- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:42 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
He didn't like my first link,
the Wikipedia article did not mention the UK "buyback" program. why would i like that link?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:43 pm to BamaAtl
Once again.
Why do you only care for 16,000 deaths a year? Why don't you care about the deaths by alcohol/tobacco/sugar/vehicles?
None of those are protected. All of those cause multiple times over the amount of death each year.
Your whole argument is based off of sensationalism and thinking of the children. If you want to save lives so badly, why aren't you pushing for the criminilization of tobacco/alcohol/sugar? Why aren't you calling for the limitations on the speed of travel? You do know that we can decrease the amount of deaths caused via vehicles and crashes exponentally if we made it impossible to travel over the speed of 25mph.
You want to ban high capacity magazines? Why not ban high speed transmissions?
Why do you only care for 16,000 deaths a year? Why don't you care about the deaths by alcohol/tobacco/sugar/vehicles?
None of those are protected. All of those cause multiple times over the amount of death each year.
Your whole argument is based off of sensationalism and thinking of the children. If you want to save lives so badly, why aren't you pushing for the criminilization of tobacco/alcohol/sugar? Why aren't you calling for the limitations on the speed of travel? You do know that we can decrease the amount of deaths caused via vehicles and crashes exponentally if we made it impossible to travel over the speed of 25mph.
You want to ban high capacity magazines? Why not ban high speed transmissions?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:43 pm to Ross
quote:
Worst of all is I didn't even see the U.K. buyback program listed on the Google results.
*ETA: i did find one thing that made a reference and when clicked the citation, it led nowhere
This post was edited on 11/13/17 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there is no UK buyback program
LINK
quote:
In 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher and himself at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. In response, the U.K.’s Tory government banned semi-automatic and pump-action firearms, banned private handgun ownership in mainland Britain, and instituted a $200 million buyback program, which led to the collection of 162,000 firearms.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:46 pm to BamaAtl
3rd times the charm?
Why do you only care for 16,000 deaths a year? Why don't you care about the deaths by alcohol/tobacco/sugar/vehicles?
None of those are protected. All of those cause multiple times over the amount of death each year.
Your whole argument is based off of sensationalism and thinking of the children. If you want to save lives so badly, why aren't you pushing for the criminilization of tobacco/alcohol/sugar? Why aren't you calling for the limitations on the speed of travel? You do know that we can decrease the amount of deaths caused via vehicles and crashes exponentally if we made it impossible to travel over the speed of 25mph.
You want to ban high capacity magazines? Why not ban high speed transmissions?
Why do you only care for 16,000 deaths a year? Why don't you care about the deaths by alcohol/tobacco/sugar/vehicles?
None of those are protected. All of those cause multiple times over the amount of death each year.
Your whole argument is based off of sensationalism and thinking of the children. If you want to save lives so badly, why aren't you pushing for the criminilization of tobacco/alcohol/sugar? Why aren't you calling for the limitations on the speed of travel? You do know that we can decrease the amount of deaths caused via vehicles and crashes exponentally if we made it impossible to travel over the speed of 25mph.
You want to ban high capacity magazines? Why not ban high speed transmissions?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:46 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Why don't you care about the deaths by alcohol/tobacco/sugar/vehicles?
As I've explained before, we certainly care about those deaths. Which is why the CDC studies it and recommends measures to improve health in those areas.
Why won't you let the CDC study the same about gun deaths?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:48 pm to BamaAtl
Link to all the threads you've created obsessing over banning those things?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:49 pm to BamaAtl
see you finally presented a link that had information that can be referenced for discussion
now let's get back to the discussion tree
you tried to compare a potential UK buyback program to these others
i ask for clarifications
and you respond
UK and Australia banned guns in addition to their buybakc programs. from your link above
so, now we're back to square one. why would i compare a potential American buyback program to these, when these programs also had a ban attached?
now let's get back to the discussion tree
you tried to compare a potential UK buyback program to these others
quote:
Because that's exactly what happened in other countries...oh, it isn't?
i ask for clarifications
quote:
which countries?
and you respond
quote:
UK, Australia, etc
UK and Australia banned guns in addition to their buybakc programs. from your link above
quote:
the U.K.’s Tory government banned semi-automatic and pump-action firearms,
so, now we're back to square one. why would i compare a potential American buyback program to these, when these programs also had a ban attached?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:50 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
and instituted a $200 million buyback program, which led to the collection of 162,000 firearms.
So $1,230+ per gun? In 1996?
Yeah bull friggin shite
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:52 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
we certainly care about those deaths.
No you don't. You couldn't care less. If you cared you'd be hollering to dismantle any and all manufacturers or distributors of the poison known as alcohol and tobacco.
You would call for immediate common sense vehicle control that bans any vehicle over the speed of 25 mph.
You'd call for taxes to make a chocolate bar cost as much as a iPhone.
