Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

At least 18 children and 9 others dead in Connecticut school shooting. Does this change your mind ab Options · View
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:19:59 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,270
Location: West Coast
foxjack wrote:


The same day all these people died, some guy was over in China stabbing 23 people in a school. The only true way to solve this issue is to find these people before they have a chance to commit these crimes.



The difference is that there were no fatalities in the stabbing spree.
Psycho with a knife vs. psycho with a gun. There's a big difference when it comes to probable survival.


foxjack
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:26:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


The difference is that there were no fatalities in the stabbing spree.
Psycho with a knife vs. psycho with a gun. There's a big difference when it comes to probable survival.

Still, it looks like in both cases they were equally powerless to stop the person threatening them.

I'm sure if he had the time to stab 20 separate people he easily could have focused his efforts on killing a few less.

In either case it’s not the tools fault that people are killed, it’s the messed up fuck that uses them.

Now if they had trained security guards on the grounds both of these cases would have turned out a lot better.
angieseroticpen
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:27:44 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 770
Location: United Kingdom
seanabumble wrote:
A few kids are a price worth paying so you can pose in front of the mirror with a lethal weapon apparently.


Think you have hit the nail on the head there. It's a bit like those old Marlboro cigarette ads. That poser looked so manly with his lighted cigarette in hand and the fools that followed ended up with all sorts of cancers (as well as poisoning others!). Here we have the NRA lobby posers in fantasy land, the bigger the gun the tougher they look. I just wonder when, like Marlboro, someone will take court action against the gun manufacturers for loss of life or disability created by their product. Far fetched idea? That's what the tobacco manufacturers thought all those years ago.

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 6:17:55 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,270
Location: West Coast
foxjack wrote:

Still, it looks like in both cases they were equally powerless to stop the person threatening them.

I'm sure if he had the time to stab 20 separate people he easily could have focused his efforts on killing a few less.

In either case it’s not the tools fault that people are killed, it’s the messed up fuck that uses them.

Now if they had trained security guards on the grounds both of these cases would have turned out a lot better.


The gun laws are also very different in both places, which is the point I'm trying to make (about survival probability). You have to control what you can control. To me, that means the available weapon the person is reaching for. In China, gun laws are extremely strict, so he grabbed a knife. Yes, he stabbed a lot of people in that timeframe, but 100% of them survived. If that same guy had access to a firearm you can bet there would be some fatalities even if he was tackled by a security guard early on.

I just think arming a society and then arming security guards everywhere to deal with that society doesn't make logical sense. Personally, I wouldn't want to see guys with guns manning schools, malls, doctor's offices, restaurants, bars and children's playgrounds.

Sure, there are people out there that if they are well connected with the right channels can obtain a gun illegally. This still requires enough effort that not everyone is going to be successful with procuring them. The type of person that typically goes on these rampage killing sprees are often very young (ie. teens) or mentally ill, or both. They are typically reaching for the guns their parents or family own because that's all that's accessible to them. Other times, it's a crime of passion (ie. the guy just lost his job, his wife cheated etc) and in a fit of rage, he grabs his own gun and acts before he can think logically. It's the path of least resistance. They're going for whatever is there, in their house, at the moment or whatever they can easily walk into a store and buy outright.

By the same token it's like saying, well they should legalize all drugs since people can still buy them illegally if they want to anyway. The reason drugs aren't legalized is because the law acts as a 'limiting factor'. Society is trying to limit how accessible they are to the masses, and especially vulnerable groups like teens, the mentally ill and those that might never have to risk addiction because they simply don't have access to certain connections and channels required to obtain them.




echopomp
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:02:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190

Now if they had trained security guards on the grounds both of these cases would have turned out a lot better.

what planet are you living on?

lets have more people with guns. that will make the problem better! have you heard of the cold war?

the whole point is that easy access to guns makes this type of thing easy to accomplish. Yes the people who perform these horrific acts are mad, but allowing them access to guns just gives them the tools for the job.

sorry but the explosives argument is insane.

yes there are mad people in the world, yes they do horrible things, but if you can make the world safer by removing the main tool that is used to kill people then clearly it is the right thing to do.

i am begining to think that people who are pro-gun are posting stuff to annoy other people, because I honestly can't believe anyone is stupid enough to say the things that they are saying.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:02:33 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,270
Location: West Coast
Oh look, here's another one.




