This Madness Has To Stop

DS1119

One small area of California? 49 arrests?

http://www.swrnn.com/2012/12/26/rivco-a ... crackdown/


A two-time loser and now he crashes into a house?

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... hes_i.html



http://www.insidebainbridge.com/2012/12 ... istmas-eve


11 more.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/police- ... ist/nTf6C/

A Senator??

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/2 ... n-driving#

53 here?

http://www.kxl.com/12/26/12/53-Drunk-Dr ... edID=10446

Even Santa? :fp:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012 ... consin.php


This is depressing. This was the first page of google...just from Christmas this year. There's pages more. Why is there no National spotlight on this crap?

brianlux

Oh man, no kidding. Every year. Every holiday. I attended the funeral of a 17 year old family member who died in a DUI related accident several years ago. One of the worst experiences of my life. I guessing most of us have or know someone who has had similar experiences.

DS1119

brianlux wrote:

Oh man, no kidding. Every year. Every holiday. I attended the funeral of a 17 year old family member who died in a DUI related accident several years ago. One of the worst experiences of my life. I guessing most of us have or know someone who has had similar experiences.

Not only every holiday but everyday this stuff happens. Anyone here can google "drunk drivers (insert whatever date you want)" and the stories are just overwhelming. Death after death out of irresponsibility.


RIP MJS

DS1119

Happy hour here on the East Coast. Wonder how many people are driving drunk or high tonight?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DS1119 wrote:

Happy hour here on the East Coast. Wonder how many people are driving drunk or high tonight?

Even more worriesome: is the US's next mass murderer cleaning and admiring his weapons at this very moment? And... gulp... where is he?

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Happy hour here on the East Coast. Wonder how many people are driving drunk or high tonight?

Even more worriesome: is the US's next mass murderer cleaning and admiring his weapons at this very moment? And... gulp... where is he?

Best to increase the police force then to find them.

I'm sure there's millions and millions and millions of legal gun owners waiting to protect themselves if that "mass murderer" invades their home.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DS1119 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Happy hour here on the East Coast. Wonder how many people are driving drunk or high tonight?

Even more worriesome: is the US's next mass murderer cleaning and admiring his weapons at this very moment? And... gulp... where is he?

Best to increase the police force then to find them.

I'm sure there's millions and millions and millions of legal gun owners waiting to protect themselves if that "mass murderer" invades their home.

Would a shotgun suffice protecting your front door? Think of the stopping power of a 12 gauge shotgun. How would this not perform the task you describe... while at the same time eliminate the need for an assault rifle?

Come on, man. Get real. This gun debate has been a landslide (a freakin' thundering) in favour of the side demanding gun restrictions. All these ridiculous comments do nothing other than firmly convince the side that is against guns that they are very, very correct.

You don't need an assault rifle or a handgun to protect your home. And, for the record, the mass murders we typically hear of are in public places- where legal gun owners do not carry their weapons.

By introducing the assault rifle and handgun into society... you allow an instrument designed for nothing more than killing people. Shooting beer cans or targets in the shape of human beings might be fun, but have you ever heard of a trade-off?

If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?

blueandwhite

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Happy hour here on the East Coast. Wonder how many people are driving drunk or high tonight?

Even more worriesome: is the US's next mass murderer cleaning and admiring his weapons at this very moment? And... gulp... where is he?

On a moving train?

bootlegger10

DS1119 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Happy hour here on the East Coast. Wonder how many people are driving drunk or high tonight?

Even more worriesome: is the US's next mass murderer cleaning and admiring his weapons at this very moment? And... gulp... where is he?

Best to increase the police force then to find them.

I'm sure there's millions and millions and millions of legal gun owners waiting to protect themselves if that "mass murderer" invades their home.

Think about all of the kids at home right now scared that their drunk parent is going to come home and hit them or their mother? Think about all of the families that are wrecked because of alcoholics in the family? Think about all of the drunk women that are abused because they can't fight back when drunk? Think about all of the deaths and injuries related to drunk driving? Where are the cries that alcohol should be banned?

You (or at least the vast majority of this country) like being able to get a buzz even though it negatively affects millions of other peoples' lives. I think that is disturbing. At least a gun owner's excuse is protecting his family. Fans of alcohol are only protecting their own personal enjoyment. Sick.

