|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree.
This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is.
You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now.
|
On July 25 2012 13:56 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree. This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is. You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now.
Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal.
User was warned for this post
|
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19991105&id=-kxWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9esDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5570,873868
Brazil has very restrictive firearm laws and still they didn't prevent this from happening. Nor did Norway's. Although I can't wait to see the arguments that given the pattern we have here, firearms should no longer be sold to med students, or since this one killed less with a full auto firearm they should be more readily available.
By the way after that incident there was a referendum to end the sale of firearms and it lost, even though there is no gun culture here, but people can discern when it's about taking a right away for the illusion of security over a traumatic event.
|
On July 25 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 13:56 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ...
NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas.
Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion.
It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects!
In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily!
If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns!
Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective!
Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules?
Discuss!
Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree. This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is. You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now. Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal.
Another genius post. Youre on a roll. Prove me wrong instead of being a dick big boy!
User was warned for this post
|
On July 25 2012 14:04 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:56 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:
[quote]
Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent.
I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too.
Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently.
You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree. This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is. You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now. Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal. Another genius post. Youre on a roll. Prove me wrong instead of being a dick big boy!
Prove you wrong for what, you missed my point anyways when you first responded to my post. Maybe you just scroll back and read. First you don't live here, or know anything much of US at all, then you come at me with this "oh I'm so right" attitude, then you try to make things personal. You are silly.
|
On July 25 2012 14:06 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 14:04 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:56 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes.
You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc.
My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life."
Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful.
Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree. This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is. You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now. Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal. Another genius post. Youre on a roll. Prove me wrong instead of being a dick big boy! Prove you wrong for what, you missed my point anyways when you first responded to my post. Maybe you just scroll back and read. First you don't live here, or know anything much of US at all, then you come at me with this "oh I'm so right" attitude, then you try to make things personal. You are silly.
I do know about the US. I have studied it extensively. I didnt even mention anything about gun laws/restrictions/historical implications of the 2nd ammendment, etc... I simply pointed out that you were being an ass to someone else by insulting their post quality, and did so by posting a ficticious piece of garbage argument. If this is not the case, please show me that your odds of being gunned down in a multi-victim shootout are lower than 1 in 470 billion. Thanks.
|
On July 25 2012 11:13 BearStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? Sure I can. I get drunk and grab a gun and shoot you, or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you, or how about I get really mad an start a bar fight which ends in your death. In the comparison of alcohol vs guns, alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill. I think it is foolish to assume alcohol cannot be the cause of death for someone other than the user. EDIT* I noticed that you misquoted me leaving out essential parts of the argument. For future reference don't do that.
I, too, have no way to distinguish between the 'pleasure' of alcohol and the 'pleasure' of owning an assault rifle... but I know we can't let that stop us from implementing reasonable restrictions. I think that there ARE relevant ways to distinguish the two other than pure death toll vs death toll. Owning a nuke could be the best feeling in the world, and nukes have killed less people than alcohol, but that does not mean we should allow all people to possess their own nuclear devices.
It is important to limit the destructive potential of any one individual. In a world where WMDs are become more widespread, bio and chemical weapons more refined, terrorism and individual rampages more frequent, this is an important concept and needs to be upheld. This can, and has been accomplished pretty well through compromise and sensible safeguards, and sensible limits (like no explosives), without overly sacrificing on individual rights to self defense and recreation.
Plenty of people like blowing things up, but having a massive stockpile of explosives is illegal... even though the number of people who've died in terrorist explosions is miniscule. Why? Because it's sensible policy, strikes a good balance between liberty and security, and the net effect is good.
Think of it this way. Alcohol isn't banned, but PCP and heroin are... why? Because substances like PCP are far more dangerous, especially to others. Alcohol has a comparable effect, but much milder.
The fact that alcohol is statistically the more lethal and destructive substance is due to its widespread use. This does not change the fact that substances like heroin or PCP are incredibly destructive for the fraction of the population foolish enough to abuse them, often resulting in collateral damage, and that banning those substances has a net positive effect.
