Forum Register Members Casino Live Posting Feed Garage Arcade Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   The Chicago Garage > General Discussion > On Topic

User Tag List

Like Tree607Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-13-2016, 02:06 PM   #226
 
Mook's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Elgin
Posts: 157,270
Casino cash: $59383000
36.41 per day
Default

__________________
- TCG Owner & Operator -
We're in the Google Play and iOS App stores!

Mook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 02:07 PM   #227
This is my safe space
 
OffshoreDrilling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 28,765
Casino cash: $124845000
6.81 per day
Default

and They sure didn't stop anything in Orlando if they were there and carrying
__________________
I recently had a sex change and bought a 10 Prius.

OffshoreDrilling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 02:12 PM   #228
I Haz Old Teknologee
 
greasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pantie Drawer
Posts: 28,063
Casino cash: $2875000
6.55 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMKE EM View Post
This guy is a US citizen born from Afghanistan parents, but just because he has parents from that area does not mean that was the prime cause.

How did you form the opinion US foreign policy caused this? It's not a hard question to answer...
I will put it in very simplistic terms for you.

We invaded Iraq under false pretense.

In doing so we destabilized the region starting with Iraq itself.

Sunnis & Shias struggle for power and that spilled over into Syria where there were many Iraqi refugees.

The Iraqi refugees created social and economic issues in Syria which ultimately led to the Syrian Civil war.

The US trying to manipulate the situation to their benefit began to empower (fund and arm) the group we now know as ISIS.

ISIS easily took root in the Middle East because of the destabilization and gained followers because of the warn torn, desperate are.

We no longer have control of ISIS and we become the face of their hate because of our operations in their land.

Need I say more?
__________________
"May your George Bush drink the blood of every single man, woman, and child of Iraq" - Borat


greasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 02:20 PM   #229
Doing the jobs nobody wants to
 
Mr_Roboto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Joliet
Posts: 10,581
Casino cash: $12016000
4.07 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greasy View Post
I will put it in very simplistic terms for you.

We invaded Iraq under false pretense.

In doing so we destabilized the region starting with Iraq itself.

Sunnis & Shias struggle for power and that spilled over into Syria where there were many Iraqi refugees.

The Iraqi refugees created social and economic issues in Syria which ultimately led to the Syrian Civil war.

The US trying to manipulate the situation to their benefit began to empower (fund and arm) the group we now know as ISIS.

ISIS easily took root in the Middle East because of the destabilization and gained followers because of the warn torn, desperate are.

We no longer have control of ISIS and we become the face of their hate because of our operations in their land.

Need I say more?
Yeah, we pretty much did the same cycle as we did in the 80s with Bin Laden. Haven't learned a damn thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BADAZZTEALCOBRA View Post
The AR platform being used by these people is NOT an automatic weapon... Even then:
This is a point that I'd like to bring up. There are deadlier weapons than an AR that existed back then. There were forms of both chemical and biological warfare, there were grenades, rockets, cannons, submarines, multi shot rifles (yes even 20 rounds) that that existed.

If you were in a war for your lives with the British army (likely one of the best standing armies in the world at the time) do you think the founding fathers would take a musket or an AR-15 if given the choice? Do you think they would have gone "my god that's too much firepower."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTC DEEZUL View Post
I don't walk around thinking it's the wild wild west. I walk around knowing that I can and will defend. It's no burden what so ever to carry.
"blood in the streets" is a classic liberal claim. I would like to see where it's actually happened like they describe it. If you actually go and look at stats for concealed carry holders an incident involving revocation (e.g. one committing a felony) is incredibly rare compared to the general populous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalzer View Post
My only question is, where and why are those laws not being enforced or prosecuted?
Based on what I see not much of anywhere. There's not a hell of a lot you can do if the executive branch (prosecutors) and judicial branch won't do their part. At that point why even have laws at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMKE EM View Post
I don't see how the NRA get's dragged into every discussion about a shooting performed by a person society failed.

It's no secret, our country seems to be one of the most hateful in the world. With the way people talk to each other, it's not hard to see why there are so many people that are snapping.

The gun violence issue is a societal problem, not a gun rights issue, so quite frankly I'm tired of the people who sit here and try to blame everyone else BESIDES the crazy shooter. You must take into consideration what led that guy to be so radical, there is always a reason.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


In regards to Senator David Knezek's poor attempt at luring in American patriots to his side:

Statement #1: "I believe that I am a responsible gun user because the Marine Corps properly trained me to be one. It took years. Years. People in Michigan today can take an 8 hour class, fire 90, .22 caliber rounds, and they have the same access to a weapon as me."

