yet another stupid death in children gun related accident...yes, in USA of course.

[babe]

Media is full of businesses selling a product. I dont know why you expect scientific journal type reporting to a mass of fools. It's just business.

Mass journalism has long claimed to have journalistic standards of objectivity, accuracy, independence, integrity, and such.

Today it is blatantly false propaganda. Pravda is better news.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Dalamon we realize your family is Kosovoish and you hate guns because what happens there and in violent Islame country. If I were from there I would probably be against gun armies too. Those people arent civilized democratic peoples and need to be ruled by an iron fist.

Its different in the west and you need to realize culture is a big factor in the pro-gun crowd's character. You cannot move into this world and drag your values into ours as if all things are equal. They're not.

Also, stop being a dick to Colton. It's not helping you get your point across.

Alt

 

[moevillini]

Alt

implants

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Why would you need a gun in a damn elementary school at 10:00 am?
Why would you need one in an Ahmish school house?
Why would you need one In a shopping mall days before Christmas?
Why would you need one in a rural high school?
The list goes on and on....
The answer....because psychotic ******** can show up anywhere.
That and the zombie apocalypse.

Just curious, what, in your opinion, are the odds of psychotic ******* showing up at any of these places compared to the odds of an accidental discharge, such as what happened at the K-Mart?

 

[Gameface]

I have three fire extinguishers in my house...yet I've never had a house fire, nor have I known anyone who's had a house fire, and I see stories in the paper about once every couple years about someone whose house burned down.


I'd like to see some actual stats, but I imagine the anti-gun crowd think there are 100 deaths/injuries due to accidental shootings compared to every one time a gun protected anyone. My guess is that accidental shootings are more rare than people protecting themselves with a gun.

The oft quoted "a gun in the house is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" is counting suicides and domestic violence assaults.

 

[colton]

I said that a desire to protect citizens from a tyrannical government was a factor in why the Second Amendment was implemented.

Of course. Who disagrees on this point?

Sorry, I thought you disagreed with that. Guess not.

Quit kidding yourself, and show some intellectual honesty. I'm glad you're back-pedalling, because it really is an incredibly moronic stance to hold. Let's re-visit that post:

Paranoid? Just thinking about my lifetime, I've seen atrocities committed by 10-20 different governments against their citizens (China, Cambodia, Serbia, Bosnia, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq, Uganda, Yugoslavia, ...) that could very possibly have been prevented if the citizens had had the right to bear arms.

Just as ridiculous as I remembered it being upon first reading it

I don't know enough about Kosovo in specific to comment on that conflict.

Yet you did, inferring that a lack of legislation promoting gun rights led to Balkan ethnic cleansing

Notice that I said "could possibly". That's a far cry from saying that a lack of gun rights led to Balkan ethnic cleansing. Don't you think?

Do I think it's possible that the right to bear arms could have helped prevent such atrocities? In many situations, yes. As I said previously, I don't know enough about the Balkan situation to comment in specifics.

At any rate I think Gameface put things fairly eloquently; his description bears repeating:

The right to bear arms does not mean local bands of militia fighters meet the U.S. military on the battlefield and stand their ground. It does, however, mean that to oppress certain groups to the point that they have nothing to lose means that when government agents try to enforce whatever oppressive measures against them will have an extremely arduous and risky task.

It raises the price of tyranny, hopefully to a level high enough that it isn't worth it.

P.S. The word you want is "implying" not "inferring".

 

[Deleted member 848]

Sorry, I thought you disagreed with that. Guess not.

No idea where you could have gathered that from. Like, at all.

Notice that I said "could possibly". That's a far cry from saying that a lack of gun rights led to Balkan ethnic cleansing. Don't you think?

Let's show some honesty-- notice that you said "could very possibly"-- whether implying or inferring, it isn't 'a far cry' despite what you may think, and it is an equally incorrect assertion to make.

Do I think it's possible that the right to bear arms could have helped prevent such atrocities? In many situations, yes. As I said previously, I don't know enough about the Balkan situation to comment in specifics.

Then don't bother using the Balkan situation as an example then-- first you should try to ascertain a pedestrian knowledge of the region's history.

 

[Dumb Bloke]

I have three fire extinguishers in my house...yet I've never had a house fire, nor have I known anyone who's had a house fire, and I see stories in the paper about once every couple years about someone whose house burned down.


I'd like to see some actual stats, but I imagine the anti-gun crowd think there are 100 deaths/injuries due to accidental shootings compared to every one time a gun protected anyone. My guess is that accidental shootings are more rare than people protecting themselves with a gun.

The oft quoted "a gun in the house is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" is counting suicides and domestic violence assaults.

Those fire extinguishers are likely a stronger annihilation threat to you and yours than a harmless hand gun. People tend to secure there firearms and overlook other inanimate threats.

Speaking of, your fire alarm puts off more mrems than Vaseline glass (uranium laced).

 

[fishonjazz]

I have three fire extinguishers in my house...yet I've never had a house fire, nor have I known anyone who's had a house fire, and I see stories in the paper about once every couple years about someone whose house burned down.

This is a decent point.... but I'm curious, how many fire extinguisher deaths are there per year?

 

[colton]

This is a decent point.... but I'm curious, how many fire extinguisher deaths are there per year?

Apparently it isn't known, but I found this informative paragraph via google:

https://www.emergencymgmt.com/health/Health-Risks-Fire-Extinguishers.html

A rather important factor, however unknown, is what amount of extinguisher powder, and thus what amount of exposure, would cause these life-threatening situations. There’s little to no research on this specific subject. Just as it is unknown what amount of extinguisher powder will kill you, another area that is lacking statistics is the number of people killed from ABC extinguishers. The Journal of Toxicology does track fire extinguisher deaths; however, it reports only a few deaths, but thousands of injuries required hospitalization. Researching this area, physicians and anatomic technicians were consulted. They agreed that if the primary cause of death was known to be a cardiac arrest, most likely an autopsy would not be performed. If one was performed, it would confirm their theory of cardiac arrest as the primary cause of death once they found the lactic acid and heart damage. The dry chemical powder from the extinguisher would probably never be found or linked to the cause of death. This shows that the accurate number of deaths directly caused by extinguisher inhalation is still impossible to know.

 

[fishonjazz]

Apparently it isn't known, but I found this informative paragraph via google:

https://www.emergencymgmt.com/health/Health-Risks-Fire-Extinguishers.html

Another question that comes to mind.... how many fire extinguishers are carried with people when they are out and about?

 

[Deleted member 365]

So does the paranoia against tyrannical governments bleed over into the private sector?

For example, if a group of the nation's largest bankers decide to engage in questionable banking practices that play Russian roulette with our economy, is that not a form of tyrannical reign?
If a group of some of the nation's insurance companies decide to jack up prices or deny sick peoples' claims, don't we owe it to our society to fight against that type of oppression?
If a group of defense contractors plunge the nation into war, isn't that worth a revolution?

Why does the whole second amendment stuff to fight against government oppression not apply when big tyrannical business exerts unrighteous dominion on us?

The right almost seems to fantasize about government taking way our life, liberty, and happiness. It's like they fantasize about 1984. Yet, we see every day but corp actually doing this. Or was 2008 just a figment of my imagination? And I hear zip, zero, nada from the right. And if anyone even suggests that today's corrupt capitalists currently running roughshod over our freedom, economy, judicial system, and our entire democracy, they are labeled anti-business. Why?

Why doesn't the second amendment determent apply to the private sector which acts tyrannical today? Why does it only apply to tyrannical governments?

Seriously, the banking practices we are allowing today are far greater threats to our country than anything from the past two centuries.