For the same reason, assault weapons, sniper rifles, and explosives ought to be banned but handguns and rifles for defense and hunting should be permitted. It is all a matter of degrees. I think we may actually be in agreement on this, but I haven't seen you explicitly state it (other than saying our present system is reasonable).
Context matters here. Alcohol is a statistically and potentially destructive substance, no doubt, but to the average imbiber it is not all that harmful. The US's only attempt at banning it had a massively negative net effect. Therefore, the US adopted a more sensible policy. Rather than a straight ban, it began slowly increasing regulations on alcohol, making it more difficult for minors to acquire, placing severe drunk driving restrictions in place, making it illegal to serve people alcohol beyond a certain threshold of intoxication, illegal to serve or sell at certain hours, and so forth.
By the same token, guns ought to be restricted in sensible ways that will have a net positive impact. The most dangerous guns, assault weapons, sniper rifles, etc. ought to be restricted, and certainly, more checks could be put in place to intercept potential spree killers.
I do not buy the argument that because people drink (under certain conditions), the man who shot up that theater was entitled to 4 guns, including a semi automatic, and 6000 rounds of ammo. That's like saying he was entitled to a nuke or a biological weapon, because so few people die from those.
Finally, if anyone wants stats on the potential positive impact of an assault weapons ban.
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/AWAnalysisFinal.pdf : assault weapons ban correlates with reduced number of assault weapons used in crimes.
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/assaultweaponreport.pdf : unlike an alcohol ban, assault weapons ban is supported by majority of the american populace, as well as measures like stronger background checks, banning of 'conversion kits'. This points to the public's distaste for the current lax gun policy. Assault weapons have nowhere near as negative an impact, statistically, but people have judged their negatives to far outweigh their positives.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf : people with criminal histories are far more likely to purchase--successfully--assault weapons.
edited: links fixed
|
On July 25 2012 14:14 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 14:06 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 14:04 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:56 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 12:03 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US. This is factually false. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stateThere were 360 people injured from SINGLE lightning strikes in the US. Only 39 of these people died. There were almost 9000 people KILLED by firearms. That doesnt include injuries which are FAR greater. If youre going to argue, use facts. Youre accusing someone of having knee jerk responses that are illogical, yet you spew some random crap that is easily disproven. Tisk tisk. Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree. This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is. You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now. Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal. Another genius post. Youre on a roll. Prove me wrong instead of being a dick big boy! Prove you wrong for what, you missed my point anyways when you first responded to my post. Maybe you just scroll back and read. First you don't live here, or know anything much of US at all, then you come at me with this "oh I'm so right" attitude, then you try to make things personal. You are silly. I do know about the US. I have studied it extensively. I didnt even mention anything about gun laws/restrictions/historical implications of the 2nd ammendment, etc... I simply pointed out that you were being an ass to someone else by insulting their post quality, and did so by posting a ficticious piece of garbage argument. If this is not the case, please show me that your odds of being gunned down in a multi-victim shootout are lower than 1 in 470 billion. Thanks.
I think you're just mad. I didn't insult anyone before, nice talking to ya.
|
Focus, it's all good. You proved your point and everyone now knows how full of made up crap esk's posting is. Good catch.
|
On July 25 2012 12:00 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:43 Lagcraft wrote:On July 25 2012 01:35 Chocolate wrote:On July 25 2012 01:14 Lagcraft wrote:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the average citizen to be able to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. None at all. I would be in favor of outlawing guns in all shapes and sizes but I do not object to say, a hunting rifle or a small-caliber pistol. Neither of these weapons can be used for any kind of large-scale killing spree, the way automatic or semi-automatic guns can be. Good luck being able to defend yourself with a .22. The extra danger of confronting a criminal with a gun wouldn't even be worth the small amount of firepower at your disposal. It only takes one bullet to kill someone. You don't need 25. To the head. I've heard a .22 caliber round doesn't do that much damage unless you nail a vital spot, believe it or not. It takes at least a 9mm, and hollow points at that, to really put someone out of a gunfight. (NOTE: I'm saying this for informational purposes only. I'm NOT suggesting violence. Please don't ban me....)
