How many of those were Ice Cream vans?

(April 5, 2019 at 4:41 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: You carry a knife - because you may need one to cut something.

I carry a Gerber folding carpet knife. Its got a belt clip and makes a dandy money clip.

It takes standard carpet blades - razor sharp.  I use it almost every day. I cut a bunch of plastic tubing with it today. ( maple sap line).

I would NEVER use it as a weapon.

I don' t need to.

I have a gun in the other pocket.

You'd never use it as a weapon really? What about if there is a hostage situation like Die Hard and they haven't seen you and you need to creep around the building all ninja style killing them in cold blood one by one to get hold of their AK47s while on the radio to the cops outside? I am sure a Gerber folding carpet knife would be ideal in such situations. Although I expect you could take them out with our bare hands or pistol whipping them over the back of the head couldn't you. Sorry. Silly me.

Yippee kay yay, bluster fucker!

(April 6, 2019 at 1:43 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(April 6, 2019 at 1:13 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Of course it's not OK.  But you claimed earlier that vehicles kill more people via deliberate use than firearms.  Taking a single act with a lorry killing 86 people doesn't really support your claim.

Of course it' s OK..
You dont see anyone looking to restrict vehicle ownership - just guns -
Despite the fact in 2017


37,000 killed by vehicles
13,000 killed by firearms ( half of which are suicide - but we will go ahead and allow the number inflating....)

And why is this?

But you're equating all deaths with deliberate deaths.  That's bad methodology.

In 2017, there were 40000 firearms deaths in the US, not 13 000.  24 000 of those were suicides, 14 000 were homicides, and the remainder were either accidents or legal interventions.

Deliberate vehicular homicides are a little tougher to research, but it seems pretty steady at around 3500 per year in the US.

This seems to indicate that, when someone decides to commit a murder, they are four times more likely to use a firearm than a motor vehicle.

Dunno about you, but it occurs to me that it might be sensible to place at least some restrictions on the number one murder weapon in the US.

Boru

(April 6, 2019 at 11:49 am)Divinity Wrote: Ahh yes, ammosexuals upset that other countries are sensible with gun laws.  Not even their own fucking country, but OTHER countries, where they don't live.  Just because we're fucked up, doesn't mean other countries should follow our fucked up example.

That's what really gets me. But it also demonstrates a certain arrogant attitude that exists among the right wing and explains why they are funding hate groups in other western democracies to make the different cultures more like what they want for America.

(April 5, 2019 at 11:24 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(April 5, 2019 at 6:00 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Atom bombs don't kill people but people kill people therefore... everybody should be allowed to own an atom bomb?

The difference - a bomb cannot be used defensively - thus by current legal definitions being in the category of destructive devices - and therefore not equatable to firearms in considering rights.

But atom bombs are used defensively. There is such a thing as Nuclear peace. Whole point of atom bombs is that they're not used offensively but to deter threats and preserve peace. If you have atom bomb nobody wants to mess with you and therefore peace ensues.

(April 6, 2019 at 2:33 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 6, 2019 at 1:43 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Of course it' s OK..
You dont see anyone looking to restrict vehicle ownership - just guns -
Despite the fact in 2017


37,000 killed by vehicles
13,000 killed by firearms ( half of which are suicide - but we will go ahead and allow the number inflating....)

And why is this?

But you're equating all deaths with deliberate deaths.  That's bad methodology.

In 2017, there were 40000 firearms deaths in the US, not 13 000.  24 000 of those were suicides, 14 000 were homicides, and the remainder were either accidents or legal interventions.

Deliberate vehicular homicides are a little tougher to research, but it seems pretty steady at around 3500 per year in the US.

This seems to indicate that, when someone decides to commit a murder, they are four times more likely to use a firearm than a motor vehicle.

Dunno about you, but it occurs to me that it might be sensible to place at least some restrictions on the number one murder weapon in the US.

Boru

I have long since hated the argument "other bad shit happens, so do nothing about this shit."

When a speed limit is deemed too fast for a school zone they slow it down. And they certainly do not let drag strip funny cars on public roads regardless.

By the worshipers logic, everyone should be allowed to own and drive a drag strip funny car on public roads, and even in school zones. 

It is true traffic fatalities happen. But very few of them are intentional homicide. And you cannot take a truck or sports car up to a 32 story hotel strap a banana clip to it and murder 52 people in short order.

I get so frustrated with that side when they rightfully say, "Just keep them out of the wrong hands" and then throw a fit when I agree with them.

(April 6, 2019 at 4:01 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(April 5, 2019 at 11:24 am)onlinebiker Wrote: The difference - a bomb cannot be used defensively - thus by current legal definitions being in the category of destructive devices - and therefore not equatable to firearms in considering rights.

But atom bombs are used defensively. There is such a thing as Nuclear peace. Whole point of atom bombs is that they're not used offensively but to deter threats and preserve peace. If you have atom bomb nobody wants to mess with you and therefore peace ensues.

Mutually Assured Destruction is not defense, it's wider offense.

(April 6, 2019 at 2:33 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 6, 2019 at 1:43 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Of course it' s OK..
You dont see anyone looking to restrict vehicle ownership - just guns -
Despite the fact in 2017


37,000 killed by vehicles
13,000 killed by firearms ( half of which are suicide - but we will go ahead and allow the number inflating....)

And why is this?

But you're equating all deaths with deliberate deaths.  That's bad methodology.

In 2017, there were 40000 firearms deaths in the US, not 13 000.  24 000 of those were suicides, 14 000 were homicides, and the remainder were either accidents or legal interventions.

Deliberate vehicular homicides are a little tougher to research, but it seems pretty steady at around 3500 per year in the US.

This seems to indicate that, when someone decides to commit a murder, they are four times more likely to use a firearm than a motor vehicle.

Dunno about you, but it occurs to me that it might be sensible to place at least some restrictions on the number one murder weapon in the US.

Boru

No you don't.


You want to get rid of the scary looking guns.

It has nothing to do with facts or numbers.


You just want to get rid of the guns that cause your bladder leakage.

.....

Fact - handguns - with 38 special revolvers leading the pack - are the most common weapons used in the US. 

AK47s barely make the list.

Guess which one The Brady Bunch and their ilk want banned.

Hint - the bore size isn't .357.


But don' t worry - they' ll go after those too.

They are NOT coming for your penis.