Gun Control is ridiculous

[CFLarsen]

Belief or not is irrelevant. The FACT is that guns are widely available in the US - whether you or anyone else believes that to be a good thing or not is irrelevant.

The FACT is that Creationism is predominant in the US.

 

[CFLarsen]

It can't, because if you're going to come into my home by force and tell me how to live my life, you'd better be able to back it up with some pretty good evidence. Otherwise, you're just a busybody at best, a tyrant at worst.

You don't uphold the law in your home?

 

[Lonewulf]

Rubbish. You treat your laws - and especially your constitution - as if they are holy scripture. If you can abolish slavery, then you can abolish guns.

The Bill of Rights didn't guarantee slavery. In fact, Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery with the constitution, but couldn't.

However, if you think that we treat it as "holy scripture", then you're wrong. But if you do think that we take the Constitution of the United States as important for law decisions, then you are correct. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress convenes just to tell if a new law is unconstitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, the new bill is struck down by veto. Why do you think that Prohibition had to be passed as an amendment? And then repealed as a new amendment?

And the fact is that you cannot break the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would never have been accepted by much of the population in it's creation, as many people that were afraid of government tyranny wanted a safeguard against it. The first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be broken, though they can be loopholed.

If you think that Americans treat the constitution of the united states as the supreme law of the land, and that that is a bad thing, then please educate yourself on how the U.S. Government and judiciary/legislative system actually works.

 

[Lonewulf]

You don't uphold the law in your home?

People tend to not uphold the law when they consider the law to be unfair or tyrranical. This is rather obvious.

Please educate yourself on prohibition and on how successful prohibition was, would you? Until then, you cannot stop sounding ignorant.

 

[Lonewulf]

I will take the deafening silence (notwithstanding the lone person protesting they can find nothing to discuss) as meaning gun proponents have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gun ownership in the US is not in need of significant additional control.

I thank you, and goodnight.

Dismissive as ever, eh? Illusory victories are always so fun.

I noted that no one could provide statistics on how often crimes were prevented through threat of a firearm. As such, I can only assume that people do not know. I happen to think that a high amount of crimes are prevented through use of a firearm.

As no one can provide statistics, and I'm hearing nothing but silence on that point, I guess that means that gun control proponents have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that guns do not stop crimes from occuring, and that we need significant control over them.

Thank you, and goodnight.

 

[baron]

Dismissive as ever, eh? Illusory victories are always so fun.

I noted that no one could provide statistics on how often crimes were prevented through threat of a firearm. As such, I can only assume that people do not know. I happen to think that a high amount of crimes are prevented through use of a firearm.

I provided stats to back up my argument. Nobody has, or apparently can, refute them, or their implication.

You say that you don't have any stats, but "happen to think" that if you did, they would help your case.

O...K...

I'm still waiting...

Waiting...







...tumbleweed...

 

[Lonewulf]

I provided stats to back up my argument. Nobody has, or apparently can, refute them, or their implication.

You say that you don't have any stats, but "happen to think" that if you did, they would help your case.

O...K...

I'm still waiting...

Waiting...

Where would you find statistics that would show unreported successful self-defense where the gun was not fired, though? Are you saying that they don't exist, or even can exist, with any sense of accuracy?

Oh, that's right! If there's no statistics for it, it must never happen. Okay. I see your logic now.

Quite frankly, the statistics that were provided earlier were not convincing nor shocking to me. Yet you feel like it should be the sole determinant in my decision, yet few people actually end up injured by a firearm. Those that are injured accidentally mostly are injured with a very minor injury, to the extent that they are let out of the hospital after simple treatment.

Further, you have yet to convince me that simple education wouldn't cut down on some of those statistics.

So, really, what you're saying is this:

"If you see statistics, you MUST immediately enact the strictest, most powerful form of gun control imaginable. Reason why: <Blank>"

 

[CFLarsen]

The Bill of Rights didn't guarantee slavery. In fact, Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery with the constitution, but couldn't.

