unless it was oneof the 75% OF LEGALLY obtained guns used in the now 57 or 58 mass shootings this country has seen in the last 30 years.
Gun control is all about saving lives right? I mean how many people died from smoking LEGALLY obtained cigarettes over the last thirty years? How many people alone died from secondary smoke from LEGALLY obtained cigarettes over the last thirty years? :fp: Shit, how many people in this country over the last 30 years were just killed over a pack of cigarettes? Like I said before...and now that a period of 30 years is brought up...I'm still waiting for the billions of stories to come out about firearms that are possessed or were possesed LEGALLY that WEREN't used in a crime. Something tells me I'll be waiting a while for those. :corn:
And just like the gun lobby the tobacco lobby spends millions to keep them legal and available.
And it all comes to choice. You don't want them...don't buy them. If you feel the country is to unsafe for you in it's current condition you have two choices...work to change it or leave. :fp:
you'll not see stories such those because they havent affected the lives of others.
Cigs on the otherhand have been shown to affect the lives of more than just the smoker. To the point there are now laws against smoking indoors in a number of municipalities. Hell even hospitals say you cant even smoke on their property outside !!! Same with a Honda plant near here. No smoking on the grounds. Some companies wont even hire if you smoke.
But that isnt what this thread is about. Its about the legally obtained weapons used in mass shootings and what solutions can be had to help stem these senseless tragidies.
How a\bout offering up a solution rather than a useless analogy that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand.
They aren't useless stories at all. Unfortunately in this country and worldwide we only hear about the negative stories. The only positive stories we read about are stories about puppies saved from a well or a cat rescued from a tree. Also, my analogies aren't useless. They take the basis of every argument against EVEN STRICTER gun control down to it's basic roots. Something that affects everyone. As soon as that happens the patriotism comes out from citizens. All of a sudden by taking away the cars from people as in my other analogy, even though it would save 2000% plus more lives per year in this country, everyone starts talking about the benefits of cars to society...starts waving the constitution...Makes no sense to me. If banning guns or making the laws even stricter are all about saving lives why not start with the biggest killer first? :fp:
allowing any idiot to walk to his neighbourhood gun store, flash his costco card, pick up a rifle, a shitload of ammo, and a cool armoured outfit so that he can do what he pleases with his new toy.
I read your entire post but just don't want to quote even with your compliment becasue it becomes too hard to type. I can walk into a Costco right now and with a cig in my mouth buy 100's of items than can cause way more damage than a rifle. To the people who think it's so easy to buy an assault rifle in the US...go buy one. It's easier to get a driver's license. SHit, if I were really so inclined and sick minded I could go get a five gallon jug of gas and a book of matches and go set an entire apartment complex on fire in about 4 minutes. But then again, I guees taking legally obtained firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens would stop any sicko from doing that. How about if we banned the cars, the sickos wouldn't have a method of travel to purchase the "easily" obtained firearms or even worse the gas and matches to go set fires instead. :fp: Perhaps everyone should be locked in separate rooms...no risk of anything there.
Well thank goodness for that. The thing is, the easy access of firearms online with no checks as redrock saw, means there's very little regulation in a lot of states. There is strong regulation on everything else you stated. Most people wouldn't even attempt to download child pornography even as an experiment because they know what would likely happen. Accessing guns online is easily done with little to no checks. That's frightening.
Not true. Have someone go through with it 100% and see what happens.
The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.
With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).
Fuk me. It's just insane.
"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"
Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?
I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?
I can't tell if you realize that was from The Onion!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I still think buying a gun is living in fearquote]
You lock your doors at night correct? Does your car have an alarm? Isn't that living in fear? :fp: If no one comes into a LAW ABIDING CITIZENS home that has a LEGALLY OBTAINED firearm...no one is injured. Kind of like if a home invader knew every window or door of a residance he wanted to rob was booby trapped with a bomb...is he going in? Probably not.
you'll not see stories such those because they havent affected the lives of others.
Cigs on the otherhand have been shown to affect the lives of more than just the smoker. To the point there are now laws against smoking indoors in a number of municipalities. Hell even hospitals say you cant even smoke on their property outside !!! Same with a Honda plant near here. No smoking on the grounds. Some companies wont even hire if you smoke.