Thanks for using actual facts unlike some of these other posters.
I would like to know, however, how much damage a small pistol could do by shooting someone in the head. It would, at bare minimum, crack their skull, correct? Could it at least knock them over? Knock them out?
Anyway, my point is that you don't need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to be able to put a criminal out of action. It just simply isn't necessary. I don't know enough about guns but I do believe a 9 mm, hollow point or not, to the head, while possibly not killing them would at least seriously mess them up or incapacitate them.
On July 25 2012 14:19 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 14:14 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 14:06 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 14:04 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:56 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 13:50 Esk23 wrote:On July 25 2012 13:06 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 12:54 Esk23 wrote:Gotta love the foreigners who don't understand US culture, history, government, Bill of Rights, Constituition and why things are the way they are come into a topic like this and give their advice or opinion on the matter they think they're right about. You can't have a debate with someone who doesn't understand these things because all it turns into is me teaching you and it'd be a waste of time anyways seeing you don't live here to vote on anything anyways. Good idea buddy. Ignore my post and the fact that I proved your point wrong and attack me even though you dont know me. I have a degree in history, focused on US history from the best educational institution in our country. I would bet my life on me knowing more about all of the above issues than you. However, if we want to keep to the point, none of this has absolutely ANYTHING to do with my post. You said you are mroe likely to be struck by lightning twice than killed in a firearm killing spree. This is factually false. You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to be hit by lightning ONCE. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by a gun than killed by lightning. These are numbers and facts. Considering you only deal with attacks on someone you dont know about issues they arent speaking about, and being absolutely fucking horrible at reading, I wouldnt expect you to do any research though, so it is understandable you just make unsubstantiated claims that are totally bogus instead of offer any useful input. Do you know the difference between a shooting spree and just gun murders? Doesn't seem like you do, you compared total gun murders to chances of being struck by lightning, not shooting sprees like the recent one we're all talking about. EHHHHH wrong again. You are more likely to be struck by lightning TWICE than die from a mass shooting spree. This argument is highly irrelevant. You were being an asshole to someone and threw out your horrible argument as a response to them. I merely meant to show you, that you were being an asshole, and that your argument, after insulting the other poster, was incredibly false. Which it is. You are NOT more likely to be struck by lightning twice than to be killed in a mass shooting spree. Your odds of being hit by lightning twice in 1 year are 1 in 470 billion, so unless you have a worse than 1 in 470 billion chance of being killed in a shooting spree (which you dont) you are just wrong. Period. Dont be an asshole to other posters, and then post false bullshit. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now. Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal. Another genius post. Youre on a roll. Prove me wrong instead of being a dick big boy! Prove you wrong for what, you missed my point anyways when you first responded to my post. Maybe you just scroll back and read. First you don't live here, or know anything much of US at all, then you come at me with this "oh I'm so right" attitude, then you try to make things personal. You are silly. I do know about the US. I have studied it extensively. I didnt even mention anything about gun laws/restrictions/historical implications of the 2nd ammendment, etc... I simply pointed out that you were being an ass to someone else by insulting their post quality, and did so by posting a ficticious piece of garbage argument. If this is not the case, please show me that your odds of being gunned down in a multi-victim shootout are lower than 1 in 470 billion. Thanks. I think you're just mad. I didn't insult anyone before, nice talking to ya.
I assure you focus, most Americans are not as ignorant of facts nor as nationalistic as this one is.
Not ganna bother to read your garbage, yawn. It's pointless anyways seeing you live in Canada. No need to cry and make things personal.
You are clearly ignorant of the fact that some people in other countries do know more about our country than you do. Here in the 21st century, ideas do cross borders and are slightly more global than they were.
