| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2012 03:11:17 PM · #951 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What is the "random episode" you're referring to? Her illness? She didn't shoot someone, did she? And isn't the whole point of this discussion to try to figure out how someone like that would not have easy access to firearms? |
Yes - apparently (and I am surprised by this) it would seem there are medical reasons why people just go batshit crazy and get suddenly violent.
Frankly it's scary - just imagine if she had easy access to a gun, or had a car. God forbid she snapped on a bus on the interstate - could have killed dozens.
It's probably best that we recognize the severe threat to everyone that is represented by this sort of random medical episode. Clearly leaving other people roaming about, just waiting to snap and kill other people is completely unacceptable.
So, until we can eventually develop the technology to instantly alert authorities whenever someone starts to feel angry, it's probably best if we remove any weapon that can kill someone from accessibility by the general public.
While I couldn't support a ban of important items like forks, despite their obvious dangers - I think we will all need to get used to the idea of chewing again - since knives should absolutely be banned, they are clearly more useful for killing and cutting meat than anything else (really, I mean WHAT else do you do with your knives?) - besides, we don't even need knives - we have teeth for exactly that reason.
Although - as the article I posted earlier pointed out - our hands have evolved specifically to be very dangerous weapons themselves. Have you ever seen the damage a trained person can do with their hands? I mean, any civilian can go get the SAME or BETTER training in hand to hand combat techniques as that which is provided to our MILITARY - it's truly insane.
Perhaps it's best that we think about the serious need for either genetic modification to reduce the ability of the hands to be used as weapons, or perhaps forced amputations would be more effective. I mean, we're developing robots, and hands are used in EVERY MURDER that is ever committed. If you program a robot correctly, it will never hurt a human, and if you remove everyone's hands, so that the robots must do everything for us, then by necessity then no one would ever hurt anyone again. It's just common sense really.
Of course, guns and other things like cars are beyond even discussing, since it's obvious that without hands, and with the robots that we must develop quickly, we won't have any real need for any such primitive objects in such a wonderfully advanced society.
I hope you'll join me in my support of this most admirable cause. |
All you're saying here is that if we can't have a perfect world, one without violence of any kind, or one without accidental death of any kind, then it's not worth trying to reduce the level of violence or, in the case of automobile accidents, the number of accidental deaths due to unsafe driving habits or unsafe vehicles. It's a silly argument, because we have and always should strive to improve these situations, without expecting perfection. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:12:04 PM · #952 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait. Let's work with this. An armed, one would assume high-trained guard at each school. There are 130,000 schools in the US. Let's assume the high training and possible danger is going to mean a decent wage, but we'll scrimp because it's a 9-month year. $50,000/year? Seems barely adequate, but let's go with it. (leaving out medical insurance, etc).
The NRA dude said this wouldn't be expensive and congress should immediately appropriate funding. $6.5 billion is probably considered "slightly expensive", but we could pay for it with a tax on every gun sold. There are 10 million guns sold a year in the US. That comes out to $650/gun.
I actually think we may be onto something here... |
You might actually be that thick... *shrug*
Dude, this is already what we have - they're called police, they already have guns, are trained, and were on campus at all times, at every school I've been to since elementary school.
Now, granted, they were there to take away pot mostly, but they were armed, and theoretically would be the ones expected to defend the lives of the children. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:12:09 PM · #953 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An armed, one would assume high-trained guard at each school. I actually think we may be onto something here... |
Typical gun excuse #1: The bad guys seek out undefended targets. Therefore, if you have a guard at school, you'll also need one at every daycare, movie theater, playground, church, little league game and Chuck E Cheese lest that becomes the new soft target. You're gonna need a bigger checkbook.
Typical gun excuse #2: If you take away the threat of guns, the bad guys will find another way. Yet the brilliant "solution" of arming [the same citizens involved thousands of road rage incidents a year] with concealed guns will magically prevent the bad guys from finding another way with a bomb in a knapsack. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:13:14 PM · #954 |
And what happens if the one officer gets shot, or there are two shooters, or the officer is at the other end of the campus when the incident starts? What kind of psychological effect will it have for kids to spend almost a third of their formative years in an armed fortress?
