Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'm sure a few would if they had the option, especially Nascar drivers...... I did say that we need protection from ourselves, didn't I? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 i bet you could find one out there that wouldn't strap it on.. some people are invincible. regardless if they save lives or not.. why does the goverenment even bother with legislating such small issues... we have enomic, social issues.. we have war.. i say, let's deal with that and let me take the risks if i want to, ok? Death on roads isn't small. It costs the community and country mega $$$$$$$. It puts unnecessary strain on services too. Especially if you don't die and are permanently disabled. The risks you want to take are great mz. That link I sent you should qualify that point, though a different issue. Look at some stats and you'll be shocked at what the road toll does cost. Economics, keeping people alive saves money. Socially, keeping people intact saves money. I am not saying forget our boys fighting the fight of illegitimate reason on behalf of war criminals in our countries. Our boys are coming home next year; problem solved. Tell me, do car makers have to comply with laws as to how a car is made? Brakes, for example, are a very handy idea and I am certain, though I love driving fast as sw can attest to, car makers and even car owners must have them by law. We all have laws (guidelines or rules if you will) that need to be observed. It is for "all" our safety and benefit that we follow these as closely as possible so that anarchy and carnage doesn't happen. I can not see why gun ownership is somehow exempt from laws that are designed to protect the majority. Especially when most everything you use and do is governed by a rule, guideline or law already. From the time you are born (birth certificate) till the time you die (death certificate) laws are in place. Get use to it I say. Ban weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. What legitimate reasons could anyone have to own such killing machines. Sorry to swing this back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Death on roads isn't small. It costs the community and country mega $$$$$$$. It puts unnecessary strain on services too. Especially if you don't die and are permanently disabled. The risks you want to take are great mz. That link I sent you should qualify that point, though a different issue. Look at some stats and you'll be shocked at what the road toll does cost. Economics, keeping people alive saves money. Socially, keeping people intact saves money. I am not saying forget our boys fighting the fight of illegitimate reason on behalf of war criminals in our countries. Our boys are coming home next year; problem solved. Tell me, do car makers have to comply with laws as to how a car is made? Brakes, for example, are a very handy idea and I am certain, though I love driving fast as sw can attest to, car makers and even car owners must have them by law. We all have laws (guidelines or rules if you will) that need to be observed. It is for "all" our safety and benefit that we follow these as closely as possible so that anarchy and carnage doesn't happen. I can not see why gun ownership is somehow exempt from laws that are designed to protect the majority. Especially when most everything you use and do is governed by a rule, guideline or law already. From the time you are born (birth certificate) till the time you die (death certificate) laws are in place. Get use to it I say. Ban weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. What legitimate reasons could anyone have to own such killing machines. Sorry to swing this back on topic. you're beating a dead horse, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 What legitimate reasons could anyone have to own such killing machines. To quote from a South Park episode: " THERE'S A BEAR, IT'S COMMIN' RIGHT FOR US!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 To quote from a South Park episode: " THERE'S A BEAR, IT'S COMMIN' RIGHT FOR US!" To quote Homer Simpson.... BEER...... slurp slurp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark94XE Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The American people will swallow anything put before them. Iraq is a blaring example as to how facts didn't get in the way of a 'good ol' payback patriotic war'. Nope, unfortunately the good people of the USA are too uninformed to form an opinion either way, let alone stopping another illegal war. I think this is making an unfair generalization, don't you? Aparently not, seeing that you wrote it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfisch1191 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) ok so this might help to explain some of the worlds politics http://funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm and how america works! and it might realive some tension to this topic. Edited December 14, 2007 by bigfisch1191 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardavis78 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 If you could give an example of your fear actually happening somewhere, that'd be good. Don't use Australia for your example though, because nothing like you have predicted has even been spoken about, nine or ten years after gun control, let alone implemented. I'm not gonna cite from anywhere...I can simply see how our government works and how the domino effect happens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 The American people will swallow anything put before them. Iraq is a blaring example as to how facts didn't get in the way of a 'good ol' payback patriotic war'. Nope, unfortunately the good people of the USA are too uninformed to form an opinion either way, let alone stopping another illegal war. I think this is making an unfair generalization, don't you? Aparently not, seeing that you wrote it. Don't ask me the question if you are going to answer it. I fail to see where the unfair generalisation is. What part of that isn't true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardavis78 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I got a bit of a chuckle with this. All I put up in reality is a story, one that the press puts up, I just post it here. What part of what I out forward gives you the impression that I portray all Americans in that vein? Is it the way I reply to what has been said here perhaps? Read this very carefully.... He is correct about laws, laws are to protect us from ourselves. Yes, we are morons, we inherently do stupid things, hence