No ma'am, I won't register my guns

1568101134

Comments

  • dudeman wrote:
    I don't think drunk driving is a Constitutionally-protected right.

    then I guess it's pretty stupid to compare them, don't you think?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 3,062
    That was exactly my point.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,958
    Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     
    I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
     
    I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
    I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
     
    I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
     
    We, the people, deserve better than you.
     
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Joshua Boston
    Cpl, United States Marine Corps
    2004-2012




    WOOT
    :shock: Jesus. Sounds like a megalomaniac or something. Scary that people with such attitudes are in the US military. We need more even-headed thinking than that from troops. Not to mention a respect for the law.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dudeman wrote:
    That was exactly my point.

    then why do so many folks on the gun side of the debate constantly talk about how much worse drunk driving is than gun ownership?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 3,062
    I don't know why anyone other than myself does or says anything.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Some interesting items to digest:

    15 of the last 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the USA. In second place is Finland with 2.
    - Well Fear... as decisive as this is in favour of your country... it's likely not something you'll place in your 'high five' thread, eh?

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
    - Hmmm. That's interesting. A 'blip' or a disturbing trend? Hmmm.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
    - But wait a minute... I thought guns had little impact on generating homicides? I thought that it was people that killed people... not metal things with wood handles.

    Source:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dudeman wrote:
    I don't know why anyone other than myself does or says anything.

    Huh?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dudeman wrote:
    I don't know why anyone other than myself does or says anything.

    Huh?

    his response to my last post.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Ding Ding Ding Ding

    Sound the bells... some nutbar just purchased two Glock handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, along with 6,295 rounds of ammunition, targets, body armour and chemicals.

    No bells and... as fate would have it... Aurora:

    http://news.ca.msn.com/world/officer-ba ... ed-puppets

    Nice system. Where else can you just go buy such an arsenal and go to work with it?

    * If you read the link... tell me you don't think Holmes' antics during the interview weren't a really elementary tactic to convince people he is mentally ill (saving his sad ass).

    After all his careful planning and the execution of his sick plan... the former neuroscience student was suddenly reduced to a simple moron trying to poke a staple into an electrical outlet and using gun residue bags as puppets? Nice try. Now die.

    so unsung and ds, you think it's perfectly sane to allow even law abiding citizens (which this guy was, at the time of his purchase) to buy an arsenel like this?

    Yes I do.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:

    Ding ding ding....it was all legislation AGAINST the criminals...not the innocent. Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. :D There was no alcohol legislation saying someone can not purchase this alcohol...there was no legislation saying no one can consume a certain alcohol or limit that consumption. They are all acts of legislation...targeting and enforcing against the criminals. Nothing there targets the innocent or takes away their rights. Thank you. :D

    wrong. they have limits of how much people can consume in public. there are laws possibly infringing in the right of the innocent to get hammered out of their skull. It's called getting cut off. Will the guy drive drunk or cause anyone else harm? Maybe, maybe not. But the bartender has a legal obligation (he can get sued if he serves too much and something happens) to make sure it doesn't happen, even if the possibility is there that nothing will happen.

    just like limiting the arsenal of the gunner buying from a private enterprise, you limit the amount of alcohol one can consume at a privately owned establishment. can one be controlled in their own home or left to their own devices? nope. but you can do what it is you CAN control and stop them from hurting themselves and others where you CAN. no one NEEDS that much booze. No one NEEDS that much guns and ammo.

    common. FUCKING. sense.

    there's your fucking fork. it's DONE.


    These are rules on the establishment...and even those are iffy. Trying to prove a bartender served too much alcohol to a consumer...well, good luck with that. Nothing stops a person from going home and consuming as much alcohol as they want. Nothing also stops a consumer from possessing as much alcohol as they want either. I could stock my basement with 6000 cases of gin if I wanted. Btw....you can't buy a gun If you appear impaired...at the seller's discrection. Where's that fork...
  • DS1119 wrote:
    These are rules on the establishment...and even those are iffy. Trying to prove a bartender served too much alcohol to a consumer...well, good luck with that. Nothing stops a person from going home and consuming as much alcohol as they want. Nothing also stops a consumer from possessing as much alcohol as they want either. I could stock my basement with 6000 cases of gin if I wanted. Btw....you can't buy a gun If you appear impaired...at the seller's discrection. Where's that fork...

    you completely missed the point. forget it.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DS1119 wrote:

    so unsung and ds, you think it's perfectly sane to allow even law abiding citizens (which this guy was, at the time of his purchase) to buy an arsenel like this?

