If you dare check the web site I posted, and the membership rates and compare them to your car insurance rates, maybe you'll figure out that the reason their rates are so low is that they don't have to pay out too often Non?
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
ROFLMFAO
Too funny for words.
Well maybe not city kids as they tend to mature rather slowly. But no reason not to let the rest do it. You think farm kids get to hang around the house playing video games until thy are 18? I started running logging equipment when I was 9 and had my first rifle about the same time.
Here's my problem. In the U.S., you retain all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights unless you are adjudicated insane or incarcerated. In those circumstances, those rights come back to you automatically upon adjudication of sanity or release. Except your gun rights. Ex-cons, the insane, and people with protective orders against them cannot own guns.
So if Colpy and the Wild Bunch are going to be consistent, they need to advocate free gun ownership and carriage for convicted felons, domestic abusers, and people with severe mental problems who have not been adjudicated non compos mentis.
I learned years ago that the only thing people can control is themselves!
And not all "Crackpots" own or even like guns...
It's the ones who do that are dangerous! -
Of course. Isn't that gun control? Isn't gun control completely useless? They both just advocated other gun control measures. They've clearly given up the title of the thread. Maybe I didn't notice the backtrack. It is a long thread after all.
I could argue this two ways (and I will)
First of all, the fact I am willing to compromise to satisfy the desires of the majority of the population does not mean I am convinced that does any good at all. I have no problem with training and licensing, it seems a decent compromise over no control at all, but I am NOT convinced that either prevents much of anything.........
THe second argument is semantic. What do we mean by "GUN control". It seems to me that the registration of firearms, the restriction of small calibers, short barrels, and magazine capacity is actual GUN control, and is completely useless. The imposition of licensing and training is not controlling the type of firearms available, but is an attempt to classify the people allowed to keep firearms.
I can still defend the title.
Having done so, though, I must admit you are correct.
Rights do not come without limitations. The right to free speech does not mean I get to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre.
The right to keep and bear arms does not mean I get to carry my AR 15 into the Parliament buildings.
My problem is that the restrictions on our rights have become increasingly onerous, as society begins to focus on rights as a collective entity, as opposed to an individual one.
That is simply a disaster, as the recognition of collective rights by definition requires the destruction of individual rights.
Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM PDT
New study: In 14 states, gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths
byLaurence LewisFollow
Gun fetishists like to argue that cars kill more people than do guns, and therefore there should be calls to ban cars, just as there are calls to ban guns. It's a patently stupid argument given that so many more people use cars than guns, and even more stupid given that cars are heavily regulated, and that those who drive them even have to be licensed. But in over a quarter of the states, even the most basic point of this patently stupid argument is itself not true:
Oregon was one of 14 states where gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 2011, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center. Data was compiled from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
The data is the most recent available, and this marks the third year the Violence Policy Center has released such a comparison.
The 13 other states where gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 2011 were: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia.
North, South, East, and West. Urban and rural. Red, blue, and purple. The only common denominator is guns. The study itself (pdf) provides a simple and obvious explanation. Join me over the fold to find out. Experts agree that the formation of the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1966, coupled with a sustained decades-long effort to develop and implement a series of injury-prevention initiatives, have saved countless lives. Numerous changes in both vehicle and highway design followed the creation of NHTSA. For example, vehicles incorporated new safety features, including: head rests; energy absorbing steering wheels; shatter-resistant windshields; and, safety belts. In addition, the roads that the vehicles traveled were improved through: better delineation of curves; use of breakaway signs and utility poles; improved illumination; addition of barriers separating oncoming traffic lanes; and, guardrails. Experts also cite the increase in the use of seat belts beginning in the mid-1980s as states enacted belt-use laws as well as a reduction in alcohol-impaired driving as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other organizations changed the public’s perception of the problem and laws were enacted to increase the likelihood that intoxicated drivers would be punished. Graduated licensing laws are credited with helping to reduce the number of teen drivers crashing on our nation’s roadways. Between 1966 and 2000, the combined efforts of government and advocacy organizations reduced the rate of death per 100,000 population by 43 percent, which represents a 72 percent decrease in deaths per vehicle miles traveled. Despite this success, safety advocates continue to push for new improvements, such as backup cameras, to further reduce the death toll.
