You just can't win with a liberal
This is a discussion on You just can't win with a liberal within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I talked with a co-worker today for about 90 minutes. We talked about ccw and firearms in general. After an hour of usless back and ...
May 10th, 2008 12:32 AM
You just can't win with a liberal
I talked with a co-worker today for about 90 minutes. We talked about ccw and firearms in general. After an hour of usless back and forth chatter I finally went to the computer and googled some numbers. This is what I found ( and these all pertain to our argument)
1. In 2002 ( the year that I was able to get stats): 49000+ were killed by cars (crashes or hit by a car).
17000+ people died from falling (ladders, stairs etc.). 3500+ people died from drowning. 3200+ people died of medical malpractice.
776 (only 86 of them children 14 or under)people died in the US from accidental gun shots a percentage of .8% of accidental deaths. Note: accidental deaths only make up about 20% of total deaths.
2. About 1 child per 1,000,000 guns in the US dies each year due to accidental shooting. About 1 child dies each year per 11,000 swimming pools.
Statistcally speaking guns are far less dangerous than cars, ladders and pools not by a little but by about 1000%.
My co-worker then says to me "Yeah but we should still get rid of them anyway" or words to that affect. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH WHEN IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.
Last edited by atctimmy; May 10th, 2008 at 12:42 AM.
It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.
May 10th, 2008 12:37 AM
Unfortunately I have had similar conversations with people who appear to be normal and sane otherwise. When it comes to emotional "liberal" causes like gun control, the truth no longer matters.
Facts are negotiable, perceptions are not.
May 10th, 2008 12:40 AM
Guns are scary and people see too many movies. Good effort just the same though...
It is utterly illogical to believe that passing laws to reduce gun violence will be successful when those who are commiting the gun violence do not obey the law.
May 10th, 2008 12:44 AM
I'm gonna try to remember those numbers. Thanks.
May 10th, 2008 12:46 AM
Yes, but cars, ladders, and swimming pools all have other purposes than to kill things. People who do not shoot do not really believe that target shooting or hunting are fun. They seem to think we do those things because we are mentally impaired and are compelled by our illness to target shoot or hunt innocent, cute, loveable animals as the foreplay for going on a mass murdering rampage.
May 10th, 2008 12:47 AM
In a liberal's perfect world, there would be no firearms. Then the weak, old and small would be preyed upon by the strong and healthy.
Natural selection would then apply to humans. Is that what they want?
May 10th, 2008 12:47 AM
a lib is being held up by a BG with a knife. Lib tells BG sure am glad you arent using a GUN. I hate those things.
May 10th, 2008 12:57 AM
there you have it.the rational thinking of the brady bunch..
Originally Posted by johnsr
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
― Thomas Paine
May 10th, 2008 01:00 AM
In a perfect world, where everyone got along, and animals never attacked humans, I wouldn't see a need to use firearms other than for punching holes in paper. Such is definitely not the case in today's reality. I personally would rather be shot than stabbed. Knives and blunt objects tend to make more of a mess than bullets. The anti-gun liberals live in a fantasy world blinded by emotion, and the media. I've tried arguing points and have shown hard evidence to a few anti-gun liberals, but they still don't get it.
USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!
May 10th, 2008 01:01 AM
Liberals don't like to argue facts, just feelings.
May 10th, 2008 01:07 AM
Originally Posted by JusticeDun
May 10th, 2008 01:09 AM
May 10th, 2008 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by 1911packer
Or you might tell him we need to ban doctors also....
Doctors and Guns
Here's some statistics that you may find of interest... (No offense intended to any doctors on this forum.)
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. Is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S. Dept. Of Health & Human Services
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. Is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!
Last edited by P7fanatic; May 10th, 2008 at 04:41 PM.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
May 10th, 2008 01:36 AM
"An armed society is a polite society"
May 10th, 2008 03:53 AM
Just wondering. . .
Originally Posted by P7fanatic
Does it really say "accidental deaths?" Does that mean folks who die from complications or actual mistakes made by doctors (i.e., malpractice)? Seems like a big difference.
But it's a very great post nevertheless :)
By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: July 16th, 2010, 11:24 PM
By swiftyjuan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 15th, 2009, 12:59 PM
By sisco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 02:02 PM
By nitrogen in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: January 16th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Search tags for this page
my colleague helga kuhse and i suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant
Click on a term to search for related topics.