gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Your logical falls down because no citizen actually needs a gun for daily modern life in US.
How do you know? Not all of us live in apartments or shiny little tract homes all in a row.
The last time I called the Sheriff it took him 45 minutes to get here. The substation is 7 miles away. You can't find my house by GPS unless you have the exact Lat/Long coordinates. This is in San Diego County. I feel for those in even more rural settings. We still have to care for ourselves.
Your logical falls down because no citizen actually needs a gun for daily modern life in US.
How do you know? Not all of us live in apartments or shiny little tract homes all in a row.
The last time I called the Sheriff it took him 45 minutes to get here. The substation is 7 miles away. You can't find my house by GPS unless you have the exact Lat/Long coordinates. This is in San Diego County. I feel for those in even more rural settings. We still have to care for ourselves.
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 can be used to gather food just like the car. What about all the cars that are just for play? A tool is a tool. The absurd argument is to give objects a conscious.
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 can be used to gather food just like the car. What about all the cars that are just for play? A tool is a tool. The absurd argument is to give objects a conscious.
dnewton3
Staff member
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
My view is that a gun is a tool, just as many other things are in life. Tools can be used for their intent, or for other intents. Cars are tools. Ovens are tools. Hammers are tools. Bathtubs are tools. By broad definition, most anything can be used as a tool. Tools can be used properly, or misused. The effect of tools can be by intended effect, or unintended consequence.
The only (and I mean without exception) hypocrisy is see is that when there is a shooting, some people want to blame the guns. Restrict sales, hinder ownership, control access, etc. But when it's a car or a screwdriver or a match that kills, some folks conveniently look the other way, or don't see their own folly.
When a bigots speaks racial slurs and epithets, do you want to see your right to free speech taken away? Do you want reduced ability to speak your opinion, just because others exercise their rights in a distasteful/objectionable manner?
When some idiot kills another person, either by intent or accident, it's not the tools fault. And whether or not that tool was used in accordance with its design intent has no bearing on the amount of "dead-ness" (quantity or quality of lifelessness inflicted).
As I said before, think of these examples ... Allow me to quote myself from some research I've done
Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. There is massive protest; people called for more gun control.
Haiyang Zhu decapitated a fellow female student, in a public café on the campus at Virginia Tech (more than a year after the famous Cho shootings). No outcry echoes in the campus halls for the confiscation of kitchen knives, or the cessation of manufacture of such instruments.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold commit atrocities with guns and pipe bombs at Columbine in CO. There is a major outcry for gun control, but not pipes.
(Juvenile Female) savagely attacked fellow students at Columbine High School 13 years later, with a hammer. No outcry for tool control?
Michael Carneal kills three students at school in Paducah KY by shooting them. Gun control now!
Darlie Routier stabs her children to death with a kitchen knife. No demands for sharp steel objects to be licensed, or controlled.
Jeffrey Wiese goes on a rampage in Red Lake, MN, killing several by shooting them. “Give us gun control!” is heard everywhere.
Clayton Ellington bludgeons his entire family to death with a hammer. There are no protests at ACE hardware for selling the offensive tools. No lawsuits are filed against Stanley or Craftsman for making them.
Steven Kazmierczak shoots 24 people at the University of Northern Illinois; 6 die. Resounding calls are heard for tighter gun laws and fewer firearms.
Andrea Yates murders her five children by drowning them, successively one at a time, in the family home. There is no backlash against bathtubs, faucets, or the plumbers that install them. Manufacturers Koehler and Delta fear no litigation or retribution.
“Kip” Kinkle shot and killed his parents, two students at school, and wounded twenty more. Oregon tightens gun control.
Lashanda Armstrong killed herself and three children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River. Did anyone sue the mini-van maker for negligence or culpability? Did NY tighten driver’s license requirements due to her actions? Should one need to pass a background check to drive?
Charles Roberts shot several Amish children at one-room school house in PA. Yet more demands are heard for more gun laws.
Chris Coleman strangled his entire family to death with hay bailing twine, in Illinois. There are no threats of lawsuits for makers of twine, nor protests at farm-supply stores. No calls are heard for twine to be kept under lock and key around the farm.
Scott Roeder shoots George Tiller (the infamous abortion doctor) to death in Kansas. How can we NOT have more gun laws?
Susan Smith of North Carolina drowned her children in her car by strapping them in, and driving it into a small lake. No one calls for the elimination of motor vehicles or restricted lake access.
Mark Barton shoots 20 people (9 of which die) at stock trading firm in Georgia. “We must have more laws and fewer handguns!”
Mark Barton (yes, the very same person) kills his entire family by viciously beating them to death with a hammer, only a few hours before his shooting spree. Yet, no outcry is heard for increased hand-tool laws, registration, confiscation, or elimination.
Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, California. There was yet more outrage; more calls for gun control.
Terri Robinson burned her 3 year old child to death in her electric oven in Mississippi. Where were the riots in front of Sears, or Best Buy or other appliance stores? Why did legislators not decry the open use and ownership of convection ovens?
Amy Bishop shot 6; 3 died, at the University of Alabama. She was mad because of her denial of tenure. She had shot her brother to death many years before, but was never charged. People called for restrictions on guns.
Carmela Dela Rosa killed her two-year-old granddaughter by throwing her from a 5 story parking garage walkway, while her whole family walked in front of her. Where is the movement for the elimination of all buildings more than one story high or enclosed canopies on all elevated structures?
Jared L. Loughner killed federal judge Roll, and 9 year old girl; he shot US Rep. Giffords in AZ, and wounded more. We need gun control!
Andrew J. Stack III flew his small personal plane into the Austin, TX IRS building, killing two and injuring several more. Yet no one demands that all private pilot licenses be rescinded. Private planes are not collected and destroyed in community “buy-back” programs.
Robert A. Hawkins killed eight people, wounded four more, and took his own life, all with the same rifle at a mall in Omaha, NE. There we many who renewed the call for “assault rifle” restrictions.
Christopher Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania purposely killed his newborn daughter by dropping a cinder-block on her – twice – because he and his girlfriend “could not afford her”. Should we call for restrictions on sales of construction materials at Lowes, Home Depot and Menards?
John A. Muhammad and Lee B. Malvo killed 10 people, shot 3 more, and terrorized the Washington, DC area for weeks; they were referred to as the “Beltway Snipers”. There was a large outcry for stricter control over firearms.
Cameron Willingham killed his three young daughters by the means of arson of his family home in TX. Are we to eliminate matches and lighters, or call for their strict registration and licensing? Should we not live in homes that could catch fire?
Nadia Braxton shot her three children in the forehead, and then herself, in a murder-suicide in LA. Do we need guns in the home?
Nina Holbrook burned her father to death in IN, by setting him ablaze with a candle and camp-stove fuel. Should we confiscate all matches from the home, and only sell camp-stove fuel at federally licensed outlets, requiring background checks?
Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter in Phoenix, AZ by running her over, in a Muslim “honor killing”. Is Jeep to blame for her death?
Jeremiah Wright killed his 7 year old disabled son Jori Lirette by beheading him over the kitchen sink in LA. Was the knife at fault?
Jerome Isaac killed Deloris Gillespie, spraying her with gasoline and igniting her with a Molotov cocktail in a NY elevator. Blame Shell Oil for supplying the fuel?
Naim Muhammad drowned his two young sons in a creek in TX. Should all creeks have fences with gates and locks?
Arthur Morgan III killed his two-year old daughter by strapping her into her child-car-seat, and throwing her into a river in NJ.
Justin Carter shot and killed the parents of his friend, during an armed robbery in IN. There is outcry heard for more gun control.
Tyler Hadley killed his parents in FL when he was 17, by bludgeoning them to death with a hammer, because they would not allow him to have a party. He killed them mercilessly, then posted the party on face-book, and then hosted the party while their bodies lay locked in the master bedroom. Should we require a license to purchase or use a hammer?
David Laffer killed four people by indiscriminately shooting them in a NY pharmacy on Father’s Day. Gun Control needed!
Jeovanni Rosaria and Raymond Hernandez dropped a shopping cart on Marion Hedges from 4 stories above; is the cart at fault?
Janie Lou Gibbs poisoned her husband, three sons, and grandson to an untimely end over a period of years. No outcry is heard about the possession of arsenic.
James Byrd Jr., Jerid Sturman, Anthony Hill and Allen Rose all were dragged to death by vehicles, in separate incidents. Are the cars and trucks at fault?
Ka Yang, of Sacramento, CA killed her 6-week-old daughter by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
China Arnold killed her 1-month-old daughter in the microwave oven in Dayton, OH.
Elizabeth Otte killed her infant son by placing him in the microwave oven in New Kent, VA.
Tyler Deutsch silenced his girlfriend’s 6-week-old infant by placing her in the freezer in Tacoma, WA.
Ariel Smith killed the 5-month-old boy she was babysitting when she became frustrated, and placed him in the clothes dryer and turning it on, and then left.
Lakeisha Adams killed her 3-month-old son by placing him in the dryer in Louisiana; he was tumbled and burned so badly he was nearly unrecognizable.
