Gun Control

[I_jerk_off_alot]

You're fucking joking right? First while accidents do happen with guns the numbers you listed and I didn't bother adding to because it didn't change my point were from murders those were all intentional. Cars are rarely used as weapons, and the numbers you cited were from accidents which I honestly didn't even think to correct because it didn't matter. No amount of practice saves you from a drunk driver or some fool running a red. It's like hitting the lottery. The sheer number of drivers and amount of time spent behind the wheel should have far more than barely double the number of gun deaths. Sorry but your argument falls apart in the face of common sense.

No, I am not joking. Seriously, no matter what you do in life you are going to have a small percentage of it causing death and or injury. EVEN DOING NOTHING will cause death. A sedentary lifestyle causes death. Running for fitness causes death in a tiny minority.

With the millions of gun in circulations, the fact that we have such a low rate of homicides is pretty good. Like I said, it's not even a tenth of one percent of the population.

If you are saying even one is too many, then again you had better strap on your safety helmet before you go outside because there are so many other dangers out there in life that will get you first.

If you believe this then you must admit that the government (society at large) has a responsibility to use the instruments at it's disposal (laws/enforcement) to address these issues.

That means gun control.....




You must have missed it the first time....

You might of missed earlier where I said I have no problem with gun registration or sensible controls, including mental health check and balances.

The biggest gun control though would be setting a standard of teaching person responsibility in schools though.

We've become a nation that is so afraid of offending the minority that we won't take a stance of anything unless it caters to the whiniest.

Start a mentality of 'I can do this and I will stand behind it' and I think a lot of problems will go away quicker than you can blink.

 

[kbate]

I have to say this:

I am not against registration of guns. Hell, I can admit it's a good idea. I even support the new idea where when a new gun is manufactured that test round is fired through it and registered with the FBI so that it's easier to track. That's a great idea.

I even support a mental health notice where guns are taken from the mentally ill when a doctor notifies the state.

The 'test round' fired is an idea which has solved exactly zero cases in places where it has been tried. Same goes for microstamping and other marking methods. It is too easy to spoof the system for these to have any definite crime fighting value.

Registration solves no crimes either. All it is good for is letting the authorities know where to go to look for a secondary person to blame.

Very simply: the only gun control that will work to lower gun crime is a complete ban on the possession of firearms by anyone. <period, full stop.

The only way to do this is to pass the law (amend the constitution), and then begin a house to house search and confiscation program (after a suitable period for voluntary surrender).

The search teams will have to use advanced equipment to scan walls, ground, floors attics and so on. They can be assisted by confiscating the dealer 4473 forms stored at every gun shoppe across the country.

No other form of gun control will have any effect on crimes such as Sandy Hook, or the Journalist shooting.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, I am not joking. Seriously, no matter what you do in life you are going to have a small percentage of it causing death and or injury. EVEN DOING NOTHING will cause death. A sedentary lifestyle causes death. Running for fitness causes death in a tiny minority.

-snip-​

Wow, you really are too stupid for words. Can you tell me how you got this way? I mean your not even sticking to your point you're just kinda bouncing all over the place to keep being wrong in your assertions when you could easily have stayed put and been more or less correct. You should probably go see a professional about that.

 

[eyer]

...pass the law (amend the constitution).

Hardly the same at all...

...as all laws are totally subservient to constitutional Amendments (Congress shall make no law...).

Laws can be offered, passed, and enacted sometimes within days...

...the Amendment process of offering, passing, sending to the States, and ratification can take years - or never (see ERA, eg).

And Amendments, as was the spirit of the Constitution itself...

...were specifically devised to define government roles by purposely limiting government powers - not citizens' (...the right of the people shall not be infringed...)

The blase care evident by equating law with Amendment...

...most definitely has contributed to the tyrannical reversal in practice of the Constitution's main intent so widely evident in the power structure of the USSA today.

You are absolutely correct that amending Amendment II is the only constitutional way to affect what so many emotionally keep clamoring for...

...but the illegitimate attitude and ignorantly casual acceptance that laws are as Amendments is exactly why the 2nd's "infringement" command has already almost been raped out of its specifically intended effect.

And it is reverence for the 2nd's precise intention to ultimately limit the power of government by the peoples' hand...

...that will ignite uncivil war in the USSA if it is either assaulted too much more, or any Amendment is seriously offered to repeal it.

