 is larger than ~8700. Keeping in mind the latter number is FIRERM HOMICIDES. Not accidents, etc which brings the number up to 32000 (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states). What are the boating homicides statistics?

 

Can you not write? Perhaps this is the issue. If you were to say, the rate of fatalities per 100 000 registered boats is 5.8, this would make sense. Per 100 000 people does not. These are different measures, they imply completely different things.

 

Now, as you say, this is quite an alarming number, yet instead of feeling the need to address BOTH issues, you decide that they cancel each other out? 'A is as dangerous as B, therefore B is not an issue'. Fucking stupidity and mental laziness as its epoch.

[Guest]

Everyone's best pal Piers Morgan was on Richard Bacon the other day talking about gun control

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ries/dailybacon

 

I wasn't aware that the US has 25% of the world's prison population. That's pretty nuts.

 

"But because a ban would effect your rights, lifestyle, and freedom you wont think of it. Only if it is someone elses rights, lifestyle, and freedom that is effected." - BrainSmasher.

[Guest]

Cars were already brought up and you guys backpeddle and change the subject. Innocent people are killed all the time with cars even people who are not even using them. But because a ban would effect your rights, lifestyle, and freedom you wont think of it. Only if it is someone elses rights, lifestyle, and freedom that is effected.

 

It has nothing to do with freedom. The benefits provided by cars far outweigh the negatives. Most people couldn't get to work if it wasn't for cars. Guns, on the other hand, provide no benefit, other than allowing rednecks to yell "YEE HAW!! Firing this thing sure does make me forget about my small penis!"

 

Gun nuts always scream about the freedom to own a gun. Guess what? The only true form of freedom is anarchy and we gave that up as unsuccessful about 6000 years ago. As a society, we choose to give up certain freedoms for the benefit of everyone else.

 

Why aren't you crying that the government won't allow you to drive a car with nitrous boosters? You could claim "its a free country. I should have nitrous boosters. I promise that I will never use it irresponsibly. I will only use it in a medical emergency." However, because it would often be abused by irresponsible people and cause increased deaths, the government has decided that nobody can have nitrous boosters.

 

Hell, you live in a country where Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs are illegal because the toys contain small parts that are a choking hazard. Most parents are responsible enough not to give babies toys with small parts, but the government has said "because of an irresponsible few, nobody can have Kinder Surprise eggs." I didn't see any massive protests about a loss of freedoms when this happened.

 

Guns are more dangerous than nitrous boosters and the comparison to candy is just plain ridiculous. If you can accept the government taking away your "freedom" to drive fast and eat chocolate, why do you draw the line at firing deadly projectiles?

 

http://i47.tinypic.com/w7j1og.jpg

[Guest]

In your very own words... "Do you realize the number of Boating deaths per 100,000 people is higher than that of the US Gun death rate? 5.8 to 5.1"

 

Now, there are 311 000 000 people in the USA, and there were 758 boating fatalities in 2011. I am still not seeing how this becomes 5.8 or how the number 758 is larger than ~8700. Keeping in mind the latter number is FIRERM HOMICIDES. Not accidents, etc which brings the number up to 32000 (http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states). What are the boating homicides statistics?

 

Can you not write? Perhaps this is the issue. If you were to say, the rate of fatalities per 100 000 registered boats is 5.8, this would make sense. Per 100 000 people does not. These are different measures, they imply completely different things.

 

Now, as you say, this is quite an alarming number, yet instead of feeling the need to address BOTH issues, you decide that they cancel each other out? 'A is as dangerous as B, therefore B is not an issue'. Fucking stupidity and mental laziness as its epoch.

 

I never said 758 was bigger than 8700. That was you simply not knowing what a rate per 100K means. Also the total number of firearm deaths doesnt count. Only homicides. The reason is Suicides will still happen at the same rate if not increase like what we see in Australia. Hunting accidents will not change since those weapons and that activity would still be allowed in the case of a ban. So really you are only trying to effect the homicide rate with any talk of a ban. So thats the number and rate i use. Strike 1

 

What makes you think its per 100,000 registered boats? The statistics didnt make it clear to me which it was. But it could very likely be people just as i said. People doesnt have to refer to all people jackass. But it could refer to 100,000 people who participate in boating activities. Strike 2

 

I AM addressing both issues by bring both issues up in this thread. You are the one who only wants to address one of the issues and not the other. I didnt say one cancels the other out. Only that the same process should be applied to each as we apply to every other dangerous activity. Which isnt the case. One everyone preaches safety and the other everyone yells Ban. Strike 3

 

Your out noob!

