For you no guns solution people
-
For me, a couple of mass shootings per year *is* a lot. And there's the nub of the issue: is a couple of mass shootings per year an acceptable price to pay for your 'right to bear arms'? As long as the majority decide that it is, you'll carry on getting a couple of mass shootings each year.
pt1401 wrote:
And there's the nub of the issue: is a couple of mass shootings per year an acceptable price to pay for your 'right to bear arms'?
Yes.
pt1401 wrote:
As long as the majority decide that it is,
And I really hope they do...
pt1401 wrote:
you'll carry on getting a couple of mass shootings each year.
In a world full of people, some are gonna flip out. That can't be avoided. Let's look at the parents who may not have had their guns properly secured. That hasn't been explored by the media yet (or maybe it was, and they simply don't find relevance in ALL of the facts). I don't even have kids, and with the exception of the gun I carry with me at all times, all the rest are in the gun safe.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
You can't stop the intent. What you could do is make it more difficult for someone who has the intent to access the weapons that allow him to carry out the intent so easily. The problem is, of course, that the right to carry arms is embedded in the USA constitution. There's an argument that the right to carry arms is 150 years out of date and needs changing, but amending the constitution a *big* deal. I don't have the figures to hand so am going on gut feel: let's suppose there are 50 indiscriminate murders in schools & colleges each year in the states. I'm guessing there are about a million students in any year, 1 in 300 of the population. So a 1/20,000 chance of your child being murdered by a rogue gunman in school/college. Let's also assume that 10% of Americans take up their constitutional right to bear arms. That's 30 million people in round numbers. If an attempt to introduce gun legislation is made, 30 million people lose their rights when there's only a 1 in 20,000 chance that their children won't die because of it. It's just not going to happen and the killings will continue.
There are over 85 million legal gun owners, and the number is increasing every day. That's more than 1/3 of the population, and over 50% of the portion of the population that can legally own a gun.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
The same document also gave us the 3/5ths compromise. Are you willing to stick by that?
thebeekeeper wrote:
The same document also gave us the 3/5ths compromise. Are you willing to stick by that?
Nonsensical. Because the same document also gave the US the ability to change it if enough people wanted that change. Which is why what you are referring to is no longer relevant. And there is not even close to enough people that want the 2nd amendment repealed. And there is little evidence of growing popularity either.
-
Read these, if you are able to step past your determination that you're - of course - right: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511[^] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/[^] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975[^] It's not that easy of a correlation. There are many underlaying factors. But gun availability is a major one of them. Sometimes people are unable to realize that they're standing on the wrong side, because they're hiding behind the simplified models of reality, and require obvious and meaningless evidence. If that is not presented - as it solves nothing - they consider it as a proof of them being correct. As I already said. It works in Europe and Japan (because you really can't - or rather want - to compare US to third world countries), so you're beating a dead horse - so to speak. I know of nobody, who would know, where to obtain an illegal weapon. Some of us know where to probably obtain a legal one, but it would take complex expensive courses, then to buy an rather expensive gun. So if you get really mad with someone you don't go for gun, and kill him, but at best beat him (then again, I never felt this urge ever). The guns in Europe are usually for one of four major reasons: 1) robbing the banks (usually as a threat) 2) underground disputes - illegal ownership 3) hunt, sports, police, etc. usually harmless legal means 4) properly tested legal owners - hobby, or for a feeling of protection in US it's also: 5) almost anyone - the untested owners (the emotionally unstable people, people who doesn't even know how to handle the gun properly, you name it...)
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
Smart K8 wrote:
Read these, if you are able to step past your determination that you're - of course - right:
Two of the three have nothing to do with other countries. The first doesn't demonstrate a direct correlation but merely demonstrates more. And I never said that wasn't the case.
Smart K8 wrote:
It's not that easy of a correlation. There are many underlaying factors
I agree. Which one might suppose is why I specifically said "direct correlation".
Smart K8 wrote:
As I already said. It works in Europe and Japan (because you really can't - or rather want - to compare US to third world countries)
And my point now and then is that there is a different culture in other countries. How many bar brawls do you think happen in Japan versus the US? In comparing the US and the UK how many bar brawls do you think degenerate in to one or more people wanting to seriously injure the other party? (Certainly one UK citizen told me that he was completely surprised how US bar fights were more intense and violent than UK ones.)
-
For me, a couple of mass shootings per year *is* a lot. And there's the nub of the issue: is a couple of mass shootings per year an acceptable price to pay for your 'right to bear arms'? As long as the majority decide that it is, you'll carry on getting a couple of mass shootings each year.
-
Smart K8 wrote:
Read these, if you are able to step past your determination that you're - of course - right:
Two of the three have nothing to do with other countries. The first doesn't demonstrate a direct correlation but merely demonstrates more. And I never said that wasn't the case.