Sure, nobody wants to see a mass killing with a gun, but the point is a solid one regarding the misuse of alcohol and its affect.

pandora

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?

We can be assured gun regulations can not ensure this.

What we can be assured of is if the school nurse, hiding beneath the desk
at the gun mans feet who lived to tell, or the many other adults who did,
if just one was licensed, trained to carry,
or a Resource Officer had been there to protect,
the children would have had at least some protection.
Protection is what we need in our schools.
Citizens who can, police who will.

And lets foresee some of this stuff. The last man killed his Mother with a hammer
and was let back into society. Why :wtf:
What does he do? He kills his sister starts a fire and kills the fireman upon arriving
because he says in a letter he likes to kill.
This man was an ex-con and had guns. Laws obviously do not work.
That guy should have never been let out to prey on society.

pandora

bootlegger10 wrote:

Think about all of the kids at home right now scared that their drunk parent is going to come home and hit them or their mother? Think about all of the families that are wrecked because of alcoholics in the family? Think about all of the drunk women that are abused because they can't fight back when drunk? Think about all of the deaths and injuries related to drunk driving? Where are the cries that alcohol should be banned?

You (or at least the vast majority of this country) like being able to get a buzz even though it negatively affects millions of other peoples' lives. I think that is disturbing. At least a gun owner's excuse is protecting his family. Fans of alcohol are only protecting their own personal enjoyment. Sick.

Sure, nobody wants to see a mass killing with a gun, but the point is a solid one regarding the misuse of alcohol and its affect.

Well said and good point to the thread OP

vant0037

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?

We can be assured gun regulations can not ensure this.

What we can be assured of is if the school nurse, hiding beneath the desk
at the gun mans feet who lived to tell, or the many other adults who did,
if just one was licensed, trained to carry,
or a Resource Officer had been there to protect,
the children would have had at least some protection.
Protection is what we need in our schools.
Citizens who can, police who will.

And lets foresee some of this stuff. The last man killed his Mother with a hammer
and was let back into society. Why :wtf:
What does he do? He kills his sister starts a fire and kills the fireman upon arriving
because he says in a letter he likes to kill.
This man was an ex-con and had guns. Laws obviously do not work.
That guy should have never been let out to prey on society.

You didn't answer his question. The question was if one could be assured that gun regulations would have prevented Newtown, would he accept them (retropspectively). Keyword: IF. It's called a hypothetical.

As for arming school nurses...whoa. Not going to touch that one...

vant0037

But let's get back on track here. I know DS posted this in good faith because we all agree that drunk driving is a serious fucking problem in America and there was no alterior political motive in starting the thread and this really, really has nothing to do with gun control (right DS? Right? ).

What scares me even more is drunk driving + distracted driving.

hedonist

vant0037 wrote:

But let's get back on track here. I know DS posted this in good faith because we all agree that drunk driving is a serious fucking problem in America and there was no alterior political motive in starting the thread and this really, really has nothing to do with gun control (right DS? Right? ).

What scares me even more is drunk driving + distracted driving.

Dammit, I can't remember where I saw this just recently, but "studies" (and I take them all with many grains of salt) show that drunk driving is down, and distracted driving is ridiculously up.

Pay attention, motherfuckers!

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

But let's get back on track here. I know DS posted this in good faith because we all agree that drunk driving is a serious fucking problem in America and there was no alterior political motive in starting the thread and this really, really has nothing to do with gun control (right DS? Right? ).

What scares me even more is drunk driving + distracted driving.

Dammit, I can't remember where I saw this just recently, but "studies" (and I take them all with many grains of salt) show that drunk driving is down, and distracted driving is ridiculously up.

Pay attention, motherfuckers!

Hell yes! California passes a law (why we even needed a law for something this common sense is beyond me but anyway...) making cell phone use while driving illegal but not a day that I drive goes by without seeing someone on their damn cell phone and driving. Other things I've seen people driving do: texting, brushing teeth, reading a book, reading a newspaper, putting on make up, turning around 180 degrees to yell at the kids, turning around to pass a joint to a passenger in the back seat (saw this on an interstate), doing what looked like yoga (saw this just last week on US 50- a middle aged woman with both hands off the wheel exercising), and (again on US 50) a guy slouching so low that the I could barely see the top of his head. Craziness.

