This Madness Has To Stop

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 8-)

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 8-)

: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 8-)

: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.

dimitrispearljam

last posts was ...Chinese to me..

Hugh Freaking Dillon

where's chadwick when you need him? a simple "yes/no" is all that is required of this question. apparently that's too much to ask!

pandora

I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pandora wrote:

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.

More avoidance.

I don't know why I am trying here but I posed a question to DS. He ducked it. Then you kind of crept into the conversation and ducked it as well when Van posed it to you.

Let me frame it this way...

Multiple Choice Question:
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?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Me no speak English

DS1119

pandora wrote:

I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.

Pretty much this.

pandora

DS1119 wrote:

pandora wrote:

I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.

Pretty much this.

yep and they can't admit it ... that we need guns

DS1119

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

pandora wrote:

I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.

Pretty much this.

yep and they can't admit it ... that we need guns

...and you know what? The story would have been buried in the media.

vant0037

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

pandora wrote:

I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.

Pretty much this.

yep and they can't admit it ... that we need guns

Ok...we "anti-gunners" will answer your question if you answer ours. Thirty Bills posed his first, so you in accordance with proper rules of etiquette and debate, which I know we all adhere to, you two can answer ours first.

Fair?

vant0037

By the way, weren't we talking about drunk driving? That was your original intention when posting this, right? To talk about drunk drivers? It wasn't a not-so-oblique trolling for yet another gun control argument, right?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's talk about drunk driving...

Ignition Interlock devices are increasingly popular in my state/county where I prosecute. Often, if someone agrees to have the device installed in their vehicle, they will receive more lenient sentences. The device is costly and the person typically must agree to be on the program for the term of their probation (or some other lengthy period of time). Using the device is also a means for the person to drive legally (after a license is revoked for a DWI offense).

The device works by requiring the driver to blow into a machine that measures the driver's breath, before the vehicle will start. If any alcohol is measured in the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.

Some critics state that the program/device is not working because drunk drivers, when making a conscious decision to drive under the influence, will simply find another vehicle to drive. This ignores the fact that (1) most drunk people aren't that industrious, and (2) at the very least, the program/device puts up a roadblock toward someone driving drunk in that vehicle. At the very least, it makes it much more difficult to drive drink at that specific time with that specific vehicle. Because of the evanescent nature of alcohol and intoxication, time is the best defense against someone driving drunk.

Will this voluntary regulation continue to be successful? I'm optimistic. It's never been in use as much as it is now, and once involved in the program, any violations typically trigger lengthy jail sentences.

It's interesting what we can accomplish when we get creative...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Ok. Got it. Given the opportunity... you would seek to keep your right to bear assault rifles and handguns even though you were guaranteed to avert the tragedy!

Guns are that important to you, huh? Wow. Just wow.

Now that your silence and "I know you are but what am I" style of game playing has essentially answered my question (which begged a response first- given it was issued first)... I'll answer yours:

Yes. Anything. ANYTHING to avoid what had happened. Given your reality... I wish that someone had a gun to shoot that sick bastard in the head before he got into the school and unleashed his insanity.

But my response is only given in the context of your reality. If your country will not accept gun reform then you probably should start placing the military on every street corner and alleyway. You're not at war with Iraq insurgents as much as you're at war with yourself.

I posted this in one of the threads: in the same time frame... the US lost more people to gunfire than deaths in the Chechen War. I only included homicides for comparison's sake and in truth... numbers for both sides of the comparison are debatable (160,000 dead as a result of war in Chechnya and 100,000 dead as a result of homicide by gunfire in the US); however, I didn't account for all the 'accidental deaths' which place your yearly deaths by firearms at a rate that supersedes a war's death toll.