However, if you think that we treat it as "holy scripture", then you're wrong.

BUWAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa.......

But if you do think that we take the Constitution of the United States as important for law decisions, then you are correct. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress convenes just to tell if a new law is unconstitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, the new bill is struck down by veto. Why do you think that Prohibition had to be passed as an amendment? And then repealed as a new amendment?

And the fact is that you cannot break the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would never have been accepted by much of the population in it's creation, as many people that were afraid of government tyranny wanted a safeguard against it. The first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be broken

Can they be repealed? Are there any parts of the Constitution that cannot be changed?

, though they can be loopholed.

If you think that Americans treat the constitution of the united states as the supreme law of the land, and that that is a bad thing, then please educate yourself on how the U.S. Government and judiciary/legislative system actually works.

Whatever gave you that idea that I thought it was a bad thing??

People tend to not uphold the law when they consider the law to be unfair or tyrranical. This is rather obvious.

What laws do you find unfair or tyrannical? Do you break the laws you find unfair or tyrannical?

Please educate yourself on prohibition and on how successful prohibition was, would you? Until then, you cannot stop sounding ignorant.

The difference between alcohol and guns is that while you can drink just a little, you can't be just a little dead.

 

[Lonewulf]

Can they be repealed? Are there any parts of the Constitution that cannot be changed?

Not the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory. Among the enumerated rights these amendments guarantee are the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, the free exercise of religion, the freedom to petition, the people's right to keep and bear arms, and the rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination.

It wouldn't be very limiting if the government could just up and repeal them, could it?

C'mon now. Do you think that they should repeal our freedom of speech? Our freedom of religion? Freedom of press? Freedom of assembly? Freedom to petition? What about trials? Unreasonable search and seizure? Cruel and unusual punishment? Compelled self-incrimination?

There's a reason these are recognized as things that the government should not be able to remove.

Whatever gave you that idea that I thought it was a bad thing??

Because you think that we should be able to repeal the Bill of Rights.

We cannot.

What laws do you find unfair or tyrannical? Do you break the laws you find unfair or tyrannical?

Banning alcohol. Banning firearms from use of all citizens. Banning cigarettes (though I don't smoke, I respect that others have the choice to, though I'd ask them to take it away from me while I'm eating dinner). Banning unhealthy Fast Food. Banning marijuana (I don't intake any marijuana myself, but I won't turn in others that do).

^---- If you passed a constitutional ban on all of them, then it would not work. Anyone with a brain would see this.

We banned alcohol. Didn't work. We banned drugs. Didn't work; now drugs are even MORE available than ever, in CHEAPER amounts and STRONGER doses. We could not ban fast food, and we could not ban cigarettes. We even banned marijuana, and there are some southern states where growing marijuana is an extremely big business. We're talking about entire fields full of marijuana.

But that's right! If you ban something, it immediately will work, right? The Law Control fairies swoop down and suddenly change everyone's mind!

The difference between alcohol and guns is that while you can drink just a little, you can't be just a little dead.

You can be a little injured, however. Remember the statistics? 65% of those that are accidentally injured with a firearm are treated in the hospital, and then leave. Some that injured themselves don't even show up in the hospital as the injury was too minor (there was one person who ended up with a bruised buttock because of a bullet; the seat he was sitting on and the fact that it was a ricochet helped).

Further, you can be educated on how to prevent further accidents from happening. Or do you think that education never helps?

 

[CFLarsen]

Banning alcohol. Banning firearms from use of all citizens. Banning cigarettes (though I don't smoke, I respect that others have the choice to, though I'd ask them to take it away from me while I'm eating dinner). Banning unhealthy Fast Food. Banning marijuana (I don't intake any marijuana myself, but I won't turn in others that do).

^---- If you passed a constitutional ban on all of them, then it would not work. Anyone with a brain would see this.

I asked what laws you find unfair or tyrannical, and hence, break. Not what laws you can imagine.

