great sadness

[Yurt]

Kudos to you for your tolerance. His inanity doesn't warrant a thoughtful response.

says the "intelligent" person who never backs up her claims.

[annata]

so you're ok with cars killing more people because cars are useful and guns aren't?

wow.

what i was trying to say, is the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads dwarfs the number of ppl who are shooting each day.

So since there are millions of drivers each day (and night), there are bound to be more accidents.

If you want to compare deaths, use something like "homicides caused by vehicular manslaughter" compared to "homicides caused by gun deaths" accidental or other wise.

Lemme try to be clear, there are many more chances for a vehicle to cause a death ( because of sheer numbers) then those caused by gunz.

does that make sense?

[Yurt]

what i was trying to say, is the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads dwarfs the number of ppl who are shooting each day.

So since there are millions of drivers each day (and night), there are bound to be more accidents.

If you want to compare deaths, use something like "homicides caused by vehicular manslaughter" compared to "homicides caused by gun deaths" accidental or other wise.

Lemme try to be clear, there are many more chances for a vehicle to cause a death ( because of sheer numbers) then those caused by gunz.

does that make sense?

of course that makes sense. that doesn't take away from the fact you want to ban guns in order to avoid deaths and the fact you're comfortable with far more deaths caused by automobiles simply because there are more automobiles.

your logic, in terms of numbers, makes sense. your logic in terms of avoiding deaths, makes no sense. my comparison is apt and shows that you don't really care about life. instead, you emotionally have this need to ban guns because on a 'per capita' level, they supposedly kill more people.

do you understand what i'm getting at?

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, unless they shocked and awed your ass

No doubt they could hit hard, but where do they strike?

[annata]

of course that makes sense. that doesn't take away from the fact you want to ban guns in order to avoid deaths and the fact you're comfortable with far more deaths caused by automobiles simply because there are more automobiles.

your logic, in terms of numbers, makes sense. your logic in terms of avoiding deaths, makes no sense. my comparison is apt and shows that you don't really care about life. instead, you emotionally have this need to ban guns because on a 'per capita' level, they supposedly kill more people.

do you understand what i'm getting at?

Understood, and I agree my hatred of gunz is not all based on rational thought. I'd prefer they were banned, but I know they aren't going to be, and proliferaton not just in the US but worldwide shows more gunz/ gun deaths to come.

Hopefully I'll be dead and off this planet after this life,(nirvannah) but not dead by a gunshot.

[Yurt]

Understood, and I agree my hatred of gunz is not all based on rational thought. I'd prefer they were banned, but I know they aren't going to be, and proliferaton not just in the US but worldwide shows more gunz/ gun deaths to come.

Hopefully I'll be dead and off this planet after this life,(nirvannah) but not dead by a gunshot.

ok...i think i see your point....are you basically saying that there would be less deaths without guns?

[Lowaicue]

I have always maintained that the armed insurrection is a viable reason for the 2nd.

There are over 65 million gun owners in the US. Considering the difficulty our military is having in Afganistan and Iraq, with far fewer numbers and fewer firearms, I think we citizens could do some major damage.

The last estimate I saw was that there are rough 240 million firearms in private ownership. If 70% of the private gun owners (45,500,000) were to shoot 5 people, we have the potential to have a body count of over 225 million.

Why would anyone in their right mind even THINK like this?

[CanceledB]

Why would anyone in their right mind even THINK like this?

Conditioning. It starts very early here.



http://www.addictedtowar.com/atw1a.html

[WinterBorn]

Why would anyone in their right mind even THINK like this?

It was in response to a comment. I did the math and posted it.

[SmarterthanYou]

As to 'armed insurrection against tyranny", yes that was original intent - but it's not anymore. Whom is gonna overthrow the Fed'l gov't by armed insurrection?
You can't even get near the Capitol, or members of Congress -metal detectors. Armed insurrection? puuleees. ain't gonna happen.

this always cracks me up. it shows that some people can't understand numbers at all. what do you think would happen if there were a million gun owner march on DC?

[SmarterthanYou]

Why would anyone in their right mind even THINK like this?

because some of us learned the lesson of british rule.

[Lowaicue]

because some of us learned the lesson of british rule.

You must be a lot older than you look.

[Rana]

this always cracks me up. it shows that some people can't understand numbers at all. what do you think would happen if there were a million gun owner march on DC?

Probably nothing, unless you opened fire.

[SmarterthanYou]

Probably nothing, unless you opened fire.

ok, maybe I should have added 'while carrying a handgun'.