One More Massacre

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: You should increase your vocabulary:

Droves: A large number of people or things doing or undergoing the same thing: "tourists stayed away in droves".

I'd say 31,000 people dying from guns each year in the U.S. is droves.

One in ten million certainly qualifies as being a member of a drove - who could possibly argue with that?

Yeah, 31,000 deaths is a pittance. (look it up)

But hey, we're #4 in firearm-related deaths in the entire world. Come on, we can do better than that! At least we beat Mexico.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: Because we're killing our fellow Americans in droves while waiting for the bogey man that never comes.

Evidently the boogeyman comes quite often - isn't that what you want us to believe to be the case especially with regards to mass casualty events? Isn't that why the left wants stricter gun control laws, max 10 round magazines and a ban on scarier looking guns that are functionally indistinguishable from ones that don't look so scary? So that when the boogeyman does, inevitably, come, he won't be able to harm so many in such a short period of time with such ease? Isn't the main argument against a 30 round magazine the one that says that when the boogeyman comes to get you he'll have to reload more often if his magazines hold fewer rounds?

I was referring to attempts to take over the U.S. I should have been more clear.

Did you ever stop to consider that, like Imperial Japan, other nations feel it would be foolish to attempt to invade as a result of there being a gun behind every blade of grass and that in part this is why the boogeyman hasn't come yet?

Raees wrote: Yeah, 31,000 deaths is a pittance. (look it up)

But hey, we're #4 in firearm-related deaths in the entire world. Come on, we can do better than that! At least we beat Mexico.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

As I noted before, the cost of individual liberty and freedom is sometimes very high. Preserving the ability to alter or abolish a government by force of arms should it ever be necessary to do so comes at a price.

I'm betting the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin would have gladly traded a few thousand deaths per year to gun violence in exchange for their ability to resist what was done to them. Ditto for the millions killed by Mao or the Iraqi's when they were subjected to Hussein. I'm betting each and every one of them, and let's include the good folks of Libya while we are at it, would have preferred the option we have thanks to the restrictions placed on our government by the 2nd Amendment to what they experienced.

As with life in general, it is better to have something and never need it than need it even once without having it when it is truly needed.

I'm going to concede fighting the powerful NRA is a lost cause.

Like I said, there are enough Bubbas around, and enough firearm-manufacturer's money to make it difficult. I'll give you that.

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: Yeah, 31,000 deaths is a pittance. (look it up)

But hey, we're #4 in firearm-related deaths in the entire world. Come on, we can do better than that! At least we beat Mexico.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

As I noted before, the cost of individual liberty and freedom is sometimes very high. Preserving the ability to alter or abolish a government by force of arms should it ever be necessary to do so comes at a price.

I'm betting the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin would have gladly traded a few thousand deaths per year to gun violence in exchange for their ability to resist what was done to them. Ditto for the millions killed by Mao or the Iraqi's when they were subjected to Hussein. I'm betting each and every one of them, and let's include the good folks of Libya while we are at it, would have preferred the option we have thanks to the restrictions placed on our government by the 2nd Amendment to what they experienced.

As with life in general, it is better to have something and never need it than need it even once without having it when it is truly needed.

Good point. Anti-gun people think only goverments should have guns, but if you look at the murder numbers, goverments kill many more people with guns than citizens do.

Maybe follow Costa Rica? No standing army but civvies are allowed to own guns.

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: You should increase your vocabulary:

Droves: A large number of people or things doing or undergoing the same thing: "tourists stayed away in droves".

I'd say 31,000 people dying from guns each year in the U.S. is droves.

One in ten million certainly qualifies as being a member of a drove - who could possibly argue with that?

Yeah, 31,000 deaths is a pittance. (look it up)

But hey, we're #4 in firearm-related deaths in the entire world. Come on, we can do better than that! At least we beat Mexico.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

My my Raess - make up your mind, will you? The chart from your link attributes less than 10K people a year dying from criminal use of guns - not 31K a year. Care to explain that discrepancy for us? It would seem, according to figures that you have chosen to provide, that a gun owner is over twice as likely to kill themselves with their guns than they are to be killed by someone else who is armed. Takes a little of the air out of your argument here, don't you think?

Raees wrote: I'm going to concede fighting the powerful NRA is a lost cause.

No... you're trying to fight the Constitution.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Raees wrote: I'm going to concede fighting the powerful NRA is a lost cause.

No... you're trying to fight the Constitution.

You and I both know the framers of the constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment when we had musket loaders. They never envisioned automatic weapons with 100-round magazines. They also never envisioned people would try to usurp their wish for a "well armed militia" and turn it into thousands of private gun owners who aren't members of a militia.

Raees wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Raees wrote: I'm going to concede fighting the powerful NRA is a lost cause.

No... you're trying to fight the Constitution.

You and I both know the framers of the constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment when we had musket loaders. They never envisioned automatic weapons with 100-round magazines. They also never envisioned people would try to usurp their wish for a "well armed militia" and turn it into thousands of private gun owners who aren't members of a militia.

How do you know what they envisioned?

There you go again speaking for others.