Do we hear any calls for the removal of all these appliances from the home? Are they to have door locks on them? Should we see Whirlpool, Kenmore, GE and others held accountable for providing the instrument of death? Do we need a waiting period to buy an appliance, a license to own one, or a permit to operate one?
Jarrod Rudder killed two-year old Michael Pulliam by grabbing his wrist, and repeatedly flailing him against a wall until his brain bled out. What weapon or object would you place blame upon; is the wall at fault?
Charlotte Schilling killed her 10 year old son (and herself) by strangulation with zip-ties. Should these be restricted items at the hardware store?
Josh Powell savagely attacked his two young sons with a hatchet by slashing their heads and throats. He then burned them and himself to death in a house fire in WA by dousing the interior with 10 gallons of gasoline and setting it ablaze. (Powell was the “person of interest” in his wife’s disappearance two years prior). If given a choice, would you federally regulate the purchase of camping hatchets with a mandatory 7-day waiting period? Or, just as some people supported the firearm magazine capacity ban by limiting the number of rounds that they can hold, would you also support a “can ban” limiting fuel containers to 2 gallons instead of 5?
Kelli Murphy of Colorado killed her two young children by asphyxiation; she smothered them to death. Is a pillow to blame for the deaths?
Ana Lilia killed her boyfriend by stabbing him in the head, multiple times, with her Stiletto heel, near Houston, TX. Should women need permits to own shoes?
Lois A. Goodman, 70 years old, killed her 80 year old husband by repeatedly striking him on the head with a coffee mug. Should we outlaw porcelain drinking cups? Perhaps we should limit the size of mugs to 6 ounces, because no one “needs” a high-capacity mug …
Adam Lanza killed his mother at home, then 6 adults and 20 young children at an elementary school in CT. He used semi-auto rifles and handguns.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and injured 800 more by exploding a home-crafted explosive from commonly available diesel fuel and fertilizer in OK. Are farm supply stores to blame? Should farmers need licenses and permits to operate their businesses with these items?
Jasper Smiddie, at 19 years old, killed his grandmother in FL, merely to spite his uncle, by hitting her with a wrench, and shooting her with a cross-bow and stabbing her 93 (ninety-three!) times. Which weapon do you think killed her? Should we take away rights to buy and use kitchen knives and hand tools, as well as the hunting weapon? Should Craftsman, Cutco and Barnett all fear legal actions for making such implements?
Elliot Rodger, 22, stabbed to death three at his apartment, shot to death 3 more on the Santa Barbara campus, and then seriously injured several more with his car. Calls rang out soon after for an assault weapons ban, which CA already has. Rodger never used a rifle. Rodger only used a legally purchased handgun. And a kitchen knife. And a BMW.
James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. outside his hotel room in Memphis with a rifle-shot across the parking lot. As a white male, Ray is labeled as racist, and this event starts one of the earliest public calls for gun control.
Izola Curry attempted to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at a book signing, (10 years before he was shot by Ray). Curry stabbed King deep into the chest with a letter opener, and narrowly missed his aorta. No one called for the elimination of household desk items. (Curry vehemently hated Dr. King, and the NAACP; Curry was never called a racist because Curry was a black female …)
What is the pattern here? Murderous intent.
Does the weapon matter? Not really; at least not to the victim and the surviving family/friends. It does matter to those with an anti-gun agenda.
More gun control will no more assure lower deaths any more than does the incredibly high regulation of driving licenses, medical licenses, etc. The medical profession (one of THE MOST HIGHLY regulated industries we have in civilized society) kills FAR, FAR more people than do guns. Want to talk about intent? Talk about these two things:
- most guns are generally designed and used (with few exceptions) to inflict physical damage; about 10,000 lives are lost to guns each year (the majority of which are self-induced elderly white male suicides)
- medical people (doctors and nurses) and instruments (syringes, scalpels, IVs, etc) are exclusively intended to NOT inflict harm, and actually care/cure the patient. And yet they kill FAR more people than guns will ever kill, in an industry that is probably THE MOST regulated of any.
So you tell me, how do you see this?
It's not political, it's not racial, it's not sexual.
It's about tainted views versus reality.
Guns are tools. So are a lot of other things. Tools can be used appropriately or inappropriately. The definition of "appropriate" comes from a moral sense of right/wrong. Causing the death of another person without meritorious justification is "wrong".
Regulation no more assures life than does wishing the problem would go away. If it did, then the medical profession would be the safest thing on the planet. And yet it is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Why do anti-gun zealots harp on gun-control? IMO, they are either ignorant (unaware of the facts) or arrogant (aware, but chose to base decisions on emotions versus logic).
Look at that long list of atrocities I listed above.
Do you feel as though the gun crimes were any more or less heinous than the other murders?
Do you think that the people therein are any more or less dead, because of the tool involved?
Murder is already against the law in every State. Not one State that I'm aware of has a higher degree of murder based upon the weapon involved. Here is our Indiana Code:
IC 35-42-1-1
"A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human beings ... commits Murder, a Felony."
The storyline I posted at the beginning of this thread only goes to illustrate the hypocritical view of some.
The vehicle was licensed, as was the driver. And yet he killed several with the car.
The medical profession is the most highly regulated industry we have; it kills more folks than any other industry. Iatrogenisis is the third leading cause of death of all!
The gun industry and gun owners are regulated to a lesser degree than the other two, but cars and medicine kill far more people, despite their higher regulation.
When a gun is not present, it is by no means an assurance that murder will not happen. Those who murder may choose guns as a matter of convenience. Take away that tool and another will be used. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself how the Boston Marathon victims feel about pressure cooker pots ... Ask yourself how the people at the Murrah building feel about diesel fuel and fertilizer if they were still with us (168 killed; 600+ injured) ... It's not against the law to own cooking pots or drive a diesel truck. Should it be? Should the regulation of those things be so tight that we need a background check to buy cookware? And if you did restrict those things, what assurance do you have they won't become an IED?
So, please, for those of you whom wish to debate, just what is it that you can point to that clearly establishes a reasonable belief that more gun regulation or restrictions would make life a safer place to be in terms of murder?
And then ask yourself why you think the media does not bring this to light.
A tool is a tool is a tool.
Murder is murder.
They don't cause each other to exist; they only coexist with each other by chosen association of the actor.
.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
My view is that a gun is a tool, just as many other things are in life. Tools can be used for their intent, or for other intents. Cars are tools. Ovens are tools. Hammers are tools. Bathtubs are tools. By broad definition, most anything can be used as a tool. Tools can be used properly, or misused. The effect of tools can be by intended effect, or unintended consequence.
The only (and I mean without exception) hypocrisy is see is that when there is a shooting, some people want to blame the guns. Restrict sales, hinder ownership, control access, etc. But when it's a car or a screwdriver or a match that kills, some folks conveniently look the other way, or don't see their own folly.
When a bigots speaks racial slurs and epithets, do you want to see your right to free speech taken away? Do you want reduced ability to speak your opinion, just because others exercise their rights in a distasteful/objectionable manner?
When some idiot kills another person, either by intent or accident, it's not the tools fault. And whether or not that tool was used in accordance with its design intent has no bearing on the amount of "dead-ness" (quantity or quality of lifelessness inflicted).
As I said before, think of these examples ... Allow me to quote myself from some research I've done
Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. There is massive protest; people called for more gun control.
Haiyang Zhu decapitated a fellow female student, in a public café on the campus at Virginia Tech (more than a year after the famous Cho shootings). No outcry echoes in the campus halls for the confiscation of kitchen knives, or the cessation of manufacture of such instruments.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold commit atrocities with guns and pipe bombs at Columbine in CO. There is a major outcry for gun control, but not pipes.
(Juvenile Female) savagely attacked fellow students at Columbine High School 13 years later, with a hammer. No outcry for tool control?
Michael Carneal kills three students at school in Paducah KY by shooting them. Gun control now!
Darlie Routier stabs her children to death with a kitchen knife. No demands for sharp steel objects to be licensed, or controlled.
Jeffrey Wiese goes on a rampage in Red Lake, MN, killing several by shooting them. “Give us gun control!” is heard everywhere.
Clayton Ellington bludgeons his entire family to death with a hammer. There are no protests at ACE hardware for selling the offensive tools. No lawsuits are filed against Stanley or Craftsman for making them.
Steven Kazmierczak shoots 24 people at the University of Northern Illinois; 6 die. Resounding calls are heard for tighter gun laws and fewer firearms.
Andrea Yates murders her five children by drowning them, successively one at a time, in the family home. There is no backlash against bathtubs, faucets, or the plumbers that install them. Manufacturers Koehler and Delta fear no litigation or retribution.
“Kip” Kinkle shot and killed his parents, two students at school, and wounded twenty more. Oregon tightens gun control.
Lashanda Armstrong killed herself and three children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River. Did anyone sue the mini-van maker for negligence or culpability? Did NY tighten driver’s license requirements due to her actions? Should one need to pass a background check to drive?
Charles Roberts shot several Amish children at one-room school house in PA. Yet more demands are heard for more gun laws.
Chris Coleman strangled his entire family to death with hay bailing twine, in Illinois. There are no threats of lawsuits for makers of twine, nor protests at farm-supply stores. No calls are heard for twine to be kept under lock and key around the farm.