[Guest]

Everyone's best pal Piers Morgan was on Richard Bacon the other day talking about gun control

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ries/dailybacon

 

I wasn't aware that the US has 25% of the world's prison population. That's pretty nuts.

 

 

Sounds like the rest of the world doesnt enforce their laws very good. Come here and turn on the news and ask your self if we need to stop putting these people in prison. For a country that has too many locked up we sure have a shit load of people not locked up that should be. Now im not saying there isnt problems with the system. Like i said we do a poor job of teaching these people a lesson. They get off to easy and end up right back again. Of course you guys talk shit because you dont live here. easy to say let them back on the street. You release yours first. Also lets not act like this is a gun issue. Most people are in prision for Drugs.

[Guest]

name='NexusX'

 

It has nothing to do with freedom. The benefits provided by cars far outweigh the negatives. Most people couldn't get to work if it wasn't for cars. Guns, on the other hand, provide no benefit, other than allowing rednecks to yell "YEE HAW!! Firing this thing sure does make me forget about my small penis!"

 

What a lame ass excuse. No one says you have to work outside your community. In fact people got by without cars for thousands of years. Just because you choose a life style with them doesnt make it right. Also you are just making excuses to fit your arguement. We could still ban any non work related use of cars. Force corperate bus' to transport all employees. Cars would be taken off the road and prevent 100K deaths not to mention the polution. Yet you wont entertain that either because it effects YOU and your life style.

 

 

Gun nuts always scream about the freedom to own a gun. Guess what? The only true form of freedom is anarchy and we gave that up as unsuccessful about 6000 years ago. As a society, we choose to give up certain freedoms for the benefit of everyone else.

 

No we give up curtain freedoms to benefit ourselves and the people directly involved with us. It isnt about being free to do whatever the hell we want. But to keep out way of life and the freedoms we are already used to having. Gun control is forcing a way of life on Americans that a majority of us do not want. Cars are a part of our culture and we accept the consequence that come with them. Guns are even more apart of out culture. We have had them and a deep history with them for hundreds of years. We realize they come with a risk. But proven by the majority support even during a tragedy. Americans accept that risk. But like me are willing to look for reasonable ways to make them safer.

 

 

Why aren't you crying that the government won't allow you to drive a car with nitrous boosters? You could claim "its a free country. I should have nitrous boosters. I promise that I will never use it irresponsibly. I will only use it in a medical emergency." However, because it would often be abused by irresponsible people and cause increased deaths, the government has decided that nobody can have nitrous boosters.

 

I know people who drive around with them hooked to their car. There is also places you can use them off public roads. So i dont know what the hell you are talking aboout.

 

 

Hell, you live in a country where Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs are illegal because the toys contain small parts that are a choking hazard. Most parents are responsible enough not to give babies toys with small parts, but the government has said "because of an irresponsible few, nobody can have Kinder Surprise eggs." I didn't see any massive protests about a loss of freedoms when this happened.

 

I dont even know what the hell that is. Therefore i assume the reason people didnt protest their ban is because people didnt give a shit and didnt use the product. Not the case with guns. People have them, use them, and care about them.

 

 

 

Guns are more dangerous than nitrous boosters and the comparison to candy is just plain ridiculous. If you can accept the government taking away your "freedom" to drive fast and eat chocolate, why do you draw the line at firing deadly projectiles?

 

 

The government doesnt take away out right to drive fast or eat chocolate. You are horrible at trying to make your point. And i thought i have trouble articulating my thoughts! There is no limits on how much power or how fast a car can go. There are Highways in the US with no speed limit. We have race tracks to go to and race. Even then if you choose to break road speed limits you are not going to be charged with a felony. Look at it as a speed tax. But Speed isnt banned. I can buy all the chocolate in the world. I dont know what you are talking about. Was a candy banned that had a toy inside the chocolate? If so good. That is the dumbest idea i have ever heard. There is lots of things aimed at minors that are banned. Like Yard Darts. But they dont have legal rights anyways so the government has to protect them from companies who put them at risk.

