The stupidest comparison to guns.

I agree with you, it's as valid as comparing people to hitler.

Crazy on the right called obama hitler before,
Crazy on the left call trump hitler now.

People love to argue, most of them just suck at it.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Music has taken many lives too via proxies-lets ban music!

Now if you'll excuse me i''m gonna listen to Hollywood nights By Bob Seger and chill because i'm sick of the gun debate.

A rifle for hunting, a pistol for protection, that's all you need-i'm tired of sounding like a broken record so I'll listen to Bob Seger and not let the paranoid preppers get to me.

Then replace car with knife.

The numbers of mass attacks using knives is rising world wide. But I guess since knives can be used for non-violent purposes according to your own arguments, that doesn't count.

Where do you think the knife attacks are highest? Countries where guns are banned or are heavily controlled. Ban guns and people will just pick up another weapon: Be it knife, car, club, or even bombs.

Society is the issue, not the object used. You think bullied teenagers will magically stop going after their tormentors if gun control is increased further or guns are banned? No. We'll just have kids making improvised bombs like the kids that hit Columbine. Or they'll take some wicked knives to school. If you don't fix what is wrong with this society, nothing at all will change.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

While many of the comparisons may not be the greatest, one thing that most people who complain about the comparisons, like you're doing here, forget to think about is this reality: In nearly every comparison made, one thing that can kill you is a constitutional right to own, the other is not.

Yes, the gun, and ownership thereof, is a constitutionally protected right (with some exceptions); owning and driving cars are privileges.

So, basically, after reading through your posts, here's what we can learn about you on this topic:

- You like cars, even though they kill people with intent or not, because the government regulates the f**k out of their ownership and operation; HOORAY BIG GOVERNMENT!!!

- You are scared of guns and dislike them because the government doesn't regulate them nearly as much (there's a reason for that, as noted above) and because a shooter is harder to see, as is the bullet

- It is painfully obvious that you're not interested in absolute facts and details, as is evidenced by many of your unsubstantiated claims, both on the side of listing things about cars and about guns

- You obviously purposefully ignore the real reason as to why most people purchase guns--long guns or pistols--and want to conflate all reasons into the tired claim of 'you just want to destroy things'

- You ignore the real reasons why people commit murder and mass murder (both instances have laws against them, btw)

- You outright lie about how guns rarely save lives, even without taking them--that is flat-out bulls**t, and proof that you are ignorant on the topic as a whole and, coupled with many other things that you say, ignore reality and prefer talking points instead

- You are terribly ignorant as to how state laws differ in America as how it treats firearms in hotels--some allow it and call it an extension of one's home, others allow the hotel to ban firearms (like Mandalay Bay, for instance)

- Your claim that "guns have always been designed for malicious intent" is a flat-out lie, unless you just don't know the definition of "malicious"...or the root word, "malice."

- The fact that you're not here to reply or rant shows that you don't care how ignorant and false your perception of firearm ownership in America really is

It's obvious that you're happy to bitch and moan based on a massive lack of credibility--well, have at it, and don't respond if you don't want to. But being happy in your ignorance and stupidity on the topic at hand does not negate nor reverse the fact that you are being ignorant and stupid with your comments.

I could have nitpicked everything nearly line-by-line, but there's no reason--you're not interested in a discussion, just a rant based on ignorance.

Actually, I want my ten minutes back that I spent reading and responding to this pile of bile.

ETA: Your typos are the least of the mistakes in those three comments; you should apologize for the rest of it.

I agree, it's a false equivalence. Cars are built specifically for the purpose of transport, and occasionally are misused, causing death. Guns are built specifically for the purpose of killing, and are usually used correctly, causing death.



I rather like the argument "maybe we should rename "school" to "uterus", then maybe conservatives would care about children dying in them..

a reply to: notsure1

Pssst.... C'mere.
I have a secret to tell you...

"ATS lives and the world lives not knowing we're just PeePoo."
We're Doomed To Pee Each Other Off And Poo All Over Each Other's Dreams And Hopes..."
"When We Are All Extinct Then Will Our Hopes And Dreams Come To Fruition"....