Brave parents sending their kids to school these days.


LadyX
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:19:39 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I was out of town (and still am) when I heard the news. There's been criticism here in the tank about jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle with opinions, etc. I think the discussion is healthy for the most part. I was shaking my head when I saw an NRA spokesperson on TV, already playing zone defense politics an hour after the fact, perhaps even as a few clung to their last breaths. Maybe some would say that people here are guilty of the same reactionary speech, from either side, but we're just goofballs on the internet. We don't shape policy or disseminate information professionally. It's important to express ourselves and share, just as co-workers or neighbors might.

I also think the gun-nut label gets thrown out there too quickly at times, myself included, but I wonder if some of you know how you sound when this stuff gets discussed. Any discussion of gun control as a general subject immediately conjures creepy diatribes about government goons in "jack boots" (learned a new term, at least), and comparisons between guns and cars, leading to breathless "well should we just ban cars too??" rhetoric, and then the stat wars get launched, where two sides lob opposing sets of 'facts' at each other. I'm at the point now, that when numbers get posted, I check out completely. Big numbers designed to sway arguments do me, and us, no good. Garbage in, garbage out.

Personally, I don't think taking away everyone's guns is a practical option, or perhaps even a good idea. I do think widespread availability of so-called "assault weapons" is kind of insane, conceptually. Why is this necessary? Is it all about the 2nd Amendment? The right to bear arms? Is there no limit to this in anyone's mind? Should we as individual citizens, ever vigilant against an oppressive gubmint, have a right to possess SCUD missiles, too? How about weapons grade plutonium?

The Second Amendment guarantees those rights in a well-regulated militia. If memory serves, that's the wording. If we can concede that the definition of "militia" is taken rather liberally by gun-ownership proponents, can we be met halfway and begin to look at the specifics of legal gun ownership with less of a hard grumpy-bastard Heston-esque "cold, dead hands" approach?

Sadly, I think the answer is "no". Any discussion of lives lost- specifically within the question "how many lost lives is the refusal to have this discussion worth?"- is the automatic cue to get immersed in stats about how many lives are saved. It's just like every other political subject; we all talk past each other, not to each other. Fear and political tribalism continue to trump big-picture reassessments, and we're all guilty of it.



principessa
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:37:18 AM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,305
Location: Canada
There was apparently a spike in gun sales over the weekend, just in case there is regulation in the future. Many of these guns are purchased at gun shows, where no background checks are done. Surely even those of you who do not want regulation would agree that this loophole should be closed.

Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:38:04 AM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,413
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
Just a question here, don't get me wrong there are some very valid points in this thread but are we now not...



The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

ByronLord
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:39:11 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
LadyX wrote:
I was out of town (and still am) when I heard the news. There's been criticism here in the tank about jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle with opinions, etc. I think the discussion is healthy for the most part. I was shaking my head when I saw an NRA spokesperson on TV, already playing zone defense politics an hour after the fact, perhaps even as a few clung to their last breaths. Maybe some would say that people here are guilty of the same reactionary speech, from either side, but we're just goofballs on the internet. We don't shape policy or disseminate information professionally.


I do.

LadyX wrote:

I also think the gun-nut label gets thrown out their too quickly at times, myself included, but I wonder if some of you know how you sound when this stuff gets discussed. Any discussion of gun control as a general subject immediately conjures creepy diatribes about government goons in "jack boots" (learned a new term, at least), and comparisons between guns and cars, leading to breathless "well should we just ban cars too??" rhetoric, and then the stat wars get launched, where two sides lob opposing sets of 'facts' at each other. I'm at the point now, that when numbers get posted, I check out completely. Big numbers designed to sway arguments do me, and us, no good. Garbage in, garbage out.