Scott Roeder shoots George Tiller (the infamous abortion doctor) to death in Kansas. How can we NOT have more gun laws?
Susan Smith of North Carolina drowned her children in her car by strapping them in, and driving it into a small lake. No one calls for the elimination of motor vehicles or restricted lake access.
Mark Barton shoots 20 people (9 of which die) at stock trading firm in Georgia. “We must have more laws and fewer handguns!”
Mark Barton (yes, the very same person) kills his entire family by viciously beating them to death with a hammer, only a few hours before his shooting spree. Yet, no outcry is heard for increased hand-tool laws, registration, confiscation, or elimination.
Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, California. There was yet more outrage; more calls for gun control.
Terri Robinson burned her 3 year old child to death in her electric oven in Mississippi. Where were the riots in front of Sears, or Best Buy or other appliance stores? Why did legislators not decry the open use and ownership of convection ovens?
Amy Bishop shot 6; 3 died, at the University of Alabama. She was mad because of her denial of tenure. She had shot her brother to death many years before, but was never charged. People called for restrictions on guns.
Carmela Dela Rosa killed her two-year-old granddaughter by throwing her from a 5 story parking garage walkway, while her whole family walked in front of her. Where is the movement for the elimination of all buildings more than one story high or enclosed canopies on all elevated structures?
Jared L. Loughner killed federal judge Roll, and 9 year old girl; he shot US Rep. Giffords in AZ, and wounded more. We need gun control!
Andrew J. Stack III flew his small personal plane into the Austin, TX IRS building, killing two and injuring several more. Yet no one demands that all private pilot licenses be rescinded. Private planes are not collected and destroyed in community “buy-back” programs.
Robert A. Hawkins killed eight people, wounded four more, and took his own life, all with the same rifle at a mall in Omaha, NE. There we many who renewed the call for “assault rifle” restrictions.
Christopher Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania purposely killed his newborn daughter by dropping a cinder-block on her – twice – because he and his girlfriend “could not afford her”. Should we call for restrictions on sales of construction materials at Lowes, Home Depot and Menards?
John A. Muhammad and Lee B. Malvo killed 10 people, shot 3 more, and terrorized the Washington, DC area for weeks; they were referred to as the “Beltway Snipers”. There was a large outcry for stricter control over firearms.
Cameron Willingham killed his three young daughters by the means of arson of his family home in TX. Are we to eliminate matches and lighters, or call for their strict registration and licensing? Should we not live in homes that could catch fire?
Nadia Braxton shot her three children in the forehead, and then herself, in a murder-suicide in LA. Do we need guns in the home?
Nina Holbrook burned her father to death in IN, by setting him ablaze with a candle and camp-stove fuel. Should we confiscate all matches from the home, and only sell camp-stove fuel at federally licensed outlets, requiring background checks?
Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter in Phoenix, AZ by running her over, in a Muslim “honor killing”. Is Jeep to blame for her death?
Jeremiah Wright killed his 7 year old disabled son Jori Lirette by beheading him over the kitchen sink in LA. Was the knife at fault?
Jerome Isaac killed Deloris Gillespie, spraying her with gasoline and igniting her with a Molotov cocktail in a NY elevator. Blame Shell Oil for supplying the fuel?
Naim Muhammad drowned his two young sons in a creek in TX. Should all creeks have fences with gates and locks?
Arthur Morgan III killed his two-year old daughter by strapping her into her child-car-seat, and throwing her into a river in NJ.
Justin Carter shot and killed the parents of his friend, during an armed robbery in IN. There is outcry heard for more gun control.
Tyler Hadley killed his parents in FL when he was 17, by bludgeoning them to death with a hammer, because they would not allow him to have a party. He killed them mercilessly, then posted the party on face-book, and then hosted the party while their bodies lay locked in the master bedroom. Should we require a license to purchase or use a hammer?
David Laffer killed four people by indiscriminately shooting them in a NY pharmacy on Father’s Day. Gun Control needed!
Jeovanni Rosaria and Raymond Hernandez dropped a shopping cart on Marion Hedges from 4 stories above; is the cart at fault?
Janie Lou Gibbs poisoned her husband, three sons, and grandson to an untimely end over a period of years. No outcry is heard about the possession of arsenic.
James Byrd Jr., Jerid Sturman, Anthony Hill and Allen Rose all were dragged to death by vehicles, in separate incidents. Are the cars and trucks at fault?
Ka Yang, of Sacramento, CA killed her 6-week-old daughter by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
China Arnold killed her 1-month-old daughter in the microwave oven in Dayton, OH.
Elizabeth Otte killed her infant son by placing him in the microwave oven in New Kent, VA.
Tyler Deutsch silenced his girlfriend’s 6-week-old infant by placing her in the freezer in Tacoma, WA.
Ariel Smith killed the 5-month-old boy she was babysitting when she became frustrated, and placed him in the clothes dryer and turning it on, and then left.
Lakeisha Adams killed her 3-month-old son by placing him in the dryer in Louisiana; he was tumbled and burned so badly he was nearly unrecognizable.
Do we hear any calls for the removal of all these appliances from the home? Are they to have door locks on them? Should we see Whirlpool, Kenmore, GE and others held accountable for providing the instrument of death? Do we need a waiting period to buy an appliance, a license to own one, or a permit to operate one?
Jarrod Rudder killed two-year old Michael Pulliam by grabbing his wrist, and repeatedly flailing him against a wall until his brain bled out. What weapon or object would you place blame upon; is the wall at fault?
Charlotte Schilling killed her 10 year old son (and herself) by strangulation with zip-ties. Should these be restricted items at the hardware store?
Josh Powell savagely attacked his two young sons with a hatchet by slashing their heads and throats. He then burned them and himself to death in a house fire in WA by dousing the interior with 10 gallons of gasoline and setting it ablaze. (Powell was the “person of interest” in his wife’s disappearance two years prior). If given a choice, would you federally regulate the purchase of camping hatchets with a mandatory 7-day waiting period? Or, just as some people supported the firearm magazine capacity ban by limiting the number of rounds that they can hold, would you also support a “can ban” limiting fuel containers to 2 gallons instead of 5?
Kelli Murphy of Colorado killed her two young children by asphyxiation; she smothered them to death. Is a pillow to blame for the deaths?
Ana Lilia killed her boyfriend by stabbing him in the head, multiple times, with her Stiletto heel, near Houston, TX. Should women need permits to own shoes?
Lois A. Goodman, 70 years old, killed her 80 year old husband by repeatedly striking him on the head with a coffee mug. Should we outlaw porcelain drinking cups? Perhaps we should limit the size of mugs to 6 ounces, because no one “needs” a high-capacity mug …
Adam Lanza killed his mother at home, then 6 adults and 20 young children at an elementary school in CT. He used semi-auto rifles and handguns.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and injured 800 more by exploding a home-crafted explosive from commonly available diesel fuel and fertilizer in OK. Are farm supply stores to blame? Should farmers need licenses and permits to operate their businesses with these items?
Jasper Smiddie, at 19 years old, killed his grandmother in FL, merely to spite his uncle, by hitting her with a wrench, and shooting her with a cross-bow and stabbing her 93 (ninety-three!) times. Which weapon do you think killed her? Should we take away rights to buy and use kitchen knives and hand tools, as well as the hunting weapon? Should Craftsman, Cutco and Barnett all fear legal actions for making such implements?
Elliot Rodger, 22, stabbed to death three at his apartment, shot to death 3 more on the Santa Barbara campus, and then seriously injured several more with his car. Calls rang out soon after for an assault weapons ban, which CA already has. Rodger never used a rifle. Rodger only used a legally purchased handgun. And a kitchen knife. And a BMW.
James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. outside his hotel room in Memphis with a rifle-shot across the parking lot. As a white male, Ray is labeled as racist, and this event starts one of the earliest public calls for gun control.
Izola Curry attempted to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at a book signing, (10 years before he was shot by Ray). Curry stabbed King deep into the chest with a letter opener, and narrowly missed his aorta. No one called for the elimination of household desk items. (Curry vehemently hated Dr. King, and the NAACP; Curry was never called a racist because Curry was a black female …)
What is the pattern here? Murderous intent.
Does the weapon matter? Not really; at least not to the victim and the surviving family/friends. It does matter to those with an anti-gun agenda.
More gun control will no more assure lower deaths any more than does the incredibly high regulation of driving licenses, medical licenses, etc. The medical profession (one of THE MOST HIGHLY regulated industries we have in civilized society) kills FAR, FAR more people than do guns. Want to talk about intent? Talk about these two things:
- most guns are generally designed and used (with few exceptions) to inflict physical damage; about 10,000 lives are lost to guns each year (the majority of which are self-induced elderly white male suicides)
- medical people (doctors and nurses) and instruments (syringes, scalpels, IVs, etc) are exclusively intended to NOT inflict harm, and actually care/cure the patient. And yet they kill FAR more people than guns will ever kill, in an industry that is probably THE MOST regulated of any.
So you tell me, how do you see this?
It's not political, it's not racial, it's not sexual.
It's about tainted views versus reality.