But you don't and won't call for any of that. Because Tommy's life doesn't matter if he dies from alcohol. Or tobacco. Or sugar. Or in a car accident
The only time Tommy's death matters to bitchatl is if Tommy dies via firearm.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why would i compare a potential American buyback program to these, when these programs also had a ban attached?
Because we don't know the form whatever eventual buyback program we implement will have. What we do know is that buyback programs can be successful.
Furthermore, you're focusing on this when it's by far the least of the solutions I'd like to see implemented. It would be nice, sure, and your arguments for why it wouldn't work are nonsensical at best, but by no means is it going to lower gun violence on par with things like stricter background checks, universal registration, mental health evaluations, training, and other potential strengthening of gun laws.
And since we know a vast majority of Americans are in favor of these stricter gun laws, let's get going and implement them, right?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:56 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Because we don't know the form whatever eventual buyback program we implement will have.
well you swore earlier that a ban wouldn't be in play
quote:
What we do know is that buyback programs can be successful.
that's dishonest
we know they can be a useful incentive in addition to the laws implemented to target gun crime (outright bans)
we have no idea how successful they are by themselves
quote:
universal registration
non-starter
quote:
mental health evaluations
what scope? EVERY gun purchase? non-starter
quote:
and other potential strengthening of gun laws.
see you always add these general comments. that's the scary part, especially with how you're playing fast and loose with the reality of the bans in your examples for "buyback programs"
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:57 pm to BamaAtl
Why do you need a vehicle that exceeds 25 mph? Why aren't you calling for common sense vehicle laws? Why aren't you holding Lamborghini and Ferrari responsible for their high speed death traps? No one needs a Lamborghini. No one needs a Mustang. No one needs a corvette. No one needs a challenger.
They are all useless tools meant to do one thing. Show off their toxic masculinity and kill people.
You do know if you would have called for common sense vehicle control we wouldn't have had a nazi run over and kill a woman? Her blood is on YOUR hands because you believe that sick nazi frick has a right to spread his toxic right wing masculinity in the form of a high speed metal death trap.
They are all useless tools meant to do one thing. Show off their toxic masculinity and kill people.
You do know if you would have called for common sense vehicle control we wouldn't have had a nazi run over and kill a woman? Her blood is on YOUR hands because you believe that sick nazi frick has a right to spread his toxic right wing masculinity in the form of a high speed metal death trap.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 7:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well you swore earlier that a ban wouldn't be in play
I said I'm not much for a ban, who knows what crazy deals they'll strike to save American lives.
quote:
non-starter
That right there is the problem. It's a completely harmless policy that we know can help save lives.
quote:
what scope? EVERY gun purchase?
Sure. You want to carry a weapon that is designed to end human life and do nothing else, you'd better prove that you're fit to do so.
quote:
see you always add these general comments
Because I prefer not to limit myself to just the 3 or 4 things I mention in this thread.
Hey, when can I pick up my nuke?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 7:03 pm to BamaAtl
Are you ok with stop and frisk to get guns off the street in Chicago?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 7:04 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I said I'm not much for a ban, who knows what crazy deals they'll strike to save American lives
your lack of sincerity is noted
quote:
That right there is the problem. It's a completely harmless policy that we know can help save lives.
it's not harmless
it's none of the government's business (or anyone else's) to know what guns i own
do you believe in having reporters register the names of their confidential sources? that's harmless, too (and can save lives)
quote:
You want to carry a weapon that is designed to end human life and do nothing else
or...hunt/manage wild life in rural areas
quote:
Because I prefer not to limit myself to just the 3 or 4 things I mention in this thread.
ah...magic
just like how you're "not much for a ban" but if those crazy people vote one in, you'll have no issues with it [wink wink]
Posted on 11/13/17 at 7:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's not harmless
It is harmless.
quote:
it's none of the government's business (or anyone else's) to know what guns i own
It is when you can at any moment snap and use those guns on dozens of your fellow citizens.
quote:
or...hunt/manage wild life in rural areas
If you're such a shite shot that you need a 30-round magazine to hunt, maybe take some fricking classes.
quote:
ah...magic
More "you're unwilling or unable to discuss specific policy solutions, since I've mentioned them multiple times and you just gloss over them, so why would I waste my time with specifics?"
Do better, mr. iamverysmart
Posted on 11/13/17 at 7:10 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
If you're such a shite shot that you need a 30-round magazine to hunt, maybe take some fricking classes.
have you ever been hog hunting?
yes or no
quote:
More "you're unwilling or unable to discuss specific policy solutions, since I've mentioned them multiple times and you just gloss over them, so why would I waste my time with specifics?"
i've discussed most of the specifics you've listed, and most are non-starters, irrational, or downright scary
you also have displayed a lot of ignorance for rural living (which isn't shocking given your political beliefs)
Posted on 11/13/17 at 7:12 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
If you're such a shite shot that you need a 30-round magazine to hunt, maybe take some fricking classes.
Why do you speak on issues you are clueless about?
Is it hard to say "I don't have experience on that issue." instead of being an arse?
Page 24 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News