Edit: Added second and third quotes.
|
On July 25 2012 12:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:13 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? Sure I can. I get drunk and grab a gun and shoot you, or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you, or how about I get really mad an start a bar fight which ends in your death. In the comparison of alcohol vs guns, alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill. I think it is foolish to assume alcohol cannot be the cause of death for someone other than the user. EDIT* I noticed that you misquoted me leaving out essential parts of the argument. For future reference don't do that. "herpaderp driving drunk or shooting someone while being drunk or beating someone to death while being drunk is possible as well". All those things are illegal and prohibited You're trying to say guns should stay legal because you could as well do something illegal instead and achieve the same thing. Sounds solid to me.
What the fuck? That's not what I am saying at all. You need to refer to my first post on page 145. Don't "herpaderp" and jump into the middle of a discussion when you don't even know what someone is saying. Never in any of my statements do I even come close to saying guns should stay legal because you could do something illegal to achieve the same thing. How would you even get that out of what you quoted? I was clearly trying to point out how alcohol can blamed for deaths.
On July 25 2012 12:57 sevencck wrote:
The fact that you can get drunk and shoot me is a good reason for gun regulation. It doesn't meaningfully compare to getting drunk and driving, please see above. If you kill me in a bar fight you'll either get charged with manslaughter or murder 2, the difference is I can easily defend myself against you if you don't have a gun. If I die as an indirect result of your actions, then again, it doesn't compare meaningfully to the unethical/illegal use of a gun, which is absolutely to injure or kill a specific target. And no, I didn't leave out anything essential. I read your entire post from top to bottom to be sure I didn't. Nothing changed the context of the point I was responding to.
Your second bolded statement: assuming alcohol makes you more willing to kill someone, or assuming it merely makes you less inhibited to engage in dangerous activity, the possession of guns still facilitates killing in a way that isn't possible in the absence of guns. So, whether alcohol makes you crazy or not is irrelevant, since in either case, a gun enables you to easily kill someone. I don't know why we're talking about alcohol, it has no meaningful bearing on this discussion.
I don't understand why you even wrote your first sentence. You even quoted one of the statements I made where I explicitly state that I am supportive of gun regulation. An earlier post on page 145 reinforces this. Also why are you comparing drunk driving to the unethical use of guns? I was obviously responding to your statement: "On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you?" by giving you examples of how alcohol can kill. Never did I try to say vehicular manslaughter while impaired is ethically equivalent to the illegal use of a gun.
As for your second point, we were talking about alcohol because that was what Zahir and I were discussing. I don't think you read my original post on the top of page 145 which describes why I brought up alcohol (even though the parts of the quote you erased contained the points pertaining to that post!). Also I don't know what you are trying to say in your statement "assuming alcohol makes you more willing to kill someone, or assuming it merely makes you less inhibited to engage in dangerous activity, the possession of guns still facilitates killing in a way that isn't possible in the absence of guns. So, whether alcohol makes you crazy or not is irrelevant, since in either case, a gun enables you to easily kill someone." you tell me to refer to the second bolded statement "alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill." I don't see how this is a response considering you haven't shown how alcohol doesn't impair your judgement or put you in situations where you are more likely to kill someone, nor have you said anything about how guns enhance your desire to kill. Although I agree with most of what you wrote here I don't know how to connect it to what you refered me to.
The main points you bring up seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong):
- you can't kill someone with alcohol
- regulate guns because unarmed people can't defend against them
- the unethical use of a gun should not be compared with drunk driving
- guns make it easier to kill people
What I have been saying:
- alcohol can be the cause of homicides/deaths
- lawful use alcohol can have more dangerous effects than lawful use of guns
- alcohol should be regulated similarly to guns
I am confused why you even quoted me in the first place.
Zahir
We are actually in perfect agreement in your first 8 paragraphs. I think the issue is where do we draw the line? I brought up alcohol because I seriously enjoy my alcohol so I would be supportive of drawing the line where I can enjoy my alcohol with comfort without being inconsistent in my stance for other restrictions on freedoms, which other law-abiding citizens (gun enthusiast) may be enjoying.