We banned alcohol. Didn't work. We banned drugs. Didn't work; now drugs are even MORE available than ever, in CHEAPER amounts and STRONGER doses.

Why is that due to a ban? Cigarettes are also stronger and cheaper than before (remember the antics of the tobacco companies? Niiiice....)

We could not ban fast food,

It's not the fast food. It's the harmful fat in fast food.

and we could not ban cigarettes.

Since when were cigarettes banned?

We even banned marijuana, and there are some southern states where growing marijuana is an extremely big business. We're talking about entire fields full of marijuana.

Someone making a lot of money does not mean it's a good thing. Some people make a lot of money on kiddie porn, too. Does that make it right?

But that's right! If you ban something, it immediately will work, right? The Law Control fairies swoop down and suddenly change everyone's mind!

There it is again, this Pavlovian distrust of anything governmental. Has it ever occurred to you that a law can be backed by a majority of the population?

You can be a little injured, however. Remember the statistics? 65% of those that are accidentally injured with a firearm are treated in the hospital, and then leave. Some that injured themselves don't even show up in the hospital as the injury was too minor (there was one person who ended up with a bruised buttock because of a bullet; the seat he was sitting on and the fact that it was a ricochet helped).

There is a hell of a difference between being a little drunk and a little injured.

Further, you can be educated on how to prevent further accidents from happening. Or do you think that education never helps?

Of course it can help. But while you may get a lot of drunk, it's an entirely different situation if you get a lot shot.

Not the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

It wouldn't be very limiting if the government could just up and repeal them, could it?

Oh, get real. If you plant enough supreme court judges that do what you say, you can do anything. Even repeal the bill of rights.

C'mon now. Do you think that they should repeal our freedom of speech? Our freedom of religion? Freedom of press? Freedom of assembly? Freedom to petition? What about trials? Unreasonable search and seizure? Cruel and unusual punishment? Compelled self-incrimination?

There's a reason these are recognized as things that the government should not be able to remove.

Do you understand the difference between should and could? Nowhere have I said that I thought they should repeal your freedom of speech.

Seriously: Do you have a problem with word recognition? You keep misreading the most basic words.

 

[Lonewulf]

I asked what laws you find unfair or tyrannical, and hence, break. Not what laws you can imagine.

What, prohibition never happened? That's a law that was passed that banned alcohol, and yes, I consider it tyrannical. In fact, all of those laws that would ban all of those objects I would find tyrannical, and would break.

Why is that due to a ban? Cigarettes are also stronger and cheaper than before (remember the antics of the tobacco companies? Niiiice....)

And cigarette companies are being regulated. They can no longer advertise their product, nor use targeted advertisement for children. They can no longer sell their cigarettes to underaged children (Oh, but wait! Children still manage to get their hands on 'em anyways. Go figure, huh?)

However, here's something that cigarette companies can't do: They can't "cut" their tobacco with crack, or cocaine, or heroine, or marijuana, or anything else that's illegal. However, drugs sold on the street can, and in fact do end up far more lethal in far less a time period, as there's no control over the dosages.

So the two aren't easily comparable.

It's not the fast food. It's the harmful fat in fast food.

And the individual responsibility of eating that food. Of course there's fat in fast food! If you eat at McDonald's once a day, then you will gain weight. That's kind've a no-brainer; yet if you ban the companies from selling those products, then you're saying that anyone who purchases them, period, does not have that responsibility and cannot be held up to personal responsibility.

Since when were cigarettes banned?

What's your reading comprehension level? I never claimed that they were. I just say that they can't be banned. Or rather, that people can try to ban them, but it won't work. They'll still be available, and probably will be even cheaper and even more dangerous than ever before.

Someone making a lot of money does not mean it's a good thing. Some people make a lot of money on kiddie porn, too. Does that make it right?

So smoking marijuana is the same as purchasing pornography where a child was molested? Should I quote you on that lovely piece of logic? However, even this argument fails as you didn't comprehend what I was saying. If you pass a law and ban something, but cannot enforce that law, and a large portion of the populace ends up breaking that law, then you have really pretty much done nothing. Passing a law that doesn't work is about as equal to passing no law, except that you make it illegal for anyone to operate "on the radar", and if they operate "under the radar", then they don't have to conform to any kind of regulations.