    Yes I do.

    that's completely fucked up.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497

    Also DUI laws target the criminals and the law abiding. It can deter both. I've driven with a buzz before. I dont do it anymore because I know its stupid and risky. I was the criminal. I am not anymore, but the DUI laws are my deterrent. And if I AM driving, I am able to have two beers in the course of three hours and stay under a .08 BAC. These are regulations in place...just like magazine capacities and the like.. that deter some criminals and some law abiding folks.


    The DUI laws don't target the innocent? :? Either you are illegal or you're not. You choose to not drink and drive because of the ramifications. You can still purchase as much alcohol as you want whether in a private establishment or bringing it home. It's a consumer's choice to drink it and then go from there. A bar will gladly serve a patron as much alcohol as they want to purchase if they aren't drinking it. It's their right. No different than someone's right to purchase a gun or as much ammunition as they want. The crime doesn't happen until the crime happens. Until then....well
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    you know...there is something else...
    you can choose to drink a little...not much and over the level...
    but you cant choose to kill ...a little...there is no such thing..


    ...until that person has a little too much and gets in a car and...well something happens. But we all know people that drink in social situations are usually very well controlled. We all know we should trust the drinkers but despise the people who own guns. :roll:
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    my2hands wrote:
    Fact: owning an AR-15 does not make your penis bigger


    Neither does getting boozed up and driving.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    dudeman wrote:
    That was exactly my point.

    then why do so many folks on the gun side of the debate constantly talk about how much worse drunk driving is than gun ownership?


    Because it is.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:
    These are rules on the establishment...and even those are iffy. Trying to prove a bartender served too much alcohol to a consumer...well, good luck with that. Nothing stops a person from going home and consuming as much alcohol as they want. Nothing also stops a consumer from possessing as much alcohol as they want either. I could stock my basement with 6000 cases of gin if I wanted. Btw....you can't buy a gun If you appear impaired...at the seller's discrection. Where's that fork...

    you completely missed the point. forget it.


    No I didn't actually.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:

    so unsung and ds, you think it's perfectly sane to allow even law abiding citizens (which this guy was, at the time of his purchase) to buy an arsenel like this?

    Yes I do.

    that's completely fucked up.


    No more fucked up than an individual with a fully stocked bar that could get 100 people drunk. Why do THEY NEED that much alcohol?
  • DS1119 wrote:
    Ding Ding Ding Ding

    Sound the bells... some nutbar just purchased two Glock handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, along with 6,295 rounds of ammunition, targets, body armour and chemicals.

    No bells and... as fate would have it... Aurora:

    http://news.ca.msn.com/world/officer-ba ... ed-puppets

    Nice system. Where else can you just go buy such an arsenal and go to work with it?

    * If you read the link... tell me you don't think Holmes' antics during the interview weren't a really elementary tactic to convince people he is mentally ill (saving his sad ass).

    After all his careful planning and the execution of his sick plan... the former neuroscience student was suddenly reduced to a simple moron trying to poke a staple into an electrical outlet and using gun residue bags as puppets? Nice try. Now die.

    so unsung and ds, you think it's perfectly sane to allow even law abiding citizens (which this guy was, at the time of his purchase) to buy an arsenel like this?

    Yes I do.

    Wow. Do you have any idea at all what a reasonable person thinks of a response like this?

    You have taken your beliefs too far, man. A response as brutal as this justifies the sense of urgency for your country to take your guns.

    I'll paint it this way: an anorexic girl looks in the mirror and sees herself as grotesquely overweight- her reality is twisted based on her perceptions. Every other person with a stable mind sees herself as a sick person that needs help. For whatever reason (early indoctrination... whatever), you see the gun issue in a similar way. You seem to be ignorant of the problem and choose to see what you want, while the sane ones- recognizing the glaring statistics, recurring events, and sheer common sense- have their jaws drop in utter disbelief.

    I feel really badly for the faction of people in your country held hostage by an ancient document and an ancient mentality. Survival in every facet of life depends on adapting to an ever changing environment. The times have changed, man. Wake up.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497

    Wow. Do you have any idea at all what a reasonable person thinks of a response like this?

    You have taken your beliefs too far, man. A response as brutal as this justifies the sense of urgency for your country to take your guns.

    I'll paint it this way: an anorexic girl looks in the mirror and sees herself as grotesquely overweight- her reality is twisted based on her perceptions. Every other person with a stable mind sees herself as a sick person that needs help. For whatever reason (early indoctrination... whatever), you see the gun issue in a similar way. You seem to be ignorant of the problem and choose to see what you want, while the sane ones- recognizing the glaring statistics, recurring events, and sheer common sense- have their jaws drop in utter disbelief.

