None of the bills that were voted down had anything to do with what you just said. But hey, you scored a political point on an internet message board. Good job.
In what way, because statistically, your predictions are extremely poor. Or instead of that nonsense, we work harder on stopping, you know, the things that kill the majority of people. Instead of focusing on the things that you and your like consider evil and scary.
You would think by now, people like Casey H would have realized that the tactic of taking something that is far more innocuous than firearms and not nearly as inherently dangerous, especially on a per-use/per-exposure basis, like cars or swimming pools or cigarettes, that is conversely,subject to a far stricter legal & regulatory regime than firearms - is probably not the best argument for the pathetic state of firearm regulation in this country. Or maybe not.
He scored nothing. The government is doing a horrible job on regulating safety, notably on the public roads. Why is it so easy to get a DL in this country? 5-10% of the drivers out there, shouldn't be driving. Insurance companies know this and kill them on premiums. It is time our government stepped up like they have on DWI's, and perhaps even more.
Again, your argument is people die more because they are exposed more, yet you want to decrease the exposure on firearms. Cigs and swimming pools are far less restricted than guns, to argue otherwise is foolish. A CHL requires retesting and classroom work every 4-5 years. A drivers license requires one multiple choice test once a lifetime.
Expectation of a child's accidental death. You dispute his expectation is poor based on known causes of death? LOL
guns don't exist for killing children, but they can, just like a swimming pool You're the one using anecdotal evidence to improperly estimate risk. Poisoning, motor vehicles, falling, drowning, suffocation, fire, all more likely to cause accidental death than guns. Guns protect far more children than they harm.
This isn't remotely true - but I've proposed this many times - you want the "less restricted" treatment of cigarettes to apply t? You can have it. Let's treat the public health disaster that is guns the same way we treat cigarettes. - punitive excise taxes, a massive public-private campaign demonizing/marginalizing users, intense municipial regulation against usage, stigmatization among youth, FDA campaigns - you get the whole enchilada. What say you? Would you prefer this legal & regulatory regime? Or is there another dumb parallel you want to put in there? Cars? Fine let's have licensing, tests, exams, insurance. etc. Notwithstanding of course that this is all based on the idiotic premise that if you repair our ****-awful system of firearm regulation, you are faced with the INESCAPABLE BINARY TRUTH that you are somehow compelled to reduce auto accidents or drownings or heart disease, or else you are ILLOGICAL! Honestly there are so many levels of stupid in these arguments I don't really know where to begin sometimes. That's a great statistical breakdown from a self-declared scientific meth-head, Casey. Disappointing even by your obtuse standards.
Done. 1934 tax of 200 per firearm. hasn't worked for cigarettes. Despite major leaps in the fight against the diseases they cause, and massive increase in medical care costs because of them, they are still killing us in the millions. I didn't start the dumb parallels, major did. Look up the cdc numbers for yourself and dispute my claim. Meanwhile, keep losing, losing, losing in your predictions and wants for the demonetization of guns. Your are in the vast minority and your extremist views on the subject marginalize you, while hurting your parties other, more important, initiatives (that I actually agree with).
Guns exist for killing and injuring, whether it be kids or anyone else. Therefore, it's not surprising when they kill and injure. I'm not estimating risk. I'm looking at deaths that can be fairly easily prevented. Taking guns out of the hands of 5 years olds seems to be easier than eliminating fire or preventing people from falling.
Dead. Wrong. Now I'm bracing myself for the classic Casey H Scientific debate counter point - find/misread/fabricate one contrary data point or sub-data point. and CLING TO THAT MOTHER-UCKER LIKE LUKE SKYWALKER ON THE WEATHERVANE IN CLOUD CITY!
I'll just simply ask, what did I say was wrong. Every fews years it kills well over a million. We have made massive leaps in treating cancer, it is costing us trillions in health care treatments. If you want to say it HAS worked, that's your opinion. And I disagree.
The campaign has worked for cigarrettes, which is why you moved the goalposts here: By creatign the implied condition that any regulatory scheme that aims to reduce a public health hazard of smoking "hasn't worked" despite being dramatically successful in reducing cigarette smoking, because it hasn't been 100% successful. This is stupid, wrong, lazy, dumb and deliberate on your part, for obvious reasons. There is no Lando coming to save you casey, I suggest you let go of the weather vane and dirft off through the clouds.
You guys are debating a lost cause. With the ever growing 3D printers, and thousands upon thousands of people printing their own AR-15's and ammo. Gun Control is a lost cause. The American citizens have won, and without a single vote. You can ban guns all you want, but I can walk down the road, and get a friend to build me my 3rd AR-15 for less than $100 of materials. The stars at night - are big and bright Deep in the heart of TEXAS!!!
The cigarette industry has fought back by making the product more deadly and addictive. The smoker they have are more addicted and attracted earlier. How about proof of health insurance before buying them, show your ID, limit them to a pack, a "cooling off period". You know, government regulations everyone wants (or has) for firearms.
