I know where you're coming from, Dave. We've had the postpartum drownings up here, too. Everyone should drive a two seater, or no more than a regular cab pickup, though you can toss a lot of kids in the back.
gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
How many deaths are prevented by highway laws and licensing? No one is taking away your guns with common sense gun laws, just like no one takes away your car. The case is illogical, connecting unrelated dots. If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
What are common sense gun laws?
What makes you or anyone think that someone that ignores laws, will somehow magically decide to obey gun control laws?
A good example of what happens when strict gun control laws are imposed are: Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
If a crazy person shot my child in a gun-free zone, I'd question why we have illogical gun-free zones. Which are nothing but a prime target for cowardly lunatics intent on killing people unopposed.
How many deaths are prevented by highway laws and licensing? No one is taking away your guns with common sense gun laws, just like no one takes away your car. The case is illogical, connecting unrelated dots. If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
What are common sense gun laws?
What makes you or anyone think that someone that ignores laws, will somehow magically decide to obey gun control laws?
A good example of what happens when strict gun control laws are imposed are: Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
If a crazy person shot my child in a gun-free zone, I'd question why we have illogical gun-free zones. Which are nothing but a prime target for cowardly lunatics intent on killing people unopposed.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
What are common sense gun laws?
Here are some supported by the vast majority of NRA members
Quote:
Imagine you’re at a gun show, standing in line behind four guys: a recently released felon, a terrorist on the FBI’s terrorism watch list, a man convicted of beating his wife unconscious, and a guy muttering about “hearing voices” who has been legally designated mentally ill.
Right now in many states, all four men could take their pick of sophisticated weapons, plunk down their cash, and stride out the door without looking back.
Would that freak you out? Yeah, me, too. And we’re not alone: Ninety-two percent of Americans, including 85 percent of NRA members, agree that every gun sale should require a universal background check, no matter where you buy it.
It’s a non-partisan thing, so obviously logical that many people think it’s required already. But it’s not: More than 6 million guns were sold last year without any background check at all.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/common_sense_gun_control_even_the_nra_should_back_this/
Quote:
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/
What are common sense gun laws?
Here are some supported by the vast majority of NRA members
Quote:
Imagine you’re at a gun show, standing in line behind four guys: a recently released felon, a terrorist on the FBI’s terrorism watch list, a man convicted of beating his wife unconscious, and a guy muttering about “hearing voices” who has been legally designated mentally ill.
Right now in many states, all four men could take their pick of sophisticated weapons, plunk down their cash, and stride out the door without looking back.
Would that freak you out? Yeah, me, too. And we’re not alone: Ninety-two percent of Americans, including 85 percent of NRA members, agree that every gun sale should require a universal background check, no matter where you buy it.
It’s a non-partisan thing, so obviously logical that many people think it’s required already. But it’s not: More than 6 million guns were sold last year without any background check at all.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/common_sense_gun_control_even_the_nra_should_back_this/
Quote:
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
How many deaths are prevented by highway laws and licensing? No one is taking away your guns with common sense gun laws, just like no one takes away your car. The case is illogical, connecting unrelated dots. If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
If a crazy person purposely used a car to run over someone's child, I wonder if they would then push to have stricter laws about owning cars?
Another little unrelated tid-bit:
"Texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone."
How many deaths are prevented by highway laws and licensing? No one is taking away your guns with common sense gun laws, just like no one takes away your car. The case is illogical, connecting unrelated dots. If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
If a crazy person purposely used a car to run over someone's child, I wonder if they would then push to have stricter laws about owning cars?
Another little unrelated tid-bit:
"Texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone."
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Another little unrelated tid-bit:
"Texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone."
Source?
I don't doubt it's a problem, but this appears to be a difficult number to pin down.
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/1-cause-traffic-fatalities-texting-92121
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/distracted-driving/qanda
Another little unrelated tid-bit:
"Texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone."
Source?
I don't doubt it's a problem, but this appears to be a difficult number to pin down.
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/1-cause-traffic-fatalities-texting-92121
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/distracted-driving/qanda
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Another little unrelated tid-bit:
"Texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone."
Source?