ATSians are merely complaining about Peepoo.
Whadya expect.... ?????????? Go figure....

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: rickymouse

It doesn't matter what a person uses as a weapon to kill someone. We must address the issue, why are these mass killing events increasing in our country? How do we fix our society?

You must admit at some point, on some level, the gun culture in America is a part of the problem though right or are you going to blame everything else other than the weapon used.

We have always had guns. These mass shootings did not happen as many times before. In fact, less people own guns now as a percentage than they did twenty years ago. The young were not so enthused at going to school and killing others back then I suppose.

I do think that these military style weapons may be stimulating some of the loose cannons to do some mass shootings though, we do not need these highly impressive guns. I actually looked up the percentages of households having guns over the last thirty years and the percentage is lower but the people who own guns actually bought more of them so the number of guns out there has still increased overall.

When I was young, gun safety and responsibility were taught to the kids by the parents. Most of the boys in school had a pocket knife in their pockets, but nobody ever pulled out a knife in a fight. many Girls carried around some sort of big needle in their purses and those were intimidating, they could hurt someone with those, I do not know what those things were for, something to do with hair I think.

If I ever even accidently pointed my gun at someone while hunting, I was gunless the next time we went out. I was using a twenty two rifle to hunt before I was ten, my cousins were just using a bb gun. I had a bb gun too, a high powered one that I worked on to make it accurate. I was taught not to shoot at people. Maybe that is the problem. We even got chewed out for shooting dart guns at other kids, now they do that all the time, the kids are supposed to wear safety goggles.

Multiple things in our society are wrong. Kids were bullied in school years ago, yet none came back with a gun.

originally posted by: TheBigJ
I agree, it's a false equivalence. Cars are built specifically for the purpose of transport, and occasionally are misused, causing death. Guns are built specifically for the purpose of killing, and are usually used correctly, causing death.



I rather like the argument "maybe we should rename "school" to "uterus", then maybe conservatives would care about children dying in them..

I know quite a few people who go out to the range and shoot targets and enter contests. Those guns are made for target shooting. They do not even hunt, some never did. It is a sport, they shoot skeet and targets. I am a hunter, I have killed many birds, rabbits, and some deer in my lifetime. I have never even thought of killing a person, I would not want to be a soldier either or a cop. I don't kill much anymore, unless a raccoon gets troublesome or if a bear threatens our safety.

Guns are designed to shoot bullets nowadays, not to kill things.

a reply to: intrepid

perhaps that's just about what the outline of burglars looks like in a darkened environment? they have ones that look like osama binladen zombies and random animals . not every one that owns a gun owns one to hunt and keep guns to defend themselves so why wouldnt they train for shooting at representations of what threats could look like? shop.actiontarget.com... examples of scenario targets mostly used by law enforcement ,shows targets ranging from a variety of races armed with a variety of weapons(from common to where the hell did they get a rocket launcher lol) some even holding hostages and a few ones of dogs and armed teens

zombieindustries.com... zombie ones

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

End of the day comparing cars to guns is just #ing stupid.

Almost as stupid as comparing a responsible gun owner to an emotionally disturbed teenager on anti-psychotic medication.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheBigJ
I agree, it's a false equivalence. Cars are built specifically for the purpose of transport, and occasionally are misused, causing death. Guns are built specifically for the purpose of killing, and are usually used correctly, causing death.



I rather like the argument "maybe we should rename "school" to "uterus", then maybe conservatives would care about children dying in them..

I know quite a few people who go out to the range and shoot targets and enter contests. Those guns are made for target shooting. They do not even hunt, some never did. It is a sport, they shoot skeet and targets. I am a hunter, I have killed many birds, rabbits, and some deer in my lifetime. I have never even thought of killing a person, I would not want to be a soldier either or a cop. I don't kill much anymore, unless a raccoon gets troublesome or if a bear threatens our safety.

Guns are designed to shoot bullets nowadays, not to kill things.

That's funny I never read the bit about "right to own sporting equipment as part of a well-regulated sports club" in the constitution..

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

End of the day comparing cars to guns is just #ing stupid.

