| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2015 01:25:06 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon Cory, you're bright enough to know how fallacious that argument is... |
Foolish? More people are hurt/killed on a daily, weekly, hourly, minutely(is that even a word?) in car accidents than with guns. Cars are certainly more deadly of a weapon than a gun. |
How many times are cars used intentionally to kill someone? I would asame less than 1 in 10000 deaths. Guns, pretty much every death. Therein lies the discrepancy . |
The argument earlier in the thread was there were so many "accidental shootings" by guns, where no one intended to shoot or kill someone. Why do you now have to have the requirement for your argument that it has to be used intentionally? |
It is not a requirement, it is simply pointing out the difference between cars and guns. Cars are not a "weapon" and are therefore not "as deadly a weapon" as guns. |
Dead is Dead. No matter the method use. Deadly weapon=car deadly weapon=gun Dead=Dead. Trying to justify one over the other is just silly. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 01:56:29 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by MattO:
to justify one over the other is just silly. |
Silly? Really? Please post your results after performing the following thought experiment:
Assuming it possible, compare and contrast the effect on the economy and the survival of human civilization (not necessarily in that order) if:
A. All automobiles/trucks/etc. were to vanish overnight.
B. All guns, cannons, grenades, etc. were to vanish overnight.
I propose that the outcomes would be quite different. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 02:01:06 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MattO:
to justify one over the other is just silly. |
Silly? Really? Please post your results after performing the following thought experiment:
Assuming it possible, compare and contrast the effect on the economy and the survival of human civilization (not necessarily in that order) if:
A. All automobiles/trucks/etc. were to vanish overnight.
B. All guns, cannons, grenades, etc. were to vanish overnight.
I propose that the outcomes would be quite different. |
The economic implications are too complex to really analyze with any degree of confidence past a year or so from the initial bans, given that the economy is notoriously free spirited..
However, I think, as a geologist, I can speak somewhat effectively about the effect each has on the planet and our species. As far as I can see, the guns almost certainly won't affect our long-term survival. But the cars are TOTALLY fucking the planet up.
I'm with you, let's ban cars!
Message edited by author 2015-01-16 14:04:43. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 02:12:43 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MattO:
to justify one over the other is just silly. |
Silly? Really? Please post your results after performing the following thought experiment:
Assuming it possible, compare and contrast the effect on the economy and the survival of human civilization (not necessarily in that order) if:
A. All automobiles/trucks/etc. were to vanish overnight.
B. All guns, cannons, grenades, etc. were to vanish overnight.
I propose that the outcomes would be quite different. |
The economic implications are too complex to really analyze with any degree of confidence past a year or so from the initial bans, given that the economy is notoriously free spirited..
However, I think, as a geologist, I can speak somewhat effectively about the effect each has on the planet and our species. As far as I can see, the guns almost certainly won't affect our long-term survival. But the cars are TOTALLY fucking the planet up.
I'm with you, let's ban cars! |
Oddly enough, the people who support guns, in most cases, don't believe your scientific voodoo. The best solution, perhaps, is to shoot all the cars. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 02:23:37 PM · #180 |
| With no viable transportation modes we'll need the guns to shoot the starving babies (and bankers) and steal the horses ... |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 02:36:15 PM · #181 |
| Take away all the All guns, cannons, grenades, etc. the first country to develope a deadly weapon gets a free planet. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 03:37:03 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Oddly enough, the people who support guns, in most cases, don't believe your scientific voodoo. The best solution, perhaps, is to shoot all the cars. |
Now that was funny. :-D |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 06:15:01 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MattO:
to justify one over the other is just silly. |
Silly? Really? Please post your results after performing the following thought experiment:
Assuming it possible, compare and contrast the effect on the economy and the survival of human civilization (not necessarily in that order) if:
A. All automobiles/trucks/etc. were to vanish overnight.
B. All guns, cannons, grenades, etc. were to vanish overnight.
I propose that the outcomes would be quite different. |
You need reading comprehension skills. Go back and read my post. Whether killed with a gun or a car. Dead is Dead. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 07:35:00 PM · #184 |
Dead is dead, yes.
However, under the two scenarios I outlined, "some" people would not be dead. I am asking you at what price to civilization are those lives to be spared -- it's a basic risk/benefit analysis.