But that isnt what this thread is about. Its about the legally obtained weapons used in mass shootings and what solutions can be had to help stem these senseless tragidies.
How a\bout offering up a solution rather than a useless analogy that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand.
They aren't useless stories at all. Unfortunately in this country and worldwide we only hear about the negative stories. The only positive stories we read about are stories about puppies saved from a well or a cat rescued from a tree. Also, my analogies aren't useless. They take the basis of every argument against EVEN STRICTER gun control down to it's basic roots. Something that affects everyone. As soon as that happens the patriotism comes out from citizens. All of a sudden by taking away the cars from people as in my other analogy, even though it would save 2000% plus more lives per year in this country, everyone starts talking about the benefits of cars to society...starts waving the constitution...Makes no sense to me. If banning guns or making the laws even stricter are all about saving lives why not start with the biggest killer first? :fp:
Because we need cars to get around. They are a necessary risk and hardly the same as guns. Are you serious? Jeez man. How can it not make sense to you?
What do we need guns for? What purpose do they actually serve? You talk simple terms... okay... here it is in its most simple form: if there were no guns at all... would we hear of these senseless mass slaughters and the other episodes of violence associated with gun use?
You ignored my response to you with regards to tobacco. Legislation has been put in place to curb the effects they have on the general population (ie. smoking in public places). It was established that the effects of second hand smoke were significant enough to warrant change. Good enough. Too bad for the smokers who just love their smokes and don't give a shit about anyone else.
Likewise, it is obvious that some form of gun control is necessary. Too bad for the gun owners that want no restrictions at all because their accustomed way of life is threatened. It makes too much sense for the betterment of society.
And, for the record... the 'if you don't like it then leave' ultimatum further goes to prove my assertion that the people advocating for gun ownership have very little, if anything, to stand on. You spoke of analogies... here's a couple: If you don't like apartheid... then leave. If you don't like gorilla hand ashtrays... then butt your smoke out somewhere else. Change is necessary sometimes and it needs to be recognized when that time is upon us.
For the record, I'm not completely against gun ownership. I just think there needs to be an effective method of screening as well as a ban on certain types of guns and ammunition for that matter. The middle way. Fair enough?
The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.
With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).
Fuk me. It's just insane.
"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"
Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?
I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?
Becasue it's the law and or right. Does anyone need a car that can drive 205mph? They're available. People buy them. When an accident happens with them is usually tragic. Still they're legall to purchase, own, and drive. Where can they be driven at those speeds though? Closely monitored and regulated speed tracks is where...very similiar to shooting ranges. Also, you can drive them at those speeds on your own private property, similiar to guns as well. Maybe an issue like this won't be noticed however until someone is killed in a mass shooting by someone driving an overpowered sports car.
The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.
With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).
Fuk me. It's just insane.
"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"
Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?
I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?
I can't tell if you realize that was from The Onion!
Yes, but there's a point to be made though. People work really hard to make things that hurt people. That was your idea behind posting the link wasn't it?
Ask people who live in congested cities how important cars are for getting around. :fp: Who is it anyone's right to determne what is important to one person and not to another? Especially when it comes to rights in the US spelled out in the Constitution? Especially when it comes to legally obtained firearms? I read earleier in the thread and it's the truth a convicted felon can never own a firearm legally which i somewhat agree with and disagree with...yet he can possess a car. He can purchase booze (even if he was convicted of a crime that included booze). Shit, someone who gets behind the wheeel of a car drunk off they're ass and kills someone can serve their time...get out and then get a license again to do the same thing all over again if they want! Hell there's evn companies that will hire you as a commercial driver! :fp: Yet, he could never possess a LEGALLY OBTAINED FIREARM again. Legally obtained firearms are such a huge problem in this country. I say not only further regulate them lets just ban them all together. Makes perfect sense. :fp:
The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.
With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).
Fuk me. It's just insane.
"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"
Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?
I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?
I can't tell if you realize that was from The Onion!
Yes, but there's a point to be made though. People work really hard to make things that hurt people. That was your idea behind posting the link wasn't it?