Plus, just because you pass a law banning something, doesn't make that law "right". If you ban being human, being human will be illegal. As David Thoreau said, when the law arrests you for doing good, then the only place where good people should be is in jail.

There it is again, this Pavlovian distrust of anything governmental. Has it ever occurred to you that a law can be backed by a majority of the population?

Like drugs? Or alcohol? Wait... the majority of the population wanted their booze! What was I thinking...

There is a hell of a difference between being a little drunk and a little injured.

A scratch that I need stitches for is better, IMO, than destroying your brain cells. One can heal, the other cannot.

Of course it can help. But while you may get a lot of drunk, it's an entirely different situation if you get a lot shot.

Yeah! For instance, in the latter, you tend to die. In the former, you tend to crash your car and kill a family of four.

Oh, get real. If you plant enough supreme court judges that do what you say, you can do anything. Even repeal the bill of rights.

How is this supposed to make me feel better?! You just gave me even more of a reason to have a distrust of the government.

Do you understand the difference between should and could? Nowhere have I said that I thought they should repeal your freedom of speech.

But they should repeal the second amendment?

Seriously: Do you have a problem with word recognition? You keep misreading the most basic words.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? As you don't seem to understand the most basic of concepts.

 

[CFLarsen]

What, prohibition never happened? That's a law that was passed that banned alcohol, and yes, I consider it tyrannical. In fact, all of those laws that would ban all of those objects I would find tyrannical, and would break.

Here it is again, this inability to understand what I wrote.

I asked you what laws you find - present tense - unfair or tyrannical, and hence, break. Again, present tense.

What laws are that?

And cigarette companies are being regulated. They can no longer advertise their product, nor use targeted advertisement for children. They can no longer sell their cigarettes to underaged children (Oh, but wait! Children still manage to get their hands on 'em anyways. Go figure, huh?)

But cigarettes are not banned.

However, here's something that cigarette companies can't do: They can't "cut" their tobacco with crack, or cocaine, or heroine, or marijuana, or anything else that's illegal. However, drugs sold on the street can, and in fact do end up far more lethal in far less a time period, as there's no control over the dosages.

So the two aren't easily comparable.

And yet, you compare getting drunk to getting shot??

And the individual responsibility of eating that food. Of course there's fat in fast food! If you eat at McDonald's once a day, then you will gain weight. That's kind've a no-brainer; yet if you ban the companies from selling those products, then you're saying that anyone who purchases them, period, does not have that responsibility and cannot be held up to personal responsibility.

Again, the inability to understand the written word. It isn't the food but the fat they are banning.

What's your reading comprehension level? I never claimed that they were. I just say that they can't be banned. Or rather, that people can try to ban them, but it won't work. They'll still be available, and probably will be even cheaper and even more dangerous than ever before.

Of course they can be banned.

So smoking marijuana is the same as purchasing pornography where a child was molested? Should I quote you on that lovely piece of logic?

Money! You were the one referring to money ("extremely big business", remember?).

Can't you even remember your own argument from a moment ago?

Like drugs? Or alcohol?

Alcohol wasn't banned during the prohibition. Intoxicating liquors were. And even then, you could still get drunk on church wine.

Wait... the majority of the population wanted their booze! What was I thinking...

The Prohibition was passed by the Congress.

A scratch that I need stitches for is better, IMO, than destroying your brain cells.

You have to drink quite a lot before your brain loses enough cells to notice.

One can heal, the other cannot.

Especially if you put a bullet there.

Yeah! For instance, in the latter, you tend to die. In the former, you tend to crash your car and kill a family of four.

If you drive a car, yes. But I didn't say anything about that. Only getting drunk.

How is this supposed to make me feel better?! You just gave me even more of a reason to have a distrust of the government.