Government regulation saves lives. But guns?
The health and safety regulation of motor vehicles stands as a public health success story, yet firearms remain the last consumer product manufactured in the United States not subject to federal health and safety regulation. While the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is charged with enforcing our nation’s limited gun laws, it has none of the health and safety regulatory powers afforded other federal agencies such as NHTSA.
As Dr. David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, notes in his 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health: “[T]he time Americans spend using their cars is orders of magnitudes greater than the time spent using their guns. It
is probable that per hour of exposure, guns are far more dangerous. Moreover, we have lots of safety regulations concerning the manufacture of motor vehicles; there are virtually no safety regulations for domestic firearms manufacture.”
More than 90 percent of American households own a car while little more than a third of American households contain a gun. And yet, if charted out year by year as seen in the preceding graph, deaths nationwide from these two consumer products are on a trajectory to intersect.
Cars are dangerous, but strict regulation is making them increasingly less so. Guns are dangerous, and a lack of regulation is costing tens of thousands of lives, every year. The only question is how much longer Americans will put up with it. As Dr. David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, notes in his 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health: “[T]he time Americans spend using their cars is orders of magnitudes greater than the time spent using their guns. It
is probable that per hour of exposure, guns are far more dangerous. Moreover, we have lots of safety regulations concerning the manufacture of motor vehicles; there are virtually no safety regulations for domestic firearms manufacture.”
More than 90 percent of American households own a car while little more than a third of American households contain a gun. And yet, if charted out year by year as seen in the preceding graph, deaths nationwide from these two consumer products are on a trajectory to intersect.
Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM PDT.
What crap!!I learned years ago that the only thing people can control is themselves!
It's the ones who do that are dangerous! -
14 states out of 50 states or in Obama's case 57.... 28% of the states..............:lol: whoopee do...
Cherry pick much?
Cherry pick much?
As it states, households with cars |(multiple) out number those with guns. Remember there are NO gun toting babies and hopefully no households with children younger than 18 gun owners. So, who is cherry picking???
And you ignoring 36 States to focus on 14 is not cherry picking?....
Lady.....you need to wake up!
The only numbers that mean anything to you are those that fit your narrow view.....
There, we have a perfect example of someone's ignorance and crass arrogance demonstrated by two little words!
Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM PDT
New study: In 14 states, gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths
byLaurence LewisFollow
attribution: Violence Policy Center
Gun fetishists like to argue that cars kill more people than do guns, and therefore there should be calls to ban cars, just as there are calls to ban guns. It's a patently stupid argument given that so many more people use cars than guns, and even more stupid given that cars are heavily regulated, and that those who drive them even have to be licensed. But in over a quarter of the states, even the most basic point of this patently stupid argument is itself not true:Oregon was one of 14 states where gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 2011, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center. Data was compiled from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.The data is the most recent available, and this marks the third year the Violence Policy Center has released such a comparison.
The 13 other states where gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 2011 were: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia.North, South, East, and West. Urban and rural. Red, blue, and purple. The only common denominator is guns. The study itself (pdf) provides a simple and obvious explanation. Join me over the fold to find out.
Experts agree that the formation of the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1966, coupled with a sustained decades-long effort to develop and implement a series of injury-prevention initiatives, have saved countless lives. Numerous changes in both vehicle and highway design followed the creation of NHTSA. For example, vehicles incorporated new safety features, including: head rests; energy absorbing steering wheels; shatter-resistant windshields; and, safety belts. In addition, the roads that the vehicles traveled were improved through: better delineation of curves; use of breakaway signs and utility poles; improved illumination; addition of barriers separating oncoming traffic lanes; and, guardrails. Experts also cite the increase in the use of seat belts beginning in the mid-1980s as states enacted belt-use laws as well as a reduction in alcohol-impaired driving as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other organizations changed the public’s perception of the problem and laws were enacted to increase the likelihood that intoxicated drivers would be punished. Graduated licensing laws are credited with helping to reduce the number of teen drivers crashing on our nation’s roadways. Between 1966 and 2000, the combined efforts of government and advocacy organizations reduced the rate of death per 100,000 population by 43 percent, which represents a 72 percent decrease in deaths per vehicle miles traveled. Despite this success, safety advocates continue to push for new improvements, such as backup cameras, to further reduce the death toll.Government regulation saves lives. But guns?