Guns are tools. So are a lot of other things. Tools can be used appropriately or inappropriately. The definition of "appropriate" comes from a moral sense of right/wrong. Causing the death of another person without meritorious justification is "wrong".
Regulation no more assures life than does wishing the problem would go away. If it did, then the medical profession would be the safest thing on the planet. And yet it is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Why do anti-gun zealots harp on gun-control? IMO, they are either ignorant (unaware of the facts) or arrogant (aware, but chose to base decisions on emotions versus logic).
Look at that long list of atrocities I listed above.
Do you feel as though the gun crimes were any more or less heinous than the other murders?
Do you think that the people therein are any more or less dead, because of the tool involved?
Murder is already against the law in every State. Not one State that I'm aware of has a higher degree of murder based upon the weapon involved. Here is our Indiana Code:
IC 35-42-1-1
"A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human beings ... commits Murder, a Felony."
The storyline I posted at the beginning of this thread only goes to illustrate the hypocritical view of some.
The vehicle was licensed, as was the driver. And yet he killed several with the car.
The medical profession is the most highly regulated industry we have; it kills more folks than any other industry. Iatrogenisis is the third leading cause of death of all!
The gun industry and gun owners are regulated to a lesser degree than the other two, but cars and medicine kill far more people, despite their higher regulation.
When a gun is not present, it is by no means an assurance that murder will not happen. Those who murder may choose guns as a matter of convenience. Take away that tool and another will be used. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself how the Boston Marathon victims feel about pressure cooker pots ... Ask yourself how the people at the Murrah building feel about diesel fuel and fertilizer if they were still with us (168 killed; 600+ injured) ... It's not against the law to own cooking pots or drive a diesel truck. Should it be? Should the regulation of those things be so tight that we need a background check to buy cookware? And if you did restrict those things, what assurance do you have they won't become an IED?
So, please, for those of you whom wish to debate, just what is it that you can point to that clearly establishes a reasonable belief that more gun regulation or restrictions would make life a safer place to be in terms of murder?
And then ask yourself why you think the media does not bring this to light.
A tool is a tool is a tool.
Murder is murder.
They don't cause each other to exist; they only coexist with each other by chosen association of the actor.
.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
So, please, for those of you whom wish to debate, just what is it that you can point to that clearly establishes a reasonable belief that more gun regulation or restrictions would make life a safer place to be in terms of murder?
And then ask yourself why you think the media does not bring this to light.
A tool is a tool is a tool.
Murder is murder.
They don't cause each other to exist; they only coexist with each other by chosen association of the actor.
Okay. I'll bite. I don't buy your premise that murder rates would be the same if there were dramatically fewer guns in the country. See Japan and GB. I do agree that because the genie is out of the bottle on gun control, we're screwed and the situation is spiraling out of control. We can't go back in time and undo it.
As far as comparing cars and guns. Cars are more heavily regulated than guns and it has reduced deaths from car accidents. Cars are rarely used for murder because guns are much more effective and easier to get away with than murder by car.
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
So, please, for those of you whom wish to debate, just what is it that you can point to that clearly establishes a reasonable belief that more gun regulation or restrictions would make life a safer place to be in terms of murder?
And then ask yourself why you think the media does not bring this to light.
A tool is a tool is a tool.
Murder is murder.
They don't cause each other to exist; they only coexist with each other by chosen association of the actor.
Okay. I'll bite. I don't buy your premise that murder rates would be the same if there were dramatically fewer guns in the country. See Japan and GB. I do agree that because the genie is out of the bottle on gun control, we're screwed and the situation is spiraling out of control. We can't go back in time and undo it.
As far as comparing cars and guns. Cars are more heavily regulated than guns and it has reduced deaths from car accidents. Cars are rarely used for murder because guns are much more effective and easier to get away with than murder by car.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
Gun control is regulation and legislation by definition. Regulation and legislation are political by definition.
Moreover, I always got the impression that the no-RSP policy was merely an instance of a broader desire not to have discussions that are simply too divisive. That's the ostensible reason behind the clampdown on discussions of climate change, isn't it?
We aren't even allowed to have a thread that neutrally discusses the science of climate change. Hard to imagine how we should be able to have a thread about the logic of gun control, let alone one that explicitly denigrates the intellectual and moral integrity of people on one side of the argument.
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
Gun control is regulation and legislation by definition. Regulation and legislation are political by definition.
Moreover, I always got the impression that the no-RSP policy was merely an instance of a broader desire not to have discussions that are simply too divisive. That's the ostensible reason behind the clampdown on discussions of climate change, isn't it?
We aren't even allowed to have a thread that neutrally discusses the science of climate change. Hard to imagine how we should be able to have a thread about the logic of gun control, let alone one that explicitly denigrates the intellectual and moral integrity of people on one side of the argument.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
My view is that a gun is a tool, just as many other things are in life. Tools can be used for their intent, or for other intents. Cars are tools. Ovens are tools. Hammers are tools. Bathtubs are tools. By broad definition, most anything can be used as a tool. Tools can be used properly, or misused. The effect of tools can be by intended effect, or unintended consequence.
The only (and I mean without exception) hypocrisy is see is that when there is a shooting, some people want to blame the guns. Restrict sales, hinder ownership, control access, etc. But when it's a car or a screwdriver or a match that kills, some folks conveniently look the other way, or don't see their own folly.
When a bigots speaks racial slurs and epithets, do you want to see your right to free speech taken away? Do you want reduced ability to speak your opinion, just because others exercise their rights in a distasteful/objectionable manner?
When some idiot kills another person, either by intent or accident, it's not the tools fault. And whether or not that tool was used in accordance with its design intent has no bearing on the amount of "dead-ness" (quantity or quality of lifelessness inflicted).
As I said before, think of these examples ... Allow me to quote myself from some research I've done
Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. There is massive protest; people called for more gun control.
Haiyang Zhu decapitated a fellow female student, in a public café on the campus at Virginia Tech (more than a year after the famous Cho shootings). No outcry echoes in the campus halls for the confiscation of kitchen knives, or the cessation of manufacture of such instruments.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold commit atrocities with guns and pipe bombs at Columbine in CO. There is a major outcry for gun control, but not pipes.
(Juvenile Female) savagely attacked fellow students at Columbine High School 13 years later, with a hammer. No outcry for tool control?
Michael Carneal kills three students at school in Paducah KY by shooting them. Gun control now!
Darlie Routier stabs her children to death with a kitchen knife. No demands for sharp steel objects to be licensed, or controlled.
Jeffrey Wiese goes on a rampage in Red Lake, MN, killing several by shooting them. “Give us gun control!” is heard everywhere.
Clayton Ellington bludgeons his entire family to death with a hammer. There are no protests at ACE hardware for selling the offensive tools. No lawsuits are filed against Stanley or Craftsman for making them.
Steven Kazmierczak shoots 24 people at the University of Northern Illinois; 6 die. Resounding calls are heard for tighter gun laws and fewer firearms.
Andrea Yates murders her five children by drowning them, successively one at a time, in the family home. There is no backlash against bathtubs, faucets, or the plumbers that install them. Manufacturers Koehler and Delta fear no litigation or retribution.
“Kip” Kinkle shot and killed his parents, two students at school, and wounded twenty more. Oregon tightens gun control.
Lashanda Armstrong killed herself and three children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River. Did anyone sue the mini-van maker for negligence or culpability? Did NY tighten driver’s license requirements due to her actions? Should one need to pass a background check to drive?
Charles Roberts shot several Amish children at one-room school house in PA. Yet more demands are heard for more gun laws.
Chris Coleman strangled his entire family to death with hay bailing twine, in Illinois. There are no threats of lawsuits for makers of twine, nor protests at farm-supply stores. No calls are heard for twine to be kept under lock and key around the farm.
Scott Roeder shoots George Tiller (the infamous abortion doctor) to death in Kansas. How can we NOT have more gun laws?
Susan Smith of North Carolina drowned her children in her car by strapping them in, and driving it into a small lake. No one calls for the elimination of motor vehicles or restricted lake access.
Mark Barton shoots 20 people (9 of which die) at stock trading firm in Georgia. “We must have more laws and fewer handguns!”
Mark Barton (yes, the very same person) kills his entire family by viciously beating them to death with a hammer, only a few hours before his shooting spree. Yet, no outcry is heard for increased hand-tool laws, registration, confiscation, or elimination.
Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, California. There was yet more outrage; more calls for gun control.
Terri Robinson burned her 3 year old child to death in her electric oven in Mississippi. Where were the riots in front of Sears, or Best Buy or other appliance stores? Why did legislators not decry the open use and ownership of convection ovens?
Amy Bishop shot 6; 3 died, at the University of Alabama. She was mad because of her denial of tenure. She had shot her brother to death many years before, but was never charged. People called for restrictions on guns.
Carmela Dela Rosa killed her two-year-old granddaughter by throwing her from a 5 story parking garage walkway, while her whole family walked in front of her. Where is the movement for the elimination of all buildings more than one story high or enclosed canopies on all elevated structures?
Jared L. Loughner killed federal judge Roll, and 9 year old girl; he shot US Rep. Giffords in AZ, and wounded more. We need gun control!
