Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

mickeyrat

hedonist wrote:

redrock wrote:

Damn... such drama again. Impossible to have a reasoned, proper debate here.

After reading through the last several pages of this - phew! And...no shit, redrock

Bless you and the voices of reason in this thread.

many peeps got suckered again. It only starts out about the topic at hand. It ALWAYS turns to the personal. At times I think its a contrary view because of lonliness. Attention seeking behaviour.

its also changed from a love all be all thing to a more partisan viewpoint.

redrock

mickeyrat wrote:

many peeps got suckered again.

True and mea culpa as well. Shame - an interesting topic, looking into all the perceived causes (root and higher level), the why and how 'we' got to this point and what can be done about it. If one could engage in this debate without histrionics or flippancy it could be a very good and informative exchange.

mickeyrat

redrock wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

many peeps got suckered again.

True and mea culpa as well. Shame - an interesting topic, looking into all the perceived causes (root and higher level), the why and how 'we' got to this point and what can be done about it. If one could engage in this debate without histrionics or flippancy it could be a very good and informative exchange.

guilty as well even if only indirectly.


on the gun control topic, it seems proponents focus on the right to bear arms verbiage in the amendment, leaving out the start of the amendment which is "A well REGULATED militia......."

It would seem to me a history lesson surrounding the amendment about why and how it came to be written as it is would be in order.
The little I've read , it seems this was prior to having a standing army or in lieu of a standing army would the citizenry be almost compelled to aquire arms for the purpose of national defense among other things. Also as a safe gaurd against the gov getting ot big for its britches.( which I will agree it is)

redrock

Initially it was a collective right, not an individual right but this has been debated over and over again to-ing and fro-ing between the two, until recently (only a few years ago), where it was upheld that it was an individual right. But I get your drift, something written centuries ago, valid at the time of writing but maybe not as relevant. After all, so many laws/bills have been made redundant, amended, etc. due to relevance and 'moving with the times', why can this not be looked at?

The English had a bit about Protestants having the right to bear arms.... think they moved on from that!

Also, why is the US so reluctant to look at other models that have a proven track record? And it's not because they are so unique that nothing anyone else does will work - that's rubbish. I'm not even talking from a political point of view (we know the influence of the gun lobby) but from a more 'human point of view'.

It's obvious from all these tragic mass shootings and from 'everyday' gun deaths (whatever the reason - crime, accident, suicide) that it's too easy to purchase firearms, whether appropriate or inappropriate for the reasons one may have (or lack thereof!) and this needs some serious looking into. No one is calling for an outright ban - let that be clear. What also needs to be looked into is why all this violence, this need for arms. Poverty, lack of jobs, disillusion, lack of education, lack of hope, breakdown of the family, no support? All probable causes.... What can be done about that? Either from the citizen himself/herself or the government - both probably.

Cosmo

When was the last time anyone used a shotgun to to take their kids to school? Or the last time someone used a revolver to make their steak into tasty little bite sized pieces? Do people step into the batter's box with a loaded AR-15 at the co-ed softball game at the church picnic?
If you did or do any of the things listed above, then, by all means, compare cars to guns... or knives and baseball bats to guns. That would be a reasoned arguement because of the dual use of each.
We all know the difference between a gun and a car, for example. Like, if I see a guy driving a car, I don't give it much thought. If I see that same guy walk into the taco joint with a gun... well, then I will have a grea deal of concern. I guess I'm just wierd that way.
Also, trying to apply one isolated incident to all gun related incidents just proves one thing... that in that one isolated incident, a favorable outcome result... but, it does not serve as any support to that side of the debate. So, seriously, let's give it a fuckig rest already. We get the point, even if the point doesn't add weight nor value to the conversation.
...
Again... MOST reasonable gun control advocates are asking to just make it more difficult for people who should own guns... to own guns. Let me specify... all I am saying in that it is way too easy for some fucking nutcase to get a gun. I don't want to take guns from law-abiding responsible gun owners... I don't want nut cases walking around with guns.
That's all.

redrock

Cosmo wrote:

I don't want to take guns from law-abiding responsible gun owners... I don't want nut cases walking around with guns.
That's all.