[Guest]

I never said 758 was bigger than 8700. That was you simply not knowing what a rate per 100K means. Also the total number of firearm deaths doesnt count. Only homicides. The reason is Suicides will still happen at the same rate if not increase like what we see in Australia. Hunting accidents will not change since those weapons and that activity would still be allowed in the case of a ban. So really you are only trying to effect the homicide rate with any talk of a ban. So thats the number and rate i use. Strike 1

 

What makes you think its per 100,000 registered boats? The statistics didnt make it clear to me which it was. But it could very likely be people just as i said. People doesnt have to refer to all people jackass. But it could refer to 100,000 people who participate in boating activities. Strike 2

 

I AM addressing both issues by bring both issues up in this thread. You are the one who only wants to address one of the issues and not the other. I didnt say one cancels the other out. Only that the same process should be applied to each as we apply to every other dangerous activity. Which isnt the case. One everyone preaches safety and the other everyone yells Ban. Strike 3

 

Your out noob!

 

 

You're a fucking idiot.

 

Your own words "Do you realize the number of Boating deaths per 100,000 people is higher than that of the US Gun death rate". Then you say "That was you simply not knowing what a rate per 100K means". It is very clear what it means. It means per "100,000 people". Strike 4956.

 

"Also the total number of firearm deaths doesnt count. Only homicides." So answer the question, how many of the TOTAL 758 boating deaths were homicides? Tell me how accidental boating death figures are relevant to crazily high firearm homicide figures? Strike 5672.

 

"What makes you think its per 100,000 registered boats?". The United States Coast Guard who supply the official figures on boating accidents. Just like I linked to previously here --> http://www.uscgboating.org/ . You being shit at reading? Strike 6123.

 

"The statistics didnt make it clear to me which it was. But it could very likely be people just as i said. People doesnt have to refer to all people jackass. But it could refer to 100,000 people who participate in boating activities.". As mentioned, the statistics, when read make it very clear. No they can't be even slightly likely to be people like you said. When quoting specific statistics regarding a specific population, no it can't be 100 000 people who participate in boating activities. Strike 6457.

 

"Only that the same process should be applied to each as we apply to every other dangerous activity. Which isnt the case. One everyone preaches safety and the other everyone yells Ban." Every single person responding in this thread has universally pronounced that a ban would not be a suitable answer. You are the only person who keeps talking about bans as the answer. 5/7th of boating fatalities occur due to drowning. Something which can be remedied by wearing a vest. 7/7th of firearm deaths occur due to being shot. Something which can be remedied by... Strike 7445.

 

"Of course you guys talk shit because you dont live here. easy to say let them back on the street. You release yours first. Also lets not act like this is a gun issue. Most people are in prision for Drugs." No one said let them back on the street, we're suggesting not to lock them up in the first place. Your final point being support of that. Non-violent offenders fill your prisoners. Research shows they come out more likely to be violent, victims of violence and re-offenders due to the stigma surrounding prisoners. Strike 7911.

 

"No one says you have to work outside your community. In fact people got by without cars for thousands of years." Supply and demand said you have to work where the work is. In fact, society got by without the industrial revolution for thousands of years, then shit happened. You live in a fantasy world, say hi to White Jesus for me. Strike 8123.

 

"I dont even know what the hell that is. Therefore i assume the reason people didnt protest their ban is because people didnt give a shit and didnt use the product." Classic BrainSmasher. It isn't about rights or freedom at all, it is about popularity contents and brand awareness. Strike 8936.

 

"The government doesnt take away out right to drive fast or eat chocolate. You are horrible at trying to make your point. And i thought i have trouble articulating my thoughts! There is no limits on how much power or how fast a car can go. There are Highways in the US with no speed limit. We have race tracks to go to and race. Even then if you choose to break road speed limits you are not going to be charged with a felony. Look at it as a speed tax. But Speed isnt banned." So your car, which can go as fast as it like and not be a felong, which is endangering any children on surrounding curbsides, in other cars or in the speeding car are not at any risk. Yet you go on to say the Government has to protect minors who apparently "have no legal rights". Minors have no legal rights? Really? Strike 10239.