Driving is a dangerous activity these days ... I'd say more than it's ever been in the past due to distracted drivers - which is mainly due to cell phones & texting devices. Last I checked, being focused and attentive to driving is the key to driving.
http://www.funzug.com/index.php/unusual-things/incredibly-bizarre-death-statistics.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distracted-drivers-kill-6000-last-year/
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Another little unrelated tid-bit:
"Texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone."
Source?
Driving is a dangerous activity these days ... I'd say more than it's ever been in the past due to distracted drivers - which is mainly due to cell phones & texting devices. Last I checked, being focused and attentive to driving is the key to driving.
http://www.funzug.com/index.php/unusual-things/incredibly-bizarre-death-statistics.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distracted-drivers-kill-6000-last-year/
dnewton3
Staff member
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
I'm talking about the general one-sided nature of mental positioning for ANY topic as displayed by some folks. The story I linked showed that a person hades-bent on killing was able to do so, despite the regulation and licensing in that industry. The man used his vehicle to kill his family. This happens many times a day all around our nation. Murder happens in every corner of the world. Some use guns; some don't. When there is a will, there is a way. A gun is a tool, just like a multitude of other tools. They will either be used properly or not.
I am not stating that regulation is bad; I think some amount of regulation is a good thing. But over-regulation is bad; it has not shown to be effective. And, when it comes to firearms, more regulation has no effect on the legal folks; the illegal use of firearms is not effected by laws. Making more laws has not stopped murder since the dawn of man. Laws don't stop evil; they only give us a way to deal with evil after it happens.
- It is against the law to shoot another person with a gun, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab another with a knife, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab someone with a screwdriver, but some do it
- It is against the law to strangle someone with bailing wire, but some do it
- It is against the law to bash another person's brains in with a cinder block, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a microwave oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a convection oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to run a daughter with a car in an "honor" killing, but some do it
- It is against the law to hand someone by a noose, but some do it
- It is against the law to set someone ablaze with lighter fluid, but some do it
- It is against the law to poison someone with chemicals, but some do it
- It is against the law to .... , but some do it
Knowing the MO and tools used to kill a person is very important in terms of getting a conviction in a trial; that matters. But the thought that you can eliminate or even alter death rates by removing one tool from a HUGE tool box is absurd.
The US actually has a VERY low murder rate, contrasted to other countries which don't enjoy the "rights" we have. Here is a view of firearm related deaths by country by population percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is WAY down on the list; guns are not a big problem in the US on a per-capita basis.
However, if you look at the World view of Homicide, the Americas are #1. That's not "America" as in the USA, but the "Americas" as the North, Central and South continental areas. Americas are the leading location of deaths, but those countries which have high gun-control areas also have the most deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The reality is that Mexico and most of South America, along with the bulk of the African continent, have FAR higher "per capita" murder rates, despite the removal of guns. Or to be more specific, taking away guns from some while others still have them.
This isn't about politics. Or at least the way I define politics. Being very careful to respect our RSP rules here on BITOG, this is about a mentality that transcends party lines and mantra.
If you could remove ALL guns from the planet, two things are quite certain:
1) the gun related deaths would go to zero
2) the "x" related deaths would go up
The father in this storyline that I tagged at the beginning probably had access to guns; who doesn't in AZ? But he chose to kill his family with a car. If he had killed them with an asualt rifle, the media would have been blaming the weapon. Here they don't. Did the intent of the weapon really change the outcome here? Not that any sane person can see.
Guns are a very efficient means of killing folks. But so are a whole host of other items.
When Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine, do you recall that they also had/used many pipe bombs? They had 99 (ninety-nine) IEDs available and ready and used some that day! Did you hear anyone call for the elimination of pipe at hardware stores? Or to have Lowes and Home Depot legally responsible for selling the pipe? Did anyone protest for the need to have a license to buy pipe at Menards? Or to keep it under lock-and-key in the home?
For every gun death you can show me, I can show you another that is just as disgusting and terminal using some other method. So why the bias against guns? Why no bias against our lackadaisical attitude towards mental health care or revolving door justice?
