My guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car

[Nik]

Can you prove that assault rifles have no other use? I ask because there's been PLENTY of people that use assault rifles and didn't hurt anyone else with them (shocking I know, but some people can own guns responsibly). There's people who think shooting at inanimate objects with heavy weaponry is fun so there's you other use right there.

Oh, well, lets risk the lives of other people so you can have some fun.

A nuke however is almost guaranteed to kill other people or destroy property that isn't yours if you use it, either by the blast or the fallout. I'd say that's good enough to make it an exception to the rule. This also makes it a national security risk although we still don't go to war with a country just because they have nukes.

And? Maybe I just want the security of knowing I can use it. I find it enjoyable and fun. That makes it alright, right?

 

[Father Time]

"Oh, well, lets risk the lives of other people so you can have some fun."

Translation:
"I can't prove my ridiculous bullshit and am hoping I can guilt trip you into accepting my opinion"

If you can find a way to launch a nuke and guarantee that it would not kill people, destroy someone's else property or wreck the wildlife, fine. I'm not sure there's a single place on Earth where that's possible though.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In fact, 99.9% of all guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car.
.

no family


the truth sucks

 

[Nik]

"Oh, well, lets risk the lives of other people so you can have some fun."

Translation:
"I can't prove my ridiculous bullshit and am hoping I can guilt trip you into accepting my opinion"

Incorrect. If you want to respond, go for it, but kindly don't lie and attempt to "translate" my statements into something I clearly never said.

If you can find a way to launch a nuke and guarantee that it would not kill people, destroy someone's else property or wreck the wildlife, fine. I'm not sure there's a single place on Earth where that's possible though.

Thats nice. Also irrelevant. As I said, I don't need to launch it to enjoy it, just the knowledge that I could brings me pleasure. Similar to the pleasure some have from firing a gun at a target. Neither harm people, so why can't I have my nuke?

 

[JenT]

When did this get moved to Law and Justice System???

 

[Anguille]

In fact, 99.9% of all guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car.

Just wondering if you have any facts to back up that irrelevant statement.

 

[JenT]

Alcohol poisoning is self inflicted. Assault rifle deaths are often inflicted by others.

And they're so rare and so isolated that a ban is hardly needed.

Ah, yes, its all good if they only kill some people. So whats the critical mass number of people who have to die before you are willing to ban something?



And how many of those can you murder a lot of people with AND have no other use? Its the combination that makes it so dangerous.

Where does your logic about responsibility stop? Shall we all have the nuclear codes so that the government can show it really trusts us?

We already discussed this but since you missed it nuclear missiles in the hands of citizens is a national security risk, assault rifles aren't.

Ah I see. If it changes the country, well thats terrible. If it kills some people, well thats A OK.[/QUOTE]

Cars kill people, should we do away with cars?

okay, you first

(I got dibs on anything convertible)

 

[JenT]

In fact, 99.9% of all guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car.

Just wondering if you have any facts to back up that irrelevant statement.

do you typically wait a long time for responses to posts like this?

do you?

 

[JenT]

Can you prove that assault rifles have no other use? I ask because there's been PLENTY of people that use assault rifles and didn't hurt anyone else with them (shocking I know, but some people can own guns responsibly). There's people who think shooting at inanimate objects with heavy weaponry is fun so there's you other use right there.

A nuke however is almost guaranteed to kill other people or destroy property that isn't yours if you use it, either by the blast or the fallout. I'd say that's good enough to make it an exception to the rule. This also makes it a national security risk although we still don't go to war with a country just because they have nukes.

Personally I think many dems want to remove all guns because they know the plans they have for us, and they know how we'd react if we ever actually realized it.

 

[Anguille]

In fact, 99.9% of all guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car.

Just wondering if you have any facts to back up that irrelevant statement.

do you typically wait a long time for responses to posts like this?

do you?

Long time? Do you typically think everyone reads your rants just as soon as you post them?

Do you consider yourself excused from backing up your statements if they are over a day old?

 

[Anguille]

Can you prove that assault rifles have no other use? I ask because there's been PLENTY of people that use assault rifles and didn't hurt anyone else with them (shocking I know, but some people can own guns responsibly). There's people who think shooting at inanimate objects with heavy weaponry is fun so there's you other use right there.

A nuke however is almost guaranteed to kill other people or destroy property that isn't yours if you use it, either by the blast or the fallout. I'd say that's good enough to make it an exception to the rule. This also makes it a national security risk although we still don't go to war with a country just because they have nukes.

Personally I think many dems want to remove all guns because they know the plans they have for us, and they know how we'd react if we ever actually realized it.

Care to elaborate on your paranoia?

 

[Diuretic]

The "protection from government" argument against gun control is pretty weak. Even 300 million people armed to the teeth with ordinarily domestic available weapons won't be able to withstand the largest, best equipped military the world has ever seen. If the US government wished to become a dictatorship then it doesn't matter what weapons an individual citizen possesses, they won't stand a chance against the US military. So, really, punt that one out as being a relevant argument in the debate, it's so fanciful it borders on the ridiculous.

 

[JenT]

Just wondering if you have any facts to back up that irrelevant statement.

do you typically wait a long time for responses to posts like this?

do you?

Long time? Do you typically think everyone reads your rants just as soon as you post them?

Do you consider yourself excused from backing up your statements if they are over a day old?

LOL you mean if I get piled on I'm supposed to run around ard repeat my view ad infinitim?

I think I need a sig...

 

[Liability]

Let me toss this one out. It's a slow softball pitch. It COULD be mistaken as a "trick" question, however. So think about it. Maybe do some research, even.

