liberalpropagandagroup:conorthebarbarian:liberalpropagandagroup:More from the world of gun culture.

liberalpropagandagroup:conorthebarbarian:liberalpropagandagroup:More from the world of gun culture. You can read the article here.-EliEvery 10 days in the U.S. a child dies of heat exhaustion from being left in a car. Are you willing to give up automobiles to prevent accidents or does your veil of liberal arrogance only apply to objects that you don’t use?Try again.It’s interesting that you mention a veil of ignorance while essentially comparing apples to oranges.Comparing unnecessary loss of life to other forms of unnecessary loss of life is illogical?As you should know, part of the 5 part values system adopted by the LPG, indeed an integral part of our branding decided by your Fearless Leaders at the Liberal Propaganda Group is scientific literacy. Which fearless leaders of mine are you referring to? The people who have unjust say in what goes on in my life are neither fearless, nor leaders. But please go on. So, let’s for a moment pretend that the completely ludicrous idea that cars and guns are comparable devices has any validity at all for the sake of argument. You should feel lucky that a human being of any education is entertaining this as the suggestion does not deserve time. However, the nefarious leadership of the gun industry disinformation machine, the NRA, insists on spreading such stupidity so it’s important that we take the time to entertain those not intelligent enough to understand. So, let’s look at gun deaths. It’s more than 1 every 10 days. It’s much more. It’s actually 1 every 16 minutes (Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, which compiles FBI and CDC data.) That’s just deaths, not injuries. So in the time that one child dies locked in a car, roughly 900 people have died at the hand of a gun. Obviously the issue with a death rate 900 times higher is going to be of greater priority.It’s funny that you mention FBI and CDC data. Did you miss the part where murder in the U.S. has dropped by nearly 50% in the past twenty years? 9.5 in 1993 to 4.7 in 2012. Or are you just cherry picking facts?But I do see your point about gun homicide being more common than accidental death from hyperthermia. But why are you concentrating on murder via misuse of firearm?So by your logic all of these causes of death should be the focus of your efforts. Heart disease: 597,689Cancer: 574,743Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859I suppose I should’ve mentioned the rest of the people who die in accidents annually. Silly me, here ya go.Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494Diabetes: 69,071Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2010, table 10 Adobe PDF file However, both death rates are 100% preventable. So, yes, of course, we need legislation that protects children from cars as well as that which protects them at school, where a gun owner may just mow them down, or from homes where gun toters put their perverse obsession with firearms above the safety and security of their loved ones.I’m sorry I couldn’t break it to you more gently, but legislation doesn’t actually save anyone from anything except for maybe the free market that you have so much disdain for. And that’s where we stop entertaining your idea. These are real world problems, and they require real solutions. People are dying. It’s time the toters took that seriously. Do tell of the “real world” solutions that prevent people from harming one another. The fact of the matter is that gun laws have been relaxed in every state since the 90’s and the murder rate has dropped dramatically. Not to mention that the number of weapons in circulation (300,000,000) continues to rise. So your narrative that gun control is the answer is bullshit and the facts show the opposite. Now, obviously we need child protection laws, and murder needs to be illegal. But the car is not the danger for that child, the parent is. If a safety feature could realistically be employed to prevent this kind of injury, that would be a good idea to regulate and require. However, a car is necessary to our economy, and to the health and safety of the public as a whole. It has a very utilitarian purpose so it’s not practical to ban cars.You know that. I know that. We all fucking know that. It is practical to devote more police time to protecting children and it is worth our while to explore safety features.Here’s the thing. You don’t get to decide what should or shouldn’t be necessary for prosperity in the economy. Consumers and businesses do. Guns, which kill far more people, have no purpose. They aren’t utilitarian, they aren’t useful for self defense (in fact they make you less likely to survive attack.)First of all, what’s useful or not useful is completely subjective. And the link you provided didn’t work but every pseudo-study I’ve seen plugs criminals with guns into the mix of murder victims. And the data that I’ve seen indicates that a very high percentage of murder “victims” had criminal backgrounds. If guns are so useless for defense then why do police and military use them? Don’t worry, I’ll wait. See the myriad of resources that we have provided here. The only purpose of a weapon is to end a life. Period.Wrong. Remember, there are 300,000,000 guns, and 300,000,000 people in the U.S. Why is the murder rate falling if firearms can only be used to kill?Moreover, they aren’t a human right.These’s something very wrong with that statement. If guns aren’t a human right, then why is okay for government (ran by people in case you didn’t know) to possess guns, nukes, tanks, etc.? Philosophical consistency isn’t your strong suite I guess. No, the US Constitution is not an authoritative document on human rights. I don’t deny that the Constitution as a legal document protects gun toters and their ilk, but it was written by slave owners. There’s going to be some shit in there that’s flat out wrong. Now, I certainly support the repeal of the second amendment - or its graduated irrelevance through the natural breath of the living document - so that the US can actually tackle this problem. I absolutely support the wholesale confiscation and destruction of a device that has absolutely no purpose in a civilian’s hands. There is simply no good reason to have one, and the ownership of one is an inherently irresponsible activity.Allow me to put things into perspective for you. You’re saying that because gun violence is wrong, you’re willing to ignite a war to confiscate them? Do you also fight infections by sharing needles?There’s one thing that I’m going to share with you that not a lot of people such as yourself are aware of. There’s gun control in Afghanistan. That’s right, every household is allowed one AK for defense. So you honestly believe it’s plausible to confiscate weapons from 300,000,000 Americans? Despite the fact that Afghanistan has hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to enforce gun control over the past 13 years to no avail? Good luck with that argument. If that day ever comes, I hope you’re in charge of logistics. I won’t be worried. That’s one life saved every 16 minutes, not that the toters care.-EliNow I don’t mean to come of as arguing from authority, and I’m by no means an expert. But my dealings with local peoples of different countries is just a little bit more extensive than yours. -Sgt USMCAnd sorry about the noise, it’s just your argument crumbling. -- source link

More pics about