 

10239 swings, 10239 misses, 1 tremendously stupid individual.

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_KYtQpSTGI

[Guest]

name='NexusX'

 

 

 

What a lame ass excuse. No one says you have to work outside your community. In fact people got by without cars for thousands of years. Just because you choose a life style with them doesnt make it right. Also you are just making excuses to fit your arguement. We could still ban any non work related use of cars. Force corperate bus' to transport all employees. Cars would be taken off the road and prevent 100K deaths not to mention the polution. Yet you wont entertain that either because it effects YOU and your life style.

 

 

 

 

No we give up curtain freedoms to benefit ourselves and the people directly involved with us. It isnt about being free to do whatever the hell we want. But to keep out way of life and the freedoms we are already used to having. Gun control is forcing a way of life on Americans that a majority of us do not want. Cars are a part of our culture and we accept the consequence that come with them. Guns are even more apart of out culture. We have had them and a deep history with them for hundreds of years. We realize they come with a risk. But proven by the majority support even during a tragedy. Americans accept that risk. But like me are willing to look for reasonable ways to make them safer.

 

 

 

 

I know people who drive around with them hooked to their car. There is also places you can use them off public roads. So i dont know what the hell you are talking aboout.

 

 

 

 

I dont even know what the hell that is. Therefore i assume the reason people didnt protest their ban is because people didnt give a shit and didnt use the product. Not the case with guns. People have them, use them, and care about them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The government doesnt take away out right to drive fast or eat chocolate. You are horrible at trying to make your point. And i thought i have trouble articulating my thoughts! There is no limits on how much power or how fast a car can go. There are Highways in the US with no speed limit. We have race tracks to go to and race. Even then if you choose to break road speed limits you are not going to be charged with a felony. Look at it as a speed tax. But Speed isnt banned. I can buy all the chocolate in the world. I dont know what you are talking about. Was a candy banned that had a toy inside the chocolate? If so good. That is the dumbest idea i have ever heard. There is lots of things aimed at minors that are banned. Like Yard Darts. But they dont have legal rights anyways so the government has to protect them from companies who put them at risk.

 

Yes, the government has banned nitrous boosters. They are not street legal. You can only use them on race tracks. You also mention that there are highways without speed limits. However, most traffic ways do have speed limits. It sounds to me like there isn't an outright ban on speed, but speed control (much like countries with gun control only allowing guns in designated places like shooting ranges).

 

There is indeed chocolate control in your country. As I pointed out, Kinder Surprise, which is sold worldwide and was formerly available in America, is one of the top selling snacks in the world. It has a cheap little toy in the middle and was banned for being too dangerous. You made the other point that lawn darts are also illegal for being too dangerous.

 

This move was not just to protect kids. If so, only kids were be prevented from using them. In America, an adult is allowed to buy an assault rifle, but is not allowed to buy chocolate with a toy inside. He can buy a handgun, but he can't buy a lawn dart. You say "well, a kid might get his hands on that lawn dart and hurt himself", but you don't think the same could happen with a gun? Do you not realize how ridiculous that is?

 

You go on and on about guns being a part of your lifestyle. If there was gun control, how would it affect your lifestyle? You would still be able to get a hunting license and go hunting with a rifle. You would still be able to go to a gun range and fire off your gun that is stored safely at the gun range. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do is possess a gun in your home or on the streets.

 

How would that impact your lifestyle? The only time you would actively use a gun outside of those situations would be to do something violent. Unless you go around shooting your gun in public all the time, your lifestyle would be exactly the same.

[Guest]

This move was not just to protect kids. If so, only kids were be prevented from using them. In America, an adult is allowed to buy an assault rifle, but is not allowed to buy chocolate with a toy inside. He can buy a handgun, but he can't buy a lawn dart. You say "well, a kid might get his hands on that lawn dart and hurt himself", but you don't think the same could happen with a gun? Do you not realize how ridiculous that is?

 

Every single word of that was spot on and excellently said. I just wanted to quote this part in particular because I think it might cause him to have an aneurysm. It will be like his brain trying to divide by zero.