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
I'm talking about the general one-sided nature of mental positioning for ANY topic as displayed by some folks. The story I linked showed that a person hades-bent on killing was able to do so, despite the regulation and licensing in that industry. The man used his vehicle to kill his family. This happens many times a day all around our nation. Murder happens in every corner of the world. Some use guns; some don't. When there is a will, there is a way. A gun is a tool, just like a multitude of other tools. They will either be used properly or not.
I am not stating that regulation is bad; I think some amount of regulation is a good thing. But over-regulation is bad; it has not shown to be effective. And, when it comes to firearms, more regulation has no effect on the legal folks; the illegal use of firearms is not effected by laws. Making more laws has not stopped murder since the dawn of man. Laws don't stop evil; they only give us a way to deal with evil after it happens.
- It is against the law to shoot another person with a gun, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab another with a knife, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab someone with a screwdriver, but some do it
- It is against the law to strangle someone with bailing wire, but some do it
- It is against the law to bash another person's brains in with a cinder block, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a microwave oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a convection oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to run a daughter with a car in an "honor" killing, but some do it
- It is against the law to hand someone by a noose, but some do it
- It is against the law to set someone ablaze with lighter fluid, but some do it
- It is against the law to poison someone with chemicals, but some do it
- It is against the law to .... , but some do it
Knowing the MO and tools used to kill a person is very important in terms of getting a conviction in a trial; that matters. But the thought that you can eliminate or even alter death rates by removing one tool from a HUGE tool box is absurd.
The US actually has a VERY low murder rate, contrasted to other countries which don't enjoy the "rights" we have. Here is a view of firearm related deaths by country by population percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is WAY down on the list; guns are not a big problem in the US on a per-capita basis.
However, if you look at the World view of Homicide, the Americas are #1. That's not "America" as in the USA, but the "Americas" as the North, Central and South continental areas. Americas are the leading location of deaths, but those countries which have high gun-control areas also have the most deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The reality is that Mexico and most of South America, along with the bulk of the African continent, have FAR higher "per capita" murder rates, despite the removal of guns. Or to be more specific, taking away guns from some while others still have them.
This isn't about politics. Or at least the way I define politics. Being very careful to respect our RSP rules here on BITOG, this is about a mentality that transcends party lines and mantra.
If you could remove ALL guns from the planet, two things are quite certain:
1) the gun related deaths would go to zero
2) the "x" related deaths would go up
The father in this storyline that I tagged at the beginning probably had access to guns; who doesn't in AZ? But he chose to kill his family with a car. If he had killed them with an asualt rifle, the media would have been blaming the weapon. Here they don't. Did the intent of the weapon really change the outcome here? Not that any sane person can see.
Guns are a very efficient means of killing folks. But so are a whole host of other items.
When Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine, do you recall that they also had/used many pipe bombs? They had 99 (ninety-nine) IEDs available and ready and used some that day! Did you hear anyone call for the elimination of pipe at hardware stores? Or to have Lowes and Home Depot legally responsible for selling the pipe? Did anyone protest for the need to have a license to buy pipe at Menards? Or to keep it under lock-and-key in the home?
For every gun death you can show me, I can show you another that is just as disgusting and terminal using some other method. So why the bias against guns? Why no bias against our lackadaisical attitude towards mental health care or revolving door justice?
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: loneryder
Benito, you are quoting known far left rags as your sources. We are supposed to take those seriously???
Feel free to refute what they say with facts. It won't bother me if you can prove what they say is wrong.
To be honest, I was expecting an adult opinion that those measures wouldn't achieve anything rather than a teenage tantrum that they're not listening because they don't like where it's from.
Benito, you are quoting known far left rags as your sources. We are supposed to take those seriously???
Feel free to refute what they say with facts. It won't bother me if you can prove what they say is wrong.
To be honest, I was expecting an adult opinion that those measures wouldn't achieve anything rather than a teenage tantrum that they're not listening because they don't like where it's from.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
Someone must have forgotten to put "party" in the no RSP talk rule. So we have it from you in writing that discussion of any political topics other than party politics is expressly sanctioned? Any one-sided view can be attributed to party politics. Since politics are by definition about influencing, convincing and manipulating people, I do not see how politics can effectively be split in allowed and verboten categries. Although I have no intention of participating in such topics, this is going to be "interesting" and illuminating.
