SinnSisamouth wrote:ironically american gun owners are killing far far more fellow americans than any "islamic mutters" ever will but dont let facts,or common sense, get in the way of your ludicrous rhetoric

Ironicly true lol

cptrelentless wrote:Japan banned handguns and they had five deaths by firearms in 2014. So, if they're 127 million, that means the US, if they banned handguns, would have about 15 firearm deaths per annum. You had a mass killing (4+) every day in the US last year, France and Germany are still miles behind, mere drips in the ocean - the US is in the same league as places like Honduras and Brazil, as somewhere where thousands of people get shot every year. It takes Trump-like leaps of logic to not put those two ideas together.

Also true lol

@Sailorman, you keep saturating threads with bias nonsense, you ask for facts but provide none yourself,
UK Muslim population = 2.7 million
USA Muslim population = 2.75 million

England death toll due to radical Muslims = 53
7/7 bombings in London '05 = 52
Lee Rigby beheaded '13 = 1
(add 31 if you want to add the Lockerbie bombing, but also add 178 to americas tally)

American death toll due to radical Muslims = ?????? CBA to count
PFLP shooting Maryland '73= 1
Another shooting in Maryland '80 = 1
Fuqra killers in Detroit '83 = 3
Assasination in Tucson '90 = 1
Assasination in NYC '90 = 1
Killing in Brooklyn '91 =1
Shooting in Franklin Lakes '92 = 1
2 CIA agents shot dead in Langley = '93 = 3
Truck bomb in NYC '93 = 6
Shooting in NYC '94 = 1
Shooting in NYC '97 = 2
Egyptair plane crash '99 = 217
9/11 total death toll '01 = 2,996
Shooting at LA Airport '02 = 2
Shooting in Seattle '06 = 1
Shooting in Little Rock '09 = 1
Shooting at Foot Hood '09 = 13
Boston Bombings '13 = 3
Watertown killing '13 = 2
Shooting in Skyway '14 = 1
Shooting at Seattle nightclub '14 = 2
Shooting in East Orange '14 = 1
Knife attack in Oklahoma '14 = 1
Axe attack in NYC '14 = 1
Shooting in Chattanooga '15 = 6
Killing in San Bernardino '15 = 14
Orlando gay night club shooting '16 = 49
(some of those figures might include the Muslims if they were killed also i tried to alter some)

i think England are doing just fine...

France & Germany i agree though, are in a world of shit atm, nothing measly gun laws/amendments has anything to do with though, an untrained civilian with a handgun isnt going to cope well with a trained Muslim Jihadi with an AK47 or a nailbomb....

Cars cause more deaths than Islamists, and banning cars would certainly reduce car related deaths, but both thoughts would seem to miss the point.

LTO wrote:Cars cause more deaths than Islamists, and banning cars would certainly reduce car related deaths, but both thoughts would seem to miss the point.

just think if cars were only just invented now, would they be allowed/passed?
driving around in a machine full of litres of flamable liquid
reminds me of this by Frank J. Flemming

Imagine if cars hadn’t been around for a century, but instead were just invented today. Is there any way they’d be approved for individual use? It’s an era of bans on incandescent bulbs; if you suggested putting millions of internal-combustion engines out there, you’d get looks like you were Hitler proposing the Final Solution.
Even aside from pollution, the government wouldn’t allow the risks to safety.

“So you’re proposing that people speed around in tons of metal? You must mean only really smart, well-trained people?”

“No. Everyone. Even stupid people.”

“Won’t millions be killed?”

“Oh, no. Not that many. Just a little more than 40,000 a year.”

“And injuries?”

“Oh . . . millions.”

There’s no way that would get approved today.

Driving is basically a grandfathered freedom from back when people cared less about pollution and danger and valued progress and liberty over safety.

Jamie_Lambo wrote:

LTO wrote:Cars cause more deaths than Islamists, and banning cars would certainly reduce car related deaths, but both thoughts would seem to miss the point.

just think if cars were only just invented now, would they be allowed/passed?
driving around in a machine full of litres of flamable liquid
reminds me of this by Frank J. Flemming

Imagine if cars hadn’t been around for a century, but instead were just invented today. Is there any way they’d be approved for individual use? It’s an era of bans on incandescent bulbs; if you suggested putting millions of internal-combustion engines out there, you’d get looks like you were Hitler proposing the Final Solution.
Even aside from pollution, the government wouldn’t allow the risks to safety.

“So you’re proposing that people speed around in tons of metal? You must mean only really smart, well-trained people?”

“No. Everyone. Even stupid people.”

“Won’t millions be killed?”

“Oh, no. Not that many. Just a little more than 40,000 a year.”

“And injuries?”

“Oh . . . millions.”

There’s no way that would get approved today.

Driving is basically a grandfathered freedom from back when people cared less about pollution and danger and valued progress and liberty over safety.

Nice. Reminds me a bit of the retort to those who cite the legality of alcohol as a reason to legalize other recreational drugs - that if alcohol was invented today, it too would be illegal.

Or this conversation from a scifi movie about the not too distant future:

Lenina Huxley: Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat...
John Spartan: Are you shitting me?
Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
John Spartan: What the hell is that?
Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Lenina Huxley: Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence...

LTO wrote:

Jamie_Lambo wrote:

LTO wrote:Cars cause more deaths than Islamists, and banning cars would certainly reduce car related deaths, but both thoughts would seem to miss the point.

just think if cars were only just invented now, would they be allowed/passed?
driving around in a machine full of litres of flamable liquid
reminds me of this by Frank J. Flemming

Imagine if cars hadn’t been around for a century, but instead were just invented today. Is there any way they’d be approved for individual use? It’s an era of bans on incandescent bulbs; if you suggested putting millions of internal-combustion engines out there, you’d get looks like you were Hitler proposing the Final Solution.
Even aside from pollution, the government wouldn’t allow the risks to safety.

“So you’re proposing that people speed around in tons of metal? You must mean only really smart, well-trained people?”

“No. Everyone. Even stupid people.”

“Won’t millions be killed?”

“Oh, no. Not that many. Just a little more than 40,000 a year.”

“And injuries?”

“Oh . . . millions.”

There’s no way that would get approved today.

Driving is basically a grandfathered freedom from back when people cared less about pollution and danger and valued progress and liberty over safety.

Nice. Reminds me a bit of the retort to those who cite the legality of alcohol as a reason to legalize other recreational drugs - that if alcohol was invented today, it too would be illegal.

Or this conversation from a scifi movie about the not too distant future:

Lenina Huxley: Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat...
John Spartan: Are you shitting me?
Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
John Spartan: What the hell is that?
Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Lenina Huxley: Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence...

Demolition Man

Deleting my posts that answer flames against me by name is in my opinion one sided. Kind of like the news coverage of the Hildabeast by CNN (Clinton News Network.) You deleted my answer post, what about deleting posts with my name on them? Fair is fair, but obviously not here.

Get the hook!!

^^^ There have been no posts deleted for several days. The posts that were deleted were spammers promoting their spam websites.
None of your posts have been deleted.

Interesting, I posted an answer to Jamie and it got "lost." Kind of like the tens of thousands of emails of Hillary(The Hildabeast) Clinton. Maybe it will show up on wikileaks.