DS1119

vant0037 wrote:

You didn't answer his question. The question was if one could be assured that gun regulations would have prevented Newtown, would he accept them (retropspectively). Keyword: IF. It's called a hypothetical.

As for arming school nurses...whoa. Not going to touch that one...

There is no gun legislation or regulations to stop what happened at Newtown. Do I want 26 people murdered? Of course not. But not one single piece of legislation proposed would have stopped this.


It really is time for the American people to stop worrying about what isn't the problem. It's quite simply not a gun issue, it's a people issue. More police to stop the criminals...not more legislation that does zero. Until then keep drinking...smoking your weed and getting behind the wheel people. I mean it's what we do. I wonder how many died today. :(

vant0037

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

You didn't answer his question. The question was if one could be assured that gun regulations would have prevented Newtown, would he accept them (retropspectively). Keyword: IF. It's called a hypothetical.

As for arming school nurses...whoa. Not going to touch that one...

There is no gun legislation or regulations to stop what happened at Newtown. Do I want 26 people murdered? Of course not. But not one single piece of legislation proposed would have stopped this.


It really is time for the American people to stop worrying about what isn't the problem. It's quite simply not a gun issue, it's a people issue. More police to stop the criminals...not more legislation that does zero. Until then keep drinking...smoking your weed and getting behind the wheel people. I mean it's what we do. I wonder how many died today. :(

Again...its a hypothetical. Your own opinion as to whether regulations could have stopped this is irrelevant. Its a thought experiment. Imagine if there was a regulation that could have stopped this...his question was: would you support that regulation? The reason he's asking you this hypothetical, I gather, is because from all your threads and posts, it doesn't appear that you would support any regulation at all. I think that's pretty frightening for people on both sides of the issue.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

assuming the actual topic of the thread is the actual topic, I'm staying away from the gun comments.

drunk driving is the #1 criminal cause of death in Canada. and as preventable as anything. people are NOT getting the message. you can put all the ads on tv that you want, whether it's a scene of a mother holding their dead child and the drunk doesn't have a scratch, showing the drunk getting old in prison, or just awareness that check stops will be out in full force this holiday season, people just don't give a shit.

from http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ ... 97791.html


Local

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Holiday haul of drunks continues
More impaired drivers nabbed by program

By: Jen Skerritt

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:00 AM

Fear of a police crackdown hasn't stopped some drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, as two dozen motorists have been charged with impaired driving in December.

Winnipeg police launched their annual festive season checkstop program earlier this month to curb the number of drunk-driving offences. Impaired driving is the No. 1 criminal cause of death in Canada and 57 people were charged with impaired driving following increased police enforcement in 2011.

On Wednesday, police announced seven motorists were charged for driving while impaired or refusing a breathalyzer in the last week, and an additional five motorists had their licence suspended for 24 hours. So far this season, Winnipeg police have stopped 3,218 vehicles and charged 24 people with impaired driving or refusing a breathalyzer.

"This type of behaviour is not acceptable," Winnipeg police Const. Eric Hofley said. "People make a poor decision to drink and drive and there are tragic consequences."

On Sunday, a cyclist was struck and killed by an alleged impaired driver. The man was on a bike travelling west near Regent Avenue West and Brewster Street shortly after 4 a.m. when he was struck by a vehicle. He was transported to hospital in critical condition but later died from his injuries.

Jesse Benjamin Coutu, 32, has been charged with impaired driving causing death and failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

Since last weekend's fatal collision, Hofley said police have continued to arrest drivers who are over the legal limit on city streets.

Police data from the 2011 festive checkstop program showed men between the ages of 26 and 40 made up the bulk of individuals charged with impaired-driving-related offences. Of the 52 impaired-related charges, 26- to 40-year-olds were responsible for 53 per cent of offences.

Operation Red Nose Winnipeg coordinator Sharra Hinton said most of the calls she fields are from people who want to plan a safe ride home ahead of time. Hinton said the demand for the volunteer service has increased by 20 to 25 rides a night this year, and most of the individuals who request a lift are in their early 20s.