The only disagreement I have is that a lawful citizen is entitled to owning 4 guns and 6000 rounds of ammunition as long as she is a lawful citizen. I say this for two main reasons:
1) I don't ever want the government or non-drinking citizens to be able to tell me I can't stockpile 40 cases of Weihenstephaner original lager. Maybe it's not the best example, but the government shouldn't be able to tell me I can't buy something a legally at wholesale because it is potentially harmful (To an extent. I think the current line is drawn at automatic assault rifles?). However I wouldn't be opposed to the government being able to check if you are being lawful occasionally or maybe even frequently if you choose to stockpile something dangerous.
2) I simply don't know if limiting the number of guns per legal owner would reduce gun related crimes significantly. If I don't know or am not willing to spend the time to research it, why should I impede on the freedoms enjoyed by lawful citizens? I know you posted some fine sources (Unfortunately I can't load a single one), but I am assuming they are pertaining to complete bans? Or is it only a limit on the quantity you can own?
Also I applaud you for actually trying to show some sources.
EDIT* added response to Zahir
|
On July 25 2012 14:51 BearStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:43 Toadesstern wrote:On July 25 2012 11:13 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you? Sure I can. I get drunk and grab a gun and shoot you, or I can get into a car and accidentally kill you, or how about I get really mad an start a bar fight which ends in your death. In the comparison of alcohol vs guns, alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill. I think it is foolish to assume alcohol cannot be the cause of death for someone other than the user. EDIT* I noticed that you misquoted me leaving out essential parts of the argument. For future reference don't do that. "herpaderp driving drunk or shooting someone while being drunk or beating someone to death while being drunk is possible as well". All those things are illegal and prohibited You're trying to say guns should stay legal because you could as well do something illegal instead and achieve the same thing. Sounds solid to me. What the fuck? That's not what I am saying at all. You need to refer to my first post on page 145. Don't "herpaderp" and jump into the middle of a discussion when you don't even know what someone is saying. Never in any of my statements do I even come close to saying guns should stay legal because you could do something illegal to achieve the same thing. How would you even get that out of what you quoted? I was clearly trying to point out how alcohol can blamed for deaths. Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:57 sevencck wrote:
The fact that you can get drunk and shoot me is a good reason for gun regulation. It doesn't meaningfully compare to getting drunk and driving, please see above. If you kill me in a bar fight you'll either get charged with manslaughter or murder 2, the difference is I can easily defend myself against you if you don't have a gun. If I die as an indirect result of your actions, then again, it doesn't compare meaningfully to the unethical/illegal use of a gun, which is absolutely to injure or kill a specific target. And no, I didn't leave out anything essential. I read your entire post from top to bottom to be sure I didn't. Nothing changed the context of the point I was responding to.
Your second bolded statement: assuming alcohol makes you more willing to kill someone, or assuming it merely makes you less inhibited to engage in dangerous activity, the possession of guns still facilitates killing in a way that isn't possible in the absence of guns. So, whether alcohol makes you crazy or not is irrelevant, since in either case, a gun enables you to easily kill someone. I don't know why we're talking about alcohol, it has no meaningful bearing on this discussion. I don't understand why you even wrote your first sentence. You even quoted one of the statements I made where I explicitly state that I am supportive of gun regulation. An earlier post on page 145 reinforces this. Also why are you comparing drunk driving to the unethical use of guns? I was obviously responding to your statement: "On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you?" by giving you examples of how alcohol can kill. Never did I try to say vehicular manslaughter while impaired is ethically equivalent to the illegal use of a gun. As for your second point, we were talking about alcohol because that was what Zahir and I were discussing. I don't think you read my original post on the top of page 145 which describes why I brought up alcohol (even though the parts of the quote you erased contained the points pertaining to that post!). Also I don't know what you are trying to say in your statement "assuming alcohol makes you more willing to kill someone, or assuming it merely makes you less inhibited to engage in dangerous activity, the possession of guns still facilitates killing in a way that isn't possible in the absence of guns. So, whether alcohol makes you crazy or not is irrelevant, since in either case, a gun enables you to easily kill someone." you tell me to refer to the second bolded statement "alcohol will impair judgement which is more likely to cause situations where you kill someone, whereas having a gun does not enhance your desire to kill." I don't see how this is a response considering you haven't shown how alcohol doesn't impair your judgement or put you in situations where you are more likely to kill someone, nor have you said anything about how guns enhance your desire to kill. Although I agree with most of what you wrote here I don't know how to connect it to what you refered me to. The main points you bring up seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong): - you can't kill someone with alcohol - regulate guns because unarmed people can't defend against them - the unethical use of a gun should not be compared with drunk driving - guns make it easier to kill people What I have been saying: - alcohol can be the cause of homicides/deaths - lawful use alcohol can have more dangerous effects than lawful use of guns- alcohol should be regulated similarly to guns I am confused why you even quoted me in the first place.
