This Madness Has To Stop

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2013

for people to say "only the law abiding follow the laws" as an argument to let us do what we want is unfathomable. so should we:

make murder legal?
make cocaine, heroin, and all other hard drugs legal?
make child molestation legal?
make drunk driving legal?

after all, your argument states that laws don't work, since only the law abiding follow them. so what's the point of any laws then?

what a preposterous argument. only the law abiding follow laws, so don't make them. good lord. yeah, let's not punish those who get caught doing illegal things, let's just get rid of all laws! fuck society!

the thread title is correct, only not as intended. This madness DOES have to stop.

pandora · January 2013

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

this is just one story of many I found googling away

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/02/ ... l-driving/
the final thought :shock:

According to the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, which collects the results of academic studies about crime and policing, repeat drunken drivers comprise a relatively small proportion of the total number of drivers but are disproportionately responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other problems associated with drunken driving. Anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers arrested for drunken driving have previously been charged with the offense, CPOP says. CPOP reports that by some estimates, the average drunken driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2,000 times for every time he is apprehended. If that ratio is accurate, Diaz/DeLeon/Diaz-DeLeon/Delgado/Ortiz/Morales/Lopez may actually have driven impaired not 15 or so times, but 1,200 to 30,000 times.

We might all agree here it is the justice system :?

an interlock only works on those who are law abiding citizens,
the similarities to gun ownership ...
laws do not control people

well if no laws work, then get rid of the entire justice system, arm ourselves to the teeth, and every man, woman and child for themselves.

The point of course is we can not count on laws for change.
People who cause the problem in the first place, do not follow them.
So the anticipated absolute change has little or no effect because of lawlessness.

Some might like an overhaul though of the justice system. The article certainly speaks to that.

pandora · January 2013

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

for people to say "only the law abiding follow the laws" as an argument to let us do what we want is unfathomable. so should we:

make murder legal?
make cocaine, heroin, and all other hard drugs legal?
make child molestation legal?
make drunk driving legal?

after all, your argument states that laws don't work, since only the law abiding follow them. so what's the point of any laws then?

what a preposterous argument. only the law abiding follow laws, so don't make them. good lord. yeah, let's not punish those who get caught doing illegal things, let's just get rid of all laws! fuck society!

the thread title is correct, only not as intended. This madness DOES have to stop.

We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2013

pandora wrote:

We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.

of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.

vant0037 · January 2013

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

All those "stats" you quote are nothing but jerkoff stats. The device does not stop a drunk driver from driving. No one will ever sway me on that fact.

I'm not sure what a "jerkoff stat" is, but my guess is it's a phrase you throw around when numbers you're confronted with disprove your predetermined position. Am I getting close? Good grief man, use your head.

It is a jerkoff stat. What are the numbers for people convicted of DWI's...not given a free pass out of jail...and then drive on their own conviction when their proper penalty is served? My guess is there's very little difference if any at all.

And you'd be flat wrong on that.

vant0037 · January 2013

pandora wrote:

To answer your giant question for me personally it matters not
if gun regulations take place.

...and still no answer. What a tease.

pandora · January 2013

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.

of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.

Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.

pandora · January 2013

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

To answer your giant question for me personally it matters not
if gun regulations take place.

...and still no answer. What a tease.

your definition of a tease ... which by the way is a personal comment we are attempting to avoid must be when one only listens to one sentence.

Zoso · January 2013

pandora wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.

of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.

Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.

what can you do then? policy is the hallmark of democracy and a well run one... changing human's inane thirst for violence is almost impossible.

vant0037 · January 2013

pandora wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

To answer your giant question for me personally it matters not
if gun regulations take place.

...and still no answer. What a tease.

your definition of a tease ... which by the way is a personal comment we are attempting to avoid must be when one only listens to one sentence.

I was commenting on your statement that you were answering my "giant question" and then yet, you didn't answer the question.

So let's try again: if there were a regulation that could have prevented the shooting, would you support it?

pandora · January 2013

vant0037 wrote:

pandora wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

...and still no answer. What a tease.

your definition of a tease ... which by the way is a personal comment we are attempting to avoid must be when one only listens to one sentence.