While more people are making smarter choices, Hinton said there are still people who don't consider how they're going to get home.

"I think people make bad decisions and they get caught," she said.

Winnipeg police stopped 1,101 vehicles in the third week of their festive season checkstop program, and tested 36 drivers with approved screening devices. In addition to impaired-driving charges, three drivers were found to be driving with suspended licences, and police issued 15 other tickets for things such as not wearing a seatbelt.

<!-- e --><a href="mailto:jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.ca">jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.ca</a><!-- e -->

'TIS THE SEASON FOR CHECKSTOP STATS

2012 (to date)

-- Vehicles stopped: 3,218

-- Total impaired/ refused breath sample: 24

2011

-- Vehicles stopped: 1,901

-- Total impaired/ refused breath sample: 57

Average age of impaired driver: 33

2010

-- Vehicles stopped: 2,471

-- Total impaired/ refused breath sample: 98

-- source: Winnipeg Police Service

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I also think, and this may come as a surprise, that a good portion of those drunk driving are older. My parents don't think it's as serious a problem as it is. They tell stories from the 60's and early 70's of getting loaded and then hopping in their giant cars and going cruising, waving at cops and mooning people. They were having a couple friends over for drinks last weekend, and I was home that night with my wife and kids, so I asked my Mom if anyone needed a ride home, and she said "no, Susan doesn't really drink that much, they'll be fine" and then added "boy, your generation sure is different from ours".

And then on Christmas night, I had several rye and 7's, as did my father, and my wife and I were leaving to get our kids to bed. My dad says "come back after the kids are in bed!". I said "I'm not paying a cab to get back here just to have a couple more drinks". He said "cab? just drive back here". I was appalled. But this is how their generation thinks. And it worries me every time they go out.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I also think, and this may come as a surprise, that a good portion of those drunk driving are older. My parents don't think it's as serious a problem as it is. They tell stories from the 60's and early 70's of getting loaded and then hopping in their giant cars and going cruising, waving at cops and mooning people. They were having a couple friends over for drinks last weekend, and I was home that night with my wife and kids, so I asked my Mom if anyone needed a ride home, and she said "no, Susan doesn't really drink that much, they'll be fine" and then added "boy, your generation sure is different from ours".

And then on Christmas night, I had several rye and 7's, as did my father, and my wife and I were leaving to get our kids to bed. My dad says "come back after the kids are in bed!". I said "I'm not paying a cab to get back here just to have a couple more drinks". He said "cab? just drive back here". I was appalled. But this is how their generation thinks. And it worries me every time they go out.

I'm not so sure about the generational aspect...I mean, yes, those older smoked, didn't use child-safety seats (or seatbelts, for that matter), and also did a lot of driving while drunk. And while I don't excuse that last part, I also think that given youth's typical larger-than-life/immortal attitude, and the fact that so many think they can drive while texting or otherwise distracted, I'd say there are just as many impaired drivers who are younger vs older.

(makes for frightening driving experiences, too - yet another reason we typically stay in on new year's)

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I also think, and this may come as a surprise, that a good portion of those drunk driving are older. My parents don't think it's as serious a problem as it is. They tell stories from the 60's and early 70's of getting loaded and then hopping in their giant cars and going cruising, waving at cops and mooning people. They were having a couple friends over for drinks last weekend, and I was home that night with my wife and kids, so I asked my Mom if anyone needed a ride home, and she said "no, Susan doesn't really drink that much, they'll be fine" and then added "boy, your generation sure is different from ours".

And then on Christmas night, I had several rye and 7's, as did my father, and my wife and I were leaving to get our kids to bed. My dad says "come back after the kids are in bed!". I said "I'm not paying a cab to get back here just to have a couple more drinks". He said "cab? just drive back here". I was appalled. But this is how their generation thinks. And it worries me every time they go out.

My parents used to pack us up in the truck with the camper on Fridays and head to the lake: drinks in hand and no seatbelts on the kids. It was a way of life back then until awareness was spread. Once awareness and education occur, the negative trend begins to correct itself. Sadly... as you have put it: that generation still exists with firmly entrenched mannerisms and way of life.