[Guest]

Im not wasting my time with your replys if you are going to ignore and twist everything. When i asked what makes you think it is talking about number of boats i was referign to MY statistic of 5.8 per 100,000. Your your dumbass number. After all it was you who asked why i used "people". It was you who later tried to change my state to fit your arguement by minimizig the risks of boating. Like i said i didnt look to see if it was per 100,000 people or boats. But for some reason you think that matters. You also seem to go out of your way to throw the rate out for a much lower number to try and make it appear safer. This is the kind of twisted logic you keep using. If 100 people go ice fishing and 100 people die. Thats means it is extremely dangerous. It doesnt matter if it was only 100 people who died. Just because a small percent of the population have boats doenst mean they are not dangerous. As i showed they have the same danger rate as Guns.

 

Every single person responding in this thread has universally pronounced that a ban would not be a suitable answer. You are the only person who keeps talking about bans as the answer. 5/7th of boating fatalities occur due to drowning. Something which can be remedied by wearing a vest. 7/7th of firearm deaths occur due to being shot. Something which can be remedied by... Strike 7445.

 

Then if you know i am argueing against a ban and you know i support curtain tightening of the laws and you agree with both points. Why do you keep responsing to what i say against banning guns? By going against what i say you are taking a gun ban stance and then trying to support it. So dont come on here now and act like that isnt what is being discussed by you. Yes boat drownings can be remedied by vests. So can shootings. Yet another example of how safety proceedures have been put in place for boating and not guns. Which is my stance. Why not make hunters high visiblitiy jacket out of kevlar? Why not require bullet proof vest for all gun owners to cut down on some shooting accidents? My point is you cant reasonable even thing of a Ban until you have tested possible safety measures. After all withut rules and regulation. It would be suicide to drive a car today. Imagine if there was martial law on the streets with cars today. We didnt ust ban them. We made them as safe as possible. The same should be done for guns.

 

 

 

No one said let them back on the street, we're suggesting not to lock them up in the first place. Your final point being support of that. Non-violent offenders fill your prisoners. Research shows they come out more likely to be violent, victims of violence and re-offenders due to the stigma surrounding prisoners.

 

Thats a matter of opinion. Fact is almost every non drug crime traces back to drugs or a drug user. I dont believe prision makes people worse. Maybe it speeds them up. But they are on a natural progression anyway. When you do something and get by with it you go on to bigger and worse things. Because you think you can get by with it. Also you opinion is one of a drug user. Im sure thats why you feel that way. As someone who doesnt use drugs and never has. I dont want to have to deal with druggies. So im glad they are locked up. I actually thing they should stay locked up. even with current laws im still dealing with drugies constantly. Couldt imagine if they had free run of society. Lock up more of them and lock them up longer. Now im not saying they dont come out more violent. But my point was we also know that the nature of a criminal is they keep doing more crimes and worse crimes. So yes there is studies to show they get worse than when they first were arrested. But that doesnt mean they are worse than if they would never have been arrested. Kind of like Cereal killers starting with animals. We had a few kids tearing shit up at the local post office a while back. They were also stealig things. These were 10-14 year olds. You think if they never are punished for their actions that they will never go past vandalism and petty theft?

 

Supply and demand said you have to work where the work is. In fact, society got by without the industrial revolution for thousands of years, then shit happened. You live in a fantasy world, say hi to White Jesus for me.

 

Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Before cars people did just fine. You either worked where you lived or lived where you worked. People live and hours drive away from work by choice and because they have the luxury of a car. Without the car people would adjust. They dont need a car. They want a car.

 

 

Classic BrainSmasher. It isn't about rights or freedom at all, it is about popularity contents and brand awareness.

 

Has little to do with it. You cant expect people to protest something taken away when they never had it or wanted it.

[Guest]

Yes, the government has banned nitrous boosters. They are not street legal. You can only use them on race tracks. You also mention that there are highways without speed limits. However, most traffic ways do have speed limits. It sounds to me like there isn't an outright ban on speed, but speed control (much like countries with gun control only allowing guns in designated places like shooting ranges).

