DiscussMormonism.com

The real question the media keeps avoiding is how many lives do guns save? I'd wager it's far more than guns take.

And how many babies are slaughtered in abortion clinics? Why do liberals fight so hard to preserve that condition? Don't liberals use the argument "It's unfortunate but choice has to be preserved"?

The real question the media keeps avoiding is how many lives do guns save? I'd wager it's far more than guns take.

What a dumb wager. You guys have to scrub the web for unverified "stories" of people saving others with guns. These are rare given the number of people killed, either intentionally or unintentionally with guns. I'd bet that the number of unintentional gun-related deaths far outnumber the instances where someone is saved with a gun.

bcspace wrote:The real question the media keeps avoiding is how many lives do guns save? I'd wager it's far more than guns take.

That's an interesting question, bc. Except, I still contend that the issue at heart isn't one of practise but of culture.

When I was young, my dad taught me about gun safety. Part of the ritual of maturation in the rural part of Utah where I grew up included learning to respect and properly use a gun. One milestone was getting the "blue card", or going through hunter's safety.

A gun was to be respected and used in a very disciplined and controlled way. Personally, I have no issue with that type of gun use and would oppose government infringement on this right.

But.

We neven owned a hand gun though I understand why some people do. There was no rational for having one in our home. Guns were kept in gun safes and ammunition was not stored where the guns were kept and certainly not in the gun itself. I was taught that to shoot something was to have to eat it (a lesson brought home after I shot a bird with a bb gun...) and never to point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot.

While in the military, we kept our weapons in an armory if in garrison and closely guarded when otherwise. Every soldier is trained to have weapon awareness. When taken from the armory, the weapon was accounted for, including serial number and with signature. As a leader, a person had responsiblity for one's own weapon as well as those who served under one's command. To lose a weapon would be unthinkably horrible and would result in serious UCMJ action.

Gun control is not the black-and-white issue you seem to make it out to be. Not to me, anyway.

And how many babies are slaughtered in abortion clinics? Why do liberals fight so hard to preserve that condition? Don't liberals use the argument "It's unfortunate but choice has to be preserved"?

I think the argument is actually, "At what point does a fetus become a baby?" Choice is part of it, but not the only part.

Like Republicans give a damn about abortions. We saw how they responded to Sandra Fluke. The one measure that is proven to drastically reduce abortions, and they're opposed to it. Because a taxpayer's rights to not support contraception is more important than a woman's right to keep the government from regulating her uterus. Besides, the vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester, when the fetus can hardly be said to be in any sense, a "baby." This is a religious position, not one based on science or common sense.

The real question the media keeps avoiding is how many lives do guns save? I'd wager it's far more than guns take.

What a dumb wager. You guys have to scrub the web for unverified "stories" of people saving others with guns. These are rare given the number of people killed, either intentionally or unintentionally with guns. I'd bet that the number of unintentional gun-related deaths far outnumber the instances where someone is saved with a gun.

So now you're making the same type of wager you accuse me of making?


Deals on by the way.

And how many babies are slaughtered in abortion clinics? Why do liberals fight so hard to preserve that condition? Don't liberals use the argument "It's unfortunate but choice has to be preserved"?

I think the argument is actually, "At what point does a fetus become a baby?" Choice is part of it, but not the only part.

At what point can someone kill in self defense or defend against a tyrannical government? I think Liberals just lost this debate due to hypocrisy.

bcspace wrote:And how many babies are slaughtered in abortion clinics? Why do liberals fight so hard to preserve that condition? Don't liberals use the argument "It's unfortunate but choice has to be preserved"?

I think the argument is actually, "At what point does a fetus become a baby?" Choice is part of it, but not the only part.

At what point can someone kill in self defense or defend against a tyrannical government? I think Liberals just lost this debate due to hypocrisy.

Because this doesn't swing the opposite way, right?

In other news, there have been more American's killed by someone using a gun since Sandy Hook than died on 9/11 or US military deaths in Afghanistan. We're fast approaching the number of military dead in the Iraq War. Considering that the two wars were, well, decade-long wars...

Updated Visual Aid

False argument as usual with liberals.....

In almost EVERY case of "gun control", while "gun death" certainly went down, ACTUAL DEATH DID NOT!!!!

If the liberal concern is to reduce "death" or "murder", then gun control is a big LIE.
Further, liberal stats also ignore:

A. the MILLIONS who have died in just the last 100 years DUE to "gun control". People disarmed, evil people kill them. That's not to mention all of history of "weapons control".

B. the 100,000's saved or crimes STOPPED because someone had a gun.

C. the HUGE jump in violent crimes, rape, robbery, etc., innocent lives MORE shattered BECAUSE OF "gun control".

D. and likely more facts I'm forgetting at the moment, or other things already mentioned such as there being no change in actual "death" or "murder", not to mention that liberals completely ignore the stats for "other" activities for which there is high death rates, MUCH HIGHER than gun deaths, yet it's okay, just because. Or the fact liberals ignore that these stats simply indicate gun death, not realizing that they also include instances of self defense.

While it's respectable at a "child" level to want to reduce people getting killed, all these other facts completely show that liberals simply do not think, they are emotion based. All the BENEFITS to having gun freedom FAR OUT-WEIGHT the deaths by gun for whatever reason, that banning them would solve.