Andrew J. Stack III flew his small personal plane into the Austin, TX IRS building, killing two and injuring several more. Yet no one demands that all private pilot licenses be rescinded. Private planes are not collected and destroyed in community “buy-back” programs.
Robert A. Hawkins killed eight people, wounded four more, and took his own life, all with the same rifle at a mall in Omaha, NE. There we many who renewed the call for “assault rifle” restrictions.
Christopher Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania purposely killed his newborn daughter by dropping a cinder-block on her – twice – because he and his girlfriend “could not afford her”. Should we call for restrictions on sales of construction materials at Lowes, Home Depot and Menards?
John A. Muhammad and Lee B. Malvo killed 10 people, shot 3 more, and terrorized the Washington, DC area for weeks; they were referred to as the “Beltway Snipers”. There was a large outcry for stricter control over firearms.
Cameron Willingham killed his three young daughters by the means of arson of his family home in TX. Are we to eliminate matches and lighters, or call for their strict registration and licensing? Should we not live in homes that could catch fire?
Nadia Braxton shot her three children in the forehead, and then herself, in a murder-suicide in LA. Do we need guns in the home?
Nina Holbrook burned her father to death in IN, by setting him ablaze with a candle and camp-stove fuel. Should we confiscate all matches from the home, and only sell camp-stove fuel at federally licensed outlets, requiring background checks?
Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter in Phoenix, AZ by running her over, in a Muslim “honor killing”. Is Jeep to blame for her death?
Jeremiah Wright killed his 7 year old disabled son Jori Lirette by beheading him over the kitchen sink in LA. Was the knife at fault?
Jerome Isaac killed Deloris Gillespie, spraying her with gasoline and igniting her with a Molotov cocktail in a NY elevator. Blame Shell Oil for supplying the fuel?
Naim Muhammad drowned his two young sons in a creek in TX. Should all creeks have fences with gates and locks?
Arthur Morgan III killed his two-year old daughter by strapping her into her child-car-seat, and throwing her into a river in NJ.
Justin Carter shot and killed the parents of his friend, during an armed robbery in IN. There is outcry heard for more gun control.
Tyler Hadley killed his parents in FL when he was 17, by bludgeoning them to death with a hammer, because they would not allow him to have a party. He killed them mercilessly, then posted the party on face-book, and then hosted the party while their bodies lay locked in the master bedroom. Should we require a license to purchase or use a hammer?
David Laffer killed four people by indiscriminately shooting them in a NY pharmacy on Father’s Day. Gun Control needed!
Jeovanni Rosaria and Raymond Hernandez dropped a shopping cart on Marion Hedges from 4 stories above; is the cart at fault?
Janie Lou Gibbs poisoned her husband, three sons, and grandson to an untimely end over a period of years. No outcry is heard about the possession of arsenic.
James Byrd Jr., Jerid Sturman, Anthony Hill and Allen Rose all were dragged to death by vehicles, in separate incidents. Are the cars and trucks at fault?
Ka Yang, of Sacramento, CA killed her 6-week-old daughter by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
China Arnold killed her 1-month-old daughter in the microwave oven in Dayton, OH.
Elizabeth Otte killed her infant son by placing him in the microwave oven in New Kent, VA.
Tyler Deutsch silenced his girlfriend’s 6-week-old infant by placing her in the freezer in Tacoma, WA.
Ariel Smith killed the 5-month-old boy she was babysitting when she became frustrated, and placed him in the clothes dryer and turning it on, and then left.
Lakeisha Adams killed her 3-month-old son by placing him in the dryer in Louisiana; he was tumbled and burned so badly he was nearly unrecognizable.
Do we hear any calls for the removal of all these appliances from the home? Are they to have door locks on them? Should we see Whirlpool, Kenmore, GE and others held accountable for providing the instrument of death? Do we need a waiting period to buy an appliance, a license to own one, or a permit to operate one?
Jarrod Rudder killed two-year old Michael Pulliam by grabbing his wrist, and repeatedly flailing him against a wall until his brain bled out. What weapon or object would you place blame upon; is the wall at fault?
Charlotte Schilling killed her 10 year old son (and herself) by strangulation with zip-ties. Should these be restricted items at the hardware store?
Josh Powell savagely attacked his two young sons with a hatchet by slashing their heads and throats. He then burned them and himself to death in a house fire in WA by dousing the interior with 10 gallons of gasoline and setting it ablaze. (Powell was the “person of interest” in his wife’s disappearance two years prior). If given a choice, would you federally regulate the purchase of camping hatchets with a mandatory 7-day waiting period? Or, just as some people supported the firearm magazine capacity ban by limiting the number of rounds that they can hold, would you also support a “can ban” limiting fuel containers to 2 gallons instead of 5?
Kelli Murphy of Colorado killed her two young children by asphyxiation; she smothered them to death. Is a pillow to blame for the deaths?
Ana Lilia killed her boyfriend by stabbing him in the head, multiple times, with her Stiletto heel, near Houston, TX. Should women need permits to own shoes?
Lois A. Goodman, 70 years old, killed her 80 year old husband by repeatedly striking him on the head with a coffee mug. Should we outlaw porcelain drinking cups? Perhaps we should limit the size of mugs to 6 ounces, because no one “needs” a high-capacity mug …
Adam Lanza killed his mother at home, then 6 adults and 20 young children at an elementary school in CT. He used semi-auto rifles and handguns.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and injured 800 more by exploding a home-crafted explosive from commonly available diesel fuel and fertilizer in OK. Are farm supply stores to blame? Should farmers need licenses and permits to operate their businesses with these items?
Jasper Smiddie, at 19 years old, killed his grandmother in FL, merely to spite his uncle, by hitting her with a wrench, and shooting her with a cross-bow and stabbing her 93 (ninety-three!) times. Which weapon do you think killed her? Should we take away rights to buy and use kitchen knives and hand tools, as well as the hunting weapon? Should Craftsman, Cutco and Barnett all fear legal actions for making such implements?
Elliot Rodger, 22, stabbed to death three at his apartment, shot to death 3 more on the Santa Barbara campus, and then seriously injured several more with his car. Calls rang out soon after for an assault weapons ban, which CA already has. Rodger never used a rifle. Rodger only used a legally purchased handgun. And a kitchen knife. And a BMW.
James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. outside his hotel room in Memphis with a rifle-shot across the parking lot. As a white male, Ray is labeled as racist, and this event starts one of the earliest public calls for gun control.
Izola Curry attempted to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at a book signing, (10 years before he was shot by Ray). Curry stabbed King deep into the chest with a letter opener, and narrowly missed his aorta. No one called for the elimination of household desk items. (Curry vehemently hated Dr. King, and the NAACP; Curry was never called a racist because Curry was a black female …)
What is the pattern here? Murderous intent.
Does the weapon matter? Not really; at least not to the victim and the surviving family/friends. It does matter to those with an anti-gun agenda.
More gun control will no more assure lower deaths any more than does the incredibly high regulation of driving licenses, medical licenses, etc. The medical profession (one of THE MOST HIGHLY regulated industries we have in civilized society) kills FAR, FAR more people than do guns. Want to talk about intent? Talk about these two things:
- most guns are generally designed and used (with few exceptions) to inflict physical damage; about 10,000 lives are lost to guns each year (the majority of which are self-induced elderly white male suicides)
- medical people (doctors and nurses) and instruments (syringes, scalpels, IVs, etc) are exclusively intended to NOT inflict harm, and actually care/cure the patient. And yet they kill FAR more people than guns will ever kill, in an industry that is probably THE MOST regulated of any.
So you tell me, how do you see this?
It's not political, it's not racial, it's not sexual.
It's about tainted views versus reality.
Guns are tools. So are a lot of other things. Tools can be used appropriately or inappropriately. The definition of "appropriate" comes from a moral sense of right/wrong. Causing the death of another person without meritorious justification is "wrong".
Regulation no more assures life than does wishing the problem would go away. If it did, then the medical profession would be the safest thing on the planet. And yet it is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Why do anti-gun zealots harp on gun-control? IMO, they are either ignorant (unaware of the facts) or arrogant (aware, but chose to base decisions on emotions versus logic).
Look at that long list of atrocities I listed above.
Do you feel as though the gun crimes were any more or less heinous than the other murders?
Do you think that the people therein are any more or less dead, because of the tool involved?
Murder is already against the law in every State. Not one State that I'm aware of has a higher degree of murder based upon the weapon involved. Here is our Indiana Code:
IC 35-42-1-1
"A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human beings ... commits Murder, a Felony."
The storyline I posted at the beginning of this thread only goes to illustrate the hypocritical view of some.
The vehicle was licensed, as was the driver. And yet he killed several with the car.
The medical profession is the most highly regulated industry we have; it kills more folks than any other industry. Iatrogenisis is the third leading cause of death of all!
The gun industry and gun owners are regulated to a lesser degree than the other two, but cars and medicine kill far more people, despite their higher regulation.
When a gun is not present, it is by no means an assurance that murder will not happen. Those who murder may choose guns as a matter of convenience. Take away that tool and another will be used. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself how the Boston Marathon victims feel about pressure cooker pots ... Ask yourself how the people at the Murrah building feel about diesel fuel and fertilizer if they were still with us (168 killed; 600+ injured) ... It's not against the law to own cooking pots or drive a diesel truck. Should it be? Should the regulation of those things be so tight that we need a background check to buy cookware? And if you did restrict those things, what assurance do you have they won't become an IED?