 

There is indeed chocolate control in your country. As I pointed out, Kinder Surprise, which is sold worldwide and was formerly available in America, is one of the top selling snacks in the world. It has a cheap little toy in the middle and was banned for being too dangerous. You made the other point that lawn darts are also illegal for being too dangerous.

 

This move was not just to protect kids. If so, only kids were be prevented from using them. In America, an adult is allowed to buy an assault rifle, but is not allowed to buy chocolate with a toy inside. He can buy a handgun, but he can't buy a lawn dart. You say "well, a kid might get his hands on that lawn dart and hurt himself", but you don't think the same could happen with a gun? Do you not realize how ridiculous that is?

 

You go on and on about guns being a part of your lifestyle. If there was gun control, how would it affect your lifestyle? You would still be able to get a hunting license and go hunting with a rifle. You would still be able to go to a gun range and fire off your gun that is stored safely at the gun range. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do is possess a gun in your home or on the streets.

 

How would that impact your lifestyle? The only time you would actively use a gun outside of those situations would be to do something violent. Unless you go around shooting your gun in public all the time, your lifestyle would be exactly the same.

 

 

I have a gun for safety at work. That isnt to use it for violence. When are you people going to give up on a gun doesnt provide safety? As long as you deny this no one is ever going to take your serious! Now if you want to argue more people are hurt than people who are saved then fine. But dont act like they do not provide protection.

[Guest]

What is your point? There is not a chocolate ban. You are just lying. One product was banned. we have a lot of stuff that is banned. But ussualy there is good reason for it. Im not sure what you are trying to prove. There is lots of toys that are banned. Just because we ban those doesnt mean we have to ban guns. Also you said "If you can accept the governement to take away you right..." Who said we accepted it? Who said we follow it? who said we cared about it? Fact is is something is dangerous and few people care about it or there isnt much need for it. Then it can and will be banned. But none of those principals apply to guns. People care about guns and contrary to what you believe the majority of AMericans do see a need for them ulike your shitty brand of chocolate. BTW i still have a set of Yard Darts and there is no law against using them. They are just illegal to sell. The same goes for your chocolate.

[Guest]

Listen... I don't know if you're a mashochist or what, but why do you keep digging this hole? At least try to dig up, stupid. Let's continue this then shall we...

 

"When i asked what makes you think it is talking about number of boats i was referign to MY statistic of 5.8 per 100,000." Which part of this is so difficult for you to understand? YOU said "Do you realize the number of Boating deaths per 100,000 people is higher than that of the US Gun death rate? 5.8 to 5.1". I did not think it was about number of boats, I thought it was about number of people just like you said. This means, and I know this is math but try to keep up... There are 311 000 000 people in the USA. This means there are 3110 * 100 000 people. Still with me? Now, if you have a rate of 5.8 and 5.1 per 100 000 people (YOUR NUMBERS!), you get 18038 people and 15861. Now of course, being your numbers, they're both bullshit with no facts to support them. As the US Coast Guard published, the total number of boating deaths in 2011 was 758, not 18031. The total 2011 US gun deaths as reported by the US Government were 31672. Where do YOUR numbers come from?

 

"Like i said i didnt look to see if it was per 100,000 people or boats." Because you're an imbecile who spouts bullshit as 'fact'.

 

"But for some reason you think that matters. You also seem to go out of your way to throw the rate out for a much lower number to try and make it appear safer." So we've already concluded that both reading and math aren't your strong points, but let's keep digging up. YOU said per 100 000 people, I said per 100 000 registered boats to help you out. Now, do you think there are more people or registered boats in the USA? I'll give you a hint... there aren't 311 000 000 registered boats in the USA. This means YOU chose the rate for a much lower number, which in turn would make it appear safer. Still with me?

 

"This is the kind of twisted logic you keep using. If 100 people go ice fishing and 100 people die. Thats means it is extremely dangerous. It doesnt matter if it was only 100 people who died." Now, this isn't twisted logic. This is basic reading comprehension. This means 100 of 100 people die. That is also 100 per 100 people. However, If there are 100 000 people, and for example, 5 in 100 000 die, this means 50 people die if there are 1 000 000. Still there? It also means that 100 people die if there are 2 000 000. Seeing a trend here? One is a proportion, a ratio, the other is a static figure.

