Yes, that makes sense. The government should conduct backside checks before allowing you to posses a spoon. Anyone with a fat backside can't own a spoon or drink a large soda. Welcome to NYC, a.k.a. Hell.
Forever failing to understand not having a gun means any idiot can't go off shooting whoever they like. No gun = can't shoot someone = no crime/death caused. <br />
Though America is probably too far gone to be saved from that. What is it now, 35+ school shooting since Sandy Hook was attacked? Something like that, it's disgusting.
If you don't have it then you can't do it at all. Guns are not a necessity. Many countries have strict gun laws, few own guns such as my own country, and survive just fine.
When was that? FORTY YEARS AGO. Its almost irrelevant.
And just like anything, if you don't have the "hardware" you can't do it and that is a simple fact. You may of course find an alternative way but it isn't as easy or simple to use or do as the original would be. If you feel that you need a gun then evidently you do not live somewhere to be considered safe.
Well, here's another one that's going to vote away her rights and end up in a tyrannical state.
If you could clarify what you're saying I would appreciate it
You can pay attention in history class.
I wasn't being rude. Your point wasn't altogether particularly clear but I take it that you're insinuating I would be stupid enough to support a leader who tends towards a dictatorship? The second comment also needs clarification. Make a point, if you would.
No, I just enjoy watching what you post. I'm going to go make some popcorn.
Right, okay then.
But I guess mainstream media always tells the truth and the whole truth. :)
Yet bombs and guns are very different hence your point is invalid. Evidently a bomb is not prevented whether you have guns or not, and that was a terrorist attack just like the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005. There are just "normal" people going around shooting others every single day in the US, as well as the many accidental deaths and injuries. In a week last year over there, there were 3 incidences of a child shooting their sibling.
Obviously. Though how many would if they hadn't had a gun? Its almost as if they slightly take away what you're doing - the death is more impersonal, and also it's a hell of a lot more difficult to kill or injure multiple people without a gun (excl. Bombs from this discussion as they are pretty different to guns ie not owned or weapons people use in the way guns are). How does Europe not have individual responsibility? Because we are living in a country far safer than the USA? Where we don't need to worry about who may be concealing or carrying a gun? Most people will never have even touched a gun here.
Guns deaths are way more preventable than bombings.
Norway. And he bombed one place and then shot up another however many people! With a GUN.
Not quite sure what point you're making about banks so could you clarify?
And America is supposed to be the leading country in there world, the most civilised. Its a western nation where it shouldn't have such a high rate of gun deaths. Iraq is in an area with many problems safety-wise than the US and cannot be compared to it.
% homicides by guns is 60% in the US - 6.6% in England and Wales. Number of homicides by guns - US 9400+, England and Wales 41, which is WAY less even when multiplied to the same population size as the USA.
The stats show that less guns equal less murders with the use of guns.
And you're kidding if you think we like the government.
And in terms of speeding, that is a preventative measure in having limits, like strict control is a preventative for gun crime. Of course it's only a measure and it doesn't completely stop it but the US has little if anything in place to regulate guns and who owns them. Its not about banning guns completely, it's about keeping strict control of them. Correct me if I'm wrong but i believe you are able to buy guns before you can drink over there? And even buy guns in Walmart?
Now here is something we can agree on. Stop BLAMING the Hardware,and start Blaming the PEOPLE. :)
Great point! R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-T-Y!!
batshit crazy logic.
And rocks are responsible for skinned knees and phones are responsible for accidents and the wind is responsible for destruction.<br />
This is a fool's argument. Yes. other ob<x>jects and behaviors aid other dilemmas. How is that a reasonable argument to advocate guns? It doesn't make guns any safer. It doesn't solve the problem of gun violence.<br />
There will always be harm to humans. But why shouldn't we mitigate it when and where we can? Not everyone's saying ban the guns (although it's hardly a bad idea). They're saying regulate them better, just as we regulate any number of other things. But America cares more about perceived freedoms and firearms than it does its children. As long as that's the case - and as long as we back it up with inside-out logic - we'll just keep dying.
How many shootings are there that don't involve a gun? How many meals are eaten that don't involve a spoon? There's your difference.
You missed the point entirely. Let me put it a different way, overeating is only harmful to yourself, consensually. Shooting someone is harmful to others. Laws should exist to protect me from you, not me from myself.
Define seat belt and helmet wearing laws den
I wouldn't vote for those. Although they do cost the government money for your health care and to clean your guts off the street.
Wow... So what would you do if someone broke into your house and was carrying a firearm? And please don't forget it takes the cops at least 20 minutes to an hour to get there.
You need to move somewhere nicer if you have people breaking in and the police take 20 minutes to respond.
Nice response. Have fun with that ideology. :)
Living in a country where everyone is armed to the teeth, every household carries at least a gun (2 in my case) and trigger happy people all around us.<br />
I don't know what to say. But for the sake of discussion, if an improvised spoon can kill someone, imagine what could be done with an improvised gun? <br />
I am not against the guns or spoons or spooning and mooning but we are living in difficult times where nothing seems to be working.
The frequency is however making me nervous. Poverty, joblessness and uncertainty can twist the very values of people they once hold so dear.
This isn't the first time Americans are facing challenges, I hope this will end up in a win-win. I fear the worse though.
You do realize that most media nowadays is just propaganda, right?
Spoons can't feed if there's no food; likewise, guns can't shoot if there are no bullets. The question is, how far back do we dig in the blame game?
Exactly my point. Namely that blaming anything other than people is not only useless but even stupid.
No, 'spoons' are responsible for the population explosion!
Wait just a Minute ,FORKS can be used as a WEAPON, Ban them, and all "Materials" that could be used to SHARPEN a SPOON.
People are misled, what can I say? The theory that the govt still has the people's best interest in mind is as outdated as the dinosaurs...<br />
But people are too scared of everybody else to listen... And to them, nothing matters... Not even the fact that more Americans are being killed by cops nowadays than there were in the 9/11 attacks.<br />
But we don't need guns. At all. Not even in the same state that Germany was in 1936. Just be sure and present that case to the American Indians, the German Jews and the Ukranians.
No one robs a gas station with a spoon....not even a assault style spoon.
That wasnt the point I was trying to make either. You can not equate personal responsibility by making a utensil/firearm analogy. But to take your example to its fullest I would say a fat person could fall down some stairs and could crush and kill everyone infront of them....so really the spoon is to blame....or it is the gun. I forget where I was going with this.
Yes we all need to be politically correct can't stop now, the total destruction of the US is not complete.