I was commenting on your statement that you were answering my "giant question" and then yet, you didn't answer the question.

So let's try again: if there were a regulation that could have prevented the shooting, would you support it?

There was much substance to my post you ignore. Is that the best debate method?
To take one sentence out of context.
I've answered many times as others have... listening can be a challenge.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
We can no longer leave our children unprotected and think a law will stop a killer.
We must be proactive.

JimmyV · January 2013

pandora wrote:

Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.

You have no way to know if this is true or not.

pandora · January 2013

JimmyV wrote:

pandora wrote:

Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.

You have no way to know if this is true or not.

Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?

JonnyPistachio · January 2013

pandora wrote:

There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.

You have your mind absolutely made up it sounds... I think we will fail if we dont keep an open mind.

So, in the instance in AZ (Gabby Giffords shooting), when the shooter stopped after 30+ rounds to reload, then he was tackled...you dont think there's the slightest chance that if the regulations had been in place that restricted magazines to 10-12 rounds, that less people would have died? I know, you think he'd mow down the crowd with a car...but maybe he chose guns because they're easier.

Its not too much to imagine that some mentally ill potential murderers are already thwarted by the inability to get a gun (even in our environment where its easy), and some more might be deterred.

JimmyV · January 2013

pandora wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

pandora wrote:

Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.

You have no way to know if this is true or not.

Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?

Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2013

pandora wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

We have laws to punish those who hurt others. Do they work?
The jury is out on that look at the full prisons.
Some follow laws some do not, some pick and choose per their moral frame
what to follow.

of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.

Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.

as I think we've all agreed before, there is no singular answer to this question. But laws are the first step (if not the first step, and integral one) in the solution to change. do you agree?

JonnyPistachio · January 2013

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

of course laws work. is it perfect? of course not. but it's all we have. giving up on it is not the answer.

Relying on laws as a solution for a problem is not the answer either...
as we see with our prisons full. It's easy to pass a law but not the answer.

as I think we've all agreed before, there is no singular answer to this question. But laws are the first step (if not the first step, and integral one) in the solution to change. do you agree?

exactly, it wont fix everything, but at this point, it cant hurt to try. When dozens of KIDS are dying...not just in CT, I think we should at least consider other options..

blueandwhite · January 2013

pandora wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

pandora wrote:

Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.

You have no way to know if this is true or not.

Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?

What result is that? What I see are countless nations with stricter firearms laws that have far fewer gun fatalities per capita than you would find in the US. With many gun owners I see a paranoid and fearful group who feel empowered by firearms. As far as I know America is the only 1st world nation where people legitimately feel safer behind the barrel of a gun.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2013

pandora wrote:

There was much substance to my post you ignore. Is that the best debate method?
To take one sentence out of context.
I've answered many times as others have... listening can be a challenge.
There is no regulation that can prevent shootings because laws do not control people.
There is no if.
Now a resource officer or a trained responsible gun owner had been in the school to protect
that very well would have stopped the murderer.
We can no longer leave our children unprotected and think a law will stop a killer.
We must be proactive.

laws DO control people. otherwise, they are useless, which we know is not the truth.

making new regulations and laws IS part of being proactive.

pandora · January 2013

JimmyV wrote:

pandora wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

You have no way to know if this is true or not.

Better than no protection... we see the result of that don't we?

Again, that is an assumption. An assumption that a guard would have been in position to save those children, that a possible crossfire would not have created even more victims, etc.

So in the future you do not want a Resource Officer to protect your children at school?
It would be better to not fight back then yes?

Do you feel this way about the police protecting in general? In other situations?
Domestic violence, public terror as at a mall?

You do not want police to protect your children at the mall?
You want to remove the right to police protection? when there is a shooter?
in case it would cause more shooting :?

If the above answers are yes no need in debating or replying we certainly could never agree
on giving up the right for our police to protect us with their weapons.

Is your wish really for guns to go away?
better start praying for divine intervention because bad people will always have a gun.

I wish someone with a gun had been there to stop the shooter
you can deny the real possibility of real protection if you wish.

This Madness Has To Stop

Comments

Categories