again... noone. They are used as tools by murderers or flailed about negligently by imbeciles on occasion. Do you have a point?

Here you want to reduce deaths from guns. Later you say guns kill no one. You want to reduce death from guns when you believe guns kill no one.

they speak of education, how the ****** who killed his kid, or somehow let his kid get a hold of his gun and he got killed, is so wrong. But that lip service goes quiet when that ****** should be governed, on when and where he can play with his cannon. no no no, he has a right, is the party line. So they sanction idiots to carry and use weapons, when they know full well they are not just a danger to themselves, but a danger to society. in the oot thread http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2627
the general response was NO, but that doesn't change the mentality in play with posse's of wanna be gunslingers.

If the gun enthusiasts had the guts to stand up the these types of nutbars, then maybe gun culture wouldn't appear as crackpots. But they tend to circle the wagons when a brother in arms gets in trouble ( is there a study on the number of self inflicted crisis they create)

The reasonable should be responsible for the immature. Sort of a cornerstone for society, imo.

Well, "Other Things kill more people guns" just isn't a compelling argument.

I mean, I know that. I work full time trying to bring health care costs down, for example. This isn't a thread about speed limits or health care costs or obesity or drunk driving.



nor is "30,000 people represent a mere 1 in 10,000 of the 300,000,000 people in the United States."

Yes the risk of death to an individual is quite low but so what? It could be much lower.

Sure it could be much lower.

And we can accomplish the goal of lowering it without stomping on the Constitution and liberty.

same document that enumerated blacks to be counted as 3/5ths human?

amendment tho

Didn't take us long to backpedal away from the "30,000 isn't *that* may deaths!" argument.

The Maths, how the **** do they work?

I mean is Trolly being obtuse, or is he really unable to tell the difference in "1:10000 people in this country die from gun deaths each year, lets film a PSA" and "1:10000 people die of gun deaths, lets knee-jerk and remove liberty."

Also I love how goofball tries and fails at building a Flytrap, which ultimately just reads as "Freedom of speech? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? **** all that! Them dudes owned slaves yo!"

...so if the rate was 1:1000, would your views on gun control change?

I'm not sure what my views would be in that situation, but I will say such an event would drastically improve your argument.

Sorry poor choice of words. I should have said "from the use of guns". Again guns don't kill people violence and negligence kills people.

I am a huge advocate of training. I teach people for free as much as I possibly can. I am getting my certification this spring so that I can get better insurance and teach more classes. I have discouraged people from getting guns until they have some level of at least safety instruction and can demonstrate to me that they are capable.

Again, education is crucial. And I support efforts to improve safety. The issue is not that people don't need education but that government mandated education is a terrible idea. Your conflating the two concepts.

JFC NO ...road rage is not a legitimate use of deadly force.

I do, we do, and will continue to. when I have a little more time I will pull you some links from the real gun community and their response to things like the scumbag who executed the burglars and the guy who shot his kid. I think it will be educational for you.

yes, but not in the way you want.

I will not advocate illogical policies that don't work inorder to make myself feel better. If we had an epidemic like you are asking about then I would fully support a comprehensive education program, I would stop working at my regular job and teach safety fulltime. I would lobby for funding from the industry and anything it took to help. But I don't and I won't support the violation of a natural right or using government to get my way.

Lol how ironic

rjoe, you do know that when I say gun control is racist I provide irrefutable evidence gun control is racist and has always been racist, right?

My argument, while bringing the butthurt, really didn't ever get refuted.

It's a bit more nuanced than "Someone references the constitution to appeal to a right I'm against. Bash Constitution as racist".

Like I said, ironic.

Gun control advocates are so good at being racist they have convinced a super majority of African Americans to side with them.

I don't have a racist bone in my body. How do you explain that with your irrefutable evidence?

IDK Goodie, that's a thinker.

Are voter ID laws racist?

Please stop saying this. Everyone realizes that a gun, by itself, doesn't kill anyone. What my side is arguing is that situations in which gun violence occurs may not occur if a gun wasn't available to the person that shot that gun. Please address that piece, not the ridiculous "guns don't kill people" piece.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate on your question?

I'm asking "Are voter ID laws racist?"

I don't think so but I have no idea what that has to do with me not being racist and being anti-gun. I'm sure you'll come up with some ridiculous connection though.

Why don't you just get to the point?

His point is people think Voter ID laws are racist (and he must agree here to get to his larger point, which surprises me) because they keep minorities from voting so gun laws have to be racist because they keep minorities from buying guns.

He thinks people are creating gun laws specifically to keep blacks from protecting themselves.

I don't really know much about the voter ID laws to be honest but I don't see how voter ID laws being racist (if they are) is the same as gun laws being racist.

Also, I want to keep guns out of the hands of everyone, regardless of color. So, the laws I would propose are clearly not racist.