So, please, for those of you whom wish to debate, just what is it that you can point to that clearly establishes a reasonable belief that more gun regulation or restrictions would make life a safer place to be in terms of murder?
And then ask yourself why you think the media does not bring this to light.
A tool is a tool is a tool.
Murder is murder.
They don't cause each other to exist; they only coexist with each other by chosen association of the actor.
.
You're displaying 2d thinking and logic in a 3d world. And the problem is that you convince simpler minds than yours that this logic is the entire argument.
Did you consider the concept of efficacy? And the concept of emotion?
Taking the latter first. It is well known that humans are both emotional and logical animals. We've evolved but we are still subject to our survival instinct. Depending on our exact makeup, our surroundings and our circumstances, this makes us carry out irrational acts.
In that window of irrationality, a weapon that is more effective, more easy to use, is going to be more deadly. And a weapon that is even more effective is going to be even more deadly.
Take the case of that woman in Michigan who decided to shoot at thieves at Home Depot. Had she been armed with a slingslot and used it, she probably wouldn't have been charged. Since she used a 9mm without thinking of the consequences of her actions, she's been charged. Had she had an automatic weapon, she would have caused more damage, maybe even taken lives.
Now what about her car? The likelihood of her being able to use her car in that situation was minimal. What about a microwave? Again, since it is not a tool that is optimized for attacking others, she didn't happen to be carrying one around on her person nor would she do so if there were no guns. And yes she might then carry a knife instead but again, that is not as deadly as a gun. Yes it could kill but it is not as effective.
To expand on the topic of efficacy. When gangbangers perform drive by "attacks", their weapon of choice is not the vehicle they drive by in. It's not a slingshot. It's not a microwave oven. It's not a knife. It's a firearm, preferably an automatic. And that means that people that have nothing to do with the target can get hit as well.
This is where your logic is limited. A tool that is easier to use and optimized for killing is going to be more effective at killing people. The more effective the tool, the more deadly it will be in heat of the moment situations as well as in planned situations.
The concept of efficacy is what modern life is designed around. The right tool for the job. To use logic to argue that a gun is a killing tool like any other, and that any other tool can be substituted with the same effectiveness in all situations is a perversion of logical thinking.
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
My view is that a gun is a tool, just as many other things are in life. Tools can be used for their intent, or for other intents. Cars are tools. Ovens are tools. Hammers are tools. Bathtubs are tools. By broad definition, most anything can be used as a tool. Tools can be used properly, or misused. The effect of tools can be by intended effect, or unintended consequence.
The only (and I mean without exception) hypocrisy is see is that when there is a shooting, some people want to blame the guns. Restrict sales, hinder ownership, control access, etc. But when it's a car or a screwdriver or a match that kills, some folks conveniently look the other way, or don't see their own folly.
When a bigots speaks racial slurs and epithets, do you want to see your right to free speech taken away? Do you want reduced ability to speak your opinion, just because others exercise their rights in a distasteful/objectionable manner?
When some idiot kills another person, either by intent or accident, it's not the tools fault. And whether or not that tool was used in accordance with its design intent has no bearing on the amount of "dead-ness" (quantity or quality of lifelessness inflicted).
As I said before, think of these examples ... Allow me to quote myself from some research I've done
Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. There is massive protest; people called for more gun control.
Haiyang Zhu decapitated a fellow female student, in a public café on the campus at Virginia Tech (more than a year after the famous Cho shootings). No outcry echoes in the campus halls for the confiscation of kitchen knives, or the cessation of manufacture of such instruments.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold commit atrocities with guns and pipe bombs at Columbine in CO. There is a major outcry for gun control, but not pipes.
(Juvenile Female) savagely attacked fellow students at Columbine High School 13 years later, with a hammer. No outcry for tool control?
Michael Carneal kills three students at school in Paducah KY by shooting them. Gun control now!
Darlie Routier stabs her children to death with a kitchen knife. No demands for sharp steel objects to be licensed, or controlled.
Jeffrey Wiese goes on a rampage in Red Lake, MN, killing several by shooting them. “Give us gun control!” is heard everywhere.
Clayton Ellington bludgeons his entire family to death with a hammer. There are no protests at ACE hardware for selling the offensive tools. No lawsuits are filed against Stanley or Craftsman for making them.
Steven Kazmierczak shoots 24 people at the University of Northern Illinois; 6 die. Resounding calls are heard for tighter gun laws and fewer firearms.
Andrea Yates murders her five children by drowning them, successively one at a time, in the family home. There is no backlash against bathtubs, faucets, or the plumbers that install them. Manufacturers Koehler and Delta fear no litigation or retribution.
“Kip” Kinkle shot and killed his parents, two students at school, and wounded twenty more. Oregon tightens gun control.
Lashanda Armstrong killed herself and three children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River. Did anyone sue the mini-van maker for negligence or culpability? Did NY tighten driver’s license requirements due to her actions? Should one need to pass a background check to drive?
Charles Roberts shot several Amish children at one-room school house in PA. Yet more demands are heard for more gun laws.
Chris Coleman strangled his entire family to death with hay bailing twine, in Illinois. There are no threats of lawsuits for makers of twine, nor protests at farm-supply stores. No calls are heard for twine to be kept under lock and key around the farm.
Scott Roeder shoots George Tiller (the infamous abortion doctor) to death in Kansas. How can we NOT have more gun laws?
Susan Smith of North Carolina drowned her children in her car by strapping them in, and driving it into a small lake. No one calls for the elimination of motor vehicles or restricted lake access.
Mark Barton shoots 20 people (9 of which die) at stock trading firm in Georgia. “We must have more laws and fewer handguns!”
Mark Barton (yes, the very same person) kills his entire family by viciously beating them to death with a hammer, only a few hours before his shooting spree. Yet, no outcry is heard for increased hand-tool laws, registration, confiscation, or elimination.
Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, California. There was yet more outrage; more calls for gun control.
Terri Robinson burned her 3 year old child to death in her electric oven in Mississippi. Where were the riots in front of Sears, or Best Buy or other appliance stores? Why did legislators not decry the open use and ownership of convection ovens?
Amy Bishop shot 6; 3 died, at the University of Alabama. She was mad because of her denial of tenure. She had shot her brother to death many years before, but was never charged. People called for restrictions on guns.
Carmela Dela Rosa killed her two-year-old granddaughter by throwing her from a 5 story parking garage walkway, while her whole family walked in front of her. Where is the movement for the elimination of all buildings more than one story high or enclosed canopies on all elevated structures?
Jared L. Loughner killed federal judge Roll, and 9 year old girl; he shot US Rep. Giffords in AZ, and wounded more. We need gun control!
Andrew J. Stack III flew his small personal plane into the Austin, TX IRS building, killing two and injuring several more. Yet no one demands that all private pilot licenses be rescinded. Private planes are not collected and destroyed in community “buy-back” programs.
Robert A. Hawkins killed eight people, wounded four more, and took his own life, all with the same rifle at a mall in Omaha, NE. There we many who renewed the call for “assault rifle” restrictions.
Christopher Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania purposely killed his newborn daughter by dropping a cinder-block on her – twice – because he and his girlfriend “could not afford her”. Should we call for restrictions on sales of construction materials at Lowes, Home Depot and Menards?
John A. Muhammad and Lee B. Malvo killed 10 people, shot 3 more, and terrorized the Washington, DC area for weeks; they were referred to as the “Beltway Snipers”. There was a large outcry for stricter control over firearms.
Cameron Willingham killed his three young daughters by the means of arson of his family home in TX. Are we to eliminate matches and lighters, or call for their strict registration and licensing? Should we not live in homes that could catch fire?
Nadia Braxton shot her three children in the forehead, and then herself, in a murder-suicide in LA. Do we need guns in the home?
Nina Holbrook burned her father to death in IN, by setting him ablaze with a candle and camp-stove fuel. Should we confiscate all matches from the home, and only sell camp-stove fuel at federally licensed outlets, requiring background checks?
Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter in Phoenix, AZ by running her over, in a Muslim “honor killing”. Is Jeep to blame for her death?
Jeremiah Wright killed his 7 year old disabled son Jori Lirette by beheading him over the kitchen sink in LA. Was the knife at fault?
Jerome Isaac killed Deloris Gillespie, spraying her with gasoline and igniting her with a Molotov cocktail in a NY elevator. Blame Shell Oil for supplying the fuel?
Naim Muhammad drowned his two young sons in a creek in TX. Should all creeks have fences with gates and locks?
Arthur Morgan III killed his two-year old daughter by strapping her into her child-car-seat, and throwing her into a river in NJ.
Justin Carter shot and killed the parents of his friend, during an armed robbery in IN. There is outcry heard for more gun control.
Tyler Hadley killed his parents in FL when he was 17, by bludgeoning them to death with a hammer, because they would not allow him to have a party. He killed them mercilessly, then posted the party on face-book, and then hosted the party while their bodies lay locked in the master bedroom. Should we require a license to purchase or use a hammer?