This is not an exercise in making you feel better. Do you recognize that it is quite possible to repeal any part of the constitution?

But they should repeal the second amendment?

Where did I say that they should? I said they could. Do you acknowledge this, yes or no?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? As you don't seem to understand the most basic of concepts.

No, really. I have to correct you, again and again, about misconceptions you have about what I and others have said. You confuse "should" and "could", you think I asked you about past laws when I speak about the present, and you can't remember your own argument.

Take your time and understand what people say. And for crying out loud, think your argument through, before you post.

 

[Lonewulf]

Here it is again, this inability to understand what I wrote.

I asked you what laws you find - present tense - unfair or tyrannical, and hence, break. Again, present tense.

I'm not turning in my friends for using marijuana, or having had used marijuana earlier in their life.

I downloaded music illegally.

Can't think of much else. What was the point of this question? A tyrannical law should be opposed.

But cigarettes are not banned.

I fail to see how this affects my argument.

And yet, you compare getting drunk to getting shot??

Prohibition was passed for the exact same reasons as guns. To try to cut down on the body count by irresponsible users.

That neither you nor Baron can see this is not my problem.

Again, the inability to understand the written word. It isn't the food but the fat they are banning.

And you fail to comprehend the overall point. By doing that, the government has now treated them like children that cannot be responsible for their own actions or decisions.

Of course they can be banned.

Just because you pass a law that states that something is banned, does not make it banned. It can still be smuggled and made illegally.

Money! You were the one referring to money ("extremely big business", remember?).

Once more: How is kiddie porn comparable to marijuana at all? It's still stupid logic. I didn't say that money was the only reason to, but if you say that something is banned, and yet a large portion of the populace still partakes of it, then it's not banned. There's only a law that states that it is, and maybe a small task force that attempts to keep it banned, but that's pretty much it.

Can't you even remember your own argument from a moment ago?

You don't even know what my argument is, apparently, so I don't really care.

Alcohol wasn't banned during the prohibition. Intoxicating liquors were. And even then, you could still get drunk on church wine.

Hm. So they banned only most of it, but not a little bit of it.

Yet, many many many people were going to get drunk under the radar of the law.

Even though you could still stick with church wine.

Rather telling of banning firearms, don't you think?

The Prohibition was passed by the Congress.

Against the will of the majority.

You have to drink quite a lot before your brain loses enough cells to notice.

And you'd have to get several minor wounds before it equals a major one.

Especially if you put a bullet there.

Actually, bullet wounds aren't always as major as hollywood or the media makes 'em out to be. I'm actually not that scared of being shot by a .22 LR pistol; the wound would be pretty darn minor, unless they were aiming for vitals or the eyes.

[quoteIf you drive a car, yes. But I didn't say anything about that. Only getting drunk.[/quote]

One of the reasons to pass prohibition or regulations on drinking ages and the like was to prevent car accidents. Do you understand this fact or not?

This is not an exercise in making you feel better. Do you recognize that it is quite possible to repeal any part of the constitution?

I just find it interesting how you talk down to me about being "paranoid" of the government, and then give me one further reason to not want to give the government too much power.

If they repealed any part of the Bill of Rights, there would be an uproar. Do you recognize this?

Where did I say that they should? I said they could. Do you acknowledge this, yes or no?

So they shouldn't?

Okay. So they shouldn't repeal the second amendment. Yes or no? Answer the question, Larsen! Tick tock! Jeapordy music! It's go time now, boy!

Take your time and understand what people say. And for crying out loud, think your argument through, before you post.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not turning in my friends for using marijuana, or having had used marijuana earlier in their life.

I downloaded music illegally.

Can't think of much else. What was the point of this question? A tyrannical law should be opposed.

You think that music should be free?

I fail to see how this affects my argument.


Prohibition was passed for the exact same reasons as guns. To try to cut down on the body count by irresponsible users.

That neither you nor Baron can see this is not my problem.

But first and foremost for social reasons: Read on.