Plenty of people casually toss around the term "ASSAULT RIFLE" or "ASSAULT WEAPON." (Up until about I think maybe six or seven years ago, I was all too casual in that department myself.)

What exactly is an "assault" weapon?

 

[AllieBaba]

The "protection from government" argument against gun control is pretty weak. Even 300 million people armed to the teeth with ordinarily domestic available weapons won't be able to withstand the largest, best equipped military the world has ever seen. If the US government wished to become a dictatorship then it doesn't matter what weapons an individual citizen possesses, they won't stand a chance against the US military. So, really, punt that one out as being a relevant argument in the debate, it's so fanciful it borders on the ridiculous.

Sure they would. Look how troublesome a few pockets of the world are with a committed few with crappy weapons are...

Americans when motivated are nothing to be trifled with. And good luck getting our military to attack Americans.

 

[Father Time]

The "protection from government" argument against gun control is pretty weak. Even 300 million people armed to the teeth with ordinarily domestic available weapons won't be able to withstand the largest, best equipped military the world has ever seen. If the US government wished to become a dictatorship then it doesn't matter what weapons an individual citizen possesses, they won't stand a chance against the US military. So, really, punt that one out as being a relevant argument in the debate, it's so fanciful it borders on the ridiculous.

That assumes that
A. Every servicemen would have no problem fighting the rebellion. If a mass scale revolt happened then it seems unlikely that no soldier would be sympathetic to the cause.
B. We get no foreign aids. We had a very lucrative alliance with the French during the revolution, it's very possible that we can get similar help in modern times.

 

[Father Time]

"Oh, well, lets risk the lives of other people so you can have some fun."

Translation:
"I can't prove my ridiculous bullshit and am hoping I can guilt trip you into accepting my opinion"

Incorrect. If you want to respond, go for it, but kindly don't lie and attempt to "translate" my statements into something I clearly never said.

If you can find a way to launch a nuke and guarantee that it would not kill people, destroy someone's else property or wreck the wildlife, fine. I'm not sure there's a single place on Earth where that's possible though.

Thats nice. Also irrelevant. As I said, I don't need to launch it to enjoy it, just the knowledge that I could brings me pleasure. Similar to the pleasure some have from firing a gun at a target. Neither harm people, so why can't I have my nuke?

Apologies for the translation, I've heard an argument similar to that in a mostly unrelated debate and I think the argument's dumb so yeah I got angry.

Anyway I assume you're not rich enough to launch said nuke without killing things or destroying property you don't own, but like I said it's still a national security risk which I think is good enough to make it a general exception. Comparing that to an assault rifle is like comparing ice cream to a rotting raw piece of rat meat with maggots in terms of health and saying if I can serve the ice cream why can't I serve the rat meat?

If you were really serious about launching (not keeping) a nuke than I think it should never actually be in your possession and launched out a government plane (at your expense). That's just me though.

Although it seems a weird counter point because if nukes were legalized only a select wealthy few would probably be able to acquire them (unless the government did a cold war inventory blow-out sale, or something). Not to mention the legality of ever using one.

 

[Nik]

"Oh, well, lets risk the lives of other people so you can have some fun."

Translation:
"I can't prove my ridiculous bullshit and am hoping I can guilt trip you into accepting my opinion"

Incorrect. If you want to respond, go for it, but kindly don't lie and attempt to "translate" my statements into something I clearly never said.

If you can find a way to launch a nuke and guarantee that it would not kill people, destroy someone's else property or wreck the wildlife, fine. I'm not sure there's a single place on Earth where that's possible though.

Thats nice. Also irrelevant. As I said, I don't need to launch it to enjoy it, just the knowledge that I could brings me pleasure. Similar to the pleasure some have from firing a gun at a target. Neither harm people, so why can't I have my nuke?

Apologies for the translation, I've heard an argument similar to that in a mostly unrelated debate and I think the argument's dumb so yeah I got angry.

No hard feelings. However if you think the argument is dumb, you should be able to articulate why. As of yet, you've failed to do so.

Anyway I assume you're not rich enough to launch said nuke without killing things or destroying property you don't own, but like I said it's still a national security risk which I think is good enough to make it a general exception. Comparing that to an assault rifle is like comparing ice cream to a rotting raw piece of rat meat with maggots in terms of health and saying if I can serve the ice cream why can't I serve the rat meat?

Yet again. I have no interest in using the nuke, but the knowledge that I can use it brings me pleasure. Just as shooting an assault rifle may give you, or others, pleasure. There is NO difference.

In the ice cream level the most that happens (its sorta bad for you), is a LOT less extreme than the most that happens with an assault weapon (bunch of people die).

If you were really serious about launching (not keeping) a nuke than I think it should never actually be in your possession and launched out a government plane (at your expense). That's just me though.

Naah, I just want one for my front lawn, just to make me feel safe.

Although it seems a weird counter point because if nukes were legalized only a select wealthy few would probably be able to acquire them (unless the government did a cold war inventory blow-out sale, or something). Not to mention the legality of ever using one.

And?

That only a few people could afford them doesn't take away from the fact that it is, obviously, bad to have things that can kill huge numbers of people in random peoples hands. So how is it somehow ok if the number of people to be killed is smaller?

 

[sealybobo]

How about Bob Novac?

Bob Novak Hit and Run Accident

 

[Father Time]

For the last time nik, no I don't think you should be able to keep an active nuke in your yard or anywhere, they're far far too dangerous and a national security risk. They're at least 1000 times more dangerous than any assault rifle you care to name (hence the ice cream vs. rat meat comparison), it's like comparing a knife to several tanks.