 

[phrodeau]

The 'test round' fired is an idea which has solved exactly zero cases in places where it has been tried. Same goes for microstamping and other marking methods. It is too easy to spoof the system for these to have any definite crime fighting value.

Registration solves no crimes either. All it is good for is letting the authorities know where to go to look for a secondary person to blame.

Very simply: the only gun control that will work to lower gun crime is a complete ban on the possession of firearms by anyone. <period, full stop.

The only way to do this is to pass the law (amend the constitution), and then begin a house to house search and confiscation program (after a suitable period for voluntary surrender).

The search teams will have to use advanced equipment to scan walls, ground, floors attics and so on. They can be assisted by confiscating the dealer 4473 forms stored at every gun shoppe across the country.

No other form of gun control will have any effect on crimes such as Sandy Hook, or the Journalist shooting.

Yeah, because that's exactly what they had to do in Europe and Australia, right?

 

[Sean Renaud]

While Congress shouldn't pass Unconstitutional laws it's clear that in practice it's not actually Unconstitutional until and unless the the Supreme Court deems it as such. Until that happens they are free to do as they please.

 

[kbate]

Hardly the same at all...

...as all laws are totally subservient to constitutional Amendments (Congress shall make no law...).

Laws can be offered, passed, and enacted sometimes within days...

...the Amendment process of offering, passing, sending to the States, and ratification can take years - or never (see ERA, eg).

And Amendments, as was the spirit of the Constitution itself...

...were specifically devised to define government roles by purposely limiting government powers - not citizens' (...the right of the people shall not be infringed...)

The blase care evident by equating law with Amendment...

...most definitely has contributed to the tyrannical reversal in practice of the Constitution's main intent so widely evident in the power structure of the USSA today.

You are absolutely correct that amending Amendment II is the only constitutional way to affect what so many emotionally keep clamoring for...

...but the illegitimate attitude and ignorantly casual acceptance that laws are as Amendments is exactly why the 2nd's "infringement" command has already almost been raped out of its specifically intended effect.

And it is reverence for the 2nd's precise intention to ultimately limit the power of government by the peoples' hand...

...that will ignite uncivil war in the USSA if it is either assaulted too much more, or any Amendment is seriously offered to repeal it.

You are an idiot. The Constitution is "The Law" which is why I put that into my post. It required no further explanation. I made no comment about the feasibility of doing so or whether I think it should be done.

I simply said that was the only way that gun crime would ever be eliminated (or mostly so).

 

[kbate]

Yeah, because that's exactly what they had to do in Europe and Australia, right?

Australia did confiscate hundreds of thousands of firearms. In case you didn't notice.

How many nations in Europe allow general firearm ownership? How many ever did? How many wrote general arms ownership into their national constitutions? How restricted is the privilege in Australia?

Did their laws eliminate crime?

What other nations do, is irrelevant to the discussion of how you could do it here.

We are not Europe or Australia, or Japan, or anywhere but the USA.

Try again.

 

[eyer]

You are an idiot. The Constitution is "The Law" which is why I put that into my post.

You didn't "put" "The Law" "into" your "post"...

...I understand you're butthurt - but why you gotta lie?

The fox outsmart you again this weekend, wannabe?

 

[BotanyBoy]

You didn't "put" "The Law" "into" your "post"...

...I understand you're butthurt - but why you gotta lie?

The fox outsmart you again this weekend, wannabe?

You don't English very guud do you?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Proper gun control is 50% stance and 50% breathing.

Any other discussion about as useful as debating what if politicians where not corrupt shit bags....

 

[Sean Renaud]

At least you're learning to tell jokes.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Wow, you really are too stupid for words. Can you tell me how you got this way? I mean your not even sticking to your point you're just kinda bouncing all over the place to keep being wrong in your assertions when you could easily have stayed put and been more or less correct. You should probably go see a professional about that.

Sean, I don't know how you think I am bouncing around. I've had the same point the ENTIRE debate. Gun violence compared to guns in circulations is absurdly low. The percentage is tiny. The comparisons I made and you rejected are completely valid. Vehicle deaths have a higher percentage. If you get rid of guns people will move to knives, bats or hell, Sarin Gas.

You need to solve the people problem not the gun problem.