And you fail to comprehend the overall point. By doing that, the government has now treated them like children that cannot be responsible for their own actions or decisions.

Huh? They are removing harmful fat and you argue that they are treating citizens like children?

Just because you pass a law that states that something is banned, does not make it banned. It can still be smuggled and made illegally.

O....K. And all the while, when you were talking about something being banned, I thought you meant that it was being banned.

Oh, wait. You did:

And you missed the point about how it would be practically impossible to ban firearms within the United States.

Okay, seriously. Why don't we ban McDonald's food, or any unhealthy fast food? You can even say that it was made with intent to kill, just like you make the same point of firearms; if you eat too much of it, your lifespan is increased dramatically, just like cigarettes and booze. So, ban them; it's the only solution.

I still don't get how you think a ban would even work. Until you can demonstrate that it can (and you can't, considering our track record), then ultimately this is useless. I find it interesting how Total Gun Control proponents just skip over that question... so, do you really think that just passing a government ban will cause everyone to say, "Sure! No problem! We'll do exactly what you say!"?

Why not ban fast food first, though? Obesity and heart disease are far more common than gunshot victims.

Neither does Washington, D.C. And yet, they banned firearms.

Banning alcohol. Banning firearms from use of all citizens. Banning cigarettes (though I don't smoke, I respect that others have the choice to, though I'd ask them to take it away from me while I'm eating dinner). Banning unhealthy Fast Food. Banning marijuana (I don't intake any marijuana myself, but I won't turn in others that do).

^---- If you passed a constitutional ban on all of them, then it would not work. Anyone with a brain would see this.

And on and on it goes.

Do yourself a favor: Think your argument through. Remember what you have argued. Stick to that.

Once more: How is kiddie porn comparable to marijuana at all? It's still stupid logic.

Ah, I see. You get to make up analogies, but I can't.

You don't even know what my argument is, apparently, so I don't really care.

You are quite right. You are arguing so incoherently that I don't know what your argument is.

Hm. So they banned only most of it, but not a little bit of it.

If that comes as a surprise to you, then you shouldn't chide other people for what you perceive as their lack of historical knowledge.

Yet, many many many people were going to get drunk under the radar of the law.

Even though you could still stick with church wine.

Rather telling of banning firearms, don't you think?

Many many many people shoot other people under the radar of the law?

Against the will of the majority.

Read your history:

The 65th Congress met in 1917 and the Democratic dries outnumbered the wets by 140 to 64 while Republicans dries outnumbered the wets 138 to 62. The 1916 election saw both Democratic incumbent Woodrow Wilson and Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes ignore the Prohibition issue, as was the case with both party's political platforms. Both Democrats and Republicans had strong wet and dry factions and the election was expected to be close, with neither candidate wanting to alienate any part of their political base.

Prohibition also referred to that part of the Temperance movement which wanted to make alcohol illegal. These groups brought about much change even prior to national prohibition. By 1905, three American states had already outlawed alcohol; by 1912, this was up to nine states; and, by 1916, legal prohibition was already in effect in 26 of the 48 states.

The Progressives claimed to be humanitarians whose stated goal was to better the lives of the common people, one of their most significant acts being passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, which ushered in the era of Prohibition.
Source

And you'd have to get several minor wounds before it equals a major one.

Depends on where the bullet hits.

Actually, bullet wounds aren't always as major as hollywood or the media makes 'em out to be. I'm actually not that scared of being shot by a .22 LR pistol; the wound would be pretty darn minor, unless they were aiming for vitals or the eyes.

No. Not aiming for vitals or the eyes, but hitting vitals or the eyes.

Do you have any idea how many ways you can die from a relatively minor wound?

One of the reasons to pass prohibition or regulations on drinking ages and the like was to prevent car accidents. Do you understand this fact or not?

You are the last person to lecture anyone on history.

I just find it interesting how you talk down to me about being "paranoid" of the government, and then give me one further reason to not want to give the government too much power.

If they repealed any part of the Bill of Rights, there would be an uproar. Do you recognize this?