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
Someone must have forgotten to put "party" in the no RSP talk rule. So we have it from you in writing that discussion of any political topics other than party politics is expressly sanctioned? Any one-sided view can be attributed to party politics. Since politics are by definition about influencing, convincing and manipulating people, I do not see how politics can effectively be split in allowed and verboten categries. Although I have no intention of participating in such topics, this is going to be "interesting" and illuminating.
Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
Someone must have forgotten to put "party" in the no RSP talk rule. So we have it from you in writing that discussion of any political topics other than party politics is expressly sanctioned? Any one-sided view can be attributed to party politics. Since politics are by definition about influencing, convincing and manipulating people, I do not see how politics can effectively be split in allowed and verboten categries. Although I have no intention of participating in such topics, this is going to be "interesting" and illuminating.
Was about to post pretty much the same thing.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
Someone must have forgotten to put "party" in the no RSP talk rule. So we have it from you in writing that discussion of any political topics other than party politics is expressly sanctioned? Any one-sided view can be attributed to party politics. Since politics are by definition about influencing, convincing and manipulating people, I do not see how politics can effectively be split in allowed and verboten categries. Although I have no intention of participating in such topics, this is going to be "interesting" and illuminating.
Was about to post pretty much the same thing.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
I'm talking about the general one-sided nature of mental positioning for ANY topic as displayed by some folks. The story I linked showed that a person hades-bent on killing was able to do so, despite the regulation and licensing in that industry. The man used his vehicle to kill his family. This happens many times a day all around our nation. Murder happens in every corner of the world. Some use guns; some don't. When there is a will, there is a way. A gun is a tool, just like a multitude of other tools. They will either be used properly or not.
I am not stating that regulation is bad; I think some amount of regulation is a good thing. But over-regulation is bad; it has not shown to be effective. And, when it comes to firearms, more regulation has no effect on the legal folks; the illegal use of firearms is not effected by laws. Making more laws has not stopped murder since the dawn of man. Laws don't stop evil; they only give us a way to deal with evil after it happens.
- It is against the law to shoot another person with a gun, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab another with a knife, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab someone with a screwdriver, but some do it
- It is against the law to strangle someone with bailing wire, but some do it
- It is against the law to bash another person's brains in with a cinder block, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a microwave oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a convection oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to run a daughter with a car in an "honor" killing, but some do it
- It is against the law to hand someone by a noose, but some do it
- It is against the law to set someone ablaze with lighter fluid, but some do it
- It is against the law to poison someone with chemicals, but some do it
- It is against the law to .... , but some do it
Knowing the MO and tools used to kill a person is very important in terms of getting a conviction in a trial; that matters. But the thought that you can eliminate or even alter death rates by removing one tool from a HUGE tool box is absurd.
The US actually has a VERY low murder rate, contrasted to other countries which don't enjoy the "rights" we have. Here is a view of firearm related deaths by country by population percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is WAY down on the list; guns are not a big problem in the US on a per-capita basis.
However, if you look at the World view of Homicide, the Americas are #1. That's not "America" as in the USA, but the "Americas" as the North, Central and South continental areas. Americas are the leading location of deaths, but those countries which have high gun-control areas also have the most deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The reality is that Mexico and most of South America, along with the bulk of the African continent, have FAR higher "per capita" murder rates, despite the removal of guns. Or to be more specific, taking away guns from some while others still have them.
This isn't about politics. Or at least the way I define politics. Being very careful to respect our RSP rules here on BITOG, this is about a mentality that transcends party lines and mantra.
If you could remove ALL guns from the planet, two things are quite certain:
1) the gun related deaths would go to zero
2) the "x" related deaths would go up
The father in this storyline that I tagged at the beginning probably had access to guns; who doesn't in AZ? But he chose to kill his family with a car. If he had killed them with an asualt rifle, the media would have been blaming the weapon. Here they don't. Did the intent of the weapon really change the outcome here? Not that any sane person can see.
Guns are a very efficient means of killing folks. But so are a whole host of other items.
When Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine, do you recall that they also had/used many pipe bombs? They had 99 (ninety-nine) IEDs available and ready and used some that day! Did you hear anyone call for the elimination of pipe at hardware stores? Or to have Lowes and Home Depot legally responsible for selling the pipe? Did anyone protest for the need to have a license to buy pipe at Menards? Or to keep it under lock-and-key in the home?
For every gun death you can show me, I can show you another that is just as disgusting and terminal using some other method. So why the bias against guns? Why no bias against our lackadaisical attitude towards mental health care or revolving door justice?
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
You're stuck on this idea that people in favor of more controls / more regulation don't get the idea that people are responsible for killing other people. If that what this thread is about, well, it could have been said in one or two sentences.
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the items that are more effective at killing people and have fewer alternative uses are more regulated. Nuclear weapons, hard drugs, explosive materials (rather than pipes) come to mind.
While someone with determination will find another way, that is not the same as saying that everyone has enough determination and skill to succeed using more difficult methods that pose more danger to themselves.
Some people feel that firearms have a place on the scale of danger after microwave ovens and before nuclear weapons. You seem to feel firearms and microwave ovens occupy the same spot.
In another thread, there is a guy who swerved his vehicle to hit a motorcyclist and then said he didn't care that he almost killed him. Nobody is saying cars should be banned. He should be banned from driving.
And equally, nobody is saying firearms should be banned. But it's scary to think that man can legally own a firearm while not being able to drive because he attempted to kill someone.
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
I'm talking about the general one-sided nature of mental positioning for ANY topic as displayed by some folks. The story I linked showed that a person hades-bent on killing was able to do so, despite the regulation and licensing in that industry. The man used his vehicle to kill his family. This happens many times a day all around our nation. Murder happens in every corner of the world. Some use guns; some don't. When there is a will, there is a way. A gun is a tool, just like a multitude of other tools. They will either be used properly or not.
I am not stating that regulation is bad; I think some amount of regulation is a good thing. But over-regulation is bad; it has not shown to be effective. And, when it comes to firearms, more regulation has no effect on the legal folks; the illegal use of firearms is not effected by laws. Making more laws has not stopped murder since the dawn of man. Laws don't stop evil; they only give us a way to deal with evil after it happens.
- It is against the law to shoot another person with a gun, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab another with a knife, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab someone with a screwdriver, but some do it
- It is against the law to strangle someone with bailing wire, but some do it
- It is against the law to bash another person's brains in with a cinder block, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a microwave oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a convection oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to run a daughter with a car in an "honor" killing, but some do it
- It is against the law to hand someone by a noose, but some do it
- It is against the law to set someone ablaze with lighter fluid, but some do it
- It is against the law to poison someone with chemicals, but some do it
- It is against the law to .... , but some do it
Knowing the MO and tools used to kill a person is very important in terms of getting a conviction in a trial; that matters. But the thought that you can eliminate or even alter death rates by removing one tool from a HUGE tool box is absurd.
The US actually has a VERY low murder rate, contrasted to other countries which don't enjoy the "rights" we have. Here is a view of firearm related deaths by country by population percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is WAY down on the list; guns are not a big problem in the US on a per-capita basis.
However, if you look at the World view of Homicide, the Americas are #1. That's not "America" as in the USA, but the "Americas" as the North, Central and South continental areas. Americas are the leading location of deaths, but those countries which have high gun-control areas also have the most deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The reality is that Mexico and most of South America, along with the bulk of the African continent, have FAR higher "per capita" murder rates, despite the removal of guns. Or to be more specific, taking away guns from some while others still have them.
This isn't about politics. Or at least the way I define politics. Being very careful to respect our RSP rules here on BITOG, this is about a mentality that transcends party lines and mantra.
If you could remove ALL guns from the planet, two things are quite certain:
1) the gun related deaths would go to zero
2) the "x" related deaths would go up
The father in this storyline that I tagged at the beginning probably had access to guns; who doesn't in AZ? But he chose to kill his family with a car. If he had killed them with an asualt rifle, the media would have been blaming the weapon. Here they don't. Did the intent of the weapon really change the outcome here? Not that any sane person can see.