 

"Just because a small percent of the population have boats doenst mean they are not dangerous. As i showed they have the same danger rate as Guns." The first part is absolutely correct! And as a matter of fact, as per previous links to US Government, 34% of the population own guns, not a small percent but a definite minority (this means less than 50%). Yet there are 8.8 guns per 10 people. Your second part is not absolutely correct, because as written above in this post, your numbers are not only unsourced but absolutely bullshit.

 

"Then if you know i am argueing against a ban and you know i support curtain tightening of the laws and you agree with both points. Why do you keep responsing to what i say against banning guns?" Because I am a jerk who likes to play Devil's Advocate and I despise ignorance that is passed off as informed and researched perspective. It is possible for us to agree on an action for different causes.

 

"Fact is almost every non drug crime traces back to drugs or a drug user." If this is a fact, give me some sort of evidence, some research or study proving your 'fact'.

 

"I dont believe prision makes people worse." You believe every young adult who gets caught with a few joints and gets locked up isn't going to come out worse? You feel that putting non-violent offenders in with rapists, murderers, child molesters and those with serious psychiatric illness does not make anyone worse? Words are failing me. Enjoy this, it is a rare occurance.

 

"Also you opinion is one of a drug user. Im sure thats why you feel that way." I don't do drugs. I have a hundred signed forms swearing I won't and don't, I also have mandatory and random drug testing as part of my employment and other ongoing employment positions. Thank you for passing your pig ignorant judgment on my personal life and habits though, you've shown great insight into the world of a clueless deadshit.

 

"But my point was we also know that the nature of a criminal is they keep doing more crimes and worse crimes." Do we? I don't. I imagine those of us from civilised countries with (relatively) humane justice systems with focus on reformation and prevention as opposed to punishment have a lot of trouble coming to grips with this statement. Once more, thank you for passing your pig ignorant judgment on other peoples' personal life and habits though, you've shown great insight into the world of a clueless deadshit.

 

"So yes there is studies to show they get worse than when they first were arrested. But that doesnt mean they are worse than if they would never have been arrested. Kind of like Cereal killers starting with animals." Like your average teenage pot smoker progressing to REALLY BIG JOINTS, right? I hear you though and I pray for the cereals of the world. Natural fibre and complex carbohydrates don't get the respect and protection they deserve.

 

"These were 10-14 year olds. You think if they never are punished for their actions that they will never go past vandalism and petty theft?" And you think that a better alternative to having their parents paddle their arses big time is to put them in a cell with a serial killing child rapist. You're a genius. At this rate you'll be Sheriff of Arizona in no time.

 

"Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Before cars people did just fine. You either worked where you lived or lived where you worked. People live and hours drive away from work by choice and because they have the luxury of a car. Without the car people would adjust. They dont need a car. They want a car." Congratulations, I was momentarily speechless two times in two minutes. That is a world first. Your stupidity and lack of grasp on reality astounds me. Supply and demand has everything to do with it. Before cars, people did work where they lived and lived where they worked. How did they get there? How do high speed trains, air freight and internet ordering fit into your magic world? What are you, Amish?

 

"Has little to do with it. You cant expect people to protest something taken away when they never had it or wanted it." Exactly, like the right to protect, free speech or religion (that isn't Christian), right? Here was me thinking that US citizens, and you especially, would have been very much in favour of the right to eat what food they like when they wanted. I guess this wasn't something you ever had or wanted.

[Guest]

Remember earlier when I hooked you up with a sweet page on logical fallacies? The idea was that you read it and learn how to construct rational, logical arguments so you don't come across as an evolutionary throw back. Once more, cos I am a nice guy: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

[Guest]

"When i asked what makes you think it is talking about number of boats i was referign to MY statistic of 5.8 per 100,000." Which part of this is so difficult for you to understand? YOU said "Do you realize the number of Boating deaths per 100,000 people is higher than that of the US Gun death rate? 5.8 to 5.1". I did not think it was about number of boats, I thought it was about number of people just like you said. This means, and I know this is math but try to keep up... There are 311 000 000 people in the USA. This means there are 3110 * 100 000 people. Still with me? Now, if you have a rate of 5.8 and 5.1 per 100 000 people (YOUR NUMBERS!), you get 18038 people and 15861. Now of course, being your numbers, they're both bullshit with no facts to support them. As the US Coast Guard published, the total number of boating deaths in 2011 was 758, not 18031. The total 2011 US gun deaths as reported by the US Government were 31672. Where do YOUR numbers come from?