Yes, of course. I just wasn't sure from your post.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
MILWAUKEE – Is a gun like a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol? Yes say public health experts, who in the wake of recent mass shootings are calling for a fresh look at gun violence as a social disease.
What we need, they say, is a public health approach to the problem, like the highway safety measures, product changes and driving laws that slashed deaths from car crashes decades ago, even as the number of vehicles on the road rose.
One example: Guardrails are now curved to the ground instead of having sharp metal ends that stick out and pose a hazard in a crash.
"People used to spear themselves and we blamed the drivers for that," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine professor who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.
It wasn't enough back then to curb deaths just by trying to make people better drivers, and it isn't enough now to tackle gun violence by focusing solely on the people doing the shooting, he and other doctors say.
They want a science-based, pragmatic approach based on the reality that we live in a society saturated with guns and need better ways of preventing harm from them.
The need for a new approach crystallized last Sunday for one of the nation's leading gun violence experts, Dr. Stephen Hargarten. He found himself treating victims of the Sikh temple shootings at the emergency department he heads in Milwaukee. Seven people were killed, including the gunman, and three were seriously injured.
It happened two weeks after the shooting that killed 12 people and injured 58 at a movie theater in Colorado, and two days before a man pleaded guilty to killing six people and wounding 13, including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Tucson, Ariz., last year.
"What I'm struggling with is, is this the new social norm? This is what we're going to have to live with if we have more personal access to firearms," said Hargarten, emergency medicine chief at Froedtert Hospital and director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "We have a public health issue to discuss. Do we wait for the next outbreak or is there something we can do to prevent it?"
About 260 million to 300 million firearms are owned by civilians in the United States; about one-third of American homes have one. Guns are used in two-thirds of homicides, according to the FBI. About 9% of all violent crimes involve a gun — roughly 338,000 cases each year.
Mass shootings don't seem to be on the rise, but not all police agencies report details like the number of victims per shooting and reporting lags by more than a year, so recent trends are not known.
"The greater toll is not from these clusters but from endemic violence, the stuff that occurs every day and doesn't make the headlines," said Wintemute, the California researcher.
More than 73,000 emergency room visits in 2010 were for firearm-related injuries, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.
Dr. David Satcher tried to make gun violence a public health issue when he became CDC director in 1993. Four years later, laws that allow the carrying of concealed weapons drew attention when two women were shot at an Indianapolis restaurant after a patron's gun fell out of his pocket and accidentally fired. Ironically, the victims were health educators in town for an American Public Health Association convention.
That same year, Hargarten won a federal grant to establish the nation's first Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
"Unlike almost all other consumer products, there is no national product safety oversight of firearms," he wrote in the Wisconsin Medical Journal.
That's just one aspect of a public health approach. Other elements:
•• "Host" factors: What makes someone more likely to shoot, or someone more likely to be a victim. One recent study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to binge drink or to drink and drive, and other research has tied alcohol and gun violence. That suggests that people with driving under the influence convictions should be barred from buying a gun, Wintemute said.
• Product features: Which firearms are most dangerous and why. Manufacturers could be pressured to fix design defects that let guns go off accidentally, and to add technology that allows only the owner of the gun to fire it (many police officers and others are shot with their own weapons). Bans on assault weapons and multiple magazines that allow rapid and repeat firing are other possible steps.
• "Environmental" risk factors: What conditions allow or contribute to shootings. Gun shops must do background checks and refuse to sell firearms to people convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, but those convicted of other violent misdemeanors can buy whatever they want. The rules also don't apply to private sales, which one study estimates as 40% of the market.
• Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.
"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.
That's already evident in the wake of the Colorado movie-theater shootings. Last week, reports popped up around the nation of people bringing guns to "Batman" movies. Some of them said they did so for protection.
Ten people were shot, three of them killed, Sunday in a day of violence in Boston that shook neighborhoods in Dorchester and Roslindale and left police searching for answers.
Four females were shot Sunday night while they sat in a vehicle parked on Harlem Street. Two of the victims died at the scene, said Cheryl Fiandaca, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department. A third was in serious condition and the fourth was shot in the leg, a wound not believed to be life-threatening.