Guns are a very efficient means of killing folks. But so are a whole host of other items.
When Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine, do you recall that they also had/used many pipe bombs? They had 99 (ninety-nine) IEDs available and ready and used some that day! Did you hear anyone call for the elimination of pipe at hardware stores? Or to have Lowes and Home Depot legally responsible for selling the pipe? Did anyone protest for the need to have a license to buy pipe at Menards? Or to keep it under lock-and-key in the home?
For every gun death you can show me, I can show you another that is just as disgusting and terminal using some other method. So why the bias against guns? Why no bias against our lackadaisical attitude towards mental health care or revolving door justice?
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
You're stuck on this idea that people in favor of more controls / more regulation don't get the idea that people are responsible for killing other people. If that what this thread is about, well, it could have been said in one or two sentences.
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the items that are more effective at killing people and have fewer alternative uses are more regulated. Nuclear weapons, hard drugs, explosive materials (rather than pipes) come to mind.
While someone with determination will find another way, that is not the same as saying that everyone has enough determination and skill to succeed using more difficult methods that pose more danger to themselves.
Some people feel that firearms have a place on the scale of danger after microwave ovens and before nuclear weapons. You seem to feel firearms and microwave ovens occupy the same spot.
In another thread, there is a guy who swerved his vehicle to hit a motorcyclist and then said he didn't care that he almost killed him. Nobody is saying cars should be banned. He should be banned from driving.
And equally, nobody is saying firearms should be banned. But it's scary to think that man can legally own a firearm while not being able to drive because he attempted to kill someone.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
We need more "People Control", not more "Gun Control".
Question is ... how without infringing on "freedom"?
And someone legally protecting themselves with a gun against some maniac is what I'd also consider another important kind of "people control".
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
We need more "People Control", not more "Gun Control".
Question is ... how without infringing on "freedom"?
And someone legally protecting themselves with a gun against some maniac is what I'd also consider another important kind of "people control".
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Driving is a dangerous activity these days ... I'd say more than it's ever been in the past due to distracted drivers - which is mainly due to cell phones & texting devices. Last I checked, being focused and attentive to driving is the key to driving.
http://www.funzug.com/index.php/unusual-things/incredibly-bizarre-death-statistics.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distracted-drivers-kill-6000-last-year/
In one of the links I provided in my original reply, it was suggested that since the practice was outlawed, the problem has gone down significantly from the 2009 article.
Originally Posted By: Benito
I don't doubt it's a problem, but this appears to be a difficult number to pin down.
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/1-cause-traffic-fatalities-texting-92121
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/distracted-driving/qanda
Driving is a dangerous activity these days ... I'd say more than it's ever been in the past due to distracted drivers - which is mainly due to cell phones & texting devices. Last I checked, being focused and attentive to driving is the key to driving.
http://www.funzug.com/index.php/unusual-things/incredibly-bizarre-death-statistics.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distracted-drivers-kill-6000-last-year/
In one of the links I provided in my original reply, it was suggested that since the practice was outlawed, the problem has gone down significantly from the 2009 article.
Originally Posted By: Benito
I don't doubt it's a problem, but this appears to be a difficult number to pin down.
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/1-cause-traffic-fatalities-texting-92121
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/distracted-driving/qanda
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
No I wouldn't. I realize that the world is a dangerous place and bad things happen to good people. Randomly. But if it occurred in a "gun free zone" or similar place where legal weapons are prohibited, I would be furious.
When I went to school, one of my teachers was a highly trained ex-special forces soldier with combat experience in the first Gulf War. This teacher was also a good friend on my dad's. The topic of guns came up and it was discussed that my teacher, a highly skilled operator with his head screwed on straight, is 100% BANNED from carrying a concealed weapon around children. If a gun man burst into the classroom, he would be powerless to stop him. And that makes me angry. He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that we should be arming in our schools to protect the children, yet, it is illegal in almost every school in America. And he is not an exception. There are thousands of highly trained individuals, just like him, that should have the ability to conceal carry a weapon on campus if they want to.
If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
No I wouldn't. I realize that the world is a dangerous place and bad things happen to good people. Randomly. But if it occurred in a "gun free zone" or similar place where legal weapons are prohibited, I would be furious.