The health and safety regulation of motor vehicles stands as a public health success story, yet firearms remain the last consumer product manufactured in the United States not subject to federal health and safety regulation. While the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is charged with enforcing our nation’s limited gun laws, it has none of the health and safety regulatory powers afforded other federal agencies such as NHTSA.Cars are dangerous, but strict regulation is making them increasingly less so. Guns are dangerous, and a lack of regulation is costing tens of thousands of lives, every year. The only question is how much longer Americans will put up with it.
As Dr. David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, notes in his 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health: “[T]he time Americans spend using their cars is orders of magnitudes greater than the time spent using their guns. It
is probable that per hour of exposure, guns are far more dangerous. Moreover, we have lots of safety regulations concerning the manufacture of motor vehicles; there are virtually no safety regulations for domestic firearms manufacture.”
More than 90 percent of American households own a car while little more than a third of American households contain a gun. And yet, if charted out year by year as seen in the preceding graph, deaths nationwide from these two consumer products are on a trajectory to intersect.
Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM PDT.
What crap!!
Just a minute!!
How could that be??
Gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle accidents in the District of Columbia?? Why, DC has tougher gun laws than CANADA!!! How can this be??
Gun deaths also outpaced motor vehicle deaths in MARYLAND?? Maryland also has extremely tough gun laws.
And, BTW, 2/3 of gun deaths are VOLUNTARY, as in suicide. How many vehicular deaths are voluntary??
The comparison is idiotic, and irrelevant.....obviously.
A phrase from Shalespeare's Hamlet comes to mind (hoist by her............................)
LOL and I am accused of cherry picking. Did you know that the US Census in the US showed that 23.0 percent were under the age of 18.in 2012. So, exactly what does that do to the 90..0 in a 100 guns per person??
What are you babbling about girl....put it in context.....I can't read your mind....you're starting to sound like megahurts........
Bluebyrd, statistics is only one way to do well in a debate. You could just choose to keep your points short, reasonable, and moderate.
For example, you talk all the time about negative things related to firearms. As terrible as all the stats are in the USA, I can still challenge you on the effectiveness of gun control in Canada BECAUSE Canada was already an awesome place befor gun control laws were passed. What evidence do you have to suggest that Canada's gun control worked? None.
Btw, check out this comedy segment
If It Only Saves One Life - Applying Gun Control Logic to Staircases - YouTube
It makes fun of the 'if it saves just one life' ideology by applying it to stairway accidents. I didn't know that stairways were such a big health risk but the numbers are staggering
For example, you talk all the time about negative things related to firearms. As terrible as all the stats are in the USA, I can still challenge you on the effectiveness of gun control in Canada BECAUSE Canada was already an awesome place befor gun control laws were passed. What evidence do you have to suggest that Canada's gun control worked? None.
Btw, check out this comedy segment
If It Only Saves One Life - Applying Gun Control Logic to Staircases - YouTube
It makes fun of the 'if it saves just one life' ideology by applying it to stairway accidents. I didn't know that stairways were such a big health risk but the numbers are staggering
Halifax police seize replica C8 assault rifle, arrest 3
"because of how it looks, it certainly could be used in the commission of an offence that's for sure"
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-police-seize-replica-c8-092707825.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container
What a crock of bullsh!t. That's like saying "because of how she looks, a woman certainly could be working as a prostitute."
Reader Tips - Small Dead Animals
btw Colpy, I made this thread a sticky just due to the volume of responses in it.
"because of how it looks, it certainly could be used in the commission of an offence that's for sure"
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-police-seize-replica-c8-092707825.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container
What a crock of bullsh!t. That's like saying "because of how she looks, a woman certainly could be working as a prostitute."
Reader Tips - Small Dead Animals
btw Colpy, I made this thread a sticky just due to the volume of responses in it.