Early Sunday in Roslindale, a man in his 30s was killed and three other men were injured in a shooting, according to Boston police.
Fiandaca also said that two more people were shot Sunday night in the area of 156 Columbia Road. Their injuries were not life-threatening. The two Dorchester shootings Sunday night were not connected, she said.
....
How would any of these deaths and injuries happened without guns?
Ten people were shot, three of them killed, Sunday in a day of violence in Boston that shook neighborhoods in Dorchester and Roslindale and left police searching for answers.
Four females were shot Sunday night while they sat in a vehicle parked on Harlem Street. Two of the victims died at the scene, said Cheryl Fiandaca, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department. A third was in serious condition and the fourth was shot in the leg, a wound not believed to be life-threatening.
Early Sunday in Roslindale, a man in his 30s was killed and three other men were injured in a shooting, according to Boston police.
Fiandaca also said that two more people were shot Sunday night in the area of 156 Columbia Road. Their injuries were not life-threatening. The two Dorchester shootings Sunday night were not connected, she said.
....
How would any of these deaths and injuries happened without guns?
Something tells me those were illegally obtained weapons which is a whole separate issue. :? How many people were killed in Boston yesterday by legally obtained cars vs. legally obtained weapons?
"One recent study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to binge drink or to drink and drive, and other research has tied alcohol and gun violence."
So... should 'responsible' gun owners be tee-total then?
"Gun shops must do background checks and refuse to sell firearms to people convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, but those convicted of other violent misdemeanors can buy whatever they want. The rules also don't apply to private sales, which one study estimates as 40% of the market."
Ten people were shot, three of them killed, Sunday in a day of violence in Boston that shook neighborhoods in Dorchester and Roslindale and left police searching for answers.
Four females were shot Sunday night while they sat in a vehicle parked on Harlem Street. Two of the victims died at the scene, said Cheryl Fiandaca, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department. A third was in serious condition and the fourth was shot in the leg, a wound not believed to be life-threatening.
Early Sunday in Roslindale, a man in his 30s was killed and three other men were injured in a shooting, according to Boston police.
Fiandaca also said that two more people were shot Sunday night in the area of 156 Columbia Road. Their injuries were not life-threatening. The two Dorchester shootings Sunday night were not connected, she said.
....
How would any of these deaths and injuries happened without guns?
Something tells me those were illegally obtained weapons which is a whole separate issue. :? How many people were killed in Boston yesterday by legally obtained cars vs. legally obtained weapons?
Seeing that it is extremely easy obtaining firearms online (no background check, no other check) or via non licensed dealers (private sales, gun shows, etc.), I would venture that most of these shootings could have well been done with legally possessed firearms.
"One recent study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to binge drink or to drink and drive, and other research has tied alcohol and gun violence."
So... should 'responsible' gun owners be tee-total then?
"Gun shops must do background checks and refuse to sell firearms to people convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, but those convicted of other violent misdemeanors can buy whatever they want. The rules also don't apply to private sales, which one study estimates as 40% of the market."
SUch manipulation of statistics it's ridicluous. Did you know that 100% of drunk drivers who killed themselves and/or others had access to legally obtained alcohol and legally obtained vehicles? Now that's not even a a "more likely" statement...that's a 100% statement. If both of those two were banned can you imagine the lives that would be saved?
Seeing that it is extremely easy obtaining firearms online (no background check, no other check) or via non licensed dealers (private sales, gun shows, etc.), I would venture that most of these shootings could have well been done with legally possessed firearms.
And the assumption is how easy it is to go buy a gun. Go buy one tomorrow online and report back. Go through the whole process. :corn:
Seeing that it is extremely easy obtaining firearms online (no background check, no other check) or via non licensed dealers (private sales, gun shows, etc.), I would venture that most of these shootings could have well been done with legally possessed firearms.
And the assumption is how easy it is to go buy a gun. Go buy one tomorrow online and report back. Go through the whole process. :corn:
I did. I stopped when I had to put my credit card details in, but that was the last step. So did g under p (I think it was him). Also just as easy from non licensed sellers (that I haven't tried but that it the law).