The problem that led to the Newtown massacre is not the guns or the gun owners or even the gun owners with guns. It is the gun nuts with guns. And when they start spouting off about black helicopters and government jackbooted thugs it is time to point out that they are complete whack jobs and that their views are completely crazy and fact-free.

Not everyone who owns a gun is a gun nut. But it is the gun nuts who are the problem here. Having a gun in the house is far more likely to result in you or a member of your family being killed with a gun than not having a gun. But people don't react rationally to risks, that is a well known fact.

But there is illogic and there is gun-wankery. And when people are buying more automatic weapons than the Baader Meinhof gang had guns that is gun-wankery. It has nothing to do with recreation or hunting and everything to do with compensating for having a dick thats three sizes too small.

I think that the debate is actually going to converge on the following understanding:

1) Accepting restrictions on gun ownership is not the start of a slippery slope to a complete ban, it is the only way that a complete ban can be avoided. If the NRA keeps resisting every gun control measure out of hand they are going to push gun control advocates to the point where the only way gun control is going to happen is when the massacres become so common that gun control is irresistible and then there will be no need to moderate our demands.

2) The gun nut culture has to end. Military styled weapons have no place in hunting animals, the only purpose is to hunt people. Nobody uses an UZI or an AK47 in self defense.

3) The assault weapons ban will be reinstated

4) The gun show loophole will be closed

5) There will be a national system of gun registration

These measures are not going to happen overnight but they are going to become the consensus position very quickly. The debate proposition has flipped completely.

In any political debate you have certain positions that are considered to be essential. Until recently it was considered unthinkable that there would be any measure that might conceivably threaten the 'right' of people to own weapons for hunting. Right now the unthinkable position is that these massacres in our schools will continue and more kids are going to be killed.


principessa
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:42:58 AM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,305
Location: Canada
Dudealicious wrote:
Just a question here, don't get me wrong there are some very valid points in this thread but are we now not...



Dude, with respect, this is an important enough topic for there to be a full discussion. The event that opened the discussion deserves our attention.

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:56:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I understand the need to focus on guns, I really do. But the deeper issue needs to be WHY are these guys doing this. Ok, this guy used a semi-automatic "assault" rifle. So fucking what. Would we feel better or safer if he'd used multiple handguns with 10 round clips? Or a wide spray shotgun? Ok, maybe the Bushmaster allowed him to kill more people more quickly, maybe. Would it really have mattered in a small room with a bunch of kids sitting like lame ducks with no escape and he used couple standard issue Glock 9mm? That would have been just as deadly. Or a shotgun with 8-12 shells. The style of weapon is irrelevant to me. Ban "assault rifles" if you think that will help, but it's not like there isn't a plethora of other multi-round guns that are equally as deadly. Especially at close range when used in a crowd.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:04:56 AM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,413
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
principessa wrote:


Dude, with respect, this is an important enough topic for there to be a full discussion. The event that opened the discussion deserves our attention.


While I agree of the fact that this is an important enough topic for a full discussion. What I do not agree with is the absurd comparisons that are being used to compare death and guns to. If I read about cars killing more people than guns one more time, I will end up pulling all of my hair out.

Is this a problem? Fuck yes it is! There is absolutely no reason as to why a weapon like this should be sold to civilians period.