    I feel really badly for the faction of people in your country held hostage by an ancient document and an ancient mentality. Survival in every facet of life depends on adapting to an ever changing environment. The times have changed, man. Wake up.


    I don't own a gun. Never have but I won't say I never will. And terms like "faction of people" kind of amuse me...you do realize there's more guns in the US than total vehicles? So for every car, truck, 18 wheeler, cop car...whatever you see on the road there is at least 1 gun and another portion of one in the US. And I am far from ignorant. there is a gun problem in the US...an illegal one...not a legal one.

    People keep referring to these "massacres" as a reason to outlaw guns...or should I say certain types of weapons. Has anyone bothered to add up the number of casualties from these "massacres". Citizens need to stop confusing gun violence and these certain rare occurances. Need to stop thinking that targeting an overwhelmingly innocent and legal owning gun group will somehow change society. It may change society here in the US...but definitely for the worse.


    I wonder if anyone that posts in this forum has actually read the proposed gun legislation and the ramifications of it if it were passed...which it won't be. :fp:
  • so easy to understand the difference between those 3..if u have some brain in the head...


    Car
    An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.

    Gun
    A gun is a weapon,a weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.

    Alchohol
    An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits.
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • DS1119 wrote:

    Wow. Do you have any idea at all what a reasonable person thinks of a response like this?

    You have taken your beliefs too far, man. A response as brutal as this justifies the sense of urgency for your country to take your guns.

    I'll paint it this way: an anorexic girl looks in the mirror and sees herself as grotesquely overweight- her reality is twisted based on her perceptions. Every other person with a stable mind sees herself as a sick person that needs help. For whatever reason (early indoctrination... whatever), you see the gun issue in a similar way. You seem to be ignorant of the problem and choose to see what you want, while the sane ones- recognizing the glaring statistics, recurring events, and sheer common sense- have their jaws drop in utter disbelief.

    I feel really badly for the faction of people in your country held hostage by an ancient document and an ancient mentality. Survival in every facet of life depends on adapting to an ever changing environment. The times have changed, man. Wake up.


    I don't own a gun. Never have but I won't say I never will. And terms like "faction of people" kind of amuse me...you do realize there's more guns in the US than total vehicles? So for every car, truck, 18 wheeler, cop car...whatever you see on the road there is at least 1 gun and another portion of one in the US. And I am far from ignorant. there is a gun problem in the US...an illegal one...not a legal one.

    People keep referring to these "massacres" as a reason to outlaw guns...or should I say certain types of weapons. Has anyone bothered to add up the number of casualties from these "massacres". Citizens need to stop confusing gun violence and these certain rare occurances. Need to stop thinking that targeting an overwhelmingly innocent and legal owning gun group will somehow change society. It may change society here in the US...but definitely for the worse.


    I wonder if anyone that posts in this forum has actually read the proposed gun legislation and the ramifications of it if it were passed...which it won't be. :fp:

    well talk to unsung. he seems to think this is a regular occurrence in Chicago that just gets ignored.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DS1119 wrote:

    No more fucked up than an individual with a fully stocked bar that could get 100 people drunk. Why do THEY NEED that much alcohol?

    obviously I disagree completely with statement #1. and I don't know anyone with that much booze. if I did, I'd visit them often. But I also stated, in this thread I believe, or maybe one of the other 13, that your last question is logical. so your point is what?

    "we should be able to keep our guns because alcohol is much worse"?

    it's just an assanine thing to compare. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO JUDGE SOMETHING BASED ON SOMETHING ELSE. you judge it on its own.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Some interesting items to digest:

    15 of the last 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the USA. In second place is Finland with 2.
    - Well Fear... as decisive as this is in favour of your country... it's likely not something you'll place in your 'high five' thread, eh?

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
    - Hmmm. That's interesting. A 'blip' or a disturbing trend? Hmmm.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
    - But wait a minute... I thought guns had little impact on generating homicides? I thought that it was people that killed people... not metal things with wood handles.

    Source:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/

    Again... no response to this point in time... but many references to booze, automobile and old age deaths.

    The writer of the piece I referenced puts it nicely:

    If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

    Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    Some interesting items to digest:

    15 of the last 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the USA. In second place is Finland with 2.
    - Well Fear... as decisive as this is in favour of your country... it's likely not something you'll place in your 'high five' thread, eh?

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
    - Hmmm. That's interesting. A 'blip' or a disturbing trend? Hmmm.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
    - But wait a minute... I thought guns had little impact on generating homicides? I thought that it was people that killed people... not metal things with wood handles.

    Source:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/

    Again... no response to this point in time... but many references to booze, automobile and old age deaths.