David Laffer killed four people by indiscriminately shooting them in a NY pharmacy on Father’s Day. Gun Control needed!
Jeovanni Rosaria and Raymond Hernandez dropped a shopping cart on Marion Hedges from 4 stories above; is the cart at fault?
Janie Lou Gibbs poisoned her husband, three sons, and grandson to an untimely end over a period of years. No outcry is heard about the possession of arsenic.
James Byrd Jr., Jerid Sturman, Anthony Hill and Allen Rose all were dragged to death by vehicles, in separate incidents. Are the cars and trucks at fault?
Ka Yang, of Sacramento, CA killed her 6-week-old daughter by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
China Arnold killed her 1-month-old daughter in the microwave oven in Dayton, OH.
Elizabeth Otte killed her infant son by placing him in the microwave oven in New Kent, VA.
Tyler Deutsch silenced his girlfriend’s 6-week-old infant by placing her in the freezer in Tacoma, WA.
Ariel Smith killed the 5-month-old boy she was babysitting when she became frustrated, and placed him in the clothes dryer and turning it on, and then left.
Lakeisha Adams killed her 3-month-old son by placing him in the dryer in Louisiana; he was tumbled and burned so badly he was nearly unrecognizable.
Do we hear any calls for the removal of all these appliances from the home? Are they to have door locks on them? Should we see Whirlpool, Kenmore, GE and others held accountable for providing the instrument of death? Do we need a waiting period to buy an appliance, a license to own one, or a permit to operate one?
Jarrod Rudder killed two-year old Michael Pulliam by grabbing his wrist, and repeatedly flailing him against a wall until his brain bled out. What weapon or object would you place blame upon; is the wall at fault?
Charlotte Schilling killed her 10 year old son (and herself) by strangulation with zip-ties. Should these be restricted items at the hardware store?
Josh Powell savagely attacked his two young sons with a hatchet by slashing their heads and throats. He then burned them and himself to death in a house fire in WA by dousing the interior with 10 gallons of gasoline and setting it ablaze. (Powell was the “person of interest” in his wife’s disappearance two years prior). If given a choice, would you federally regulate the purchase of camping hatchets with a mandatory 7-day waiting period? Or, just as some people supported the firearm magazine capacity ban by limiting the number of rounds that they can hold, would you also support a “can ban” limiting fuel containers to 2 gallons instead of 5?
Kelli Murphy of Colorado killed her two young children by asphyxiation; she smothered them to death. Is a pillow to blame for the deaths?
Ana Lilia killed her boyfriend by stabbing him in the head, multiple times, with her Stiletto heel, near Houston, TX. Should women need permits to own shoes?
Lois A. Goodman, 70 years old, killed her 80 year old husband by repeatedly striking him on the head with a coffee mug. Should we outlaw porcelain drinking cups? Perhaps we should limit the size of mugs to 6 ounces, because no one “needs” a high-capacity mug …
Adam Lanza killed his mother at home, then 6 adults and 20 young children at an elementary school in CT. He used semi-auto rifles and handguns.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and injured 800 more by exploding a home-crafted explosive from commonly available diesel fuel and fertilizer in OK. Are farm supply stores to blame? Should farmers need licenses and permits to operate their businesses with these items?
Jasper Smiddie, at 19 years old, killed his grandmother in FL, merely to spite his uncle, by hitting her with a wrench, and shooting her with a cross-bow and stabbing her 93 (ninety-three!) times. Which weapon do you think killed her? Should we take away rights to buy and use kitchen knives and hand tools, as well as the hunting weapon? Should Craftsman, Cutco and Barnett all fear legal actions for making such implements?
Elliot Rodger, 22, stabbed to death three at his apartment, shot to death 3 more on the Santa Barbara campus, and then seriously injured several more with his car. Calls rang out soon after for an assault weapons ban, which CA already has. Rodger never used a rifle. Rodger only used a legally purchased handgun. And a kitchen knife. And a BMW.
James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. outside his hotel room in Memphis with a rifle-shot across the parking lot. As a white male, Ray is labeled as racist, and this event starts one of the earliest public calls for gun control.
Izola Curry attempted to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at a book signing, (10 years before he was shot by Ray). Curry stabbed King deep into the chest with a letter opener, and narrowly missed his aorta. No one called for the elimination of household desk items. (Curry vehemently hated Dr. King, and the NAACP; Curry was never called a racist because Curry was a black female …)
What is the pattern here? Murderous intent.
Does the weapon matter? Not really; at least not to the victim and the surviving family/friends. It does matter to those with an anti-gun agenda.
More gun control will no more assure lower deaths any more than does the incredibly high regulation of driving licenses, medical licenses, etc. The medical profession (one of THE MOST HIGHLY regulated industries we have in civilized society) kills FAR, FAR more people than do guns. Want to talk about intent? Talk about these two things:
- most guns are generally designed and used (with few exceptions) to inflict physical damage; about 10,000 lives are lost to guns each year (the majority of which are self-induced elderly white male suicides)
- medical people (doctors and nurses) and instruments (syringes, scalpels, IVs, etc) are exclusively intended to NOT inflict harm, and actually care/cure the patient. And yet they kill FAR more people than guns will ever kill, in an industry that is probably THE MOST regulated of any.
So you tell me, how do you see this?
It's not political, it's not racial, it's not sexual.
It's about tainted views versus reality.
Guns are tools. So are a lot of other things. Tools can be used appropriately or inappropriately. The definition of "appropriate" comes from a moral sense of right/wrong. Causing the death of another person without meritorious justification is "wrong".
Regulation no more assures life than does wishing the problem would go away. If it did, then the medical profession would be the safest thing on the planet. And yet it is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Why do anti-gun zealots harp on gun-control? IMO, they are either ignorant (unaware of the facts) or arrogant (aware, but chose to base decisions on emotions versus logic).
Look at that long list of atrocities I listed above.
Do you feel as though the gun crimes were any more or less heinous than the other murders?
Do you think that the people therein are any more or less dead, because of the tool involved?
Murder is already against the law in every State. Not one State that I'm aware of has a higher degree of murder based upon the weapon involved. Here is our Indiana Code:
IC 35-42-1-1
"A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human beings ... commits Murder, a Felony."
The storyline I posted at the beginning of this thread only goes to illustrate the hypocritical view of some.
The vehicle was licensed, as was the driver. And yet he killed several with the car.
The medical profession is the most highly regulated industry we have; it kills more folks than any other industry. Iatrogenisis is the third leading cause of death of all!
The gun industry and gun owners are regulated to a lesser degree than the other two, but cars and medicine kill far more people, despite their higher regulation.
When a gun is not present, it is by no means an assurance that murder will not happen. Those who murder may choose guns as a matter of convenience. Take away that tool and another will be used. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself how the Boston Marathon victims feel about pressure cooker pots ... Ask yourself how the people at the Murrah building feel about diesel fuel and fertilizer if they were still with us (168 killed; 600+ injured) ... It's not against the law to own cooking pots or drive a diesel truck. Should it be? Should the regulation of those things be so tight that we need a background check to buy cookware? And if you did restrict those things, what assurance do you have they won't become an IED?
So, please, for those of you whom wish to debate, just what is it that you can point to that clearly establishes a reasonable belief that more gun regulation or restrictions would make life a safer place to be in terms of murder?
And then ask yourself why you think the media does not bring this to light.
A tool is a tool is a tool.
Murder is murder.
They don't cause each other to exist; they only coexist with each other by chosen association of the actor.
.
You're displaying 2d thinking and logic in a 3d world. And the problem is that you convince simpler minds than yours that this logic is the entire argument.
Did you consider the concept of efficacy? And the concept of emotion?
Taking the latter first. It is well known that humans are both emotional and logical animals. We've evolved but we are still subject to our survival instinct. Depending on our exact makeup, our surroundings and our circumstances, this makes us carry out irrational acts.
In that window of irrationality, a weapon that is more effective, more easy to use, is going to be more deadly. And a weapon that is even more effective is going to be even more deadly.
Take the case of that woman in Michigan who decided to shoot at thieves at Home Depot. Had she been armed with a slingslot and used it, she probably wouldn't have been charged. Since she used a 9mm without thinking of the consequences of her actions, she's been charged. Had she had an automatic weapon, she would have caused more damage, maybe even taken lives.
Now what about her car? The likelihood of her being able to use her car in that situation was minimal. What about a microwave? Again, since it is not a tool that is optimized for attacking others, she didn't happen to be carrying one around on her person nor would she do so if there were no guns. And yes she might then carry a knife instead but again, that is not as deadly as a gun. Yes it could kill but it is not as effective.
To expand on the topic of efficacy. When gangbangers perform drive by "attacks", their weapon of choice is not the vehicle they drive by in. It's not a slingshot. It's not a microwave oven. It's not a knife. It's a firearm, preferably an automatic. And that means that people that have nothing to do with the target can get hit as well.
This is where your logic is limited. A tool that is easier to use and optimized for killing is going to be more effective at killing people. The more effective the tool, the more deadly it will be in heat of the moment situations as well as in planned situations.