Well thank goodness for that. The thing is, the easy access of firearms online with no checks as redrock saw, means there's very little regulation in a lot of states. There is strong regulation on everything else you stated. Most people wouldn't even attempt to download child pornography even as an experiment because they know what would likely happen. Accessing guns online is easily done with little to no checks. That's frightening.
Not true. Have someone go through with it 100% and see what happens.
You're up. :thumbup: :wave:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You lock your doors at night correct? Does your car have an alarm? Isn't that living in fear? :fp: If no one comes into a LAW ABIDING CITIZENS home that has a LEGALLY OBTAINED firearm...no one is injured. Kind of like if a home invader knew every window or door of a residance he wanted to rob was booby trapped with a bomb...is he going in? Probably not.
There's a difference between using judgment and living in fear. I think his car did come equipped with an alarm, but that probably wouldn't help because he usually leaves the keys in the door by mistake He's forgetful like that (sorry Zoso, but you know it's true)
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Seeing that it is extremely easy obtaining firearms online (no background check, no other check) or via non licensed dealers (private sales, gun shows, etc.), I would venture that most of these shootings could have well been done with legally possessed firearms.
And the assumption is how easy it is to go buy a gun. Go buy one tomorrow online and report back. Go through the whole process. :corn:
I did. I stopped when I had to put my credit card details in, but that was the last step. So did g under p (I think it was him). Also just as easy from non licensed sellers (that I haven't tried but that it the law).
There's a difference between using judgment and living in fear. I think his car did come equipped with an alarm, but that probably wouldn't help because he usually leaves the keys in the door by mistake He's forgetful like that (sorry Zoso, but you know it's true)
Really. Rational? So locking your doors or setting an alarm is more rational thatn possessing a firearm to protect your life and property? What are you fearing then?
And the assumption is how easy it is to go buy a gun. Go buy one tomorrow online and report back. Go through the whole process. :corn:
I did. I stopped when I had to put my credit card details in, but that was the last step. So did g under p (I think it was him). Also just as easy from non licensed sellers (that I haven't tried but that it the law).
Go for it. Finsih the process. :corn:
Why should I? To get the 'thank you for your order' screen and me having spent several hundred dollars on a firearm that I don't want? You know know nothing more will happen. Play the game yourself. :corn:
Easy peasy to get a firearm, no questions asked (except making sure they can get money from you). Truth.
Why should I? To get the 'thank you for your order' screen and me having spent several hundred dollars on a firearm that I don't want? You know know nothing more will happen. Play the game yourself.
Easy peasy to get a firearm, no questions asked (except making sure they can get money from you). Truth.
If you really think it's that easy just do it. You can always return it if it actually happens. Go for it. :corn:
There's a difference between using judgment and living in fear. I think his car did come equipped with an alarm, but that probably wouldn't help because he usually leaves the keys in the door by mistake He's forgetful like that (sorry Zoso, but you know it's true)
Really. Rational? So locking your doors or setting an alarm is more rational thatn possessing a firearm to protect your life and property? What are you fearing then?
I don't fear much...well maybe childbirth. I think it's about using good judgment as you go through your life, but not looking for fear around every corner. I don't want to live my life in fear, and while I do understand the general risks I face on a daily basis and use judgment to minimize those risks, I wouldn't say I live in fear.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
There's a difference between using judgment and living in fear. I think his car did come equipped with an alarm, but that probably wouldn't help because he usually leaves the keys in the door by mistake He's forgetful like that (sorry Zoso, but you know it's true)
Really. Rational? So locking your doors or setting an alarm is more rational thatn possessing a firearm to protect your life and property? What are you fearing then?
I don't fear much...well maybe childbirth. I think it's about using good judgment as you go through your life, but not looking for fear around every corner. I don't want to live my life in fear, and while I do understand the general risks I face on a daily basis and use judgment to minimize those risks, I wouldn't say I live in fear.
Leave your doors unlocked on your car and home then. I mean those locks do provide a certain level of protection whether real or realized. For some people that same level of comfort is only achieved by possessing legally obtained firearms and they are just as law abiding and rational as the next person.
