cbcanada
Banned
Well said
|
|
|
Texas Man Suspect in Navy Yard Shootings Leaving 13 Dead
- Thread starter stevex
- Start date
- Status
Well said
Its hard for you to swallow the fact that things like alcohol, cigarettes and unhealthy food kill way more people than guns. Why does their purpose matter at all? Lives are lives. You don't NEED any of those things...they're purely recreational. So where's the outrage? Silly.
There are several million legal gun owners in Canada. These people own, by your account, weapons manufactured for the purpose of killing others. Yet of those several million owners, barely a percent will use their guns in that manner. So what up?
Last edited:
Don't you know my post was well said? Why do you continue with that line? Silly.
You're not breaking any new ground here. Everything about guns has already been said. We get it. The only thing left is to Imagine. Like John Lennon said. No room for that, big boy?
Snobike Mike
Banned
Your statement is self defeating.
And instead of taking away objects from 80 million US Citizens (and well over 2 million Canadian citizens), why don't you chase the root cause and go after criminals, none of whom follow laws or give a rats arse about public safety?
OK, the facts are in your favour. Except if I imagine a world without gun factories. Then I imagine a world without swimming pool factories. And motorcycle factories. And cigarette factories. And whatever else you mentioned factories. I know where I'd want to live. Of course I'm talking big picture here, not Joe Dirt at the quarry.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Even more well said.
Anyone who argues the point of trying to save lives must be considering all forms of death events and spending a proportionate amount of effort attempting to reduce all such deaths. The problem with the anti's is they spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time and public and private resources chasing something that is both statistically small compared to your items listed, and even more importantly isn't going to materially affect violent crime/death rates. Do nothing to guns and eliminate alcohol and you will save approximately five times more innocent people killed by drunk drivers than anti's will eliminating guns.
Why won't the anti's around here endorse action that would save 5 times more people?? All it would take is removing alcohol? (oh right, they don't want their rights/privileges infringed up, they just want to infringe upon the rights of others because it makes them feel better.....
)
Last edited:
Even more well said.
Anyone who argues the point of trying to save lives must be considering all forms of death events and spending a proportionate amount of effort attempting to reduce all such deaths. The problem with the anti's is they spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time and public and private resources chasing something that is both statistically small compared to your items listed, and even more importantly isn't going to materially affect violent crime/death rates. Do nothing to guns and eliminate alcohol and you will save approximately five times more innocent people killed by drunk drivers than anti's will eliminating guns.
Why won't the anti's around here endorse action that would save 5 times more people?? All it would take is removing alcohol? (oh right, they don't want their rights/privileges infringed up, they just want to infringe upon the rights of others because it makes them feel better.....
Was not expecting to see pro chemical weapon rant here today.
rotest:
Are you saying there are no anti smoking, alcohol and unhealthy food initiatives or campaigns?
I'm under the impression there are and furthermore, none of them are ever "anti" each other.
Can you find one example of an anti tobacco lobbyist that says something as retarded as, "there shouldn't be an anti alcohol campaign because cigarettes kill more than booze" (or vice versa)?
Why is the pro gun wacko argument always, guns kill people that don't choose to be killed by them but you should go after anything else as long as the number of deaths is higher?
The right to life trumps every other right in the first world.
Personally, I think if you drink or smoke yourself to death that's to ****ing bad for you. You brought that on yourself by your own actions. I don't have any real sympathy for fools that choose to risk their lives knowing full well the possible outcome.
However.....
[grave dance] I don't think any of those 20 kids in that school brought systematic execution on themselves. [/grave dance]
Am I wrong there?
Last edited:
Parents drinking, smoking, and buying McDonalds infringe on their childrens' right to life and well-being all the time.
There is no push whatsoever to ban these substances, but there is a massive and vocal push to ban firearms... despite the numbers and statistics CLEARLY showing that firearms are at the bottom of the list when it comes to lives lost.
Smoking and drinking 'yourself' to death isn't so simple. Not only can you give others cancer from your second-hand smoke, you can also kill others with your drunk driving. In the case of guns, the antis lobby for outright bans. But when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, all that ever happens is a small increase in tax, or slightly harsher penalties for drinking and driving. No sane person would EVER suggest prohibition. Why the hypocrisy?
There is no push whatsoever to ban these substances, but there is a massive and vocal push to ban firearms... despite the numbers and statistics CLEARLY showing that firearms are at the bottom of the list when it comes to lives lost.
Smoking and drinking 'yourself' to death isn't so simple. Not only can you give others cancer from your second-hand smoke, you can also kill others with your drunk driving. In the case of guns, the antis lobby for outright bans. But when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, all that ever happens is a small increase in tax, or slightly harsher penalties for drinking and driving. No sane person would EVER suggest prohibition. Why the hypocrisy?
Hey...pro american gun law guys....this one's for you..... http://www.factandmyth.com/gun-laws-restrictions/pro-gun-arguments-myths-fallacies
Have fun. Take advil for the head spinning
Edit: quick reply to the above...stop turning the argument to items that aren't guns that were never manufactured for the express purposes of causing harm and that ARE regulated to some degree (except truly unhealthy food...but even there the public health literature and TV is replete with articles warning of the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle choice). When you do that it really only shows you have run out of any meaningful rheotric that would support a free for all gun law society.
Have fun. Take advil for the head spinning
Edit: quick reply to the above...stop turning the argument to items that aren't guns that were never manufactured for the express purposes of causing harm and that ARE regulated to some degree (except truly unhealthy food...but even there the public health literature and TV is replete with articles warning of the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle choice). When you do that it really only shows you have run out of any meaningful rheotric that would support a free for all gun law society.
Last edited:
I'm only concerned when others spout the US as a reason for adopting those laws here in Canada. Otherwise I couldn't give a toss either...I'm perfectly happy with the Canadian system and even happier that I can go anywhere I like in this country free in the knowledge that the likelihood of me encountering any violence associated with weapons is practically zero.
I know, it's crazy. Why post incoherently in a USA Navy Yard shootings thread when that can be done anywhere.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|