AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Gun Appreciation Day "Backfires"

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mini 14s are great for certain uses, but they'll probably be on the ban list along with the mini 30s. I mentioned in The Walking Dead thread way back when how ideal those would be for zombie killers.

There's several tactical ranges that use nothing but pimped out mini 14s.

However, because it can be equipped with evil black parts, I'd be willing to bet that it will be on the proposed ban list.

 
Jupiter551 said:
HiGirlsRHot said:
We allow plenty of dangerous objects in society the serve "no legitmate purpose" beyond people enjoy using them, Hummers, sport cars, hang gliders, motorcycles that go more than 100 MPH, samurai swords, fireworks, tobacco, and hard liquor.

None of those things are designed with the express purpose of killing as many people as possible with as great economy as possible

HiGirlsRHot said:
I am not aware of any banned vehicles.

Really? Try driving an indy car to work


That is BS and you know it. If these weapons were designed with the "express purpose of killing", they would be capable of automatic weapon they are not. Furthermore military, and civilian swat team would use weapons like the AR15 Bushmaster again they do not they use automatic weapons.

The Bushmaster is designed for sportman looking for a semi-automatic medium priced weapon, with good accuracy, that fires inexpensive ammo. It is reliable, lightweight, and easy to maintain. It is great for target practice and also good for some types of hunting. In fact, I'll donate $1,000 to the charity (or cam girl) of your choice if you can find any evidence that the AR 15 Bushmaster rifles that are sold to civilans was designed "expressly for killing people".

Oh and when I google street legal indy cars I am able to buy many different once.
 
:lol: Part of what that hypocritical dipshit Feinstein plans to propose which will never pass:

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:–Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/feins ... z2It0bOCSU
 
[quote="LadyLunaOnce again, these do not indicate how things are, just how I wish they would be.

While I'm wishing for things:
-I wish there was a way to tell that a person was insane without getting way too intrusive.
-I wish it was easier for those who are mentally ill to get help for their problem.
-I wish there wasn't such a stigma against those who are mentally ill and getting help for it.
-I wish we didn't need guns to feel safe.
-I wish people were more kind, more patient, and more respectful of other people in general.[/quote]

Before I got distracted by the Bocce/Jupiter debated I really wanted to commented LL's post because I think she is right, and most of us are missing the big picture here.
If the goal is to prevent tragic deaths I think is far more important to focus on the beefing up our mental health programs rather than passing some feel good gun laws.

It is my same basic objection to how TSA operates, we spend billions and inconvenience hundreds of millions of people trying to prevent dangerous objects on to airplanes instead of dangerous people.

Suicide is one the leading causes of death in the US (and most of the rest of the world) consistently in the top 3 for young people. You can look at virtually all of the recent mass killings and say the guy was murder, but they were also suicide "victims", either because they took their own life, most commonly, or because they committed suicide by cop.

Homicide in the US have declined from ~7 per 100,000 peple in the early 1990 to ~3/100,000 today. Of those deaths long rife/assualt rife homicide are only .3 or .4 per 100,000, and mass killings like Newtown have resulted in between 40-70 death for the last 20 odd years, roughly twice as many people as are killed by lightning. Meaning that despite all the news reports the chance of you or your child being killed by a crazied well armed guy in a mass shooting isn't much higher than being struck by lighting.

On the other suicide rates have been going up in the US and the rest of the world. We have ~10 suicide per 100,000 more than 3 times the number of homicides. Among young adults the rates have more than tripled since the 50s. For young males (15-24) the rate is about 25/100,000 The US is almost exactly average in our suicide rates among the world. Among developed countries Japan, and Korea have the highest rate with more than 20 suicides per 100K. But plenty of European countries, France, Germany, Finland, even peaceful Switzerland have significantly higher rates, and much of Europe, Australia,NZ, Canada fall in the 7-11/100K rate, while less developed and more religious countries like Mexico and most of South America have lower rates.

Like Luna I wish there was a way we could spot insane people earlier. It is striking to me that almost all of the recent mass shooters were known to be neighbors and acquaintances as mentally disturbed. It seems to me that is that we need an intermediate step between having the person come to a pysch exam, and deciding that while not exactly sane he isn't crazy enough to be locked up. Right now we toss these people back on the street despite misgiving by all involved. Instead, I'd like to see these borderline crazy people electronically monitored. If we apply some of the same technology that Google uses to figure out what ads to serve up for a person, to monitor these mentally unstable people I think we could take some early preventative steps.