When I went to school, one of my teachers was a highly trained ex-special forces soldier with combat experience in the first Gulf War. This teacher was also a good friend on my dad's. The topic of guns came up and it was discussed that my teacher, a highly skilled operator with his head screwed on straight, is 100% BANNED from carrying a concealed weapon around children. If a gun man burst into the classroom, he would be powerless to stop him. And that makes me angry. He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that we should be arming in our schools to protect the children, yet, it is illegal in almost every school in America. And he is not an exception. There are thousands of highly trained individuals, just like him, that should have the ability to conceal carry a weapon on campus if they want to.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
The flaw with this argument (as the OP pointed out) is the car is a tool designed to transport people around. It's used to take someone to work, appointments, grocery store.
A gun is strictly designed to kill.
I'm not taking a position on either side here, simply pointing out that comparing cars to guns is an absurd argument.
A gun is not "designed" to kill. It is "designed" to expel a projectile, via exploding gun powder, in a manner which is safe for the operator. It is a tool. Some use it for pest control. Some use it for target practice. Some use it to put meat in their freezer. Some use it to preserve life that is precious to them.
The flaw with this argument (as the OP pointed out) is the car is a tool designed to transport people around. It's used to take someone to work, appointments, grocery store.
A gun is strictly designed to kill.
I'm not taking a position on either side here, simply pointing out that comparing cars to guns is an absurd argument.
A gun is not "designed" to kill. It is "designed" to expel a projectile, via exploding gun powder, in a manner which is safe for the operator. It is a tool. Some use it for pest control. Some use it for target practice. Some use it to put meat in their freezer. Some use it to preserve life that is precious to them.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Not for or against gun control. Your logical falls down because no citizen actually needs a gun for daily modern life in US. However you need a vehicle to live in many portions of USA(unfortunately).
What Utopian rock did you crawl out from under? Modern life? Have you ever turned on the news at night? Have you been to Baltimore/Detroit/Chicago/Camden/Oakland/fill in the blank?
Maybe you live in a fairly safe part of town. Many "modern citizens" would HIGHLY disagree with your logic that "no citizen needs a gun today". Many shocking and terrible crimes have happened to normal people, in safe communities. You are safe, until you aren't.
Do you wear your seat belt? Must be worried about getting in a car crash.
Not for or against gun control. Your logical falls down because no citizen actually needs a gun for daily modern life in US. However you need a vehicle to live in many portions of USA(unfortunately).
What Utopian rock did you crawl out from under? Modern life? Have you ever turned on the news at night? Have you been to Baltimore/Detroit/Chicago/Camden/Oakland/fill in the blank?
Maybe you live in a fairly safe part of town. Many "modern citizens" would HIGHLY disagree with your logic that "no citizen needs a gun today". Many shocking and terrible crimes have happened to normal people, in safe communities. You are safe, until you aren't.
Do you wear your seat belt? Must be worried about getting in a car crash.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
No I wouldn't. I realize that the world is a dangerous place and bad things happen to good people. Randomly. But if it occurred in a "gun free zone" or similar place where legal weapons are prohibited, I would be furious.
When I went to school, one of my teachers was a highly trained ex-special forces soldier with combat experience in the first Gulf War. This teacher was also a good friend on my dad's. The topic of guns came up and it was discussed that my teacher, a highly skilled operator with his head screwed on straight, is 100% BANNED from carrying a concealed weapon around children. If a gun man burst into the classroom, he would be powerless to stop him. And that makes me angry. He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that we should be arming in our schools to protect the children, yet, it is illegal in almost every school in America. And he is not an exception. There are thousands of highly trained individuals, just like him, that should have the ability to conceal carry a weapon on campus if they want to.
The law makers are pressured by police/parents/school board/teachers in passing feel good laws.
Most of these lawmakers have armed guards around them, but can't apply the same rule when it comes to our children.
I think we are supposed to keep large posters in schools saying that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon to school.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If a crazy person shoots your child you would change your mind about it. One child saved is enough reason.
No I wouldn't. I realize that the world is a dangerous place and bad things happen to good people. Randomly. But if it occurred in a "gun free zone" or similar place where legal weapons are prohibited, I would be furious.
