Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

quote]
No. It should be controlled more tightly. Only fridges and ice chests should be banned. :roll:

People can roll their eyes all they want. I just take things out to their logical conclusion. If one thing that is POTENTIALLY dangerous should become even more regualted and/or banned...shouldn't everything? I actually know for a fact with a well placed shot you can kill someone with a slingshot. Let's ban those too.

I don't think it's logical to compare completely unrelated things.
Oh, and yeah, I think everyone should need to get a psych evaluation to buy firearms, at their own expense.... it would start a new industry in the mental health care field too - good for the economy. Win-win!

comebackgirl

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

quote]
No. It should be controlled more tightly. Only fridges and ice chests should be banned. :roll:

People can roll their eyes all they want. I just take things out to their logical conclusion. If one thing that is POTENTIALLY dangerous should become even more regualted and/or banned...shouldn't everything? I actually know for a fact with a well placed shot you can kill someone with a slingshot. Let's ban those too.

I don't think it's logical to compare completely unrelated things.
Oh, and yeah, I think everyone should need to get a psych evaluation to buy firearms, at their own expense.... it would start a new industry in the mental health care field too - good for the economy. Win-win!

I'd be on board with that. For purely unselfish reasons of course

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm just not sure how you got that out of my statement. I didn't even reference guns in that statement. The logic eludes me. As does the last page and a half or so of this thread.

I'll guess I'll end it with if someone's biggest concern is being injured or killed by a legally obtained weapon in this country...you need to reevaluate. It's virtually not going to happen. Stay off the roads. Much greater chance by "ions" of being hurt there.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm just not sure how you got that out of my statement. I didn't even reference guns in that statement. The logic eludes me. As does the last page and a half or so of this thread.

I'll guess I'll end it with if someone's biggest concern is being injured or killed by a legally obtained weapon in this country...you need to reevaluate. It's virtually not going to happen. Stay off the roads. Much greater chance by "ions" of being hurt there.

Obviously. But everyone chooses to get in a car knowing the risks. No one chooses to be shot.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think it's logical to compare completely unrelated things.
Oh, and yeah, I think everyone should need to get a psych evaluation to buy firearms, at their own expense.... it would start a new industry in the mental health care field too - good for the economy. Win-win!

How about a pysch evaluation to drive a car? How about to buy a set of steak knives? How about to buy a meat clever? How about to buy fertilizer that can be easily made into a bomb? How about for anything purchased, everyone is given a pysch evaluation?

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm just not sure how you got that out of my statement. I didn't even reference guns in that statement. The logic eludes me. As does the last page and a half or so of this thread.

I'll guess I'll end it with if someone's biggest concern is being injured or killed by a legally obtained weapon in this country...you need to reevaluate. It's virtually not going to happen. Stay off the roads. Much greater chance by "ions" of being hurt there.

Obviously. But everyone chooses to get in a car knowing the risks. No one chooses to be shot.

People standing on the sidewalk and get mowed down by an errand driver didn't choose to get in a car either.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm just not sure how you got that out of my statement. I didn't even reference guns in that statement. The logic eludes me. As does the last page and a half or so of this thread.

I'll guess I'll end it with if someone's biggest concern is being injured or killed by a legally obtained weapon in this country...you need to reevaluate. It's virtually not going to happen. Stay off the roads. Much greater chance by "ions" of being hurt there.

I don't recall anyone saying that this was their biggest concern. And DS, as Mickeyrat stated earlier, you really seem intent on putting yourself out of business


Not to derail this very logical discussion, but there was just a report that Jared Loughner was assessed as competent to enter a plea in his case and plans to plead guilty

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/gu ... mpage.html

redrock

Zoso wrote:

redrock wrote:

Zoso wrote:

Someone on this thread keeps saying what they are saying is 'common' sense'.. I wish people were more careful about telling others what they are saying is 'common sense'

Also, considering that it has been shown that three quarters of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally - one would assume by 'responsible, law abiding citizens' as those are supposedly the only people that can purchase guns legally - it would also be useful to refrain using those terms in comparison to the 'bad guys'. Especially when one cannot define what this responsible, law abiding citizen is (it has already been questioned whether keeping a loaded weapon is being 'responsible' as we all know that gun and ammo should be kept separately under lock and key).