Problem: He supposedly served in the military, but obviously forgets why he served. He forgets that the 2A is not a suggestion, it's a protected right. A right he was supposed to be fighting for during his service. Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you should have more rights than normal American civilians.



Statement #2: "I don't know what the answer is to gun violence in our country but I do know that we are the only civilized country in the world where this happens."

Sounds like ignorant anti-gun speech originating from President Obama's statement after the California shooting at the end of 2015.

I guess he too, like Obama is illinformed.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: [ˈɑnːəʂ ˈbeːrɪŋ ˈbrɛiviːk];[6] born 13 February 1979) is a terrorist who committed the 2011 Norway attacks. On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a van bomb amid the Regjeringskvartalet in Oslo, then shot dead 69 participants of a Workers' Youth League (AUF) summer camp on the island of Utya.

I guess Norway isn't "civilized"


Paris 128+ killed by shooting where guns are banned
Paris massacre: At least 128 die in attacks - CNN.com

Paris must not be civilized either.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an elitist, that's for sure. Training does not ensure competency in firearms, nor is the idea that people who carry a gun for a living get a huge amount of training true. An NYPD officer gets about 50 rounds a year from their department to qualify with, and that's all the OJT they get. They have a hit rate of 20ish percent as well. I shoot a minimal of 10-20 times that in a year.

In terms of the "developed" nations stuff that's utter bullshit. Here's why:Part of the UN developed nations criteria hinges on the amount of crime a nation has. That means they're effectively compiling a list of crime but leaving countries off because they have too much crime. It's circular logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason05gt View Post
The Framers never could have imagined the world that we live in. The funny thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it was heavily debated, but rather vague compared to other amendments in the constitution. Also, the US Constitution wasn't set in stone and if it was women wouldn't be voting in this election.
I think that it's been muddied a lot because of agendas against it. The idea that in order for us to form a militia we need to be armed is pretty simple. A liberal would say that "they were talking about muskets" yet cry foul at something like Internet Censorship which could easily fail under a similar test. Why is it that we can't have a voter ID card as a poll tax, but it's perfectly okay to charge for a gun license or a concealed carry ID?

Yes, the constitution isn't set in stone. There is a process there to change it, and it's not an easy process to change it. That's very deliberate it helps prevent someone from thumbing the scales or mob rule. What bothers me isn't the idea of expanding who gets rights, but rather pulling rights away from people. That should be something that is not taken lightly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMKE EM View Post
You can't do that. That's persecution against people based on their relgion. This was one of the most important reasons this country was founded the way it was, to escape religious persecution among the other shitty things the mainland countries were doing.

It's why we have the 1st amendment.
So why is the first amendment non negotiable but the second is? These people conspiring to bomb and shoot up places are a clear and present danger to our country. Lets not forget that the worse act of terrorism in the US was done with box cutters by Muslims. *ALL* of the amendments are dangerous if you abuse them, but that's what happens when you live in a free society. It is likely far more dangerous to have even one or two of the bill of rights go away.
Mr_Roboto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:02 PM   #230
rumble baby rumble
 
Blood on Blood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 35,151
Casino cash: $106915300
6.90 per day
Default

Not sure our enemies fear Obama, Clinton, Sanders or Trump.
__________________
Dave
17 Mustang GT
17 Pilot AWD
15 Elantra
Blood on Blood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:05 PM   #231
 
Primalzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25,261
Casino cash: $70927108
5.53 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMKE EM View Post
If the Muslims in America fear Trump, they fear him overseas
I think most see it, for what it is, false bravado
Primalzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:05 PM   #232
 
BADAZZTEALCOBRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Streamwood
Posts: 18,588
Casino cash: $37911698
4.65 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mook View Post
Couldn't watch the entire thing because I'm at work, but man does he sound so different when he's using the teleprompters...
Eagle and SMKE EM like this.
BADAZZTEALCOBRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:15 PM   #233
Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woodsticks, IL
Posts: 62,447
Casino cash: $169407200
15.47 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OffshoreDrilling View Post
I've got no misconceptions that people are carrying firearms all over the place. I know people who do and did before it was even legal here. what are the odds of being at a place where a mass shooting occurs? It'd seem to me your odds are even less of a chance than getting in a plane crash which is already next to nil. how many bar fights happen on a weekend in any town, and how many of those would escalate to a weapon being drawn from throwing fists? I'd like to think my odds of being a victim of this type of shooting are a whole hell of a lot lower than being Joe Schmo at a bar when some drunk hot head decided to draw a weapon and fire it in my near vicinity.