The kind of thinking you present is the same thinking that makes that little girl in the news not allowed to have a Wonder Woman lunch box because Wonder Woman represents violence. Ban anything that might scare me. I hope your not scared of Clown because I like going to the circus and I'd hate to see that banned too.

Learn to take responsibility for your own actions and expect others to do so too.

The 'test round' fired is an idea which has solved exactly zero cases in places where it has been tried. Same goes for microstamping and other marking methods. It is too easy to spoof the system for these to have any definite crime fighting value.

Registration solves no crimes either. All it is good for is letting the authorities know where to go to look for a secondary person to blame.

Very simply: the only gun control that will work to lower gun crime is a complete ban on the possession of firearms by anyone. <period, full stop.

The only way to do this is to pass the law (amend the constitution), and then begin a house to house search and confiscation program (after a suitable period for voluntary surrender).

The search teams will have to use advanced equipment to scan walls, ground, floors attics and so on. They can be assisted by confiscating the dealer 4473 forms stored at every gun shoppe across the country.

No other form of gun control will have any effect on crimes such as Sandy Hook, or the Journalist shooting.

Registration solves crimes all the time. The police know someone has a certain gun and they can either rule them in or out as a suspect.

Amending the constitution would not work. It would require a vote and it would not pass.

As for search teams. Don't make me laugh. It would take a hundred years at least to search every house in the US looking for guns and you wouldn't even find a tenth of them.

I know several Police Officers and most of them are more pro-gun than I am and own a hell of a lot more guns than I do too.

 

[Disgustipated]

You don't English very guud do you?

Proper gun control is 50% stance and 50% breathing.

Any other discussion about as useful as debating what if politicians where not corrupt shit bags....

It's fucking contagious.

 

[phrodeau]

Australia did confiscate hundreds of thousands of firearms. In case you didn't notice.

How many nations in Europe allow general firearm ownership? How many ever did? How many wrote general arms ownership into their national constitutions? How restricted is the privilege in Australia?

Did their laws eliminate crime?

What other nations do, is irrelevant to the discussion of how you could do it here.

We are not Europe or Australia, or Japan, or anywhere but the USA.

Try again.

I know, the USA is the baddest ass country, with the baddest ass military, the baddest ass nuclear program and the baddest ass gun-toting populace on the planet.

Maybe the USA can grow up soon.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean, I don't know how you think I am bouncing around. I've had the same point the ENTIRE debate. Gun violence compared to guns in circulations is absurdly low. The percentage is tiny. The comparisons I made and you rejected are completely valid. Vehicle deaths have a higher percentage. If you get rid of guns people will move to knives, bats or hell, Sarin Gas.

Except they have a lower percentage. A much lower percentage. You're just lying now and they are invalid comparisons by any measure. The fact that you apparently don't understand how math and probability and percentages play out isn't my fault. Even by the facts that you brought the percentage for guns is much higher.

You need to solve the people problem not the gun problem.

A large part of the people problem is they have access to deadly weapons with relative ease.

The kind of thinking you present is the same thinking that makes that little girl in the news not allowed to have a Wonder Woman lunch box because Wonder Woman represents violence. Ban anything that might scare me. I hope your not scared of Clown because I like going to the circus and I'd hate to see that banned too.

Again, the numbers are very important. I'm curious where this girl was that banned Wonder Woman lunch boxes. My radar tells me that's not even close to the entire story if it's in any way accurate.

Learn to take responsibility for your own actions and expect others to do so too.

I do take responsibility for my actions. Every single gun shot victim in this nation's blood is on my hands because I don't vote to ban guns or even really push the issue other than to point out that stupid arguments are stupid.

Registration solves crimes all the time. The police know someone has a certain gun and they can either rule them in or out as a suspect.

Amending the constitution would not work. It would require a vote and it would not pass.

As for search teams. Don't make me laugh. It would take a hundred years at least to search every house in the US looking for guns and you wouldn't even find a tenth of them.

I know several Police Officers and most of them are more pro-gun than I am and own a hell of a lot more guns than I do too.

There is no need to search every house looking for guns. Just confiscate them as they show up and make sure that anybody caught with a gun is nailed to the wall so fucking hard that anybody who sees them won't take the risk. Sure some people won't give a fuck no matter what and there is nothing to be done about them. I promise you though that if being caught in possession of a firearm carries a 25 to life sentence that people will think three, four, five, seven thousand nine hundred thirty eight times before stepping off their front porch with a firearm.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Australia did confiscate hundreds of thousands of firearms. In case you didn't notice.

