| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2012 04:43:37 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if you look at the number of "mass shootings" overall (not talking about schools in specific), then we don't see so much of a trend. |
Go here and zoom out, then tell me you don't see a trend. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:54:55 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if you look at the number of "mass shootings" overall (not talking about schools in specific), then we don't see so much of a trend. |
Go here and zoom out, then tell me you don't see a trend. |
Don't know what to believe if I compare that to the chart I posted. For example, in 1992 I see "4 killed, 2 injured" in Iowa City on your timeline, but on my chart 1992 lists about 25 incidences where 4 or more people were killed. Your timeline seems to be missing quite a few points of data and, of course, selective data can paint any picture you want.
Not saying someone is doing something on purpose, but the sets of data do not jive so it's natural we may come to different conclusions.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 16:55:21. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:04:52 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Because the "professionals" don't get paid to act in your best interest. |
ethics is usually a big part to being a "professional". you are required put the public welfare above your own interests. im not saying its always done, maybe we ought to start stripping the unethical ones of their professional status.
i have no choice to rely that professionals are acting in my best interest, and given the choice i will, always, over the other option of listening to unsubstantiated opinion. |
I have no problem with removing unethical professionals from their profession. That's not necessarily the issue. I have a problem simply taking whatever one professional says as fact because in many cases, it's easy to find another, equally qualified and regarded professional who will offer a completely different solution to the same problem. |
Well that an entirely different situation. if regarded professionals disagree on an situation then its up to the individual/client/patient to make decision as to who to believe, its why we get second opinions and even third opinions.
its the whole disregarding of the fact that they are a professionals and thus discounting their opinions that i take issue with.
if you want to discount their opinion, you ought to have a good reason, namely a differing opinion from another professional. |
And if most (or even all) of the professionals are wrong?
Refrigerator mothers
Shock therapy
Hysteria
I could go on but I find it a no brainer.
A lot of people have suffered at the hands of "professionals", and not just in the past, currently. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:10:43 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by sfalice:
A fellow named John Gear has a fascinating idea to control gun violence.
Firearm Insurance. |
An interesting read. Gun control would occur by creating a financial incentive for the industry and individuals to self-police.
The only way such a thing could get enacted, however, would be to get the NRA behind it, and that would be a tough nut to crack. |
This would work IF gun ownership was a privilege the way owning a car is a privilege. The costs associated with insurance, storage costs (at the range) will likely be interpreted as a barrier to enjoying the right to bear arms.
If the government creates significant barriers to prevent a person from enjoying a guaranteed right, it stops being a right and becomes a privilege. That would require changes to the Bill of Rights and I'm pretty sure that's a non-starter.
I think anything that means more business for the insurance industry is a bad idea. |
Another quote from that article suggests:
"But again the evidence is clear: we have the current gun laws - ineffective as they are - because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.
Naturally, many gun owners will resent paying premiums because they resent assuming responsibility for risks that, so far, we've dumped on everyone else. So be it. It is only by assuming our responsibilities that we preserve our rights.
Some will note that the Second Amendment doesn't include "well-insured." But just as the press needs insurance against libel suits to exercise the First Amendment, we must assume responsibility for the risks that firearms present to society." |
You know what the real problem is?
There's absolutely no way that this can be temporarily tried. If we allow the laws to change, even for a moment, that is ground that will never be regained.