Reuters wrote:
Some facts about Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapons:

* An automatic version of the weapon is used by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and some police forces in the United States. The M-16 is the rifle version of the military weapon, and the M-4 is the carbine, a weapon with a shorter barrel
* The weapon is highly modular, meaning a user can change the barrel, the stock, the magazine and other features, easily changing a weapon's characteristics such as weight, capacity, range and accuracy.
* Capacity: 30 rounds in a standard military magazine.
* Suggested retail price of the Bushmaster .223 caliber M4 carbine: $1,197 to $1,391.
* National retailers selling assault weapons include: Wal-Mart Stores Inc, where it is for sale in a small percentage of stores; Dick's Sporting Goods Inc, and Cabela's Inc.
* Connecticut law: The state requires rifles and shotguns to be registered but requires no permit to purchase them, according to the National Rifle Association's Institute of Legislative Action.


There are some fundamental flaws when you consider how easy it is to arm oneself with a weapon like this....isn't there?

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

tazznjazz
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:45:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
When an event like this occurs passions run high and fingers get pointed, but I think everyone agrees this was a senseless tragedy and instead of defending this or that position, gun sportsmen should lead the way in solving these issues before this kind of thing happens again by coming up with reasonable curbs and limits to assault weapons, because if a horrible incident like this is repeated they run a high risk of losing any and all firearm freedoms.

Should the parents against gun violence band together and become a dues paying lobby group they will be such a powerful voice that they'd make the NRA seem like a local bowling league.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:51:44 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:
I understand the need to focus on guns, I really do. But the deeper issue needs to be WHY are these guys doing this.


I don't think there are any simple answers. Proliferation of guns aren't the entire problem. If they were, Canada would have a similar gun-related fatalities per capita number to the US. But we're in willful group denial if we don't accept that gun violence would be less prevalent if less guns were available.

We're a fearful, violent, culture. Movies, and media, and video games aren't to blame for anything, but there's no denying that their cumulative effect on society is a numbing, detached, desensitized attitude toward violence.

This clip comes to mind, from a movie that many dismiss out of hand for the propaganda that it is. But nevertheless, the interview in this clip is on topic and very intelligent. I believe every word he says here.



Fear. Consumption. Numbness. Neglect. Aside from the proliferation and widespread availability of deadly weapons, I'd say those four headings contain the DNA for our murderous monster of a culture.
foxjack
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:06:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
In all honesty all states should require background checks, the only reason why I can imagine some don't is possibly because of the possibility of discrimination? The state I live in has had that as a requirement since god knows when, and no one is bitching about it; losing gun rights if you do a crime is pretty much just a known conscience of doing the crime in the first place. States that don't do background checks are just asking for it.

And I most people are against the assault rifle ban not because they are worried about losing assault rifles, more of "What guns will get banned after the assault rifles." And possibly people that already own them might be a little pissed about said ban, because you know if the government was left to the task of collecting them they wouldn’t pay back a 10th of what the original owner paid.

As for this most recent shooting, the mother was irresponsible and didn't have her guns properly locked up. Hell, I keep the ammo for my gun in the car and my gun under my bed; then again, I only go shooting for sport and to hang out with friends, I’m not too concerned on the home defense side of things.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:08:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Marilyn Manson says that music was his escape, "a record won't yell at you for the way you dress". Who or what was he trying to escape... his classmates in school? All it takes is 1 out of every million school kids to need an escape and instead of music they turn to violence.

I think it's disingenuous to say that media such as music, movies and video games have no effect on how people act or what they do, then in the next sentence talk about the president "has more influence". Very few people actually get to meet the President, they only learn of and are influenced by him via the media. "This" kind of media.. news media offers a "campaign of fear and consumption"... my music doesn't.

I actually think the media plays a huge part in this. Whether they'll admit it or not, the news media is glorifying these murderers. As long as the killers' names are on the front page of every newspaper and magazine and the lead story on umpteen differtn TV stations.. someone who is anti-social and predispositoned to violence is going to view it wrong and seek out their notoriety. MOst people that listen to Manson's music, just enjoy that kind of music. I have no issue with him. I don't think he's the anti-Christ.

Violence on movies, tv, video games may not be the sole cause of this cycle of violence. I don't think it's absurd to think it's a contributing factor. It's worth investigating. I'd be interested to know how kids with mental/anti-social behavior, view and consume and comprehend video games. Not the "normal" gamer, but people already vulnerable to phychosis?