Smart K8 wrote:
It's not that easy of a correlation. There are many underlaying factors
I agree. Which one might suppose is why I specifically said "direct correlation".
Smart K8 wrote:
As I already said. It works in Europe and Japan (because you really can't - or rather want - to compare US to third world countries)
And my point now and then is that there is a different culture in other countries. How many bar brawls do you think happen in Japan versus the US? In comparing the US and the UK how many bar brawls do you think degenerate in to one or more people wanting to seriously injure the other party? (Certainly one UK citizen told me that he was completely surprised how US bar fights were more intense and violent than UK ones.)
OK, let's play your game. Can you then please show me the study to confirm a direct correlation, that the culture is the cause? (moreover in favor of the current situation, not just any type of correlation) Because there are plenty studies showing that availability is one of the major factors. The conclusion that culture is the cause can probably explain (partially) the 200 times more gun induced deaths in comparison to Japan. But it is hardly different from all the cultures in the world. The major cultural difference would be probably the increased need to own a gun, thus proving my point about availability causes. But I guess the study you'll show me, will probably have roots of culture difference causing this pinpointed. :) regards, Kate
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
-
It's a perfect time. As I said to Nish, the "intent" takes issue with me, not the gun laws. I gave the stabbing link, which many in China actually end up in death, as an example of mass harm to children, without a gun. You don't need a gun, to harm.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd rather face a madman with a knife
I would pay good money to see this.
I meant if I must face a madman, I'd rather he not have a gun, than me have one, too.
Slacker007 wrote:
You don't need a gun, to harm.
This statement is both true, and stupid. If you joined the army, would you expect to be given a gun, or would you say 'I don't need a gun to harm people' ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I meant if I must face a madman, I'd rather he not have a gun, than me have one, too.
Slacker007 wrote:
You don't need a gun, to harm.
This statement is both true, and stupid. If you joined the army, would you expect to be given a gun, or would you say 'I don't need a gun to harm people' ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Of course. Because you're an idiot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Of course. Because you're an idiot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It's amazing isn't it? The complete suspension of all logic and reason in favor of an old document, written in a different time, and by men who's intentions we can only guess at and who could never have guessed at the world we find ourselves living in today.
-
It's amazing isn't it? The complete suspension of all logic and reason in favor of an old document, written in a different time, and by men who's intentions we can only guess at and who could never have guessed at the world we find ourselves living in today.
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
So those defending it are incapable of comprehension at a grade 3 level? I suspect that's not the case and in fact they've suspended all reason due to indoctrination. That's a lot easier to do when you can defend your point of view with "it is written...". It all seems very familiar to me.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
So those defending it are incapable of comprehension at a grade 3 level? I suspect that's not the case and in fact they've suspended all reason due to indoctrination. That's a lot easier to do when you can defend your point of view with "it is written...". It all seems very familiar to me.
Yes, I agree. The issue is not general stupidity, but a blind spot due to indoctrination. I meant a grade 3 reader with no preconceived ideas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, I agree. The issue is not general stupidity, but a blind spot due to indoctrination. I meant a grade 3 reader with no preconceived ideas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of
Really? You don't think there's some similarity between someone who say, rejects gay marriage, because they interpret the bible as saying it is unholy and someone like John Simonds who'd rather see kids educated remotely, in isolation from each other, as a solution to them being killed at a school because his revered constitution can't be challenged? Or someone that says the odd mass killing is a reasonable price to pay for their 'freedom'?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of
Really? You don't think there's some similarity between someone who say, rejects gay marriage, because they interpret the bible as saying it is unholy and someone like John Simonds who'd rather see kids educated remotely, in isolation from each other, as a solution to them being killed at a school because his revered constitution can't be challenged? Or someone that says the odd mass killing is a reasonable price to pay for their 'freedom'?
Well, perhaps. I can see a definite connection between religion and the US view on guns. I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, perhaps. I can see a definite connection between religion and the US view on guns. I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
I don't know the specifics of what you believe. I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point. My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
I don't know the specifics of what you believe. I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point. My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
_Josh_ wrote:
I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point.
I think gay marriage in general is a dumb idea only because I think it's part of an overall campaign to get a minority group special treatment. As a christian, I don't care that people are gay, nor do I want to single them out in any negative way.
_Josh_ wrote:
My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Sure. Like people who start museums to prove the world is 6000 years old, because they incorrectly believe the Bible says that ? I talked about that in church on sunday, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
_Josh_ wrote:
I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point.
I think gay marriage in general is a dumb idea only because I think it's part of an overall campaign to get a minority group special treatment. As a christian, I don't care that people are gay, nor do I want to single them out in any negative way.
_Josh_ wrote:
My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Sure. Like people who start museums to prove the world is 6000 years old, because they incorrectly believe the Bible says that ? I talked about that in church on sunday, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