Almost as stupid as comparing a responsible gun owner to an emotionally disturbed teenager on anti-psychotic medication.

Not nearly as stupid as conflating people who shoot other people with emotionally disturbed teenagers taking medication.

This story might interest you:

This last Tuesday a mentally-ill 44-year-old man went to a school wielding two knives. Obviously posing a threat, the students used their backpacks to scare off the attacker. The man, after being barraged by a volley of backpacks filled with heavy science books, promptly walked away from the school.

I think it’s pretty obvious that fending off an attacker with Scholastic backpacks is only possible in this surreal country. With no ridiculously easy access to guns, the attacker had no option but to attack using knives. And although objectively scary, it’s easier (and apparently possible) to stop this sort of attacks with something as mundane as backpacks.

-dutchreview.com...

originally posted by: TheBigJoriginally posted by: rickymouse

That's funny I never read the bit about "right to own sporting equipment as part of a well-regulated sports club" in the constitution..

I'm unconvinced that you've read the constitution, let alone all of the legal rulings that absolutely establish the individual's right to own firearms, without need to explain why they want one, nor the writings of the Founding Fathers concerning the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

And stop being intentionally obtuse--you know that Rickymouse was responding to your stereotypical claim that all guns are designed for killing people. Not all are, and if you have an ounce of intellectual integrity, you should already know this.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: TheBigJoriginally posted by: rickymouse

That's funny I never read the bit about "right to own sporting equipment as part of a well-regulated sports club" in the constitution..

I'm unconvinced that you've read the constitution, let alone all of the legal rulings that absolutely establish the individual's right to own firearms, without need to explain why they want one, nor the writings of the Founding Fathers concerning the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I'm unconvinced you have, to be perfectly honest. Or if you have, you didn't understand them.

And stop being intentionally obtuse--you know that Rickymouse was responding to your stereotypical claim that all guns are designed for killing people. Not all are, and if you have an ounce of intellectual integrity, you should already know this.

I simply said guns were designed for killing. Rickymouse agreed with me, even speaking from his experience of killing with guns. I fail to see what's obtuse about that?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

When you see shooting targets like:

...you have to wonder. And that's the legal owners.

Cops use those targets.
I suppose they should be allowed to, since they are the only people that are annointed with the right to defend themselves from bad guys....

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Hey, thats a great rant. Here is why it is completely pointless:

1) Cars make commuting easier. Using the excuse that 99.999999%of people who buy them intend to use them for that purpose is the same as saying earning money is more important than the lives that will be lost.

2) Cars are not guaranteed in the Constitution. No one said you have a right to an easy commute or shopping convenience.

3) When people use the lame, "If it saves one life - its worth it" argument regarding gun control you can expect the car analogy to follow close behind. After all, if it saves one life its worth it, right?

originally posted by: TheBigJ

This story might interest you:

This last Tuesday a mentally-ill 44-year-old man went to a school wielding two knives. Obviously posing a threat, the students used their backpacks to scare off the attacker. The man, after being barraged by a volley of backpacks filled with heavy science books, promptly walked away from the school.

I think it’s pretty obvious that fending off an attacker with Scholastic backpacks is only possible in this surreal country. With no ridiculously easy access to guns, the attacker had no option but to attack using knives. And although objectively scary, it’s easier (and apparently possible) to stop this sort of attacks with something as mundane as backpacks.

-dutchreview.com...

Now that is interesting! If we ban guns, then police will only need to carry around a sack of books to defend themselves. There's a lot of advantages to that:

They'll have something to read on stakeouts or sitting in speed traps.

No one will get shot for loosing a fatal game of Simon Says or for having a cell phone in their back pocket.

Taxpayers won't have to shell out fortunes over wrongful death lawsuits.

Of course there are some disadvantages. The price of books would skyrocket. Especially large hard-bounds. The last thing we need are more expensive college textbooks. And with the price of dictionaries beyond the budget of most people, they might try to defend themselves from knife attacks with Kindles.