 

I already told you i thought it meant 100,000 passangers as the 100,000 almost never is a object. But i was wrong i admit it. But my numbers were still right. Just because it threw off your math and assumptions doesnt make it false. I never used a total. You did. My number of 5.8 is accurate. Are you claiming i made that up? Man up and make a stance! Did i make it up or not? You said i lied about the numbers and that was the only number in my post. Let me know because i will provide a source for you.

 

Fact is if there was as many boats as people or as many boats as guns. The death total would be much higher than the gun homicide totals.

 

You example about a kid with joints getting locked up. I already stated my stance on Pot. So dont put words in my mouth. Change it to another drug like Crack. The i would say the person should never get out in the first place. But nice try picking the more socially acceptable drug. Who you trying to impress?

[Guest]

Remember earlier when I hooked you up with a sweet page on logical fallacies? The idea was that you read it and learn how to construct rational, logical arguments so you don't come across as an evolutionary throw back. Once more, cos I am a nice guy: http://yourlogicalfa...al-to-authority

 

 

In other words you cant debate me successfuly so you want me to read that so i can throw you softballs to easily counter?

[Guest]

I already told you i thought it meant 100,000 passangers as the 100,000 almost never is a object. But i was wrong i admit it. But my numbers were still right. Just because it threw off your math and assumptions doesnt make it false. I never used a total. You did. My number of 5.8 is accurate. Are you claiming i made that up? Man up and make a stance! Did i make it up or not? You said i lied about the numbers and that was the only number in my post. Let me know because i will provide a source for you.

 

Until you show me where your figure comes from. Yes, you made it up. My stance is consistent and clear, provide some evidence and support for your numbers. As a bonus to the rest of us, try reading the shit you plan on passing off as truth before you pass it off.

 

Fact is if there was as many boats as people or as many boats as guns. The death total would be much higher than the gun homicide totals.

 

This is quite disingenuous. One is a total death count, all of which are accidents. The other is homicide, intentional murder. You see the difference here right?

 

You example about a kid with joints getting locked up. I already stated my stance on Pot. So dont put words in my mouth. Change it to another drug like Crack. The i would say the person should never get out in the first place. But nice try picking the more socially acceptable drug. Who you trying to impress?

 

Nice try picking a drug which you personally don't mind but condeming anyone who falls outside your own personal opinion. Nice use of ethical universality.

 

Who you trying to impress?

 

In other words you cant debate me successfuly so you want me to read that so i can throw you softballs to easily counter?

 

You're not being serious are you?

 

From one side you're right, it is impossible to debate succesfully with you as a debate requires to sides that are both debating, whereas I am debating and you're just speaking out ridiculous, irrelevant, unsupported, ignorant bullshit. But on the other side debating successfully with you is as easy as getting a curry in Mumbai, a sun tan in Hawaii, raped in a US prison or crazy from the religious right.

 

Who you trying to impress?

[Guest]

two idiots arguing

[Grasman]

two idiots arguing

You're only half right!

[MMATycoon]

Sounds like the rest of the world doesnt enforce their laws very good.

Sorry, I should have know, we're all wrong and you're right again

 

Come here and turn on the news and ask your self if we need to stop putting these people in prison. For a country that has too many locked up we sure have a shit load of people not locked up that should be. Now im not saying there isnt problems with the system. Like i said we do a poor job of teaching these people a lesson. They get off to easy and end up right back again. Of course you guys talk shit because you dont live here. easy to say let them back on the street. You release yours first. Also lets not act like this is a gun issue. Most people are in prision for Drugs.

 

Once again, you fail to see where the attention needs to be focussed. It's not about teaching people a lesson once they've gone to jail, it's about not putting them in a position to go to jail in the first place. Focus on education and giving people more of a chance, from deprived areas. The ghettoisation of areas sure as hell doesn't help with education and to keep things on topic for this thread, having guns freely available sure as hell doesn't help ghettoisation.