If we could only take ten years to prove that this doesn't work, then revert to the previous status that would be acceptable to me - unfortunately, that's not how things work. Any changes become permanent, and any ground gained or lost will be permanent. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:20:52 PM · #480 |
Here is an interesting article about allowing teachers to carry firearms
Link
I am for this but I think that certain things should be done....Don't just say all teachers can carry
step 1 = If a teacher chooses to be someone authorised to carry a firearm, Require a mandatory weapon's safety class...(this would include a trip to the range)
step 2 = require a mandatory hunter's safety course.. (This is more in depth training and also would require a trip to the range)
step 3 = Be able to take and pass the concealed weapon permit class (this also includes safety, a trip to the range, and also added training in picking out your targets carefully, accurately, and quickly)
And really I think every person in the country should have to do step 1 and 2...just for the safety part of it.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:22:56 PM · #481 |
Question: So you folks who don't want ANY infringement on your right to bare arms because it's a right, did you defend the rights of the occupy protestors when there were being brutalized and arrested? I don't mean to offend by a generalization but I just noticed the "guns are our right, leave them alone" types of friends I have were the same friends poking fun at occupiers and acting like they were asking to be arrested. As if they deserved their treatment when the reality is they were expressing free speech, and it was being infringed upon.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:28:08 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Question: So you folks who don't want ANY infringement on your right to bare arms because it's a right, did you defend the rights of the occupy protestors when there were being brutalized and arrested? I don't mean to offend by a generalization but I just noticed the "guns are our right, leave them alone" types of friends I have were the same friends poking fun at occupiers and acting like they were asking to be arrested. As if they deserved their treatment when the reality is they were expressing free speech, and it was being infringed upon. |
It would appear, and this frightens me, that for a LOT of people the "right to bear arms" TRUMPS the other rights in the constitution. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:29:38 PM · #483 |
They had the right to speak...It was only when the occupiers stayed for weeks on end making a mess out of parks, etc... or when they tresspassed on a CEO's lawn and terrified their kid did people start get arrested. If they had kept it clean they prob could have stayed as loon as they liked. Disrupt hygene and safety for citizens that is when it really hit the fan
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:34:03 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by sfalice:
A fellow named John Gear has a fascinating idea to control gun violence.
Firearm Insurance. |
An interesting read. Gun control would occur by creating a financial incentive for the industry and individuals to self-police.
The only way such a thing could get enacted, however, would be to get the NRA behind it, and that would be a tough nut to crack. |
This would work IF gun ownership was a privilege the way owning a car is a privilege. The costs associated with insurance, storage costs (at the range) will likely be interpreted as a barrier to enjoying the right to bear arms.
If the government creates significant barriers to prevent a person from enjoying a guaranteed right, it stops being a right and becomes a privilege. That would require changes to the Bill of Rights and I'm pretty sure that's a non-starter.
I think anything that means more business for the insurance industry is a bad idea. |
Another quote from that article suggests:
"But again the evidence is clear: we have the current gun laws - ineffective as they are - because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.
Naturally, many gun owners will resent paying premiums because they resent assuming responsibility for risks that, so far, we've dumped on everyone else. So be it. It is only by assuming our responsibilities that we preserve our rights.
Some will note that the Second Amendment doesn't include "well-insured." But just as the press needs insurance against libel suits to exercise the First Amendment, we must assume responsibility for the risks that firearms present to society." |
The "press" you refer to is a corporation and they aren't required by law to have insurance, they usually do, but it's not a legal barrier. If I want to start a neighborhood newsletter, there's no legal requirement for me as an individual to have insurance against a libel suit. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:36:15 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Question: So you folks who don't want ANY infringement on your right to bare arms because it's a right, did you defend the rights of the occupy protestors when there were being brutalized and arrested? I don't mean to offend by a generalization but I just noticed the "guns are our right, leave them alone" types of friends I have were the same friends poking fun at occupiers and acting like they were asking to be arrested. As if they deserved their treatment when the reality is they were expressing free speech, and it was being infringed upon. |
Not me, I support the Occupy protesters' right to free speech. I agreed (and still do) with most of what they have to say. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:39:11 PM · #486 |
In my mind, it's not as complicated as many make it.
It was a nutty mom and a kid with a troubled upbringing. The kid went spastic and the results were obviously devastating. End of story.