There's a reason video games and movies have ratings. Because youngsters aren't mentally developed enough to intellectualize what they're seeing. If violence in movies and video games didn't matter at all, didn't have an adverse effect on kids/people... then there'd be no reason for a ratings system?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
She
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:12:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,158
Location: Europe
This whole thread is preposterous. I wasn't able to watch news, so I don't have info how did family of those children react and how outrageous they are, specially with people who still defend your obsolete law.

I am not sure if you (the ones who defend 2 amendment) are not realising that not only USA has problem with mental desease, all countries do, but problem with USA is that mentally ill people can get semi automatic gun in their hands and go crazy with it. angry7

I shake my head in disbelief and think to myself, that maybe with that attitude you really need and 'deserve' your 2 amendment.
DanielleX
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:16:47 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 1,883
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
I admit, I haven't read every post on this thread, so I apologise in advance if this opinion has already been aired.

This right to bear arms thing that people are talking about is a bit irrelevant now isn't it? Apparently this dates back to 1791. I can sort of see that in the days of the Wild West it was probably understandable that any Tom Dick or Harry wanted to defend themselves. I'm no historian, but I'm guessing only soldiers and the top nobility from England had guns and somebody said that's not fair.

Barak Obama has come out with all these platitudes but nothing will change. Then it will happen again and again! People in America who want to keep this law need to have a serious word with themselves! I can't imagine any of my family either here or in Europe would even contemplate wanting a gun!

I've tried to hold it in, but softy that I am, I saw all the photos of the little kids on the TV last night after SPOTTY and just burst into tears :(

Danielle

Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:18:16 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
I know I'm late to this discussion, but after I heard the story on the news, I went to my kids, held them close, and spent most of the week being grateful for what I have. This site was the last thing on my mind. But, I want to at least share my opinion.

Before I do though, I want to clarify something.

There is no "gun show loophole". If you buy a gun from a dealer, which make up the vast majority of booths at a gun show, you are still required to fill out a 4473 form, and go through the background check. The only way to not go through the background check at the point of sale when buying from a dealer is to have a concealed weapons permit, which you cannot get without a background check. Any dealer who sells a gun without obtaining and verifying a 4473 will lose their federal firearms license and be facing serious charges.

Anyway, the day after the shooting, my dad lashed out on Facebook, saying that "gun toting conservatives" were responsible for this horrible tragedy, and that it was their fault that we were "a nation of savages." This was my response.



As a "gun toting conservative", I guess I'm being roped into this one.

Truth be told, I personally refused to say anything in the wake of this tragedy, and planned to defriend anybody yesterday who mentioned either side of the issue. We as a nation need to come together under a banner of unity and solidarity, and this endless back and forth vitriol is usless and just.. tiring.

But, you asked, so here goes.

First things first. When talking about this, I refuse to refer to the shooter as a "man". He is not a man. Men have rules of engagement. We "fight someone our own size". This person (even that is stretching it) is a coward. Cowards look for opportunity. They look for somebody who is weaker and defenseless. Cowards are the type of individuals who do horrible shit like this.

This was a school. Schools are one of the very few places where possession of a firearm is 100% banned. You cannot legally carry a firearm into a zone 1000ft surrounding a school. You cannot carry on the sidewalk across the street from a school. You cannot have a gun in your home if you live within that zone. It is the epitome of what people who are against firearms would like the entire US/world to be.

But, this hasn't made them safer, it has made them targets in tragedies like this. I am unable to recall any recent shooting event that was not in a "gun free zone", with the exception of the Tucson shooting. Why? Because these perpetrators are cowards. They know the people inside will be defenseless. Nobody will be able to fight back. The cowards will have complete control and power.