I like guns, I own guns and I think most people are responsible with them. The more of this shit that is happening though, the more I think having MORE guns is NOT a solution.
Do you have your CCL? I ask for a reason - most anyone who does carry will tell you that the very act of carrying has a calming and de-escalating affect on them. I know I certainly feel that way when I carry.

I don't want to get into throwing fists when I'm carrying. I'd rather immediately de-escalate any and all situations. So I'm not sold that carrying escalates situations, but rather it has the opposite effect.
__________________
2019 RAM 1500 Limited 4x4 CCLB
2008 BMW 535i - MHD tuned
2004 BMW 330xi - kids cruiser
2004 VW New Beetle 2.0
2018 KTM 500 EXC-F
2018 Skidoo Renegade Backcountry X 850
2015 Polaris Indy SP 800
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:17 PM   #234
Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woodsticks, IL
Posts: 62,447
Casino cash: $169407200
15.47 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greasy View Post
.
Should I take that to mean you won't be acknowledging my point?
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:18 PM   #235
 
jason05gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Garfield Park
Posts: 12,665
Casino cash: $45421040
2.85 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Roboto View Post
This is a point that I'd like to bring up. There are deadlier weapons than an AR that existed back then. There were forms of both chemical and biological warfare, there were grenades, rockets, cannons, submarines, multi shot rifles (yes even 20 rounds) that that existed.

If you were in a war for your lives with the British army (likely one of the best standing armies in the world at the time) do you think the founding fathers would take a musket or an AR-15 if given the choice? Do you think they would have gone "my god that's too much firepower."
My point was that the Framers never could imagine the firepower that we possess today or frankly technology like the internet, cars, planes, etc. Look at the advancements in the US Military over the last 50 years. Technology has progressed very quickly and that's the technology that the Government has released to the public. The Framers were fighting the British Army with muskets, cannons, and a sizeable Navy.



Quote:
I think that it's been muddied a lot because of agendas against it. The idea that in order for us to form a militia we need to be armed is pretty simple. A liberal would say that "they were talking about muskets" yet cry foul at something like Internet Censorship which could easily fail under a similar test. Why is it that we can't have a voter ID card as a poll tax, but it's perfectly okay to charge for a gun license or a concealed carry ID?

Yes, the constitution isn't set in stone. There is a process there to change it, and it's not an easy process to change it. That's very deliberate it helps prevent someone from thumbing the scales or mob rule. What bothers me isn't the idea of expanding who gets rights, but rather pulling rights away from people. That should be something that is not taken lightly.
100% agree that it's based on agendas, but it's the gun loving right and ban guns that lead the discussion. The truth is in the middle.
jason05gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:42 PM   #236
rumble baby rumble
 
Blood on Blood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 35,151
Casino cash: $106915300
6.90 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMKE EM View Post
I agree with you there. You can't expect to destabilize someone's home, ruin their land, and expect them not to hate you. We brought this on ourselves. So.... how do we fix it?

Do we nuke the entire region to send a strong message?

or

Do we just leave there all together, letting them build up stronger, only to come attack us?

or

Do we keep on our current path, and write these small events off as casualties of war?

SMKE EM likes this.
Blood on Blood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:47 PM   #237
Doing the jobs nobody wants to
 
Mr_Roboto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Joliet
Posts: 10,581
Casino cash: $12016000
4.07 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason05gt View Post
My point was that the Framers never could imagine the firepower that we possess today or frankly technology like the internet, cars, planes, etc. Look at the advancements in the US Military over the last 50 years. Technology has progressed very quickly and that's the technology that the Government has released to the public. The Framers were fighting the British Army with muskets, cannons, and a sizeable Navy.





100% agree that it's based on agendas, but it's the gun loving right and ban guns that lead the discussion. The truth is in the middle.
The truth may be in the middle, but the problem is that the people who wish to disarm the populace will never go "well, that's enough." California is a great example. Lets see the "progress towards the middle" they are likely to work out this session:

SB 880: Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
SB 894: Victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.
SB 1006: University of California taxpayer funding for gun control research.
SB 1235: Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
SB 1407 : Retroactively requires serial numbers to be placed on firearms dating back to 1899.
SB 1446: Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.
AB 1511: Formerly dealt with energy conservation, but now criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including sportsmen and hunters.