However, given the probable outcomes, I'm not surprised you choose to evade rather than answer the question. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 08:50:07 PM · #185 |
Hypothetical situations fixed to shore up one side or the otherĂ¢€Â¦nonsense, but I'll play.
How about this?
An asteroid 6 miles across, roughly the size of the Chicxulub impactor that hit the earth 66 million years ago, killing the dinosaurs, hits the earth, again wiping 90% of life from the planet.
Or
Rainbows and unicorns.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Dead is dead, yes.
However, under the two scenarios I outlined, "some" people would not be dead. I am asking you at what price to civilization are those lives to be spared -- it's a basic risk/benefit analysis.
However, given the probable outcomes, I'm not surprised you choose to evade rather than answer the question. |
|
|
|
|
01/16/2015 09:26:42 PM · #186 |
It is truly amazing how often people here resort to ridicule rather than answering a question.
OK Mr. Hotshot, you construct a "fair" question which compares the relative value vs risks of guns and cars in modern society. Otherwise, unless someone can answer my question rationally, I don't want to here any more BS about "if guns kill people and you want to ban guns, then since cars kill people you have to ban cars."
Oh, and asteroids and rainbows are real, unicorns (as commonly depicted) are not (yet). |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 10:17:12 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is truly amazing how often people here resort to ridicule rather than answering a question.
OK Mr. Hotshot, you construct a "fair" question which compares the relative value vs risks of guns and cars in modern society. Otherwise, unless someone can answer my question rationally, I don't want to here any more BS about "if guns kill people and you want to ban guns, then since cars kill people you have to ban cars."
Oh, and asteroids and rainbows are real, unicorns (as commonly depicted) are not (yet). |
That's not the point. Your hypothetical "You must choose one" scenarios is, as they all are, intended to force someone to make a choice between being a monster and being an idiot. Unfortunately, life is not a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story where there are only two possibilities. That kind of tactic is absolutely worthy of ridicule, because that's exactly what it is, ridiculous.
Message edited by author 2015-01-16 22:18:20. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 10:17:24 PM · #188 |
I always find these posts funny considering you never sway the opposing side to your side.
I know how tough it could to resist as well as I have been in a few myself. 
****EDIT: OK I'll make a few posts. LOL (see below)
Message edited by author 2015-01-17 09:06:37. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 10:27:37 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
With no viable transportation modes we'll need the guns to shoot the starving babies (and bankers) and steal the horses ... |
Wait, the horses didn't disappear. For generations before cars, we used Horses. So no viable transportation theory is not holding water. Ban guns, and we won't be able to hunt for food, or protect the ranch from those that try to steal our horses or cattle. So all those starving babies are because we can't protect our food source.
Here is a car related question for you, regarding more regulation= safer world. Studies have shown for year, that accidents at higher speeds cause more fatalities. It also shows that higher speeds reduce gas mileage causing our demand for crude oil and gas to go up. Both are proven detrimental to the world we live in. Why are states making higher speed limits when we have Many studies showing it makes us more unsafe.
Having a car is a not a right. It is a right(by our constitution) to have a gun. Knives kill people. Smog kills people. Cigarettes kill people. And yes Cars kill people. How many things in this world won't kill you if used improperly. Hell I've heard of photographers being killed by taking photos. Try to ban all the bad things you think there are in life, and then their ends up being no fun to be had.
I'll carry my gun where ever I legally can until the day I die. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 10:49:23 PM · #190 |
| Just to bring this topic back to its origin... I don't want guns in my restaurants, and I don't want cars in there either. :P |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 10:53:40 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Just to bring this topic back to its origin... I don't want guns in my restaurants, and I don't want cars in there either. :P |
I'd like to make a return.
 |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 11:48:10 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by SEG:
I always find these posts funny considering you never sway the opposing side to your side.
I know how tough it could to resist as well as I have been in a few myself. |
I brought that up once, but people said they do it for the intellectual stimulation. Go figure. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 11:52:11 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I'll carry my gun where ever I legally can until the day I die. |
And I support your right to do so, as long as you leave it in your car if you visit my house. Which raises the question - do I have the right to ask people not to bring guns into my home? Or does their right to carry trump mine? |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 11:52:41 PM · #194 |
This happened across the street from my day job yesterday. That is going to be a Pub. How ironic that a drunk driver drove through the wall as they are remodeling a building from 1887.