It is is a very rare young adult that doesn't use both the internet, and mobile phone. A person who reads about mass murders, search the nets for info about guns, who start to raise alarms. When their phone GPS says they visit a gun shop, that would be enough to bring the young man in for additional question. Same thing when he starts investigating ways of committing suicide. Sure this would intrusive as hell, but only if they start become a bigger risk to society. On the other hand if they start playing minecraft, start googling info about colleges course or hobbies, join some mental health forums, while their phone GPS shows them going to classes or work, after a time they we could suspend electronic monitoring.


While the main purpose of the program would be to prevent mentally ill people from getting their hands on dangerous objects, as a side benefit I think it could prevent suicides. Even a 5% reduction in suicides would save far more peoples life than any type of gun legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Is there a method that the rest of the world uses to spot insane people before they massacre people that maybe you are missing?

Is it Obamacare?

That FACTS remain that the USA is up there with Honduras and other such Countries with respect to gun crime, its embarrassing and a sad indictment of US politics that they are scared of a organisation like the NRA
 
Bocefish said:
Mini 14s are great for certain uses, but they'll probably be on the ban list along with the mini 30s. I mentioned in The Walking Dead thread way back when how ideal those would be for zombie killers.

There's several tactical ranges that use nothing but pimped out mini 14s.

However, because it can be equipped with evil black parts, I'd be willing to bet that it will be on the proposed ban list.


I doubt it, the tactical versions might be but they could just as easily sell aftermarket or genuine "kits" to put different furniture, extendable stocks etc. Mini-14 or SKS was what I wanted to shoot with when I was a teenager (before the gun laws). With reasonable clip size restrictions there's no reason they should be banned. And yeah an m14 or semi auto FAL would be my choice in a zombie holocaust.
 
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
However, I'm damn glad the 2A is in the Constitution, otherwise we'd probably end up like the rest of the regretful people that surrendered their weapons to the government.

Who are these regretful people you speak of? In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun. I suspect the same thing can be said of most other countries where gun crime isn't a giant problem.





Haha. I didn't say these people didn't exist. But these people are in the overwhelming minority. I assure you that the ten or so pensioners that took part in the first video are not representative of Britain as a whole. The overwhelming majority of us do not want guns here and are thankful that we don't have an equivalent of the second amendment.

As for the whole "criminals can get ahold of guns if they want to" thing, that's true to a degree, but that doesn't mean we need to make things easier for them. I'm not sure what that second video was trying to prove. It featured police officers confiscating guns thus making things safer, and yet it seemed to point towards gun control being pointless? Baffling.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun.
Wrong. That type of thinking is part of the problem. Having an ignorant, irrational, overly dramatic opinion of people with guns, just like Piers Morgan's irrational fear of guns and people who own them. People think everybody in America has a gun and will shoot them if they look at them wrong or some other equally ridiculous reasoning. Even in Texas, less than 2% of the population has a CCW permit and having such a permit doesn't mean their carrying a weapon. The mere thought of people carrying weapons is enough to deter most criminals, they want easy targets to victimize.

mynameisbob84 said:
As for the whole "criminals can get ahold of guns if they want to" thing, that's true to a degree, but that doesn't mean we need to make things easier for them.
To a degree? Any criminal intent on doing evil things can get whatever they want regardless of the laws, that's why they're called criminals... because they don'y obey the laws!


mynameisbob84 said:
I'm not sure what that second video was trying to prove. It featured police officers confiscating guns thus making things safer, and yet it seemed to point towards gun control being pointless? Baffling.
It proves that the gun laws don't mean anything except to law abiding citizens, disarming the innocent while further empowering criminals. The bad guys love gun control laws, it disarms their future victims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
mynameisbob84 said:
I assure you that the ten or so pensioners that took part in the first video are not representative of Britain as a whole.

You NEED work on your and math skills and someone to test your eyesight if you think there were only ten or so pensioners in that video. :lol:
 
jWPY5Dn.jpg


J6S0TI9.jpg
 

Attachments

  • FeinsteinLetter.jpg
    FeinsteinLetter.jpg
    133.9 KB · Views: 79
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun.
Wrong...