SB880 means any firearm with a "bullet button" type device becomes illegal retroactively with no grandfathering. They must be turned over to police, sold or moved out of state. SB1446 requires all 10 round magazines to have a similar fate. Where is the "middle?"

ED:This also ignores the 9th circuit court ruling that they don't have to issue concealed carry permits although open carry is illegal which means that unless you're into $$$ or connected you will not get a permit.
Blood on Blood likes this.
Mr_Roboto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 03:59 PM   #238
Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woodsticks, IL
Posts: 62,447
Casino cash: $169407200
15.47 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood on Blood View Post
That's a great movie. Trippy, but great!
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 04:02 PM   #239
 
jason05gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Garfield Park
Posts: 12,665
Casino cash: $45421040
2.85 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Roboto View Post
The truth may be in the middle, but the problem is that the people who wish to disarm the populace will never go "well, that's enough." California is a great example. Lets see the "progress towards the middle" they are likely to work out this session:

SB 880: Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
SB 894: Victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.
SB 1006: University of California taxpayer funding for gun control research.
SB 1235: Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
SB 1407 : Retroactively requires serial numbers to be placed on firearms dating back to 1899.
SB 1446: Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.
AB 1511: Formerly dealt with energy conservation, but now criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including sportsmen and hunters.

SB880 means any firearm with a "bullet button" type device becomes illegal retroactively with no grandfathering. They must be turned over to police, sold or moved out of state. SB1446 requires all 10 round magazines to have a similar fate. Where is the "middle?"

ED:This also ignores the 9th circuit court ruling that they don't have to issue concealed carry permits although open carry is illegal which means that unless you're into $$$ or connected you will not get a permit.
I am not a constitutional scholar like our President, but doesn't the 10th Amendment give California rights to enact these laws and can be challenged as constitutional through the courts all the way up the Supreme Court if they are too restrictive?
jason05gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 04:08 PM   #240
Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woodsticks, IL
Posts: 62,447
Casino cash: $169407200
15.47 per day
Default

spawning new thread for the invite.

http://www.thechicagogarage.com/foru...ml#post3399135
Mr_Roboto likes this.
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 04:27 PM   #241
DRRRT PROSPECT
 
10thSVT_03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,076
Casino cash: $21685100
0.57 per day
Default

More people are killed with hammers each year but no one try's to ban them!
tinfoilhat likes this.
__________________


**Tuned by Tim @ Modular Powerhouse/Mr. Norms Garage **
10thSVT_03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 04:32 PM   #242
Doing the jobs nobody wants to
 
Mr_Roboto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Joliet
Posts: 10,581
Casino cash: $12016000
4.07 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMKE EM View Post
The 10th amendment essentially explains this federal system. It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states
However the 14th amendment says that citizens get equal protection under the constitution no matter the state they live in. Otherwise we would plausibly still see segregated schools in some parts of the country.
Mr_Roboto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 06:19 PM   #243
Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woodsticks, IL
Posts: 62,447
Casino cash: $169407200
15.47 per day
Default

Could Concealed Carry Have Saved Lives In Orlando? – Bearing Arms

Quote:
The Initial Attack Outside The Pulse
Henrich, a Marine and police officer before becoming a full-time firearms instructor, initially keyed in on the fact that poor marksmanship from the law enforcement officer providing security at Pulse allowed the attack to get going.

“It could have been over with one round, in the first couple of seconds,” said Henrichs. He noted that several officers appear to have engaged the terrorist—who was not wearing body armor—ineffectively.
Unlike the pistol-armed officer who took on two rifle-armed terrorists in Garland, Texas last year, before a responding SWAT officers finished them off, the officers here were ineffective at stopping the attack as it began. “Poor marksmanship allowed this to take place.”
Yaj Yak and Bruce Jibboo like this.
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 06:21 PM   #244
Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woodsticks, IL
Posts: 62,447
Casino cash: $169407200
15.47 per day
Default

Oh and furthermore:

Quote:
Lauer agrees, and points out that this is a fault of training, not a lack of courage on the part of the officers.

"Your average beat cop doesn’t get training they need for these kind of situations.” She went on to note that citizens who are serious about defensive firearms training often spend a great deal of time and money becoming much more proficient than most police officers, and that “someone with active shooter training might have made a difference” at any point during the attack.
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 06:47 PM   #245
Forum Sponsor
 
Mike K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,750
Casino cash: $45576708
3.19 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10thSVT_03 View Post
More people are killed with hammers each year but no one try's to ban them!
Show me the hammer that can kill 50 people in a short amount of time. Where is that hammer? For that matter, show me the hammer that can kill one person efficiently.

Never mind all that. Show me the statistics that back up the assertion that more people are killed every year by hammers than by guns.

I'll help you and tell you it doesn't exist.

A. A hammer is lumped in with other blunt objects such as clubs, bats, etc
B. In 2014 11,184 people were killed by firearms in the US. Just 518 were murdered by blunt objects. 182% more people are killed by guns than by a blunt object, of which I would assume hammers make up a very small percentage.

Commonly accepting arguments like this are what get people like me all riled up. It's nonsense but nobody bothers to question it because it aligns with their ideology. It literally took me 30 seconds to Google this, find the story, realize that they were comparing hammers to rifles and shotguns (not all guns), that hammers were lumped in with a litany of other blunt objects and that the story was clearly a load of shit. I'm not some wizard. Just a guy with Google.
Mike K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 06:52 PM   #246
 
BADAZZTEALCOBRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Streamwood
Posts: 18,588
Casino cash: $37911698
4.65 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaj Yak View Post
not to bring this up again but does anyone have any reliable info on this?
Here was a link in the article @Eagle posted, might have some of the info you're looking for....

UPDATED: More misleading information from Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety on guns: "Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings," Showing how mass public shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Researc
Yaj Yak likes this.
BADAZZTEALCOBRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 06:59 PM   #247
 
BADAZZTEALCOBRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Streamwood
Posts: 18,588
Casino cash: $37911698
4.65 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike K View Post
B. In 2014 11,184 people were killed by firearms in the US. Just 518 were murdered by blunt objects. 182% more people are killed by guns than by a blunt object, of which I would assume hammers make up a very small percentage.

Commonly accepting arguments like this are what get people like me all riled up.
I would agree that more people were killed by firearms, which I'm not debating, but are you skewing numbers just like others do to get you all riled up?

You put one as "killed by" and one as "murdered". How many of those firearm deaths were suicide? Are you lumping those together or was it just how you typed it?
BADAZZTEALCOBRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 07:26 PM   #248
Forum Sponsor
 
Mike K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,750
Casino cash: $45576708
3.19 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BADAZZTEALCOBRA View Post
I would agree that more people were killed by firearms, which I'm not debating, but are you skewing numbers just like others do to get you all riled up?

You put one as "killed by" and one as "murdered". How many of those firearm deaths were suicide? Are you lumping those together or was it just how you typed it?
It was just how I typed it. It was homicide in both cases.
Mike K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 07:31 PM   #249
rumble baby rumble
 
Blood on Blood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 35,151
Casino cash: $106915300
6.90 per day
Default

People are going to kill regardless of means.

It's all about respecting "life".

Unfortunately, humans holistically have never adopted and lived by this.
DEEZUZ and guspech750 like this.
Blood on Blood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 07:35 PM   #250
Doing the jobs nobody wants to
 
Mr_Roboto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Joliet
Posts: 10,581
Casino cash: $12016000
4.07 per day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike K View Post
Show me the hammer that can kill 50 people in a short amount of time. Where is that hammer? For that matter, show me the hammer that can kill one person efficiently.

Never mind all that. Show me the statistics that back up the assertion that more people are killed every year by hammers than by guns.

I'll help you and tell you it doesn't exist.

A. A hammer is lumped in with other blunt objects such as clubs, bats, etc
B. In 2014 11,184 people were killed by firearms in the US. Just 518 were murdered by blunt objects. 182% more people are killed by guns than by a blunt object, of which I would assume hammers make up a very small percentage.

Commonly accepting arguments like this are what get people like me all riled up. It's nonsense but nobody bothers to question it because it aligns with their ideology. It literally took me 30 seconds to Google this, find the story, realize that they were comparing hammers to rifles and shotguns (not all guns), that hammers were lumped in with a litany of other blunt objects and that the story was clearly a load of shit. I'm not some wizard. Just a guy with Google.
The distinction is rifles of all kind. Most people who are killed by guns are killed by hand guns but there is a push for banning semi auto rifles although their use is rare.

About 10% of these are justified in nature as well.

It does not include suicide either, which is often used to inflate.
Mr_Roboto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.6 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
no new posts