This particular case probably wouldn't have happened if guns weren't allowed and his mom weren't collecting them...just like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if aircraft weren't allowed. We're not blaming the planes, are we? We're only blaming the people behind it. Seems logical to me. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:42:38 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
They had the right to speak...It was only when the occupiers stayed for weeks on end making a mess out of parks, etc... or when they tresspassed on a CEO's lawn and terrified their kid did people start get arrested. If they had kept it clean they prob could have stayed as loon as they liked. Disrupt hygene and safety for citizens that is when it really hit the fan |
What are your news sources here? That is not the case for the majority of the arrests. I don't doubt some people went too far, and needed to be arrested, but they were in the minority. I think those are the cases some news channels focused on to undermine the movement.
7,719 occupy related arrests. Were they all dirty trouble makers?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:47:00 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Question: So you folks who don't want ANY infringement on your right to bare arms because it's a right, did you defend the rights of the occupy protestors when there were being brutalized and arrested? I don't mean to offend by a generalization but I just noticed the "guns are our right, leave them alone" types of friends I have were the same friends poking fun at occupiers and acting like they were asking to be arrested. As if they deserved their treatment when the reality is they were expressing free speech, and it was being infringed upon. |
It would appear, and this frightens me, that for a LOT of people the "right to bear arms" TRUMPS the other rights in the constitution. |
What frightens me more is that there are 7,000+ occupy arrests and how many KKK rally arrests? How many Westboro protest arrests?
It's not just the infringement on the right to free speech, it's selective. Racist, sexist, and blanket hatred: Ok, that's your right to free speech. Peace and social/governmental change: You dirty hippies are getting pepper sprayed.
ETA: Should I mention our other rights that have been taken away without a blink of an eye? It's too depressing... I won't go there.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 17:52:06. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:02:46 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
just like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if aircraft weren't allowed. We're not blaming the planes, are we? |
Planes aren't designed or intended to kill things, however after 9/11 we DID modify cockpit doors and security checkpoints to reduce the chances of a plane being used for that purpose. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:04:57 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
They had the right to speak...It was only when the occupiers stayed for weeks on end making a mess out of parks, etc... or when they tresspassed on a CEO's lawn and terrified their kid did people start get arrested. If they had kept it clean they prob could have stayed as loon as they liked. Disrupt hygene and safety for citizens that is when it really hit the fan |
What are your news sources here? That is not the case for the majority of the arrests. I don't doubt some people went too far, and needed to be arrested, but they were in the minority. I think those are the cases some news channels focused on to undermine the movement.
7,719 occupy related arrests. Were they all dirty trouble makers? |
I'm sure that all of those arrest were not just...I agree. In the heat of the moment, however, confusion takes over... I would like to see a stat of how many of those were released with all charges dropped. There are some situations where arrest everyon and weed the innocent out is safer and easier. I learned this 1st hand in training for Iraq....Even though I knew the situation was fake the confusion took over.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:06:12 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
just like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if aircraft weren't allowed. We're not blaming the planes, are we? |
Planes aren't designed or intended to kill things, however after 9/11 we DID modify cockpit doors and security checkpoints to reduce the chances of a plane being used for that purpose. |
and on weapons we have trigger locks and safes
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:07:33 PM · #492 |
We are afforded the rights to bear arms. Arms is undefined. Grenade launchers and flamethrowers are arms. Knives are arms. Bow and arrows are arms. Some banned and some not.
Seems pretty clear that we could be banning those that contribute to the ability kill lots of people quickly. We can and never will ban all arms but the deadliest should go. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:14:13 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
just like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if aircraft weren't allowed. We're not blaming the planes, are we? |
Planes aren't designed or intended to kill things, however after 9/11 we DID modify cockpit doors and security checkpoints to reduce the chances of a plane being used for that purpose. |
and on weapons we have trigger locks and safes |
The difference being in the plane scenario, the precautions are enforceable. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:16:18 PM · #494 |
Like I have been saying all along...we need to teach responsible gun ownership....i.e. hunter's safety and any weapons safety course.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:17:40 PM · #495 |
In my mind, it's not as complicated as many make it.
It was a nutty mom and a kid with a troubled upbringing. The kid went spastic and the results were obviously devastating. End of story.