How many nations in Europe allow general firearm ownership? How many ever did? How many wrote general arms ownership into their national constitutions? How restricted is the privilege in Australia?

Did their laws eliminate crime?

What other nations do, is irrelevant to the discussion of how you could do it here.

We are not Europe or Australia, or Japan, or anywhere but the USA.

Try again.

Unfortunately that's not quite true. What other nations do is relevant since the supreme court long ago abandoned the constitution as their measuring stick when deciding cases.

 

[snugglestruggle]

I know, the USA is the baddest ass country, with the baddest ass military, the baddest ass nuclear program and the baddest ass gun-toting populace on the planet.

Maybe the USA can grow up soon.

Rhode Island all by itself, could kick the shit out of the shire and don't you forget it!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Unfortunately that's not quite true. What other nations do is relevant since the supreme court long ago abandoned the constitution as their measuring stick when deciding cases.

Isn't that a nice bit of histrionic bull pucky. The reality is that SCOTUS overall does a good job of using the Constitution when it applies the reality is it doesn't apply to everything and certainly not in the ways we like.

The rest of the world is of course relevant either way in many cases. You can't say that something is utterly impossible when it's working in at least one country certainly not when it's working reasonable well in multiple.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Except they have a lower percentage. A much lower percentage. You're just lying now and they are invalid comparisons by any measure. The fact that you apparently don't understand how math and probability and percentages play out isn't my fault. Even by the facts that you brought the percentage for guns is much higher.

A large part of the people problem is they have access to deadly weapons with relative ease.


Again, the numbers are very important. I'm curious where this girl was that banned Wonder Woman lunch boxes. My radar tells me that's not even close to the entire story if it's in any way accurate.


I do take responsibility for my actions. Every single gun shot victim in this nation's blood is on my hands because I don't vote to ban guns or even really push the issue other than to point out that stupid arguments are stupid.


There is no need to search every house looking for guns. Just confiscate them as they show up and make sure that anybody caught with a gun is nailed to the wall so fucking hard that anybody who sees them won't take the risk. Sure some people won't give a fuck no matter what and there is nothing to be done about them. I promise you though that if being caught in possession of a firearm carries a 25 to life sentence that people will think three, four, five, seven thousand nine hundred thirty eight times before stepping off their front porch with a firearm.

First, I posted the number for Cars and Drunk Driver, The percentages of death from cars is much higher that gun ownership. Those numbers don't lie. I posted the links to the sources.

As for access to deadly weapons? Again, absent guns, I've shown people will move to another weapon and have.

That little girl with the lunch box. Nope, that was the WHOLE story. Check out this link. These people think just like you.

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/school-reportedly-bans-girls-woman-lunchbox/story?id=33382842

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/...ns-little-girls-violent-wonder-woman-lunchbox

http://www.inquisitr.com/2380966/su...ed-by-school-wonder-woman-deemed-too-violent/


The blood of murder victims is not on your or my hands, it's on the murders.


An lastly, if you think that you could get every gun owner who doesn't turn n their guns jail time of even a year you are fooling yourself. Prisons would be even more crowed than they are now. Ridiculously crowded and this country would grind to a halt because responsible, 2nd amendment believing gun owners own a lot of businesses and create a lot of jobs and if they go away, there goes our economy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First, I posted the number for Cars and Drunk Driver, The percentages of death from cars is much higher that gun ownership. Those numbers don't lie. I posted the links to the sources.

As for access to deadly weapons? Again, absent guns, I've shown people will move to another weapon and have.

That little girl with the lunch box. Nope, that was the WHOLE story. Check out this link. These people think just like you.

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/school-reportedly-bans-girls-woman-lunchbox/story?id=33382842

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/...ns-little-girls-violent-wonder-woman-lunchbox

http://www.inquisitr.com/2380966/su...ed-by-school-wonder-woman-deemed-too-violent/


The blood of murder victims is not on your or my hands, it's on the murders.


An lastly, if you think that you could get every gun owner who doesn't turn n their guns jail time of even a year you are fooling yourself. Prisons would be even more crowed than they are now. Ridiculously crowded and this country would grind to a halt because responsible, 2nd amendment believing gun owners own a lot of businesses and create a lot of jobs and if they go away, there goes our economy.