A murderous coward like this isn't going to get his gear together, get himself psyched up, drive to his target, but see the "No Guns Allowed" sign and think "Oh, shucks, well, nevermind I guess." For somebody cowardly and deranged enough to do something like this, a charge of misconduct with a weapon is not an issue. All these gun free zones do is make sure that the law abiding responsible gun owners disarm themselves, and render them unable to protect themselves and their loved ones.

And that brings me to my second point. Last night, I was in tears, crying as I brushed my daughters hair, and helped her brush her teeth. I even took a picture of me brushing her hair, because I never want to forget this one fact: I am a lucky, lucky man.

Last night, the parents of 20 kids were not able to do that. The parents of 20 kids were not able to kiss their children good night. The parents of 20 kids were not able to wake up in the middle of the night, go to their kids rooms, and watch them sleep, just to make sure they were OK.

Forget the 2nd amendment as a stopcheck against a tyrannical government. Forget the 2nd amendment as a protection for hunters. THIS is why I carry.

In my job, I get threatened by these cowards on a regular basis. Myself, and my kids. 8 year ago, my responsibilities changed. My one and only job in this world is to provide for, and protect my kids. Anything and everything else is secondary to that one purpose.

I do not carry a gun because I want to kill somebody. I pray every day, to what's left of the God I believe in, that I never have to. But if one of these cowards threatens my children, I will protect them, by any means necessary. If the coward forces it to escalate to a situation where one of the two of us die in the process, so be it. But I have no intention of it being me, and I train and will do everything in my power to make sure it isn't.

If guns are banned, I'll buy a bigger knife. If knives are banned, I'll be in the front yard gathering rocks. If rocks are banned, I'll be on my patio, sharpening sticks. Since time immemorial, cowards have looked for ways to gain an advantage over others. And as long as I have my children, I will do everything in my power to protect my kids from these cowards, and make sure they can grow up to be anything they want to be. Because yesterday, some coward stopped 20 kids from reaching their potential. 20 kids were taken from this world, before they had a chance to even live. And I will die before I allow that to happen to my kids.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
foxjack
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:20:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
She wrote:
This whole thread is preposterous. I wasn't able to watch news, so I don't have info how did family of those children react and how outrageous they are, specially with people who still defend your obsolete law.

I am not sure if you (the ones who defend 2 amendment) are not realising that not only USA has problem with mental desease, all countries do, but problem with USA is that mentally ill people can get semi automatic gun in their hands and go crazy with it. angry7

I shake my head in disbelief and think to myself, that maybe with that attitude you really need and 'deserve' your 2 amendment.

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009), maybe we should get rid of the 21st Amendment as well; after all, that’s another hobbies people do for nothing more than enjoyment.

Would you be willing to agree with this statement, or are you one of the people that drink and thus are against it?
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:28:34 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
foxjack wrote:

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009)


According to the CDC, second hand smoke kills 4 times more people than firearm related homocides.
She
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:35:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,158
Location: Europe
foxjack wrote:

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009), maybe we should get rid of the 21st Amendment as well; after all, that’s another hobbies people do for nothing more than enjoyment.

Would you be willing to agree with this statement, or are you one of the people that drink and thus are against it?


I don't drink and drive and I love to drink, it is just the way I live, by my standards and my rules when it comes to the point that I can damage my life or any other.

..saying that, I will tell you that you are repeating your self and you don't have good argument there. It's like saying, since I have to take my daily medicine for lymph gland because is out of order, I will use cocaine as well, because my liver is getting damaged anyway.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:14:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
foxjack wrote:

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009), maybe we should get rid of the 21st Amendment as well; after all, that’s another hobbies people do for nothing more than enjoyment.

Would you be willing to agree with this statement, or are you one of the people that drink and thus are against it?


I think this is a more valid comparison than the gun deaths vs. automobile deaths analogy. It's not the car that's dangerous, it's the misuse of a car that is dangerous. Anyone who willingly gets behind the steering wheel while intoxicated is just as able to kill as someone who misuses a gun. Yes, I realize there's a difference in intention but the result is the same. Death.