At the risk of repeating myself, I still haven't come across anyone wishing to tell me what is a 'law-abiding, responsible gun owner' and how they reconcile 'responsible' (ie storing guns responsibly for those that have them at home for example) and one's preparedness for immediate action of self protection in case of say, home invasion, or sudden confrontation with a 'bad guy' in one's home. What does a gun owner need to do to be 'responsible'? And 'law abiding' - does that mean no brush with the law whatsoever (eg driving offense, marital dispute...)?
When does one then become 'irresponsible' and 'non law-abiding'? Should something be done about the firearms this person has then?

Cosmo

redrock wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

I don't want to take guns from law-abiding responsible gun owners... I don't want nut cases walking around with guns.
That's all.

At the risk of repeating myself, I still haven't come across anyone wishing to tell me what is a 'law-abiding, responsible gun owner' and how they reconcile 'responsible' (ie storing guns responsibly for those that have them at home for example) and one's preparedness for immediate action of self protection in case of say, home invasion, or sudden confrontation with a 'bad guy' in one's home. What does a gun owner need to do to be 'responsible'? And 'law abiding' - does that mean no brush with the law whatsoever (eg driving offense, marital dispute...)?
When does one then become 'irresponsible' and 'non law-abiding'? Should something be done about the firearms this person has then?

...
NOTE: I added that because I don't really feel up to a never ending circular discussion about outlawed gun, outlaws would have guns... bumper sticker logic/arguements.
...
Of note... wasn't James Holmes a 'law-abiding, responsible gun owner', before he shot up that movie house? I mean, prior to that mass murder, wasn't he the same as any other 'law-abiding, responsible gun owner'?

redrock

Was he Cosmo? We don't know. Sure, it would seem he obtained his guns legally, but was he responsible? Was he law-abiding?

This 'law abiding responsible' thing wasn't about what you wrote, Cosmo. Some here justify gun ownership (which ever gun and how many one may want) by talking about these people, differentiating them from the 'bad guys'. I would just like to know what they mean by this and how responsible is 'responsible' - what to they have to do to achieve this 'status'. As far as I'm concerned, those keeping a loaded weapon (locked away or not) are not 'responsible'. Some may think so. Are there 'rules' for responsible gun ownership?

Cosmo

comebackgirl wrote:

I too am ready to move beyond the Miss Ruby story. I'm glad no further harm came to her.

...
I'm getting to the point where I'm gonna go down to the local Wal-Mart to buy a gun and drive over and shoot that old Ruby lady, myself.

mickeyrat

redrock wrote:

Was he Cosmo? We don't know. Sure, it would seem he obtained his guns legally, but was he responsible? Was he law-abiding?

This 'law abiding responsible' thing wasn't about what you wrote, Cosmo. Some here justify gun ownership (which ever gun and how many one may want) by talking about these people, differentiating them from the 'bad guys'. I would just like to know what they mean by this and how responsible is 'responsible' - what to they have to do to achieve this 'status'. As far as I'm concerned, those keeping a loaded weapon (locked away or not) are not 'responsible'. Some may think so. Are there 'rules' for responsible gun ownership?

apparently you just have to be Merican.

A responsible gun owner is someone like Dick Cheney and his hunting weapons.

hedonist

Cosmo wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I too am ready to move beyond the Miss Ruby story. I'm glad no further harm came to her.

...
I'm getting to the point where I'm gonna go down to the local Wal-Mart to buy a gun and drive over and shoot that old Ruby lady, myself.

I literally laughed out loud at that.

(OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER - I am not advocating the actual taking down of Miss Ruby)

Cosmo

redrock wrote:

Was he Cosmo? We don't know. Sure, it would seem he obtained his guns legally, but was he responsible? Was he law-abiding?

This 'law abiding responsible' thing wasn't about what you wrote, Cosmo. Some here justify gun ownership (which ever gun and how many one may want) by talking about these people, differentiating them from the 'bad guys'. I would just like to know what they mean by this and how responsible is 'responsible' - what to they have to do to achieve this 'status'. As far as I'm concerned, those keeping a loaded weapon (locked away or not) are not 'responsible'. Some may think so. Are there 'rules' for responsible gun ownership?

...
I don't know. I mean, did he or did he not obtain his guns and ammo legally? I don't think he had any criminal convictions or if he was ever even arrested. Was he? I don't know.
The same thing goes for the guy in Maine that was en route to shoot up his former workplace... was he a responsible gun owner? I mean, technically, he never shot anyone. If he is freed of all charges, should he get his arsenal back? Maybe he was responsible... except for that 'going over to kill everyone in the office' thing.