I'm going to avoid responding to the first part of your post, because my previous responses to you were logical and appropriate, please reread them if you are unsure, and PM me if you require further clarification. I'm also going to avoid them because I don't wanna get bogged down by previous details.
You're pro gun control. OK. You're still saying things that do not particularly make sense to me. I said you can't kill someone with alcohol in response to your statement putting guns and alcohol on an even keel. You said the following: "guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more." One of the reasons alcohol kills people is because if abused it is a poison. In other words, at its worst your irresponsible use of alcohol has no bearing on me, it is destructive only to you. I said you can't kill people with alcohol because your personal possession and consumption of alcohol can not directly kill anyone in a way that you can't also do while sober. You can possess alcohol, and it is in no way a direct threat to me. If you're in possession of a gun you have the capacity to kill me at any time. This is why comparing alcohol and guns is stupid.
"Lawful use of alcohol can have more dangerous effects than lawful use of guns?" What a meaningless thing to say. Lawful use of guns is by definition not dangerous. In theory, lawfully used guns pose no threat. Yet here we are discussing a major gun-related massacre that has recently taken place. And is there an unlawful use of alcohol? Not really. Drinking and driving isn't an unlawful use of alcohol, it's an unlawful use of a vehicle. Assault is assault, whether you're drunk or sober. Murder is murder whether you're drunk or sober. It's not like assault and murder are an unlawful use of alcohol, they're fully unlawful whatever your condition. My point is that your statement has no meaning. What we're really discussing is unlawful use of guns, and alcohol is irrelevant, since whether or not you have access to alcohol doesn't change the destructive capacity of guns. In fact, if your point is that alcohol makes people with guns more likely to kill this is an argument in favor of gun regulation, not alcohol prohibition.
Since I know you'd likely critique me on my last statement I'll take a moment to outline the difference. Alcohol prohibition in favor of keeping guns legal is illogical since the majority of the recent gun-related massacres have been perpetrated by those that were sober. Furthermore, what separates alcohol consumption from guns is that alcohol consumption isn't specifically violent in intent, whereas a gun is an instrument designed to kill. It makes considerably less sense to allow general ownership of an object whose sole purpose is to kill, and regulate alcohol because it "can be the cause of homicides and death" than it would be to regulate the object designed to kill and promote responsible consumption of alcohol, which, in some people, myself included, does not promote violent behavior.
|
By the way BearStorm, I am reading every word of your posts, and I appreciate you not posting trash. I simply disagree with you on a number of details.
|
Wow, I go to the concert, come back, and a guy is arguing on my behalf by calculating the odds of being struck by lightning twice.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Sevencck
I thought it would be pretty clear that we are not discussing the same thing when I put out in bullet form what I figured we were trying to say. What we have here is a case of not having the whole picture. Rereading the original post you quoted I can see how a misinterpretation could have been made. What you see as "meaningless" and "irrelevant" I think is only so because you are trying to disprove points that I have not touched. The funny thing is that I agree with the majority of what you just posted. You stress the difference between unlawful crimes such as assault and murder, and how being drunk while doing so is irrelevant, but if you followed the original discussion the metric I was using to evaluate potential danger (which is what I was trying to evaluate) was annual deaths. I would understand if you were trying to convince me that I should change my metric the number of murders/assaults, but your tone suggests you are trying to convince me of something else. I am confused to what this is, and I don't say this in a condescending way. I am actually confused. Also what is this talk about "we are discussing"? I was having a discussion (not with you) until you decided to quote me. If you disagree then please make bullet points of what you think I am saying so I might clarify.
|
Another poster made reference to Holmes applying for a membership at a gun range, and getting instantly rejected.
