Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

[Pristine20]

-CraZed- said:

Pristine20 said:

-CraZed- said:

badgenome said:
He also killed half of his victims with a knife. Who's up for some knife control?

Me. We also need more automobile control, starting with those evil BMWs,  as he killed at least one of his victims with his Beamer.

You pro-gun folks sometimes make some really ridiculous arguments. A car's purpose is transportation. A gun's purpose is to kill efficiently. Everything cancause death. Now I don't think a gun ban really solves anything but you guys need to stop these useless comparisons. FYI, you won't win a war with the U.S. govt no matter how many guns you stash. Best case scenario is a bloodbath with 10X the casualties on the civillian side.

And yet they happen to kill people at more than twice the rate of the instrument designed to "kill efficiently."   

The comparisons serve to show how laying the blame at the feet of an inanimate object is folly and nonsensical. The point being that if we are really talking about preventing human deaths and the means to do so is to simply ban a thing we should be banning EVERYTHING that causes human deaths starting with the most deadly which at this point is not firearms. But we aren't now are we?

Also, your assertion that you don't win a war with the US govt tell that to the North Koreans and the Vietcong or the Somalians. And the point is so what? Is it just inevitable so we just roll over for a tyrannical government when/if it rears it's ugly head?

There you go again. Most car death's are accidental. Most gun deaths are intentional. There is a difference regardless of what the bodycount is. Even less talked about stuff like prescription drugs probably kill more people but there's a reason we don't talk about them as much and the healthcare professionals involved don't always get prosecuted.

What purpose do guns have other than ending lives? Why were guns invented to begin with? Seriously...I will say it again, I'm also not under some sort of delusion that banning something makes problems go away but your comparisons stay just that: ridiculous.

As for the government, no, you're unlikely to win irregardless of what happened in Vietnam or Somalia contrary to popular belief. U.S. government "lost" those battles because they did not go in to win at all costs. I'm sure you remember what happened to Japan in WWII when they didn't care for the costs. Could've done the same to Vietnam or Somalia.

Best case scenario in a hostile takeover would be to hope the military rebels, if not, hunting rifles won't do diddy squat against heavy machine guns, drones, artillery, planes and possibly even biological, chemical warfare and potential nukes depending on how bad the government want to retaing power. You people with your fantasies forget that the government is armed 10X as much.

Lastly, word of advice, if you ever do decide to use your gun, be 100% sure your life is in danger because you will still have to account for any life you take. Dont pull a "Byron Smith".