Do you recognize that it is quite possible to repeal any part of the constitution?

So they shouldn't?

Okay. So they shouldn't repeal the second amendment. Yes or no? Answer the question, Larsen! Tick tock! Jeapordy music! It's go time now, boy!

Do you acknowledge that I said they could, yes or no?

Pot, meet kettle.

Look, if you want to argue that "ban" doesn't mean "ban", go ahead. Make my day an easy one.

 

[shanek]

I'm not turning in my friends for using marijuana, or having had used marijuana earlier in their life.

I downloaded music illegally.

I've used Clorox wipes to wipe something off of my skin. That's a violation of Federal law, by the way.

I've been to a meeting where everyone was in costume. OK, it was Halloween, but it's still a violation of NC law.

 

[baron]

Actually, bullet wounds aren't always as major as hollywood or the media makes 'em out to be. I'm actually not that scared of being shot by a .22 LR pistol; the wound would be pretty darn minor, unless they were aiming for vitals or the eyes.

You're joking... right? Not as major as Hollywood makes out? You mean when the hero gets shot in the shoulder and fights 20 guys and climbs skyscrapers before saying, "Nah, it's nothing." If you get shot by any bullet you're in serious trouble.

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/human-skull-with-bullet-wounds.html

http://library.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/trauma/gsw/bonenter942.html

I recall a documentary showing a guy who was shot in the knee by a .22 bullet. It ricocheted off the bone, went up through his thigh and he ended up bleeding to death into his scrotum inside of 10 minutes.

 

[CFLarsen]

I've used Clorox wipes to wipe something off of my skin. That's a violation of Federal law, by the way.

I've been to a meeting where everyone was in costume. OK, it was Halloween, but it's still a violation of NC law.

You certainly aren't afraid to break the laws you feel are unfair or tyrannical.

 

[Lonewulf]

You're joking... right? Not as major as Hollywood makes out? You mean when the hero gets shot in the shoulder and fights 20 guys and climbs skyscrapers before saying, "Nah, it's nothing." If you get shot by any bullet you're in serious trouble.

What about the scores of bad guys that get hit with one little round and fall over dead as a doornail as soon as they get hit?

Okay, so you're saying that if you get shot by any bullet in any situation you're in serious trouble. Okay! So you say that the CDC was wrong in their estimation of 65% of people getting treated and leaving (the equivalent of a few stitches), then?

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/human-skull-with-bullet-wounds.html

http://library.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/trauma/gsw/bonenter942.html

I recall a documentary showing a guy who was shot in the knee by a .22 bullet. It ricocheted off the bone, went up through his thigh and he ended up bleeding to death into his scrotum inside of 10 minutes.

So the plural of anecdote equals data if you're for Gun Control? Is that how it works?

The first two wounds were skull wounds, and obviously hit the soft part of the skull. There was one case where a woman was shot in the back of the skull with a .22 pistol five times, and came out of it with no serious injury, because it hit the harder part of the skull. If I cut your jugular with a knife, it's deadly. No ****, sherlock.

The latter sounds almost like a freak accident. It bounced off the kneecap in just such a way that it ended up going through the thigh and hitting the scrotum, causing him to bleed to death. Can I make a similar argument?

There was a case in fencing where two men were fencing. One broke his rapier on the other fencer, where it ended up ended up going through the fencing outfit, cutting his armpit, and causing the man to bleed quickly as it severed an artery.

Therefore, we should ban fencing equipment and the fencing activity. Right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Can I make a similar argument?

There was a case in fencing where two men were fencing. One broke his rapier on the other fencer, where it ended up ended up going through the fencing outfit, cutting his armpit, and causing the man to bleed quickly as it severed an artery.

Therefore, we should ban fencing equipment and the fencing activity. Right?

Why do you think they have protective gear?

 

[Lonewulf]

Why do you think they have protective gear?

In that particular case, it went through the protective gear, genius. Using Baron's argument and anecdotal claims, that means that protective gear doesn't do anything at all.