The concept of efficacy is what modern life is designed around. The right tool for the job. To use logic to argue that a gun is a killing tool like any other, and that any other tool can be substituted with the same effectiveness in all situations is a perversion of logical thinking.
d00df00d you certainly hit the nail on the head.
May I add that while we're talking about twisted logic, that saying we'd still have murders if there were no guns is kind of like saying "Japan had 6 murders by guns last year, so obviously their attempt at gun regulation is a failure."
May I add that while we're talking about twisted logic, that saying we'd still have murders if there were no guns is kind of like saying "Japan had 6 murders by guns last year, so obviously their attempt at gun regulation is a failure."
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
Gun control is regulation and legislation by definition. Regulation and legislation are political by definition.
Moreover, I always got the impression that the no-RSP policy was merely an instance of a broader desire not to have discussions that are simply too divisive. That's the ostensible reason behind the clampdown on discussions of climate change, isn't it?
We aren't even allowed to have a thread that neutrally discusses the science of climate change. Hard to imagine how we should be able to have a thread about the logic of gun control, let alone one that explicitly denigrates the intellectual and moral integrity of people on one side of the argument.
+1
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.
Gun control is regulation and legislation by definition. Regulation and legislation are political by definition.
Moreover, I always got the impression that the no-RSP policy was merely an instance of a broader desire not to have discussions that are simply too divisive. That's the ostensible reason behind the clampdown on discussions of climate change, isn't it?
We aren't even allowed to have a thread that neutrally discusses the science of climate change. Hard to imagine how we should be able to have a thread about the logic of gun control, let alone one that explicitly denigrates the intellectual and moral integrity of people on one side of the argument.
+1
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
More importantly, this is a heavily political thread that was started by a moderator on a forum that ostensibly has a no-RSP policy.
Again, does that policy exist, or does it not?
When another member started a gun thread, exploring the control side of the argument, and also stated that he wasn't being political, something very different happened. From what I can see, that member has permanently "disappeared".
Another user started a thread about the GOP Presidential Debate, claimed it wasn't political, when it couldn't be anything but political, and there was no sanction.
So, like you, the rules and policies are unclear to me as well. Maybe we need more lessons in extending logic?
More importantly, this is a heavily political thread that was started by a moderator on a forum that ostensibly has a no-RSP policy.
Again, does that policy exist, or does it not?
When another member started a gun thread, exploring the control side of the argument, and also stated that he wasn't being political, something very different happened. From what I can see, that member has permanently "disappeared".
Another user started a thread about the GOP Presidential Debate, claimed it wasn't political, when it couldn't be anything but political, and there was no sanction.
So, like you, the rules and policies are unclear to me as well. Maybe we need more lessons in extending logic?
I appreciate the +1s, but you guys are just as guilty of what I'm talking about as anyone else in this thread.
I'm not complaining because I disagree with the OP on gun control. I'm complaining because a moderator is acting against the very rules he's supposed to be enforcing.
I'm not complaining because I disagree with the OP on gun control. I'm complaining because a moderator is acting against the very rules he's supposed to be enforcing.
Originally Posted By: Benito
....Had she had an automatic weapon, she would have caused more damage, maybe even taken lives...
...When gangbangers perform drive by "attacks", their weapon of choice is not the vehicle they drive by in. It's not a slingshot. It's not a microwave oven. It's not a knife. It's a firearm, preferably an automatic. And that means that people that have nothing to do with the target can get hit as well...
This is a great example of what is wrong with debating guns online. We have a bunch of highly opinionated people that clearly don't even have rudimentary knowledge of firearms.
....Had she had an automatic weapon, she would have caused more damage, maybe even taken lives...
...When gangbangers perform drive by "attacks", their weapon of choice is not the vehicle they drive by in. It's not a slingshot. It's not a microwave oven. It's not a knife. It's a firearm, preferably an automatic. And that means that people that have nothing to do with the target can get hit as well...
This is a great example of what is wrong with debating guns online. We have a bunch of highly opinionated people that clearly don't even have rudimentary knowledge of firearms.
Originally Posted By: Benito
When another member started a gun thread, exploring the control side of the argument, and also stated that he wasn't being political, something very different happened. From what I can see, that member has permanently "disappeared".
Another user started a thread about the GOP Presidential Debate, claimed it wasn't political, when it couldn't be anything but political, and there was no sanction.
So, like you, I don't understand these rules are either. Maybe we need more lessons in extending logic?
I've seen similar hypocrisy myself. E.g. we can have "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter" threads all day, but "Eid Mubarak" is a first-class ticket to a thread lock.
Really hoping there's still room to give the benefit of the doubt here.
When another member started a gun thread, exploring the control side of the argument, and also stated that he wasn't being political, something very different happened. From what I can see, that member has permanently "disappeared".
Another user started a thread about the GOP Presidential Debate, claimed it wasn't political, when it couldn't be anything but political, and there was no sanction.
So, like you, I don't understand these rules are either. Maybe we need more lessons in extending logic?
I've seen similar hypocrisy myself. E.g. we can have "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter" threads all day, but "Eid Mubarak" is a first-class ticket to a thread lock.
Really hoping there's still room to give the benefit of the doubt here.
Originally Posted By: loneryder
dnewton has presented an excellent demonstration of how the liberal mind works.
As to the post that we don't "need" guns in modern life, just wait a few months. With the govt. releasing all these criminal felons, we may need them for real.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ns-u-s-streets/
Liberal? nope, nothing liberal about have psychological issues.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - I think 2 Pac quoted that one ;-)
dnewton has presented an excellent demonstration of how the liberal mind works.
As to the post that we don't "need" guns in modern life, just wait a few months. With the govt. releasing all these criminal felons, we may need them for real.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ns-u-s-streets/
Liberal? nope, nothing liberal about have psychological issues.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - I think 2 Pac quoted that one ;-)
Originally Posted By: IveBeenRued
Originally Posted By: Benito
....Had she had an automatic weapon, she would have caused more damage, maybe even taken lives...
...When gangbangers perform drive by "attacks", their weapon of choice is not the vehicle they drive by in. It's not a slingshot. It's not a microwave oven. It's not a knife. It's a firearm, preferably an automatic. And that means that people that have nothing to do with the target can get hit as well...
This is a great example of what is wrong with debating guns online. We have a bunch of highly opinionated people that clearly don't even have rudimentary knowledge of firearms.
So explain where I am wrong then - in the context of the logic that the OP has presented.
Originally Posted By: Benito
....Had she had an automatic weapon, she would have caused more damage, maybe even taken lives...
...When gangbangers perform drive by "attacks", their weapon of choice is not the vehicle they drive by in. It's not a slingshot. It's not a microwave oven. It's not a knife. It's a firearm, preferably an automatic. And that means that people that have nothing to do with the target can get hit as well...
This is a great example of what is wrong with debating guns online. We have a bunch of highly opinionated people that clearly don't even have rudimentary knowledge of firearms.
So explain where I am wrong then - in the context of the logic that the OP has presented.
I just want to hear your plan for disarmament when there are gang infested areas that the police fear to enter.
There are already plenty of laws on the books to handle these problems. What is lacking is effective enforcement.
Until we are ready to tackle mental illness and foster a society of personal responsibility we will continue to have mass killings regardless of the tool used.
For now gun control and gun free zones will continue to create target rich environments for criminals.
There are already plenty of laws on the books to handle these problems. What is lacking is effective enforcement.
Until we are ready to tackle mental illness and foster a society of personal responsibility we will continue to have mass killings regardless of the tool used.
For now gun control and gun free zones will continue to create target rich environments for criminals.
Originally Posted By: Jim_Truett
I just want to hear your plan for disarmament when there are gang infested areas that the police fear to enter.
There are already plenty of laws on the books to handle these problems. What is lacking is effective enforcement.
Until we are ready to tackle mental illness and foster a society of personal responsibility we will continue to have mass killings regardless of the tool used.
For now gun control and gun free zones will continue to create target rich environments for criminals.
Who was talking about disarmament? I was strictly responding to the OP's logic. You and it seems another poster have read into that that I want to outlaw all guns. Not my position at all.
I just want to hear your plan for disarmament when there are gang infested areas that the police fear to enter.
There are already plenty of laws on the books to handle these problems. What is lacking is effective enforcement.
Until we are ready to tackle mental illness and foster a society of personal responsibility we will continue to have mass killings regardless of the tool used.
For now gun control and gun free zones will continue to create target rich environments for criminals.
Who was talking about disarmament? I was strictly responding to the OP's logic. You and it seems another poster have read into that that I want to outlaw all guns. Not my position at all.
Your counterpoint is what is used by politicians to disarm law abiding citizens, like it or not.
How many killings are done in the name of a Religion?
I say we ban all those
Oh yeah, and the crazy people with guns, knives, cars, etc.
How?
We have to breed them out. Gov't birth control. Idiocracy in reverse. Must pass IQ and psych tests prior to having kids.
It will take generations, but then we'll have our utopia.
I say we ban all those
Oh yeah, and the crazy people with guns, knives, cars, etc.
How?
We have to breed them out. Gov't birth control. Idiocracy in reverse. Must pass IQ and psych tests prior to having kids.
It will take generations, but then we'll have our utopia.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