You're really this fucking stupid aren't you. No the percentage of gun owners who harm people vs the percentage of car owners especially if you factor in frequency of use is much much higher.

According to your stats less than half of Missouri residents own firearms. (Probably much less since while your stat says individual ownership a quick glance at national numbers suggests that they really mean household ownership. My room mate lives in a household with a gun. He does not own a gun.

There are 830 cars per 1000 people in Missouri. Which again remembering that children count towards your population it's safe to say that virtually 100% of adults in Missouri own a gun. We'll say 75% just to be nice. They have an unemployment rate of around 5%. Which assuming they don't all work at home means most of them drive at least 10 times a week. (to work and from work). That's assumign they have no social lives and don't shop. They are in and around cars multiple times every day. The same cannot be said about guns.

Seriously go back to grade school

No, you have not shown they will move on to other weapons, you've assumed they would and asked me to accept your assumption despite data from around the world showing that when it's more difficult to kill people less people try and less people who do succeed.

Interesting school. I disagree with their judgement it's kind of absurd. It's also their right at the end of the day but I'm not a fan of it.

Most Americans are less evil and less stupid than you are pretending that they are as far as putting them in jail en masse. And grind to a halt? Even in your scenarior the smart and good americans get jobs building and manning prisons but I'm confident it wouldn't come to that. As stupid as Americans are we're not that stupid.

And you can deny that the blood is on our hands but that doesn't change the facts. You are responsible for the environment that you create and contribute to. This is your fault and you've no right to cry about any innocent person who gets shot in this country. Not cops, not blacks, not newscasters, not children, not your familiy and least of all yourself.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

You're really this fucking stupid aren't you. No the percentage of gun owners who harm people vs the percentage of car owners especially if you factor in frequency of use is much much higher.

According to your stats less than half of Missouri residents own firearms. (Probably much less since while your stat says individual ownership a quick glance at national numbers suggests that they really mean household ownership. My room mate lives in a household with a gun. He does not own a gun.

There are 830 cars per 1000 people in Missouri. Which again remembering that children count towards your population it's safe to say that virtually 100% of adults in Missouri own a gun. We'll say 75% just to be nice. They have an unemployment rate of around 5%. Which assuming they don't all work at home means most of them drive at least 10 times a week. (to work and from work). That's assumign they have no social lives and don't shop. They are in and around cars multiple times every day. The same cannot be said about guns.

Seriously go back to grade school

No, you have not shown they will move on to other weapons, you've assumed they would and asked me to accept your assumption despite data from around the world showing that when it's more difficult to kill people less people try and less people who do succeed.

Interesting school. I disagree with their judgement it's kind of absurd. It's also their right at the end of the day but I'm not a fan of it.

Most Americans are less evil and less stupid than you are pretending that they are as far as putting them in jail en masse. And grind to a halt? Even in your scenarior the smart and good americans get jobs building and manning prisons but I'm confident it wouldn't come to that. As stupid as Americans are we're not that stupid.

And you can deny that the blood is on our hands but that doesn't change the facts. You are responsible for the environment that you create and contribute to. This is your fault and you've no right to cry about any innocent person who gets shot in this country. Not cops, not blacks, not newscasters, not children, not your familiy and least of all yourself.

You get awfully angry easily don't you?

First off, I have every right and privilege to complain about someone getting sjot, stabbed or injured in any way. Why? Because I did not harm them. I supported and defend the laws and constitution of this country for years and I still do it today. I volunteer, I give to charity, I don't go around hurting other people because I am too busy working and paying taxes.

As for people not hurting others. Deny the facts I presented alk you want. They are still facts. People without access to guns still kill people everyday. They stab each other, poison each other, use Sarin Gas on each other.

Despite your misguided and wrongheaded ideas that inanimate objects are the source of all evils, the truth remains that they are not. If I took every single gun and put them in a pile. None of them would come to life and hurt anyone. I'll bet you the people who put them there thinking they were safe would still continue to hurt each other.

FIX THE PEOPLE PROBLEM. There is no gun problem just like there is no knife problem.

I don't want end up like that little girl with lunch box, unable to do something because you are too immature to handle it yourself.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Angry, not really, annoyed by the sheer stupidity this world is capable of producint, yes.