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I too am ready to move beyond the Miss Ruby story. I'm glad no further harm came to her.

...
I'm getting to the point where I'm gonna go down to the local Wal-Mart to buy a gun and drive over and shoot that old Ruby lady, myself.

you've finally cracked under pressure,don't worry man I'm sending help but meanwhile stay away from taco shops.

Godfather.

dimitrispearljam

Cosmo wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I too am ready to move beyond the Miss Ruby story. I'm glad no further harm came to her.

...
I'm getting to the point where I'm gonna go down to the local Wal-Mart to buy a gun and drive over and shoot that old Ruby lady, myself.

:fp:

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

redrock wrote:

Was he Cosmo? We don't know. Sure, it would seem he obtained his guns legally, but was he responsible? Was he law-abiding?

This 'law abiding responsible' thing wasn't about what you wrote, Cosmo. Some here justify gun ownership (which ever gun and how many one may want) by talking about these people, differentiating them from the 'bad guys'. I would just like to know what they mean by this and how responsible is 'responsible' - what to they have to do to achieve this 'status'. As far as I'm concerned, those keeping a loaded weapon (locked away or not) are not 'responsible'. Some may think so. Are there 'rules' for responsible gun ownership?

...
I don't know. I mean, did he or did he not obtain his guns and ammo legally? I don't think he had any criminal convictions or if he was ever even arrested. Was he? I don't know.
The same thing goes for the guy in Maine that was en route to shoot up his former workplace... was he a responsible gun owner? I mean, technically, he never shot anyone. If he is freed of all charges, should he get his arsenal back? Maybe he was responsible... except for that 'going over to kill everyone in the office' thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/06/si ... rack-hate/


Page, who served in the military for six years but was never stationed overseas, was a psychological operations specialist and Hawk Missile System repairman. He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct award, the National Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal and Parachutist Badge. While stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., in 1998, he was disciplined for being drunk on duty and busted down from sergeant to specialist, sources told Reuters. He was not eligible to re-enlist, the sources said.

Once booted, the Colorado native, who said he began playing guitar at age 13, apparently traveled the country, attending skinhead festivals that may have helped solidify his warped world view. Before his move to Milwaukee, Page was based in Littleton, Colo., from 2000 to 2007, 9News reported. A man bearing the same name was reportedly convicted of DUI in 1999 in Denver. Page was also ticketed for driving without a valid license in 1999, according to 9News.


Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ...

your countless attempts at character assassination of others based on nothing but presumptions is tiresome. you can't even answer the questions, just all this nonsense about "miss ruby".

I am Canadian. But more than that I am human. This discussion is not, and SHOULD NOT BE, restricted to Americans. I care about all human rights and life, not just those of my countrymen. I have friends and relatives in America. I think this discussion should be had by all, not just by those who live within your borders.

Cosmo

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ...

your countless attempts at character assassination of others based on nothing but presumptions is tiresome. you can't even answer the questions, just all this nonsense about "miss ruby".

I am Canadian. But more than that I am human. This discussion is not, and SHOULD NOT BE, restricted to Americans. I care about all human rights and life, not just those of my countrymen. I have friends and relatives in America. I think this discussion should be had by all, not just by those who live within your borders.

...
Hey, wait... who was it that said the victims were subject to their own stupidity by not being prepared or well-trained in the loaded weapons arts?
I don't recall it being you, Hugh... maybe it was...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Cosmo wrote:

...
Hey, wait... who was it that said the victims were subject to their own stupidity by not being prepared or well-trained in the loaded weapons arts?
I don't recall it being you, Hugh... maybe it was...

it absolutely was not.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Cosmo wrote:

Also, trying to apply one isolated incident to all gun related incidents just proves one thing... that in that one isolated incident, a favorable outcome result... but, it does not serve as any support to that side of the debate. So, seriously, let's give it a fuckig rest already. We get the point, even if the point doesn't add weight nor value to the conversation.

comebackgirl

Cosmo wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I too am ready to move beyond the Miss Ruby story. I'm glad no further harm came to her.

...
I'm getting to the point where I'm gonna go down to the local Wal-Mart to buy a gun and drive over and shoot that old Ruby lady, myself.

:shock: Just put an end to the madness!!! I hope she lives to a ripe old age of 109 and I hope I NEVER HEAR ABOUT THIS WOMAN AGAIN. I hope she spends the rest of her days in total anonymity :thumbup: