Originally Posted By ecdc Sigh. Donny, I defend you as not being a troll and then you post something like this. Be provocative. That's cool. But don't be so stupid about it. And no, beer is not more dangerous.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder AR-15s are more dangerous than Donny, and that's saying something.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 One is tempted to say that Adam Lanza did not riddle 20 6-year-old bodies with gaping holes and literally shoot the faces off some of them using Bud Light. But the real answer is that we're in complete apple and orange territory here, which even half of those 6-year-olds would probably recognize. If they were still alive.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>ecdc,what facts do you have to defend your point ?<< Well as Dabob2 points out, we're discussing apples and oranges. But you made the assertion, donny. Feel free to back it up. What is your justification for claiming beer is so dangerous? Can you, for example, demonstrate that most deaths from DUI come due to beer and not hard liquor? Do you have stats to support how many AR-15s are used on a daily basis vs the number of deaths that occur from them? And do you have stats from beer use and how many deaths occur from that so that you can compare the numbers (which even then is problematic)? You made an assertion that AR-15s are less dangerous than beer. Let's hear why.
Originally Posted By ecdc Another question, Donny. What's YOUR plan to reduce the 30,000 gun deaths in the United States? Or do you see this as an acceptable statistic in exchange for the current culture we have now?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If I use beer the way that it is designed to be used, I get a buzz. If I use an AR-15 the way it was designed to be used, I kill a maximum number of people in a short period of time. Beer is dangerous because it is misused. AR-15s are dangerous because they are used as they were designed to be used.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Let's assume for the moment that beer IS more dangerous than AR-15's. What of it? Many more children die in automobile accidents than from suicide. Because of this, should we not make any efforts to reduce the suicide rate in children? Many more children die of ingested poison in the home than from contaminated school lunches. Should we not make efforts to keep food-borne pathogens out of school lunches? I know that we should not FTT. But, this thread points out a larger issue: this is the level of logic that is used in some quarters not just to argue on message boards, but to set policy and influence the public at large. This technique is used constantly by Drudge Report for example, with the express intent of swaying opinion. And it's very effective with some if not rebutted.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I've never seen a gun advocate affirm that 30,000 people a year die from gun violence in the US. They always parse the data down to irrelevant particulars. The data I see cited shows that assault weapons only account for about 5% of incidents involving gun violence every year. But they never point out that they account for only 1% of all of the guns in the US. So this particular style of weapon is 5 times more likely to be involved in gun violence than any other type.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Next time someone says I'm wrong about Donny being a troll, I'm linking to this thread. It's one of many.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <AR-15s are dangerous because they are used as they were designed to be used.> That's because it's a gun. When used appropriately, nobody gets hurt but the bad guys.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No one uses an AR-15 for defense. I would maybe buy that argument for hand guns, but not for semi-automatic rifles. They have only two uses... sport shooting and committing mass violence.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <---blows the whistle and throws the yellow flag Blowing wind up the discussion, #14 UtahJosh, 15 yard penalty, still 1st down.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <a href="http://i.imgur.com/o92sl.gif" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/o92sl.gif</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Given the level of illogical dribble coming from certain posters in this thread, I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that the idiot shopping at the JCPenney in Utah with the AR-15 was a Mormon. And the two posters in this thread illogically defending semi-automatic weaponry? Yup. Mormons. What is it about guns that make Mormons go all orgasmic?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>nobody gets hurt but the bad guys.<< Bad guys. Such a childish, ridiculous term.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When used appropriately, nobody gets hurt but the bad guys.<< When used appropriately, it's very rarely appropriate to use.