    The writer of the piece I referenced puts it nicely:

    If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

    Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.

    Funny how that goes, huh? After screaming about liberty and rights, and then twisting the issue with booze and cars, there is not a lot left to say.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV wrote:
    Some interesting items to digest:

    15 of the last 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the USA. In second place is Finland with 2.
    - Well Fear... as decisive as this is in favour of your country... it's likely not something you'll place in your 'high five' thread, eh?

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
    - Hmmm. That's interesting. A 'blip' or a disturbing trend? Hmmm.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
    - But wait a minute... I thought guns had little impact on generating homicides? I thought that it was people that killed people... not metal things with wood handles.

    Source:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/

    Again... no response to this point in time... but many references to booze, automobile and old age deaths.

    The writer of the piece I referenced puts it nicely:

    If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

    Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.

    Funny how that goes, huh? After screaming about liberty and rights, and then twisting the issue with booze and cars, there is not a lot left to say.
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • DS1119 wrote:

    Also DUI laws target the criminals and the law abiding. It can deter both. I've driven with a buzz before. I dont do it anymore because I know its stupid and risky. I was the criminal. I am not anymore, but the DUI laws are my deterrent. And if I AM driving, I am able to have two beers in the course of three hours and stay under a .08 BAC. These are regulations in place...just like magazine capacities and the like.. that deter some criminals and some law abiding folks.


    The DUI laws don't target the innocent? :? Either you are illegal or you're not. You choose to not drink and drive because of the ramifications. You can still purchase as much alcohol as you want whether in a private establishment or bringing it home. It's a consumer's choice to drink it and then go from there. A bar will gladly serve a patron as much alcohol as they want to purchase if they aren't drinking it. It's their right. No different than someone's right to purchase a gun or as much ammunition as they want. The crime doesn't happen until the crime happens. Until then....well
    Sure they do. They target anyone who has a car and drinks. The fac that these laws are in place, and DUI checkpoints are possible, prevents some people from doing drinking and driving. if the law wasnt in place, some law abiding people would have no problem drinking and driving. Similarly, if the AR-15 is banned, its quite possible that some folks who are law abiding up until they commit a crime, like the freak in Colorado, might just settle for handguns and a shotgun, and clearly kill less people when they snap.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • DS1119 wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    Yes I do.

    that's completely fucked up.


    No more fucked up than an individual with a fully stocked bar that could get 100 people drunk. Why do THEY NEED that much alcohol?

    just an FYI -- The restaurants I've worked for actually have rules for their employees regarding serving too much alcohol. If someone is visibly fucked up, they often try to dissuade them from drinking more. They will be cut off. Some have cabs on call to prevent DUIs. Also, they will call the police if someone tries to drive. One of the restaurants I worked for was in a court case (that I believe they ended up losing) where a bar patron drank too much and left, driving down the wrong side of the road, and ended up killing two people. Some establishments are very cautious to not have this happen to them.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Some interesting items to digest:

    15 of the last 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the USA. In second place is Finland with 2.
    - Well Fear... as decisive as this is in favour of your country... it's likely not something you'll place in your 'high five' thread, eh?

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
    - Hmmm. That's interesting. A 'blip' or a disturbing trend? Hmmm.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
    - But wait a minute... I thought guns had little impact on generating homicides? I thought that it was people that killed people... not metal things with wood handles.

    Source:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/

    Again... no response to this point in time... but many references to booze, automobile and old age deaths.

    The writer of the piece I referenced puts it nicely:

    If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

    Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.

    Exactly. Good Post 30 Bills.
    And I see plenty of people saying that these "massacres" only result in a small amount of death. Its still DEATH!
    And I'm amazed that people think that their right to own an AR-15 is more important than the fact that these massacres that occur with an AR-15 without a doubt result in more death than if the perpetrator was only able to get handguns. Its simple statistics/probability. I'd be more than willing to compromise if I was a gun owner to contribute to less death, even if its ONE less death.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Some interesting items to digest:

    15 of the last 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the USA. In second place is Finland with 2.
    - Well Fear... as decisive as this is in favour of your country... it's likely not something you'll place in your 'high five' thread, eh?

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
    - Hmmm. That's interesting. A 'blip' or a disturbing trend? Hmmm.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
    - But wait a minute... I thought guns had little impact on generating homicides? I thought that it was people that killed people... not metal things with wood handles.

    Source:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/

    Again... no response to this point in time... but many references to booze, automobile and old age deaths.

    The writer of the piece I referenced puts it nicely:

    If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

    Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.

    :corn:
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
Sign In or Register to comment.