2010, there were 10228 fatalities as a result of drunk driving. It is estimated that 1/3 of those accidents were committed by a repeat DUI offender.
2010, there were 9369 homicides committed with a firearm.

It may not be popular here, but it is a valid comparison. If our goal is to end unwarranted death to innocent people, alcohol is just as deadly as firearms, if not more so.



The larger issue is where along the line did we lose so much respect for human life and ourselves? All life is precious, it doesn't matter how it's taken or by what means or weapon. If one of my loved ones died, I'd be equally distraught over it having happened via gun or drunk driver. Either way, there is a PERSON to blame. The individual himself is responsible.

edit.... neither is really the problem.... people are the problem





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:25:18 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
Can anyone submit a sane justification why our society needs to allow assault style semi-automatic rifles with large capacity clips in the general population?

Or, semi-automatic handguns with large capacity clips?

And I realize fully well, that my 6 shot revolver and 3 shell pump shotgun are semi-automatic weapons too.

Why are ammunition rounds sold to the GP which can shred kevlar vests? Because deer & bear and moose wear those devices?

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:44:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:55:06 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:07:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
WellMadeMale wrote:
Can anyone submit a sane justification why our society needs to allow assault style semi-automatic rifles with large capacity clips in the general population?

Or, semi-automatic handguns with large capacity clips?

And I realize fully well, that my 6 shot revolver and 3 shell pump shotgun are semi-automatic weapons too.

Why are ammunition rounds sold to the GP which can shred kevlar vests? Because deer & bear and moose wear those devices?


I would guess it's because the criminals can and do wear them too?
CleverFox
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:20:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 480
Location: United States
doctorlove wrote:
We need police in schools just like the banks. Money is insured and can be replaced children can't


That is a really interesting idea DoctorLove. But how are we going to pay for these extra police officers? We don't even pay the teachers what they are worth so were do we get the money for police officers to do nothing but patrol schools all day?

Maybe we could have special security guards that have a minimum of training that are armed with a small side arm and pay them a whole dollar more than minimum wage to patrol the schools? Wouldn't that be great? If a gunman came into the school wearing body armor with a high power semi-automatic assault rifle, why I am sure the guard will put his life on the line and save those children with one well placed shoot right between the gunman's eyes. It would probably be like the old quick-draws you see in the old westerns.

YES! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

(For those of you that are sarcastically impaired, the second and third paragraphs are sarcasm.)
She
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:38:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,158
Location: Europe
lafayettemister wrote:


I think this is a more valid comparison than the gun deaths vs. automobile deaths analogy. It's not the car that's dangerous, it's the misuse of a car that is dangerous. Anyone who willingly gets behind the steering wheel while intoxicated is just as able to kill as someone who misuses a gun. Yes, I realize there's a difference in intention but the result is the same. Death.

2010, there were 10228 fatalities as a result of drunk driving. It is estimated that 1/3 of those accidents were committed by a repeat DUI offender.
2010, there were 9369 homicides committed with a firearm.

It may not be popular here, but it is a valid comparison. If our goal is to end unwarranted death to innocent people, alcohol is just as deadly as firearms, if not more so.



The larger issue is where along the line did we lose so much respect for human life and ourselves? All life is precious, it doesn't matter how it's taken or by what means or weapon. If one of my loved ones died, I'd be equally distraught over it having happened via gun or drunk driver. Either way, there is a PERSON to blame. The individual himself is responsible.

edit.... neither is really the problem.... people are the problem


the difference is in a intend.

rarely drunk people will sit behind the wheels and decide to kill someone else, if you discard hollywood action movies that is. usually they are suicidal, but with firearms, you thought things through, you made a plan, you went into a school and kill children. big difference. and maybe will this sound brutal, but difference is as well how many you can kill before someone will stop you with car or with semi automatic gun.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.