Here's an excerpt from an article from the Daily Mail.
Suspected mass-murderer James Holmes was rejected from joining a Colorado gun club just weeks before his horrific shooting spree, because the message on his answering machine was 'bizarre and freaky'.
The 24-year-old who killed 12 people and injured scores more when he opened fire at a midnight screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises' on Friday, applied for membership to the Lead Valley Range in Byers on June 25 but owner Glenn Rotkovich banned the man from the club after being unnerved by his 'incoherent, rambling' message.
'I called to see if he could come down for an orientation and I got his answering machine and the message was just bizarre, freaky,' Mr Rotkovich told MailOnline.
'I thought it was weird and strange. I called a couple more times and then decided not to call again because of the nature of his answering message.
'I gave my staff his name - James Holmes - and told everyone here to get me if he shows up at the range. I wanted to know who he was before we considered doing anything with him, let alone make him a member. He was flagged.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177323/Colorado-gun-club-owner-Glenn-Rotkovich-rejected-James-Holmes-just-WEEKS-shooting-spree-freaky-answering-message.html
For all those that say that the massacre couldn't been thwarted, I submit this as a evidence that it possibly could have -- or at the very least, not been committed with legally purchased firearms.
Imagine if all legal gun dealers were as conscientious as this Colorado gun club owner. Imagine if Homes had to do an actual exam, be interviewed or meet with a law enforcement offer, and be issued a licence before getting a gun.
If this club owner had the presence of mind to flag Holmes, whose to say a gun dealer or instructor couldn't? Responsible, experienced gun owners are better than anyone at recognizing when someone is a risk to themselves or others with a gun.
This is what is so disappointing about this thread. I haven't read a single suggestion from a pro-gun advocate suggesting how they would improve gun education, training, regulation or law in manner that would protect the rights of gun owners but also improve public safety.
The only arguments that have made is that crime is everywhere, gun ownership is an essential freedom in the event of invasion or a facist government, you have to be American to understand, and bad shit happens with or without guns.
There are too many gun advocates focusing on sweeping the abuse of firearms under the rug, when they, of all people, should be leading the charge. It's in their own best interest.
The best way to protect the right to bear arms is to promote initiatives that prevent their abuse -- not to ignore or discount the abuse all together. Because by ignoring the problem, and by allowing any random yokel to purchase a gun, they invite criticism and extreme opposition of all gun owners.
People here say that most gun owners are responsible. Well there's no real way of knowing, because the standards for gun ownership is so low. That's the problem.
|
On July 25 2012 16:15 BearStorm wrote:
Sevencck
I thought it would be pretty clear that we are not discussing the same thing when I put out in bullet form what I figured we were trying to say. What we have here is a case of not having the whole picture. Rereading the original post you quoted I can see how a misinterpretation could have been made. What you see as "meaningless" and "irrelevant" I think is only so because you are trying to disprove points that I have not touched. The funny thing is that I agree with the majority of what you just posted. You stress the difference between unlawful crimes such as assault and murder, and how being drunk while doing so is irrelevant, but if you followed the original discussion the metric I was using to evaluate potential danger (which is what I was trying to evaluate) was annual deaths. I would understand if you were trying to convince me that I should change my metric the number of murders/assaults, but your tone suggests you are trying to convince me of something else. I am confused to what this is, and I don't say this in a condescending way. I am actually confused. Also what is this talk about "we are discussing"? I was having a discussion (not with you) until you decided to quote me. If you disagree then please make bullet points of what you think I am saying so I might clarify.
Perhaps I missed a couple vital posts you made. I'll go back several pages before I first posted and review. We may indeed be mostly in agreement.
|
Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
|
On July 25 2012 16:20 rhs408 wrote:
Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
and this wisdom is based on what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