It has nothing to do with thinking every American has a gun (88 guns per 100 people apparently compared to 6 per 100 people in the UK). But the stats speak for themselves. Around 10,000 gun related deaths per year (and that's not even taking into account injuries that don't result in death) in the US vs the 60 or so we get in the UK. That's around 3 per 100,000 people (the minority undeniably) vs 0.1 per 100,000 in the UK. Even if the chances of a civilian being killed by a gun in the US is small (which it is), an American is still 30 times more likely to be shot than a Brit. By and large we have no great love of guns over here, so we're perfectly happy the way things are.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun.
Wrong...

It has nothing to do with thinking every American has a gun (88 guns per 100 people apparently compared to 6 per 100 people in the UK). But the stats speak for themselves. Around 10,000 gun related deaths per year (and that's not even taking into account injuries that don't result in death) in the US vs the 60 or so we get in the UK. That's around 3 per 100,000 people (the minority undeniably) vs 0.1 per 100,000 in the UK. Even if the chances of a civilian being killed by a gun in the US is small (which it is), an American is still 30 times more likely to be shot than a Brit. By and large we have no great love of guns over here, so we're perfectly happy the way things are.

88 guns per 100 people? Where do get your info? :lol:
 
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun.
Wrong...

It has nothing to do with thinking every American has a gun (88 guns per 100 people apparently compared to 6 per 100 people in the UK). But the stats speak for themselves. Around 10,000 gun related deaths per year (and that's not even taking into account injuries that don't result in death) in the US vs the 60 or so we get in the UK. That's around 3 per 100,000 people (the minority undeniably) vs 0.1 per 100,000 in the UK. Even if the chances of a civilian being killed by a gun in the US is small (which it is), an American is still 30 times more likely to be shot than a Brit. By and large we have no great love of guns over here, so we're perfectly happy the way things are.

88 guns per 100 people? Where do get your info? :lol:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... usa/60021/
 
Bocefish said:
Btw the only mini-14 on that list you'll notice is the tactical variant, which may in fact be a fairly stupid distinction to make but it's in your favour - mini-14s with wooden furniture instead of black are just as nice a rifle.

One other thing, if the minority having concealed weapon permits makes everyone else safer because criminals are scared, and if banning guns just leaves them in the hands of criminals, then why is the crime rate in other countries still only a FRACTION of the US violent crime and murder rate? It would in fact fly in the face of what you just said.

Oh btw, I've said over and over a shotgun is the supreme home defense weapon and checkout the shotguns they're banning - no pump actions, those are ALL automatic combat shotguns. SPAS 12?! Striker???! You can't be serious that those should be on the streets.
 
The numbers are based on the average of figures provided by the Small Arms Survey, in the Small Arms Survey 2007, and are an estimation based on dividing the total amount of civilian owned guns in a country by the total population of that country. As some people may possess multiple weapons while others possess none, this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

Most gun owners own more than one and some own several to dozens, so that stat is a very misleading ESTIMATION and alluding that 88 out 100 people own firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Bocefish said:
The numbers are based on the average of figures provided by the Small Arms Survey, in the Small Arms Survey 2007, and are an estimation based on dividing the total amount of civilian owned guns in a country by the total population of that country. As some people may possess multiple weapons while others possess none, this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

Most gun owners own more than one and some own several to dozens, so that stat is a very misleading ESTIMATION and alluding that 88 out 100 people own firearms.
How do they even know the statistics aren't higher though? Afterall one of the problems is that guns are passed around with no paperwork. How could they even know how many guns are floating around?
 
better background checks won't make a difference to honest citizens, it will simply make it harder for illegitimate people to get guns - thus throttling black market supply, driving prices up and making it harder for criminals to buy guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/
In his Friday morning news conference, National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence.
“How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?” he asked.

Seems he doesn't like the idea of a national database of gun ownership though, just for the mentally ill.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/wayne-lapierre-strikes-again/
Requiring universal background checks for gun buyers, he said, means “forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one — standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift.”

I’m chagrined that my own grandfather failed to leave a semi-automatic rifle in my stocking when I was a boy, but that sort of thoughtful holiday gift giving isn’t at issue.

Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, transfers of ownership within families would remain exempt from background check requirements. His aim is to prevent felons and the mentally ill from buying weapons, and to clamp down on “straw buyers” without a criminal record who buy weapons for law-breaking clients.

Mr. LaPierre rambled on: “Obama wants to put every private, personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government and he wants to keep all of those names in a massive federal registry. There’s only two reasons for a federal list on gun owners — to either tax them or take them.”
 
Jupiter551 said:
One other thing, if the minority having concealed weapon permits makes everyone else safer because criminals are scared, and if banning guns just leaves them in the hands of criminals, then why is the crime rate in other countries still only a FRACTION of the US violent crime and murder rate? It would in fact fly in the face of what you just said.

The U.S. statistical facts are where gun ownership and CCW is legal, crime goes down. Your supposed face flying fact is in fact, no fact at all.

If you want real FACTS: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
 
More liberal lunacy:

Massachusetts State Representative David Linsky has filed a new bill that would force gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and require firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes at government approved sites.

“This bill is a comprehensive effort to reduce all types of gun violence – murders, intentional shootings, accidental shootings and suicides. There is not one solution to reducing gun violence – we can’t eliminate it – but there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce the everyday tragedy of gun violence and deaths,” said Linsky…

…“I have spoken with hundreds of people over the past few weeks in developing this legislation – victims, police officers, criminologists, physicians, and yes – gun owners and sportsmen,” stated Linsky. “There are a lot of good ideas out there. We should all have one goal – reducing gun violence and trying to keep more tragedies from happening.”

Provisions in the bill include:

Having one standard of the issuance of all gun licenses, giving local police chiefs the ability to evaluate all aspects of an application for a gun license.

Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.
Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.

Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.
Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.

Imposes 25% sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services.

Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.

That way if someone breaks in your house, all you have to do is run down to the local gun storage facility to get your guns.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01 ... ge-depots/
Politicians should be subject to same criteria before running for office. Elected officials are not even barred from running for office if they are confined to a mental hospital ward for 6 months. During the election. And getting re-elected in his hospital bed. See Jessie Jackson Jr. How pathetic is that?!?
 
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun.
Wrong...

It has nothing to do with thinking every American has a gun (88 guns per 100 people apparently compared to 6 per 100 people in the UK). But the stats speak for themselves. Around 10,000 gun related deaths per year (and that's not even taking into account injuries that don't result in death) in the US vs the 60 or so we get in the UK. That's around 3 per 100,000 people (the minority undeniably) vs 0.1 per 100,000 in the UK. Even if the chances of a civilian being killed by a gun in the US is small (which it is), an American is still 30 times more likely to be shot than a Brit. By and large we have no great love of guns over here, so we're perfectly happy the way things are.

That is the thing the numbers of deaths are relatively small. Far out of proportion to the amount of attention it has received both on ACF and around the world.
So for instance the UK has death rate from Respiratory disease in the UK is just under 80/100,000 vs the US's 52/100. One of the primary causes of respiratory disease is smoking, every time I leave the country I am amazed at how prevalent smoking, compared to the US west coast. It took you guys forever to ban smoking in public and there appear to be exemptions, which clearly kills tens of thousands of smokers and prossibly thousands of innocent bystanders. They just past a law here which ban even outdoor smoking in our most popular tourist areas.

So you can shake your heads at our gun culture and while I tsk tsk your smoking culture.
 
HiGirlsRHot said:
mynameisbob84 said:
Bocefish said:
mynameisbob84 said:
In the UK at least, you would have to search far and wide before you came across somebody who would be happier if every other person was carrying a gun.
Wrong...

It has nothing to do with thinking every American has a gun (88 guns per 100 people apparently compared to 6 per 100 people in the UK). But the stats speak for themselves. Around 10,000 gun related deaths per year (and that's not even taking into account injuries that don't result in death) in the US vs the 60 or so we get in the UK. That's around 3 per 100,000 people (the minority undeniably) vs 0.1 per 100,000 in the UK. Even if the chances of a civilian being killed by a gun in the US is small (which it is), an American is still 30 times more likely to be shot than a Brit. By and large we have no great love of guns over here, so we're perfectly happy the way things are.

