Well, this guy's a great picture of your side with is hysterical screaming at these women that they're more likely to die!
Are you more likely to have a gun accident if you have a gun than if you avoid guns completely? Of COURSE. That's a statistical truism.
Cenk's line about guns being intended to kill and cars not being is an emotional ploy that is not germane to the discussion. Cars, knives, bats, and plenty of other things are just as capable of killing. Lethal accidents can also happen in swimming pools, treehouses, on ziplines, etc.
WHY would you EVER have a swimming pool? Your children are __% more likely to Drown!
Because you decide the costs and dangers of the pool are outweighed by the benefits and you decide to try to be responsible and follow all safety procedures.
Same thing with gun ownership. Cost benefit analysis, and reasonable precautions.
Does this reduce accident chances to zero? No. But neither do fences, keeping an eye on kids, using pool covers, etc. You can never get rid of all dangers. You can only be constantly on guard to try to reduce the chances of them.
The cost/benefit analysis is why you guys hang onto the absurd nonsense that there are millions of DGUs a year. That's the only way to justify all the gun ownership. The fact is guns cause far more harm than they prevent.
I couldn't care less how many or few DGU's there are per year. Having a gun has many benefits for me. Pest control, food gathering, protection, hobby of target shooting, etc.
For me, these benefits outweigh the risks, and I take responsible actions to prevent accidents.
You may disagree with my decision, but your opinion of the cost vs. the benefit has no bearing on how I live my life, just as my opinions have no bearing on how you live yours.
You're right that guns do more harm than good in the hands of government. 200,000,000 dead in the last century at the hands of government. Where's your outrage? Yet, you want to disarm citizens.
Anonymous, I actually don't disagree with your decision. It's yours. But when you suddenly turn the discussion into a personal one-man example, you overlook the obvious fact that many gun owners are not responsible like you. This is why we need proper gun control. Unless you're one of those guys who doesn't care about the overall good as long as you get yours, you have to agree that reasonable restrictions which may inconvenience you a little bit, are needed.
Keep your fake agreement with my decision. You've called me a sexual deviant who fetishizes the AR-15, you've said that I'm sick for hunting, sick for target shooting, sick for attending gun shows. You've said that since I'm from the South, I must be a racist, and I'm just too biased to see it. You've called me a gun rights extremist and an other rights extremist, and ridiculed my devotion to protecting all constitutional rights.
But now, you're trying to pacify me by patting me on the head and saying that I'm all responsible and such. Ironically, you don't realize how much you sound like a racist assuring a black man that he's one of the good ones, and if only his kind were like him, we'd all be fine.
We don't NEED your gun control. In fact, what we NEED to do is to beat back infringements of this and other rights. Before you toss a red herring, of course no right is absolute, but that doesn't mean that you can infringe them a little bit. It means that you can't claim protection for exercising your right when you misuse your freedom. You can't cause a stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater. You can't sacrifice virgins. You can't shoot people just because.
It doesn't mean that you can tell people not to say offensive things. You can't say that people can't be Primitive Baptists, but they are free to belong to any of a number of other listed denominations and religions, including several other flavors of Baptist. And you can't infringe on our rights "just a little more" as you have put it before.
Hands off. Back away from the Constitution and find a new hobby.
The infringements that you propose aren't minor inconveniences. They would effectively end legal gun ownership. They would make owning a gun so difficult and so pointless that few would bother. That's your goal.
And why should any one responsible individual be punished for the irresponsibility of another individual. Let me guess, you think collectively just like all other socialists.
Cenk has become the ranting, raving lunatic counterpart to O'Reilly.
Cenk and his studies and more studies and more studies that defy common sense. Reminds me of DG, zero common sense.
Here's a study fer ya, 37% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Clearly, 63% are caused by sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers, they cause more accidents.
Uygur keeps insisting that he has the facts, but the studies that he's quoting make no sense. With 300,000,000 guns in this country. Either the rate of accident, murder, and defensive use is so low that any difference in the numbers looks like a huge percentage, or something was wrong with the study.
But the key point here is this: No matter how hard elitist prigs and control freaks try to convince us to get rid of our guns, we won't do it. Did you see that? Those women refused to accept what Uygur was saying on faith They've made their choice.
But it's a LIE that there are any new shooters or female shooters!
ReplyDeleteLet me get to understand the program better, then I'll tell you why I think it's a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteYo yo! Mind made up before hand!
Minorities don't buy guns!
ReplyDeleteWell, this guy's a great picture of your side with is hysterical screaming at these women that they're more likely to die!
