| |
| | Post 31 |
| Optio | Neither has anyone else, all it has been is personal opinions. |
| |
| | Post 32 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | You're only fooling one person, and it ain't me. You still haven't answered as to whether you still support the abolition of all recreational use of motor vehicles because of the high road death rate. For someone who says he is so worried about needless deaths, you seem to be very one eyed.
__________________ "Those with ulterior motives may tell you what you wish to hear, but a real friend tells you what you need to know" http://www.geocities.com/senojekips/Index.htm Last edited by senojekips; February 26th, 2007 at 11:06. Reason: Last line added |
| |
| | Post 33 |
| Optio | What recreation? Are you talking about racing or saying driving to the movies is recreational? |
| |
| | Post 34 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Well, all of the above are certainly recreational use of a motor vehicle. I was actually thinking more of the regular use of your motor vehicle to go to the pub or pick up a video anything that is not absolutely "Necessary". Because it was you, who advocated that that we gun collectors and hunters should be willing to give up our pastime because it was only a "want" rather than a "need", just like you "want" to go to the pub in your vehicle or to see your mates, this is not a "need". Therefore it is just recreational use, there is certainly no legislated requirement for you to do it. For someone who is so worried about needless deaths, surely you would be willing to walk a couple of miles to the video store or your mates place. No doubt the exercise would be good for you and improve your life expectancy, further saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. I just love you "I'm alright Jack" types. You want your pleasures in life, but don't give a flying f*ck for anyone else. Hardly a sound base for your argument. All of this has been stated quite clearly by me before, and is now starting to come around for the second time. Last edited by senojekips; February 26th, 2007 at 15:26. |
| |
| | Post 35 | |
| 100% Space Shuttle Door Gunner | Quote:
if I have family come over I put it in the safest place in the house. MY HIP. I have my little cousins or niece come over all the time. They play video games on my TVs and surf the internet on my PCs. They know I have guns and they know not to touch them. But just in case I lock my gun safes and if it's a long gun that I have loaded I unload it and switch to a sidearm and keep it on me. By doing so it is not lying around, it is in my sight 100% of the time. But once again, my views with public transportation is the same as yours with firearms. Disarming the civilian populace will not stop criminals from getting firearms. Yet cars kill more people every year than firearms.
__________________ ![]() | |
| |
| | Post 36 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Righto you blokes! Just what the hell have you done with Wallabies? |
| |
| | Post 37 |
| Optio | Been a bit busy at work.So if the crime rate in the US drops you will support gun control? Because there goes your main reason for having firearms. |
| |
| | Post 38 |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Has the speed limit really reduced speeding? If anything it has increased speeding... Making more laws does not stop anything it only increases illegal activity....
__________________ |
| |
| | Post 39 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Donkey has a very valid point. If you care to go back through all of my posts I have never used the crime rate as a reason for owning firearms. Plus, I don't think that it will ever happen anyway. I have no doubt that even the most avid anti crime gun owner gets more pleasure out of owning and firing beautifully made firearms than he does from knowing he is prepared for any criminal eventuality. Pride in ownership is a subjective thing like a bloke who spends a large amount of money to buy a "Fat Bob" Harley. It's twenty years old and he rarely ever actually rides it, but it still gives him a great amount of pleasure just to own it. Why? because he just always wanted one. You still haven't answered the question about banning the recreational use of motor vehicles to lower the death toll either, bearing in mind that it will probably save somewhere in the order of 10 - 100 times as many people as banning assault weapons etc. Last edited by senojekips; March 1st, 2007 at 21:06. Reason: added last paragraph |
| |
| | Post 40 | |
| U of B and B Alumnus | Quote:
I believe it has already been shown statistically in the past that when Gun Control is implemented in the United States that the Crime Rate goes up, not down, as criminals know that the people are not allowed to legally own or legally carry Firearms.
__________________ | |
| |