No you have no right to complain, you did harm them. You created and supported the environment that made it possible. Defending the laws and Constitution when they are hurting people doesn't make you the good guy and the rest of your points are just fluff.

There are no people without access to guns. Well very few at any rate what you mean is people kill without guns and I didn't deny that. Though treally don't poison each other as I showed you earlier. That people are capable of doing it other ways doesn't change the the facts.

We can look around the planet and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you took away the guns most of the people who use them to kill simply wouldn't kill. You're the one denying facts here.

The people problem is partially that they have access to guns. And fixing people problems is very complicated even if it is possible.

I'm still curious why you can't just come out and say that the number of people who are killed annually with guns is an acceptable price to pay for your freedom. Is it really so hard?

You're already like that little girl with the lunch box unable to do something because I'm too immature to handle it. That's the price you pay for living in society. Don't like it? Buy a goddamn island and live by yourself. Otherwise you are going to be limited in what you can do by my immaturity. And you can bitch and moan all you like but at the end of the day if 51% of the population agrees that keeping me from doing something stupid is more important than you getting to be free then you lose.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Angry, not really, annoyed by the sheer stupidity this world is capable of producint, yes.

No you have no right to complain, you did harm them. You created and supported the environment that made it possible. Defending the laws and Constitution when they are hurting people doesn't make you the good guy and the rest of your points are just fluff.

There are no people without access to guns. Well very few at any rate what you mean is people kill without guns and I didn't deny that. Though treally don't poison each other as I showed you earlier. That people are capable of doing it other ways doesn't change the the facts.

We can look around the planet and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you took away the guns most of the people who use them to kill simply wouldn't kill. You're the one denying facts here.

The people problem is partially that they have access to guns. And fixing people problems is very complicated even if it is possible.

I'm still curious why you can't just come out and say that the number of people who are killed annually with guns is an acceptable price to pay for your freedom. Is it really so hard?

You're already like that little girl with the lunch box unable to do something because I'm too immature to handle it. That's the price you pay for living in society. Don't like it? Buy a goddamn island and live by yourself. Otherwise you are going to be limited in what you can do by my immaturity. And you can bitch and moan all you like but at the end of the day if 51% of the population agrees that keeping me from doing something stupid is more important than you getting to be free then you lose.

Let's look around the world. Japan and China have no guns. The same day as Sandy Hook a man walked into an Elementary school in China and stabbed 20 children.

Japan had the Osaka school massacre, a knife attack where eight children died.

I will admit it when you admit that the people who die every year during the flu season from the flu vaccine is worth the price. In 2012 alone that was 105.

Everything, EVERYTHING, has a price. Medicine, Cars, Peanut Butter, Guns, going to the Burning Man festival have an inherent risk. Either accept it or don't.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First, you are aware of those incidents because of how rare they are. In the US school shootings are so common you can't even name them. But the school in China with 20 stabbings had zero fatalities. So the person tried to murder a lot of people and failed. Which is the point. I'll take your word on the Osaka knife attack with 8 dead. It's still infrequent.

Why would I have to admit that the people who die from the flu vaccine was worth the price? Again you're not even mixing apples and oranges, your mixing apples and volcanoes. They are both on earth and made up of atoms but the similiarities start falling off real quick after that.

So you won't admit that the loss of life is acceptable why? That is literally your entire argument and yet you're too cowardly to claim credit for your work? Why?

I never denied that everything has a price. It's not true but I wouldn't bother arguing it either. Everything has it's own risk both to yourself and those around you. Peanut Butter doesn't have (a realistic) risk for myself or most people for that matter. Since it's you, yes, I could find a bad batch. Or maybe Obama wants to silence me and the Feds mixed it with Cyanide. Or I was mutated by space radiation and now have an allergic reaction despite never having one before. ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN AFTER ALL! But it won't. If I know that so and so has peanut allergies maybe I don't take him to a peanut farm. If for the sake of argument 99% of Americans were fatally allergic to peanuts I wouldn't fight for my right to have peanuts on everything and if I did society would most likely and completely correctly banish me to the middle of Alaska if not farther.
Everything, EVERYTHING, has a price. Medicine, Cars, Peanut Butter, Guns, going to the Burning Man festival have an inherent risk. Either accept it or don't.[/QUOTE]