Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
80-year-old lady vs. 20-year-old man.

Is the woman safer if both have guns or if neither has a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the man intended to do nothing to the woman in the first place, they're both worse off. The chances of being accidentally shot with no guns is smaller than with guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
What part about "vs." don't you understand?

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if no civilians in the US had guns then it would be a safer country to live in. This can never be proven factually

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you can't prove that it's false either, it is just your opinion. But some people are unstable and when they have guns they are more dangerous. The harder it is for them to get guns, the less dangerous they become. Unstable people cause the most violence.

Also I don't care if these are all unbacked assertions. It's impossible to back every assertion. Sometimes you just need to think about if something makes sense or not.

Banning poker would reduce instances of problem gambling. Why does this assertion need to be backed? It's just true. Some problem gamblers prefer poker, they will gamble less often if it's taken away from them.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
Banning poker would reduce instances of problem gambling. Why does this assertion need to be backed? It's just true. Some problem gamblers prefer poker, they will gamble less often if it's taken away from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know they won't play their second-favorite game instead? They're addicted to gambling aren't they? They won't switch games, or play in an underground club, they'll just quit gambling because their favorite game was banned, when they couldn't stop when it was costing them their whole paycheck every week?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, paranoia???

Go take a poll of american people. Ask them if they trust politicians, YES or NO.

I actually put up a poll her in politics with that very question (along with do you trust police).

It is very very mainstream to not trust politicians. Wake up buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you honestly sound like one of those nutjob conspiracy freaks. Of everyone who has posted in this thread you are the one person who I would feel least safe around with a gun.

Don't you realize there's a big difference between distrusting politicians and thinking that the government is planning to overthrow your household?

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'm a conspiracy freak for taking your OP literally?

This is what you said:

Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.
-----------------------------

And somehow I am a freak for pointing out that that it is very common to not trust politicians? YOU are the one saying that people with a great distrust in government are paranoid. I mearly pointed out that is a commonly held belief in america. Maybe you should be more specific in defining paranoia u jackass.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if no civilians in the US had guns then it would be a safer country to live in. This can never be proven factually

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you can't prove that it's false either, it is just your opinion. But some people are unstable and when they have guns they are more dangerous. The harder it is for them to get guns, the less dangerous they become. Unstable people cause the most violence.

Also I don't care if these are all unbacked assertions. It's impossible to back every assertion. Sometimes you just need to think about if something makes sense or not.

Banning poker would reduce instances of problem gambling. Why does this assertion need to be backed? It's just true. Some problem gamblers prefer poker, they will gamble less often if it's taken away from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning drugs has not reduced drug use.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you realize there's a big difference between distrusting politicians and thinking that the government is planning to overthrow your household?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge





[/ QUOTE ]

Also, what's the deal with you mentioning this Waco incident? Are you on this guy's side or something? Wasn't he a dangerously unstable white supremacist with a ridiculous weapon supply? It seems like this incident is a good argument in favour of banning guns, but maybe I'm missing something.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We already have background checks, and that's not all people in this thread are advocating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood but my point is that many gun advocates fight against ANY regulation that is aimed at protecting people from criminal gun violence. This includes background checks, the gun show loophole, safety training, etc.

It is not a practical concern as there's nothing stopping them from getting their own guns. It is more philosophical, I think it has to do with distrust of the govt and a feeling that the govt is butting in where it doesn't belong. But... it makes the gun advocates appear like right-wing gun-crazies to mainstream America when they cry "second amendment!" every time even the most minor attempt is made to restrict criminal access to guns. It also makes it appear that the gun lobby is more interested in selling lots of guns than in protectng the innocent from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry, but you are mistaken.

Here is an example of the NRA supporting a bill that strengthens background checks, it is H.R. 297. This bill was proposed by Rep. McCarty (D-NY). She is the most virulently anti-gun politician in D.C.

Here is a quote from the summary:

This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.

Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control—especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation—center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers.

This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects—an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision...

The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person’s eligibility to receive a firearm.

The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.

NRA supports strengthening background checks

I think you are mistaken because of two issues, the absolute bias and sensationalism of the media about guns, and general technical ignorance among Americans about guns. The media and Democrats smear the NRA and all gun owners nonstop. The NRA is talked about as if there isn't anyone in the country who agrees with them. You think we are right-wing gun crazies because that's how biased reporters paint these issues. All of this comes from reporters and politicians who don't know anything about guns or what the current gun laws actually are.

Here is a video clip of the author of the latest assault weapons ban finally admitting she doesn't even know what a "barrel shroud" is, even though it is one of her criteria for banning a gun.

Rep. McCarthy on barrel shrouds

When the state of CA banned assault weapons they ended up banning guns that don't exist because they picked pictures out of magazines of scary guns and used the magazine text to list banned weapons. They ended up banning H-93's (do not exist) instead of HK-93's because of a typo in the magazine.


Arms and the Law

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banning poker would reduce instances of problem gambling. Why does this assertion need to be backed? It's just true. Some problem gamblers prefer poker, they will gamble less often if it's taken away from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know they won't play their second-favorite game instead? They're addicted to gambling aren't they? They won't switch games, or play in an underground club, they'll just quit gambling because their favorite game was banned, when they couldn't stop when it was costing them their whole paycheck every week?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're addicted to gambling primarily on poker, as some people are, then their incidences of problem gambling will be reduced ever so slightly. They will lose maybe one penny less while they try to find a new game. Can we agree on that much even? Or does every minute detail need to be proven in some kind of a study?

You guys are all like former school debate club members I'm guessing? I have a feeling you guys could succesfully argue just about anything.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you realize there's a big difference between distrusting politicians and thinking that the government is planning to overthrow your household?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge





[/ QUOTE ]

Also, what's the deal with you mentioning this Waco incident? Are you on this guy's side or something? Wasn't he a dangerously unstable white supremacist with a ridiculous weapon supply? It seems like this incident is a good argument in favour of banning guns, but maybe I'm missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have Waco and now 32 people dead at Vtech... clearly all guns should be banned in light of these developments. Pyedog, your reading comprehension skills are really lacking. It's crystal clear that he was making a huge distinction between someone who distrusts politicians (him), and a whack job Branch Davidian leader who believes the government is actively trying to overthrow his household (David Koresh). LOL at thinking he was on Koresh's side

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, paranoia???

Go take a poll of american people. Ask them if they trust politicians, YES or NO.

I actually put up a poll her in politics with that very question (along with do you trust police).

It is very very mainstream to not trust politicians. Wake up buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you honestly sound like one of those nutjob conspiracy freaks. Of everyone who has posted in this thread you are the one person who I would feel least safe around with a gun.

Don't you realize there's a big difference between distrusting politicians and thinking that the government is planning to overthrow your household?

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'm a conspiracy freak for taking your OP literally?

This is what you said:

Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.
-----------------------------

And somehow I am a freak for pointing out that that it is very common to not trust politicians? YOU are the one saying that people with a great distrust in government are paranoid. I mearly pointed out that is a commonly held belief in america. Maybe you should be more specific in defining paranoia u jackass.

[/ QUOTE ]

No big deal, but that wasn't my OP, I just thought he made a good point.

There is a big difference between distrusting the government (normal) and thinking that you need to arm yourself with weaponry to prevent your house from being overtaken by the US government (extreme paranoia, not normal, see guys from Waco).

OMG please define normal! As if you could even prove that!