This particular case probably wouldn't have happened if guns weren't allowed and his mom weren't collecting them...just like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if aircraft weren't allowed. We're not blaming the planes, are we? We're only blaming the people behind it. Seems logical to me.
Thankyou trollman:
I see once again the real issue has been just ignored, the kid was nutty, yes, what made him nutty, kids aren't normally born physco, they become like that, doesn't anyone "know cause and effect" you are skirting around the real issue as to why this guy killed, and if our family problems are not fixed these killings will continue, not just in the USA but all over the world, the real issue is family breakdown, but no-one here, or the media ever want to talk about it, bc it effects them as well and they don't want to be made to look bad, the only real journalist that talks about these sorts of issues or makes any real sense is Melanie Phillips a British journalist and author, and others which I will not mention!!
Good luck, its much easier to take away their means to hurts lots of people than it I is to hope people bring up their kids properly.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 18:24:23. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:17:46 PM · #496 |
I was 6 when I recieved my 1st .22.... I was taught from the get go how to handle a weapon and how to treat it. This is a major thing that we are lacking
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:17:58 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
They had the right to speak...It was only when the occupiers stayed for weeks on end making a mess out of parks, etc... or when they tresspassed on a CEO's lawn and terrified their kid did people start get arrested. If they had kept it clean they prob could have stayed as loon as they liked. Disrupt hygene and safety for citizens that is when it really hit the fan |
What are your news sources here? That is not the case for the majority of the arrests. I don't doubt some people went too far, and needed to be arrested, but they were in the minority. I think those are the cases some news channels focused on to undermine the movement.
7,719 occupy related arrests. Were they all dirty trouble makers? |
I'm sure that all of those arrest were not just...I agree. In the heat of the moment, however, confusion takes over... I would like to see a stat of how many of those were released with all charges dropped. There are some situations where arrest everyon and weed the innocent out is safer and easier. I learned this 1st hand in training for Iraq....Even though I knew the situation was fake the confusion took over. |
It's not about if the charges stood. The arrests themselves were the deterrent. They were to scare people away from the protests. They worked on me, I require a clean background check if I ever want to go back and teach in Korea so I never went. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was deterred by that possibility. You really didn't watch what I watched. I watched videos, read articles, and even watched the livestreams for MONTHS while I was in Korea. Heard personal accounts from friends protesting as well. Believing that the police were there to protect people is naive at best. They created the chaos, they created the injuries, fear, and suppression of free speech. They fired rubber bullets, beat people with batons, shot pepper spray at people that posed NO threat whatsoever.
The protestors were not making things unsafe, the police were. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:18:08 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Like I have been saying all along...we need to teach responsible gun ownership....i.e. hunter's safety and any weapons safety course. |
A whole bunch of us have been saying that, Cowboy.
That's why a proficiency test and license would be helpful, no? |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:19:15 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Like I have been saying all along...we need to teach responsible gun ownership....i.e. hunter's safety and any weapons safety course. |
The reason we have seat belt laws and helmet laws is because you can't teach people safety. You need to legislate it and enforce it with penalties.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:19:16 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by Neat:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
In my mind, it's not as complicated as many make it.
It was a nutty mom and a kid with a troubled upbringing. The kid went spastic and the results were obviously devastating. End of story.
This particular case probably wouldn't have happened if guns weren't allowed and his mom weren't collecting them...just like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if aircraft weren't allowed. We're not blaming the planes, are we? We're only blaming the people behind it. Seems logical to me. |
I see once again the real issue has been just ignored, the kid was nutty, yes, what made him nutty, kids aren't normally born physco, they become like that, doesn't anyone "know cause and effect" you are skirting around the real issue as to why this guy killed, and if our family problems are not fixed these killing will continue, not just in the USA but all over the world, the real issue is family breakdown, but no-one here, or the media ever want to talk about it, bc it effects them as well and they don't want to be made to look bad, the only real journalist that talks about these sorts of issues or makes any real sense is Melanie Phillips a British journalist and author.!! |
I completely agree as I said in one of my earlier posts. Our kids are not being raised right
|
|