Really. Rational? So locking your doors or setting an alarm is more rational thatn possessing a firearm to protect your life and property? What are you fearing then?
I don't fear much...well maybe childbirth. I think it's about using good judgment as you go through your life, but not looking for fear around every corner. I don't want to live my life in fear, and while I do understand the general risks I face on a daily basis and use judgment to minimize those risks, I wouldn't say I live in fear.
Leave your doors unlocked on your car and home then. I mean those locks do provide a certain level of protection whether real or realized. For some people that same level of comfort is only achieved by possessing legally obtained firearms and they are just as law abiding and rational as the next person.
Well I slept with my sliders open last night so I could enjoy the breeze...and they're often open so my cats can bird and squirrel watch; we've already established that not only are my car doors frequently unlocked, they are sometimes left wide open (thanks Zoso :wave: ) so that proves what? That I should have a gun/not have a gun? That I cant' or shouldn't feel safe without a gun? That I'm more logical/less logical than someone that has one? I'm lost on the logic here. I think the original point was that he said he doesn't want to live his life in fear and I don't think either of us does. There may be a *touch* of ADHD going on though
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Well I slept with my sliders open last night so I could enjoy the breeze...and they're often open so my cats can bird and squirrel watch; we've already established that not only are my car doors frequently unlocked, they are sometimes left wide open (thanks Zoso :wave: ) so that proves what? That I should have a gun/not have a gun? That I cant' or shouldn't feel safe without a gun? That I'm more logical/less logical than someone that has one? I'm lost on the logic here. I think the original point was that he said he doesn't want to live his life in fear and I don't think either of us does. There may be a *touch* of ADHD going on though
I think he's saying that by locking your doors you can't claim you are not living in fear, otherwise, why would you lock them?
the difference being, DS, is that locking your doors has no potential to harm anyone. Oh, and stop using the car anology. you are free to use it again if someone drives their vehicle into a shopping mall with the express intent of mowing people down 60 times in one year.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
And it all comes to choice. You don't want them...don't buy them. If you feel the country is to unsafe for you in it's current condition you have two choices...work to change it or leave. :fp:
They aren't useless stories at all. Unfortunately in this country and worldwide we only hear about the negative stories. The only positive stories we read about are stories about puppies saved from a well or a cat rescued from a tree. Also, my analogies aren't useless. They take the basis of every argument against EVEN STRICTER gun control down to it's basic roots. Something that affects everyone. As soon as that happens the patriotism comes out from citizens. All of a sudden by taking away the cars from people as in my other analogy, even though it would save 2000% plus more lives per year in this country, everyone starts talking about the benefits of cars to society...starts waving the constitution...Makes no sense to me. If banning guns or making the laws even stricter are all about saving lives why not start with the biggest killer first? :fp:
I read your entire post but just don't want to quote even with your compliment becasue it becomes too hard to type. I can walk into a Costco right now and with a cig in my mouth buy 100's of items than can cause way more damage than a rifle. To the people who think it's so easy to buy an assault rifle in the US...go buy one. It's easier to get a driver's license. SHit, if I were really so inclined and sick minded I could go get a five gallon jug of gas and a book of matches and go set an entire apartment complex on fire in about 4 minutes. But then again, I guees taking legally obtained firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens would stop any sicko from doing that. How about if we banned the cars, the sickos wouldn't have a method of travel to purchase the "easily" obtained firearms or even worse the gas and matches to go set fires instead. :fp: Perhaps everyone should be locked in separate rooms...no risk of anything there.
Not true. Have someone go through with it 100% and see what happens.
Because we need cars to get around. They are a necessary risk and hardly the same as guns. Are you serious? Jeez man. How can it not make sense to you?
What do we need guns for? What purpose do they actually serve? You talk simple terms... okay... here it is in its most simple form: if there were no guns at all... would we hear of these senseless mass slaughters and the other episodes of violence associated with gun use?
You ignored my response to you with regards to tobacco. Legislation has been put in place to curb the effects they have on the general population (ie. smoking in public places). It was established that the effects of second hand smoke were significant enough to warrant change. Good enough. Too bad for the smokers who just love their smokes and don't give a shit about anyone else.