When I went to school, one of my teachers was a highly trained ex-special forces soldier with combat experience in the first Gulf War. This teacher was also a good friend on my dad's. The topic of guns came up and it was discussed that my teacher, a highly skilled operator with his head screwed on straight, is 100% BANNED from carrying a concealed weapon around children. If a gun man burst into the classroom, he would be powerless to stop him. And that makes me angry. He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that we should be arming in our schools to protect the children, yet, it is illegal in almost every school in America. And he is not an exception. There are thousands of highly trained individuals, just like him, that should have the ability to conceal carry a weapon on campus if they want to.
The law makers are pressured by police/parents/school board/teachers in passing feel good laws.
Most of these lawmakers have armed guards around them, but can't apply the same rule when it comes to our children.
I think we are supposed to keep large posters in schools saying that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon to school.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: dishdude
The flaw with this argument (as the OP pointed out) is the car is a tool designed to transport people around. It's used to take someone to work, appointments, grocery store.
A gun is strictly designed to kill.
I'm not taking a position on either side here, simply pointing out that comparing cars to guns is an absurd argument.
A gun is not "designed" to kill. It is "designed" to expel a projectile, via exploding gun powder, in a manner which is safe for the operator. It is a tool. Some use it for pest control. Some use it for target practice. Some use it to put meat in their freezer. Some use it to preserve life that is precious to them.
If you're using it for pest control or hunting, isn't that killing? Other than target practice (which is learning to use the tool) what other use does it have?
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
The flaw with this argument (as the OP pointed out) is the car is a tool designed to transport people around. It's used to take someone to work, appointments, grocery store.
A gun is strictly designed to kill.
I'm not taking a position on either side here, simply pointing out that comparing cars to guns is an absurd argument.
A gun is not "designed" to kill. It is "designed" to expel a projectile, via exploding gun powder, in a manner which is safe for the operator. It is a tool. Some use it for pest control. Some use it for target practice. Some use it to put meat in their freezer. Some use it to preserve life that is precious to them.
If you're using it for pest control or hunting, isn't that killing? Other than target practice (which is learning to use the tool) what other use does it have?
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.
People intentionally run over people with cars to kill them. Some people shoot guns at people to kill them. Two different tools, used to accomplish the very same thing. Killing. Hammers are sometimes used to bash in skulls. So are baseball bats.
Tools that are misused, are still misused tools. Guns in the hand of criminals, to kill innocent folks, is the same misuse of a tool as is a person that runs over people with his car.
So while you think that guns are murderous weapons deigned to kill, I think otherwise. My weapons have halo's and preserve lives that are important to me. Similar to a life jacket or a seat belt. Guns, in the right hands, preserve life.
And in the worst of the worst case scenario, they are there to rid my country of tyranny, should we find tyranny surrounding us.
The jews in Germany in 1930 would have thought you were an absolute crazy person if you told them that their country would exterminate them in ovens within 10 years. It was an unbelievable thought. While we are certainly not 1930's Germany, all it takes, as we have seen for the past 7 years, is a person with great oratorical skill to completely bamboozle a country.
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.
People intentionally run over people with cars to kill them. Some people shoot guns at people to kill them. Two different tools, used to accomplish the very same thing. Killing. Hammers are sometimes used to bash in skulls. So are baseball bats.
Tools that are misused, are still misused tools. Guns in the hand of criminals, to kill innocent folks, is the same misuse of a tool as is a person that runs over people with his car.
So while you think that guns are murderous weapons deigned to kill, I think otherwise. My weapons have halo's and preserve lives that are important to me. Similar to a life jacket or a seat belt. Guns, in the right hands, preserve life.
And in the worst of the worst case scenario, they are there to rid my country of tyranny, should we find tyranny surrounding us.
The jews in Germany in 1930 would have thought you were an absolute crazy person if you told them that their country would exterminate them in ovens within 10 years. It was an unbelievable thought. While we are certainly not 1930's Germany, all it takes, as we have seen for the past 7 years, is a person with great oratorical skill to completely bamboozle a country.
- Status
Similar threads