Your other post, Hugh, alluded to sticking to the 'drinking and driving' theme the OP introduced as a thread. Sadly, although I could be wrong, I feel the OP used a serious topic- one certainly worthy of its own thread- to make a mockery of the other prevalent topic on-hand throughout AMT (gun control).

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I also think, and this may come as a surprise, that a good portion of those drunk driving are older. My parents don't think it's as serious a problem as it is. They tell stories from the 60's and early 70's of getting loaded and then hopping in their giant cars and going cruising, waving at cops and mooning people. They were having a couple friends over for drinks last weekend, and I was home that night with my wife and kids, so I asked my Mom if anyone needed a ride home, and she said "no, Susan doesn't really drink that much, they'll be fine" and then added "boy, your generation sure is different from ours".

And then on Christmas night, I had several rye and 7's, as did my father, and my wife and I were leaving to get our kids to bed. My dad says "come back after the kids are in bed!". I said "I'm not paying a cab to get back here just to have a couple more drinks". He said "cab? just drive back here". I was appalled. But this is how their generation thinks. And it worries me every time they go out.

I'm not so sure about the generational aspect...I mean, yes, those older smoked, didn't use child-safety seats (or seatbelts, for that matter), and also did a lot of driving while drunk. And while I don't excuse that last part, I also think that given youth's typical larger-than-life/immortal attitude, and the fact that so many think they can drive while texting or otherwise distracted, I'd say there are just as many impaired drivers who are younger vs older.

(makes for frightening driving experiences, too - yet another reason we typically stay in on new year's)

yes, it comes from all generations, for sure, I wasn't meaning to say it wasn't. All I'm saying is that the attitudes of yesteryear are still among us. And I thought that, as people who get older and presumably more mature, they'd realize the dangers of it. Frightens me since they take care of my two daughters a lot. I'm certain they wouldn't drink and drive with them in tow, but now I'm not so sure.

pandora

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?

We can be assured gun regulations can not ensure this.

What we can be assured of is if the school nurse, hiding beneath the desk
at the gun mans feet who lived to tell, or the many other adults who did,
if just one was licensed, trained to carry,
or a Resource Officer had been there to protect,
the children would have had at least some protection.
Protection is what we need in our schools.
Citizens who can, police who will.

And lets foresee some of this stuff. The last man killed his Mother with a hammer
and was let back into society. Why :wtf:
What does he do? He kills his sister starts a fire and kills the fireman upon arriving
because he says in a letter he likes to kill.
This man was an ex-con and had guns. Laws obviously do not work.
That guy should have never been let out to prey on society.

You didn't answer his question. The question was if one could be assured that gun regulations would have prevented Newtown, would he accept them (retropspectively). Keyword: IF. It's called a hypothetical.

As for arming school nurses...whoa. Not going to touch that one...

It's not arming nurses it is allowing an adult the choice to carry to protect others.

If one had been in the school and killed the shooter before the shooter made it to that classroom...
would he or she have been a hero?

If a Resource Officer was there and had stopped the massacre before it got started
would they have been heroes?

Would we all be so very thankful? That that gun stopped 26 children from dying?
I think so.

Gun free zones don't work because the lawless do not follow the law.
Gun regulation will not stop killing, it is impossible to
guarantee this tragedy would not or will not happen again whatever we do.

All we can do is protect, like our President is protected, like our airports are,
like the malls are.
Why the hell should our children be sitting ducks for maniacs?
Why should they not be protected as well?

vant0037

pandora wrote:

It's not arming nurses it is allowing an adult the choice to carry to protect others.

If one had been in the school and killed the shooter before the shooter made it to that classroom...
would he or she have been a hero?

If a Resource Officer was there and had stopped the massacre before it got started
would they have been heroes?

Would we all be so very thankful? That that gun stopped 26 children from dying?
I think so.

Gun free zones don't work because the lawless do not follow the law.
Gun regulation will not stop killing, it is impossible to
guarantee this tragedy would not or will not happen again whatever we do.

All we can do is protect, like our President is protected, like our airports are,
like the malls are.
Why the hell should our children be sitting ducks for maniacs?
Why should they not be protected as well?

OK but you still didn't answer his question. IF, hypothetically speaking, there were a regulation that would have prevented this, would you support it? Please answer not in the form of verse poetry. One word will suffice.