That is the thing the numbers of deaths are relatively small. Far out of proportion to the amount of attention it has received both on ACF and around the world.
So for instance the UK has death rate from Respiratory disease in the UK is just under 80/100,000 vs the US's 52/100. One of the primary causes of respiratory disease is smoking, every time I leave the country I am amazed at how prevalent smoking, compared to the US west coast. It took you guys forever to ban smoking in public and there appear to be exemptions, which clearly kills tens of thousands of smokers and prossibly thousands of innocent bystanders. They just past a law here which ban even outdoor smoking in our most popular tourist areas.

So you can shake your heads at our gun culture and while I tsk tsk your smoking culture.

The main difference between smoking and being shot is that you choose to do one but not the other. If you choose to smoke, you do so knowing the risks. If you get shot, you're just shit out of luck.
It's the same thing with excessive food portions. I'm of the belief that there's nothing wrong with offering supersized portions. It's up to the person buying the meal and risking heart disease to eat fatty foods in moderation. Again, nobody chooses to get shot.
 
Bocefish said:
Jupiter551 said:
One other thing, if the minority having concealed weapon permits makes everyone else safer because criminals are scared, and if banning guns just leaves them in the hands of criminals, then why is the crime rate in other countries still only a FRACTION of the US violent crime and murder rate? It would in fact fly in the face of what you just said.

The U.S. statistical facts are where gun ownership and CCW is legal, crime goes down. Your supposed face flying fact is in fact, no fact at all.

If you want real FACTS: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I'm not talking about the facts in relation to CCW states, I'm referring to the fact you say if guns are banned and criminals get hold of them crime goes up, when in every other country on earth that has done this (and US states don't count because people drive across the border and get guns) the EXACT opposite is true.
 
mynameisbob84 said:
The main difference between smoking and being shot is that you choose to do one but not the other. If you choose to smoke, you do so knowing the risks. If you get shot, you're just shit out of luck.
It's the same thing with excessive food portions. I'm of the belief that there's nothing wrong with offering supersized portions. It's up to the person buying the meal and risking heart disease to eat fatty foods in moderation. Again, nobody chooses to get shot.

Second hand smoke kills 53,000 Americans a year 5 times more than guns. Fortunately for the most part other than gambling in a casino I can generally keep myself away from smokers wielding their lethal weapons, but sadly children and non smoking spouses aren't so lucky.
 
HiGirlsRHot said:
mynameisbob84 said:
The main difference between smoking and being shot is that you choose to do one but not the other. If you choose to smoke, you do so knowing the risks. If you get shot, you're just shit out of luck.
It's the same thing with excessive food portions. I'm of the belief that there's nothing wrong with offering supersized portions. It's up to the person buying the meal and risking heart disease to eat fatty foods in moderation. Again, nobody chooses to get shot.

Second hand smoke kills 53,000 Americans a year 5 times more than guns. Fortunately for the most part other than gambling in a casino I can generally keep myself away from smokers wielding their lethal weapons, but sadly children and non smoking spouses aren't so lucky.

It's a fair point. I'm in favour of the public smoking ban for the record. I also agree with the annual tax rise on cigarettes. In fact, any measures brought in to reduce the number of smoking related deaths is a good thing. Just like any measures brought in to reduce the number of gun related deaths is a good thing.
 
HiGirlsRHot said:
mynameisbob84 said:
The main difference between smoking and being shot is that you choose to do one but not the other. If you choose to smoke, you do so knowing the risks. If you get shot, you're just shit out of luck.
It's the same thing with excessive food portions. I'm of the belief that there's nothing wrong with offering supersized portions. It's up to the person buying the meal and risking heart disease to eat fatty foods in moderation. Again, nobody chooses to get shot.

Second hand smoke kills 53,000 Americans a year 5 times more than guns. Fortunately for the most part other than gambling in a casino I can generally keep myself away from smokers wielding their lethal weapons, but sadly children and non smoking spouses aren't so lucky.
Unlike guns, smoking is subjected to more and more regulation every month.

eB4ka1t.jpg
 
The hypocritical female canis familiaris leading the new AWB revealed long ago she wants all guns confiscated... except, of course, her own. I wish these moronic politicians would learn the difference between legal, law abiding citizens and criminals and why people that commit no crimes should still have all their Constitutional rights!



 
Status
Not open for further replies.