Maybe someone would like to take up this challenge and finally give everyone here an answer. What is a 'responsible, law abiding citizen' that can obtain a gun legally? What makes him/her more responsible than others? How is one 'responsible'? Do all 'responsible' owners have full training (physical and psychological) on gun use? Is the rest of the family 'safety trained'? How is one 'responsible' (say with gun storage) but still be prepared for the unexpected in case of a home intrusion of any kind (ie having the time to unlock cabinet where gun is stored - maybe in a different room - go to the second cabinet with ammo and get that, load gun, etc.)? Difficult, isn't it? Therefore if one cannot store guns safely without compromising his/her 'home defense', one is no longer 'responsible'? I guess law abiding is easier to define - would be one that would never break any laws whatsoever - does this person really exist?

Not being flippant or anything, just trying to understand what some people mean when they use certain terms.

what I'm trying to say is training in gun use isn't going to make them less likely or more likely to participate in a mass shooting..

I agree Zoso. But people who speak of 'responsible' gun owners speak of training. Just trying to understand what is meant by that and the impact of it on their 'responsible' gun ownership.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think it's logical to compare completely unrelated things.
Oh, and yeah, I think everyone should need to get a psych evaluation to buy firearms, at their own expense.... it would start a new industry in the mental health care field too - good for the economy. Win-win!

How about a pysch evaluation to drive a car? How about to buy a set of steak knives? How about to buy a meat clever? How about to buy fertilizer that can be easily made into a bomb? How about for anything purchased, everyone is given a pysch evaluation?

I'd be in full support of everyone needing a full mental health workup before they can ever buy anything ever again. Ever. Can't blame a gal for wanting a little job security :eh:

gimmesometruth27

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if i dropped a gun on the ground and it discharges and the bullet hits my hypothetical 3 year old kid and kills them, the gun killed her. not any person...

Guess what. Don't keep your kid around a gun. You wouldn't put your hypothetical three year old on the shoulder of a highway would you?

i have made several points in my last few posts in this thread that i have directed at you and you are not responding to them. i thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation about guns? carry on with your banning of cars and icepicks... :fp:

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

And DS, as Mickeyrat stated earlier, you really seem intent on putting yourself out of business

I'm just looking to make the country safer for everyone. After all, if the legally obtained weapons were such an issue in this country why start at the low end? Start from the biggest killer and work down. Ban the cars!!!

DS1119

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if i dropped a gun on the ground and it discharges and the bullet hits my hypothetical 3 year old kid and kills them, the gun killed her. not any person...

Guess what. Don't keep your kid around a gun. You wouldn't put your hypothetical three year old on the shoulder of a highway would you?

i have made several points in my last few posts in this thread that i have directed at you and you are not responding to them. i thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation about guns? carry on with your banning of cars and icepicks... :fp:

What questions or points? :?

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I'll guess I'll end it with if someone's biggest concern is being injured or killed by a legally obtained weapon in this country...you need to reevaluate. It's virtually not going to happen. Stay off the roads. Much greater chance by "ions" of being hurt there.

Obviously. But everyone chooses to get in a car knowing the risks. No one chooses to be shot.

People standing on the sidewalk and get mowed down by an errand driver didn't choose to get in a car either.

No, but pedestrians watch out for cars, take risks when they jay walk, know that cars are whizzing by. And it's not too common for people to aim their cars and run random people down on purpose either. That's really neither here nor there though. It doesn't make sense to compare cars and guns, and the conversation about that happened at least a couple of pages ago (I.e. cars provide enough benefit to justify the risks, whereas, in my and many other people's opinions, guns don't). So no need to beat a dead horse with the car argument, especially since they're not comparable for many reasons. You can't look at these issues in such black and white terms - it is just unhelpful and inevitably irrelevant. Just reread the thread to readdress the car thing.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

And DS, as Mickeyrat stated earlier, you really seem intent on putting yourself out of business

I'm just looking to make the country safer for everyone. After all, if the legally obtained weapons were such an issue in this country why start at the low end? Start from the biggest killer and work down. Ban the cars!!!

It's interesting though, because with each new car model, we see more safety features. We also see more traffic rules and regulations put in place; the guidelines on who can obtain a driver's license and when has changed. As our understanding of the risks has evolved, so have the safety measures and restrictions.