Thanks.

pandora

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

It's not arming nurses it is allowing an adult the choice to carry to protect others.

If one had been in the school and killed the shooter before the shooter made it to that classroom...
would he or she have been a hero?

If a Resource Officer was there and had stopped the massacre before it got started
would they have been heroes?

Would we all be so very thankful? That that gun stopped 26 children from dying?
I think so.

Gun free zones don't work because the lawless do not follow the law.
Gun regulation will not stop killing, it is impossible to
guarantee this tragedy would not or will not happen again whatever we do.

All we can do is protect, like our President is protected, like our airports are,
like the malls are.
Why the hell should our children be sitting ducks for maniacs?
Why should they not be protected as well?

OK but you still didn't answer his question. IF, hypothetically speaking, there were a regulation that would have prevented this, would you support it? Please answer not in the form of verse poetry. One word will suffice.

Thanks.

I asked numerous questions ... would you be glad a gun stopped these children from dying?
That a private citizen licensed to carry or a Resource Officer, both probable scenarios,
not unrealistic like the impossible hypothetical, was there to avert this tragedy would you
be supportive of this and the gun?

vant0037

pandora wrote:

I asked numerous questions ... would you be glad a gun stopped these children from dying?
That a private citizen licensed to carry or a Resource Officer, both probable scenarios,
not unrealistic like the impossible hypothetical, was there to avert this tragedy would you
be supportive of this and the gun?

No no no...you answer first. A question was posed, and you responded by not responding. Try answering the question first before you start with your own questions.

Wow this feels familiar...

pandora

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

I asked numerous questions ... would you be glad a gun stopped these children from dying?
That a private citizen licensed to carry or a Resource Officer, both probable scenarios,
not unrealistic like the impossible hypothetical, was there to avert this tragedy would you
be supportive of this and the gun?

No no no...you answer first. A question was posed, and you responded by not responding. Try answering the question first before you start with your own questions.

Wow this feels familiar...

You are just like me huh... damn irritating
must be the upnorthers in us...
hey you got dumped on didn't you? ... lucky you I miss snooow

now if we were yuckin it up in the corner bar a jager and a beer
we could answer these questions at the same time ...
I have a stinking feeling they would be the same. Chill calm cool now does us well

vant0037

pandora wrote:

You are just like me huh... damn irritating
must be the upnorthers in us...
hey you got dumped on didn't you? ... lucky you I miss snooow

now if we were yuckin it up in the corner bar a jager and a beer
we could answer these questions at the same time ...
I have a stinking feeling they would be the same. Chill calm cool now does us well

:wtf:

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 wrote:

OK but you still didn't answer his question. IF, hypothetically speaking, there were a regulation that would have prevented this, would you support it? Please answer not in the form of verse poetry. One word will suffice.

Thanks.

Van,

You were correct earlier when you assumed I had asked the hypothetical question earlier to determine the level of resolve gun supporters had.

It's curious that deflection and avoidance strategies are offered while dancing around the question to avoid answering it.

Here it is again... with a slight modification making it easier to understand:
If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured that as a result the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

You are just like me huh... damn irritating
must be the upnorthers in us...
hey you got dumped on didn't you? ... lucky you I miss snooow

now if we were yuckin it up in the corner bar a jager and a beer
we could answer these questions at the same time ...
I have a stinking feeling they would be the same. Chill calm cool now does us well

:wtf:

pandora

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

OK but you still didn't answer his question. IF, hypothetically speaking, there were a regulation that would have prevented this, would you support it? Please answer not in the form of verse poetry. One word will suffice.

Thanks.

Van,

You were correct earlier when you assumed I had asked the hypothetical question earlier to determine the level of resolve gun supporters had.

It's curious that deflection and avoidance strategies are offered while dancing around the question to avoid answering it.

Here it is again... with a slight modification making it easier to understand:
If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured that as a result the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?

My resolve is I wish they had never been created... go back in time to then we have
a hypothetical... but you know as well as I no gun regulations can guarantee no killing.

I see deflection as well... would you be glad if a citizen with a gun or a Resource Officer had
stopped the crazed shooter? Would you be glad that gun was there for protection?
Of course you would. That person would be a hero.