Likewise, it is obvious that some form of gun control is necessary. Too bad for the gun owners that want no restrictions at all because their accustomed way of life is threatened. It makes too much sense for the betterment of society.
And, for the record... the 'if you don't like it then leave' ultimatum further goes to prove my assertion that the people advocating for gun ownership have very little, if anything, to stand on. You spoke of analogies... here's a couple: If you don't like apartheid... then leave. If you don't like gorilla hand ashtrays... then butt your smoke out somewhere else. Change is necessary sometimes and it needs to be recognized when that time is upon us.
For the record, I'm not completely against gun ownership. I just think there needs to be an effective method of screening as well as a ban on certain types of guns and ammunition for that matter. The middle way. Fair enough?
Becasue it's the law and or right. Does anyone need a car that can drive 205mph? They're available. People buy them. When an accident happens with them is usually tragic. Still they're legall to purchase, own, and drive. Where can they be driven at those speeds though? Closely monitored and regulated speed tracks is where...very similiar to shooting ranges. Also, you can drive them at those speeds on your own private property, similiar to guns as well. Maybe an issue like this won't be noticed however until someone is killed in a mass shooting by someone driving an overpowered sports car.
Yes, but there's a point to be made though. People work really hard to make things that hurt people. That was your idea behind posting the link wasn't it?
Ask people who live in congested cities how important cars are for getting around. :fp:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/sto ... 56979706/1
Three die, seven hurt in Hub gunfire
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/0 ... aign=sm_tw
Ten people were shot, three of them killed, Sunday in a day of violence in Boston that shook neighborhoods in Dorchester and Roslindale and left police searching for answers.
Four females were shot Sunday night while they sat in a vehicle parked on Harlem Street. Two of the victims died at the scene, said Cheryl Fiandaca, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department. A third was in serious condition and the fourth was shot in the leg, a wound not believed to be life-threatening.
Early Sunday in Roslindale, a man in his 30s was killed and three other men were injured in a shooting, according to Boston police.
Fiandaca also said that two more people were shot Sunday night in the area of 156 Columbia Road. Their injuries were not life-threatening. The two Dorchester shootings Sunday night were not connected, she said.
....
How would any of these deaths and injuries happened without guns?
Something tells me those were illegally obtained weapons which is a whole separate issue. :? How many people were killed in Boston yesterday by legally obtained cars vs. legally obtained weapons?
"One recent study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to binge drink or to drink and drive, and other research has tied alcohol and gun violence."
So... should 'responsible' gun owners be tee-total then?
"Gun shops must do background checks and refuse to sell firearms to people convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, but those convicted of other violent misdemeanors can buy whatever they want. The rules also don't apply to private sales, which one study estimates as 40% of the market."
Seeing that it is extremely easy obtaining firearms online (no background check, no other check) or via non licensed dealers (private sales, gun shows, etc.), I would venture that most of these shootings could have well been done with legally possessed firearms.
SUch manipulation of statistics it's ridicluous. Did you know that 100% of drunk drivers who killed themselves and/or others had access to legally obtained alcohol and legally obtained vehicles?
And the assumption is how easy it is to go buy a gun. Go buy one tomorrow online and report back. Go through the whole process. :corn:
I did. I stopped when I had to put my credit card details in, but that was the last step. So did g under p (I think it was him). Also just as easy from non licensed sellers (that I haven't tried but that it the law).
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Go for it. Finsih the process. :corn:
I personally don;t want to own a gun...at this point. Ask me in two months however.
Really. Rational? So locking your doors or setting an alarm is more rational thatn possessing a firearm to protect your life and property?
Easy peasy to get a firearm, no questions asked (except making sure they can get money from you). Truth.
If you really think it's that easy just do it. You can always return it if it actually happens. Go for it. :corn:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Leave your doors unlocked on your car and home then.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I think he's saying that by locking your doors you can't claim you are not living in fear, otherwise, why would you lock them?
the difference being, DS, is that locking your doors has no potential to harm anyone. Oh, and stop using the car anology. you are free to use it again if someone drives their vehicle into a shopping mall with the express intent of mowing people down 60 times in one year.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014