the need for laws. And even with the laws in place, we still do the moronic thing and break them, don't we? He is correct again, that the laws do work and save lives. He then goes on to say that the seat belt laws are stupid? Make up your mind, the law can't save lives and be stupid at the same time. Then he uses the analogy of kids on a 20 tone bus not wearing seat belts to justify the argument of the stupid law. Ever seen a bus that has rolled? And how many kids actually die in school buses each year btw? Though I do not agree with "all" laws myself, is anyone seriously suggesting that drink driving is OK? Is anyone suggesting that speed limits should be removed. Could you imagine trying to get from one side of town to the other without the laws and controls in place? I hate red lights as much as the next guy, and I do love to have a few coldies before I hit the road. But the laws say I can not run a red light, why? I could very possibly kill someone. The red light is there in the first place for that very reason! And a few drinks are fine but too much.....well, the law says I can not drive if I am drunk. Why? For the very same reason as before. Yes, even here we have what can only be described as revenue collection. Soft and pathetic laws or regulations that are designed to bleed you dry. These laws are obvious for what they are and have nothing to do with preventing deaths. Just try to comply is the only advice I have for that. I said the LAWS are stupid...not the seat belts themselves. We should be smart enough to wear our seatbelts and helmets on our own. I don't need my hand held through life...I'm a big boy now. Drunk driving is NOT ok. This argument is becoming silly now. When you drink and drive, you put others in danger. When you don't wear your seatbelt or bike helmet, you ONLY put yourself in danger. People need to take responsibility for their actions...not practice passing the buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardavis78 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'm sure a few would if they had the option, especially Nascar drivers...... Shake 'n' Bake, Man!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 I said the LAWS are stupid...not the seat belts themselves. We should be smart enough to wear our seatbelts and helmets on our own. I don't need my hand held through life...I'm a big boy now. Drunk driving is NOT ok. This argument is becoming silly now. When you drink and drive, you put others in danger. When you don't wear your seatbelt or bike helmet, you ONLY put yourself in danger. People need to take responsibility for their actions...not practice passing the buck. Besides you contradictory view on seat belts etc. you missed the point by a huge margin. That point being..... that we do not live in a Utopian world. I am not perfect. You are not perfect. Yes, we should be smart enough to wear our safety gear but the fact is, we are not. Rules and guidelines... even monkeys have them. We are just that little bit smarter and make laws too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 ok so this might help to explain some of the worlds politics http://funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm and how america works! and it might realive some tension to this topic. The poor roo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardavis78 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'm gonna go take a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark94XE Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The the American people will swallow anything put in front of them, you know what... I'm out. I'm not going to indulge you in another pissing contest. Maybe you should come live over here for a while before you make judgements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The the American people will swallow anything put in front of them, you know what... I'm out. I'm not going to indulge you in another pissing contest. Maybe you should come live over here for a while before you make judgements. and what, that is not the truth? Drunk driving is NOT ok. This argument is becoming silly now. When you drink and drive, you put others in danger. drinking and driving and drunk driving are two different things. i am all ofr the first but against the latter. for the longest time, my state reps understood the difference and then foaming at the mouth MADD started sh!t. making drinking while driving illegal is insane in my opinion. it is legal to drink and then drive... there is no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 and what, that is not the truth?drinking and driving and drunk driving are two different things. i am all ofr the first but against the latter. for the longest time, my state reps understood the difference and then foaming at the mouth MADD started sh!t. making drinking while driving illegal is insane in my opinion. it is legal to drink and then drive... there is no difference. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 lol yeah, now i am fuming. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 I'm not gonna cite from anywhere...I can simply see how our government works and how the domino effect happens... You don't trust your elected Government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 and what, that is not the truth? Which version of the truth are you looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 the pure one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 "For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe" It's not about the guns. It's about the people holding them. That's all there is to it. For instance, my father owns a number of guns. (Rifles, shotguns etc) I have NEVER....EVER heard him speak of them, let alone have I seen them, except for when I asked to. He does not make any comments about shooting people, or does he ever threaten anyone with a gun. As far as anyone outside myself, and my mother is concerned, he doesn't own a gun. That is the mentality in Norway, Denmark, Greece etc. That is why the murder rate is low. Conversely, many folks, including many here, will talk of their guns, will make comments about how they would, or would not use them. Many folks carry handguns with them for protection. Those are the guns that will be used. The ones owned by the people who carry them along with them, and in general, make firearms an everyday part of their life. It has nothing to do with HOW MANY people have guns, it has to do with WHO has guns. No, it is about control. Take Switzerland from your example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now