ReplyDeleteAre you more likely to have a gun accident if you have a gun than if you avoid guns completely? Of COURSE. That's a statistical truism.
Cenk's line about guns being intended to kill and cars not being is an emotional ploy that is not germane to the discussion. Cars, knives, bats, and plenty of other things are just as capable of killing. Lethal accidents can also happen in swimming pools, treehouses, on ziplines, etc.
WHY would you EVER have a swimming pool? Your children are __% more likely to Drown!
Because you decide the costs and dangers of the pool are outweighed by the benefits and you decide to try to be responsible and follow all safety procedures.
Same thing with gun ownership. Cost benefit analysis, and reasonable precautions.
Does this reduce accident chances to zero? No. But neither do fences, keeping an eye on kids, using pool covers, etc. You can never get rid of all dangers. You can only be constantly on guard to try to reduce the chances of them.
The cost/benefit analysis is why you guys hang onto the absurd nonsense that there are millions of DGUs a year. That's the only way to justify all the gun ownership. The fact is guns cause far more harm than they prevent.
DeleteI couldn't care less how many or few DGU's there are per year. Having a gun has many benefits for me. Pest control, food gathering, protection, hobby of target shooting, etc.
DeleteFor me, these benefits outweigh the risks, and I take responsible actions to prevent accidents.
You may disagree with my decision, but your opinion of the cost vs. the benefit has no bearing on how I live my life, just as my opinions have no bearing on how you live yours.
You're right that guns do more harm than good in the hands of government. 200,000,000 dead in the last century at the hands of government. Where's your outrage? Yet, you want to disarm citizens.
Deleteorlin sellers
Anonymous, I actually don't disagree with your decision. It's yours. But when you suddenly turn the discussion into a personal one-man example, you overlook the obvious fact that many gun owners are not responsible like you. This is why we need proper gun control. Unless you're one of those guys who doesn't care about the overall good as long as you get yours, you have to agree that reasonable restrictions which may inconvenience you a little bit, are needed.
DeleteMike,
DeleteKeep your fake agreement with my decision. You've called me a sexual deviant who fetishizes the AR-15, you've said that I'm sick for hunting, sick for target shooting, sick for attending gun shows. You've said that since I'm from the South, I must be a racist, and I'm just too biased to see it. You've called me a gun rights extremist and an other rights extremist, and ridiculed my devotion to protecting all constitutional rights.
But now, you're trying to pacify me by patting me on the head and saying that I'm all responsible and such. Ironically, you don't realize how much you sound like a racist assuring a black man that he's one of the good ones, and if only his kind were like him, we'd all be fine.
We don't NEED your gun control. In fact, what we NEED to do is to beat back infringements of this and other rights. Before you toss a red herring, of course no right is absolute, but that doesn't mean that you can infringe them a little bit. It means that you can't claim protection for exercising your right when you misuse your freedom. You can't cause a stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater. You can't sacrifice virgins. You can't shoot people just because.
It doesn't mean that you can tell people not to say offensive things. You can't say that people can't be Primitive Baptists, but they are free to belong to any of a number of other listed denominations and religions, including several other flavors of Baptist. And you can't infringe on our rights "just a little more" as you have put it before.
Hands off. Back away from the Constitution and find a new hobby.
The infringements that you propose aren't minor inconveniences. They would effectively end legal gun ownership. They would make owning a gun so difficult and so pointless that few would bother. That's your goal.
DeleteAnd why should any one responsible individual be punished for the irresponsibility of another individual. Let me guess, you think collectively just like all other socialists.
Deleteorlin sellers
Cenk has become the ranting, raving lunatic counterpart to O'Reilly.
ReplyDeleteCenk and his studies and more studies and more studies that defy common sense. Reminds me of DG, zero common sense.
Here's a study fer ya, 37% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Clearly, 63% are caused by sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers, they cause more accidents.
orlin sellers
Uygur keeps insisting that he has the facts, but the studies that he's quoting make no sense. With 300,000,000 guns in this country. Either the rate of accident, murder, and defensive use is so low that any difference in the numbers looks like a huge percentage, or something was wrong with the study.
ReplyDeleteBut the key point here is this: No matter how hard elitist prigs and control freaks try to convince us to get rid of our guns, we won't do it. Did you see that? Those women refused to accept what Uygur was saying on faith They've made their choice.
Another point to consider: Aren't these women doing exactly what Joe Biden told them to do?
ReplyDeleteNo, they're actually getting training so that they can defend themselves instead of firing randomly into the dark outside their home.
DeleteA few people have done what Joe said already, and they have all been arrested.