PJ_Soul

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

And DS, as Mickeyrat stated earlier, you really seem intent on putting yourself out of business

I'm just looking to make the country safer for everyone. After all, if the legally obtained weapons were such an issue in this country why start at the low end? Start from the biggest killer and work down. Ban the cars!!!

It's interesting though, because with each new car model, we see more safety features. We also see more traffic rules and regulations put in place; the guidelines on who can obtain a driver's license and when has changed. As our understanding of the risks has evolved, so have the safety measures and restrictions.

A good point.

dimitrispearljam

peacefrompaul wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

i dont know..how i ll react,or how a girl will react..
having a gun will not change anything..probably ill shoot myself or my girlfriend cos of the panic of the attack,or ill forget i have a gun..or ill piss him more ill put the gun out and he will kill us,when he has in mind only to steal our money..
who knows..
and the normal is to go the funeral ill guess..ill not collect dna from crime scene,
its police job....
really,a simple civilian cant have answers to this things..
the suprise of attacking u whe n u dont expect it,is the same having a gun or not.
thats why policeman trained for this situation.

So what's the solution, D? More police? Cameras everywhere?

thats the problem my friend..good question
there is no magic solution...
the goal here to limit down the violence..
do u think that having more guns will solve the problem?no way..
probably more more not responsible people will own guns..
i know one thng for sure..

someone want to do bad...wanna hurt someone ..he will do it..
no system cant stop him..cameras?police?..
how can u stop someone right now at his garage that he load his gun and he will go out
to robe,kill,rape,the first victim he will find on his way??
you cant..
if criminals lets us know before they act,as a society we will be ready
police,citizen..all..

the only way i see is to try to create better life,better future ,so people having hope.
will take time..i know..but sure,all become Rambo isnt a solution..
this is for hollywood..

for me heroes in life is the ones that from nothing,create something good..
is the people that raise their families,try to do good,even when they are poor.
and have dignity...
if u want to play the sherriff,join police force...
guns dont help..revenge never helps...

and another thing...

u know anyone that "protect"him self and shoot someone and kill him??

the one i know,taking alot of pills for sleep at nights..

redrock

dimitrispearljam wrote:

the only way i see is to try to create better life,better future ,so people having hope.will take time..i know..but sure,all become Rambo isnt a solution..
this is for hollywood..

for me heroes in life is the ones that from nothing,create something good..
is the people that raise their families,try to do good,even when they are poor.
and have dignity...
.

As you say Dimi. Get to the root of this problem. It's not 'devaluation of life' or plain ol' violence - these have a reason to be - it goes deeper than that. Look at the source and try to fix it.

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

And DS, as Mickeyrat stated earlier, you really seem intent on putting yourself out of business

I'm just looking to make the country safer for everyone. After all, if the legally obtained weapons were such an issue in this country why start at the low end? Start from the biggest killer and work down. Ban the cars!!!

It's interesting though, because with each new car model, we see more safety features. We also see more traffic rules and regulations put in place; the guidelines on who can obtain a driver's license and when has changed. As our understanding of the risks has evolved, so have the safety measures and restrictions.

...and rules and regulations for legally owning a firearm have changed too! They're more strict than ownig a car...a much more dangerous "weapon" ( that the numbers already support.)

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

You can't look at these issues in such black and white terms

Sure I can. If the point for more strict gun control laws is to end death...start at the top. Cars not only kill more people overall compaered to guns not only by pure numbers but by percentage of population...ban the cars. I mean target the biggest problem first. Simple. Most people will be killed by cars this year....by far. Biggest percentage of premature deaths this year will be caused by cars this year by far again. Eliminate thesedeaths and then move on to problem number two. I believe guns are the number 7 killer in the US actually...and that includes legal and illegal firearms.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I'm just looking to make the country safer for everyone. After all, if the legally obtained weapons were such an issue in this country why start at the low end? Start from the biggest killer and work down. Ban the cars!!!

It's interesting though, because with each new car model, we see more safety features. We also see more traffic rules and regulations put in place; the guidelines on who can obtain a driver's license and when has changed. As our understanding of the risks has evolved, so have the safety measures and restrictions.

...and rules and regulations for legally owning a firearm have changed too! They're more strict than ownig a car...a much more dangerous "weapon" ( that the numbers already support.)

I really don't see how the rules are more strict than for driving. In any case, the rules and regulations need to be more strict than they are now.