But who knows? Maybe some people will accidentally read some history books that tell them the courageous stories of people who died so that future generations would have the rights that they gave up out of fear.

originally posted by: TheBigJ

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

End of the day comparing cars to guns is just #ing stupid.

Almost as stupid as comparing a responsible gun owner to an emotionally disturbed teenager on anti-psychotic medication.

Not nearly as stupid as conflating people who shoot other people with emotionally disturbed teenagers taking medication.

This story might interest you:

This last Tuesday a mentally-ill 44-year-old man went to a school wielding two knives. Obviously posing a threat, the students used their backpacks to scare off the attacker. The man, after being barraged by a volley of backpacks filled with heavy science books, promptly walked away from the school.

I think it’s pretty obvious that fending off an attacker with Scholastic backpacks is only possible in this surreal country. With no ridiculously easy access to guns, the attacker had no option but to attack using knives. And although objectively scary, it’s easier (and apparently possible) to stop this sort of attacks with something as mundane as backpacks.

-dutchreview.com...

Well there you go, I'm sure those backpacks would have been just as effective against the same man wielding an AR15.....

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TheBigJ

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

End of the day comparing cars to guns is just #ing stupid.

Almost as stupid as comparing a responsible gun owner to an emotionally disturbed teenager on anti-psychotic medication.

Not nearly as stupid as conflating people who shoot other people with emotionally disturbed teenagers taking medication.

This story might interest you:

This last Tuesday a mentally-ill 44-year-old man went to a school wielding two knives. Obviously posing a threat, the students used their backpacks to scare off the attacker. The man, after being barraged by a volley of backpacks filled with heavy science books, promptly walked away from the school.

I think it’s pretty obvious that fending off an attacker with Scholastic backpacks is only possible in this surreal country. With no ridiculously easy access to guns, the attacker had no option but to attack using knives. And although objectively scary, it’s easier (and apparently possible) to stop this sort of attacks with something as mundane as backpacks.

-dutchreview.com...

Well there you go, I'm sure those backpacks would have been just as effective against the same man wielding an AR15.....

Congratulations, you have missed the point.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: TheBigJ

This story might interest you:

This last Tuesday a mentally-ill 44-year-old man went to a school wielding two knives. Obviously posing a threat, the students used their backpacks to scare off the attacker. The man, after being barraged by a volley of backpacks filled with heavy science books, promptly walked away from the school.

I think it’s pretty obvious that fending off an attacker with Scholastic backpacks is only possible in this surreal country. With no ridiculously easy access to guns, the attacker had no option but to attack using knives. And although objectively scary, it’s easier (and apparently possible) to stop this sort of attacks with something as mundane as backpacks.

-dutchreview.com...

Now that is interesting! If we ban guns, then police will only need to carry around a sack of books to defend themselves. There's a lot of advantages to that:

They'll have something to read on stakeouts or sitting in speed traps.

No one will get shot for loosing a fatal game of Simon Says or for having a cell phone in their back pocket.

Taxpayers won't have to shell out fortunes over wrongful death lawsuits.

I think the biggest advantage would be no more murdered children in schools every year.

Of course there are some disadvantages. The price of books would skyrocket. Especially large hard-bounds. The last thing we need are more expensive college textbooks. And with the price of dictionaries beyond the budget of most people, they might try to defend themselves from knife attacks with Kindles.

I rather think the money saved above could be used to offset the price of books.

But who knows? Maybe some people will accidentally read some history books that tell them the courageous stories of people who died so that future generations would have the rights that they gave up out of fear.

Who knows? Maybe some people would read some history books that will explain to them how none of the courageous people who died to bring them freedom from Britain intended for them to own their own private assault weapons. Apparently children's lives today are less important than those of people who've been dead for two centuries.

It's actually unlikely they'll read anything, they currently wont even read the newspaper that tells them heartbreaking stories of children constantly dying so that they can keep their right. Let alone the worldwide research into gun violence and law that indisputably demonstrates that less guns + better control = less rampant death. I suspect most people in the US have forgotten how to read entirely; most don't even understand their own constitution.

In my country owning guns is a basic right. Thanks to proper gun control laws, we don't have a gun problem. Funny how that works.