Cars just like guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 12:05:46 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'll carry my gun where ever I legally can until the day I die. |
And I support your right to do so, as long as you leave it in your car if you visit my house. Which raises the question - do I have the right to ask people not to bring guns into my home? Or does their right to carry trump mine? |
It's an interesting question, inasmuch as if *I*, as an individual, have a right to ban guns from my home, do I, as a restaurant owner, have that same right, to ban guns from my dining establishment? I'm supposing NOT. And if that's the case, how did a whole town (or many towns) like Tombstone in the so-called "wild west" (which is mostly fictional, and wasn't all that wild) get away with their laws requiring the deposit of your guns at the sheriff's office when you came to town? Could it be THEY knew something WE don't? |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 12:23:34 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'll carry my gun where ever I legally can until the day I die. |
And I support your right to do so, as long as you leave it in your car if you visit my house. Which raises the question - do I have the right to ask people not to bring guns into my home? Or does their right to carry trump mine? |
Anyone has the right to say "Don't conceal carry here" as long as it's their property or business. My right doesn't intrude on your right. Just as you can have a home or a business where no one smokes, no one can legally carry if you say it's not allowed. There are stores like Target who say No CCW in our business. And it's their right to do so. There are also many stores who DO allow it, and that is there right. It's my job as a law abiding citizen who has successfully fulfilled my requirements to carry, to know where I can, and where I can't conceal carry.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2015 01:34:05 AM · #197 |
| I don't want weapons openly carried in my home either. Other than the decorative katana that I still need to hang on the wall.... |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 03:23:00 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'll carry my gun where ever I legally can until the day I die. |
And I support your right to do so, as long as you leave it in your car if you visit my house. Which raises the question - do I have the right to ask people not to bring guns into my home? Or does their right to carry trump mine? |
Anyone has the right to say "Don't conceal carry here" as long as it's their property or business. My right doesn't intrude on your right. Just as you can have a home or a business where no one smokes, no one can legally carry if you say it's not allowed. There are stores like Target who say No CCW in our business. And it's their right to do so. There are also many stores who DO allow it, and that is there right. It's my job as a law abiding citizen who has successfully fulfilled my requirements to carry, to know where I can, and where I can't conceal carry. |
The example of Target (and such) not allowing CCW: If one is carrying concealed, how would they know...?
It's just a store policy as oppose to a law, breaking a law. If the store somehow found out a person was carrying in their store, all they can do is ask the person to leave...
(That's just my thought re my state. Your state may be different. However, there are laws in my state that prohibit carrying firearms in public buildings.) |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 08:55:56 AM · #199 |
As for the Target response of how they would know is the same as if they would know if any other illegal activity was happening....they wouldn't until they see it. Let's also look at theft, one of the most common issue that stores deal with. They cannot do anything unless they have evidence of the wrong doing then it is there right to call the proper authorities or make contact with the individual as there corporations sees fit. However, the vast majority of citizens conceal carrying / open carrying are usually not a threat at all.
As for the concealed carry inside others homes the homeowner has the right to refuse a firearm to be carried into their home. As a concealed carry permit holder I am required to let the homeowner know when I am carrying and ask them if it is OK. If they refuse I keep it in the car and I don't mind because if I am coming to a persons house I feel safe in that house otherwise I wouldn't go in. This is true for personal property and law enforcement officials acting in a law enforcement capacity (pulled over for speeding, officer asking me questions about an event....etc). I have to tell both parties of my carry status and in the case of the officer show him my permit. In the very few cases that I have encountered an officer acting in an official capacity I also gained more respect from said officer for carrying in the proper way and knowing my rights and what I learned in my classes.
Louisiana is an open carry state but unless I am hunting I would never open carry for the main reason that it makes others uncomfortable and unnecessarily nervous. I am a proponent of carrying a firearm but this restaurant is a gimmick that seems to be working for it. I would not go there just because they open carry but I would go and not feel unsafe if the food and prices are great.
Yelp review. 29 reviewers, 4 stars. I'd possibly check it out if in the area. That's how I rate a restaurant, not the gimmick. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 09:01:10 AM · #200 |
Also, in most cases these stores are not allowing people to conceal carry in regards to the law and not as a requirement of the corporation so law enforcement can and will intervene. Signs such as this are posted to alert conceal carry holders that they cannot go in with a conceal carry even if permitted. I watch for these sign everywhere I go.
Message edited by author 2015-01-17 09:03:54. |
|