I find this is all another case of "letting the terrorists win" by refusing to carry on our normal lives. And the NRA might note that Athens was considered the height of democratic culture, not Sparta ... |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:13:25 PM · #955 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What is the "random episode" you're referring to? Her illness? She didn't shoot someone, did she? And isn't the whole point of this discussion to try to figure out how someone like that would not have easy access to firearms? |
Yes - apparently (and I am surprised by this) it would seem there are medical reasons why people just go batshit crazy and get suddenly violent.
Frankly it's scary - just imagine if she had easy access to a gun, or had a car. God forbid she snapped on a bus on the interstate - could have killed dozens.
It's probably best that we recognize the severe threat to everyone that is represented by this sort of random medical episode. Clearly leaving other people roaming about, just waiting to snap and kill other people is completely unacceptable.
So, until we can eventually develop the technology to instantly alert authorities whenever someone starts to feel angry, it's probably best if we remove any weapon that can kill someone from accessibility by the general public.
While I couldn't support a ban of important items like forks, despite their obvious dangers - I think we will all need to get used to the idea of chewing again - since knives should absolutely be banned, they are clearly more useful for killing and cutting meat than anything else (really, I mean WHAT else do you do with your knives?) - besides, we don't even need knives - we have teeth for exactly that reason.
Although - as the article I posted earlier pointed out - our hands have evolved specifically to be very dangerous weapons themselves. Have you ever seen the damage a trained person can do with their hands? I mean, any civilian can go get the SAME or BETTER training in hand to hand combat techniques as that which is provided to our MILITARY - it's truly insane.
Perhaps it's best that we think about the serious need for either genetic modification to reduce the ability of the hands to be used as weapons, or perhaps forced amputations would be more effective. I mean, we're developing robots, and hands are used in EVERY MURDER that is ever committed. If you program a robot correctly, it will never hurt a human, and if you remove everyone's hands, so that the robots must do everything for us, then by necessity then no one would ever hurt anyone again. It's just common sense really.
Of course, guns and other things like cars are beyond even discussing, since it's obvious that without hands, and with the robots that we must develop quickly, we won't have any real need for any such primitive objects in such a wonderfully advanced society.
I hope you'll join me in my support of this most admirable cause. |
All you're saying here is that if we can't have a perfect world, one without violence of any kind, or one without accidental death of any kind, then it's not worth trying to reduce the level of violence or, in the case of automobile accidents, the number of accidental deaths due to unsafe driving habits or unsafe vehicles. It's a silly argument, because we have and always should strive to improve these situations, without expecting perfection. |
No, actually, I was saying we can have it - we just have to give up our freedom and ability to make our own decisions. Something many seem perfectly willing to do in order to be "safe". |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:14:20 PM · #956 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And what happens if the one officer gets shot, or there are two shooters, or the officer is at the other end of the campus when the incident starts? What kind of psychological effect will it have for kids to spend almost a third of their formative years in an armed fortress?
I find this is all another case of "letting the terrorists win" by refusing to carry on our normal lives. And the NRA might note that Athens was considered the height of democratic culture, not Sparta ... |
Amen. Exactly!
That was the reason I posted the duck and cover stuff earlier, this is just a new and improved version. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:14:22 PM · #957 |
Originally posted by Cory:
You might actually be that thick... *shrug* |
Dude. It was sarcasm...
Although a $650 tax on each gun sold, I think, would go a long way. The American people respond to nothing like the stick of a tax. It's been shown over and over.
Message edited by author 2012-12-21 15:15:21. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:14:55 PM · #958 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]An armed, one would assume high-trained guard at each school. I actually think we may be onto something here... |
Typical gun excuse #1: The bad guys seek out undefended targets. Therefore, if you have a guard at school, you'll also need one at every daycare, movie theater, playground, church, little league game and Chuck E Cheese lest that becomes the new soft target. You're gonna need a bigger checkbook.
+1 Exactly.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:17:10 PM · #959 |
LOL. You guys are rabid and can't even see who is on your side. Do you think any real 2nd amendment fan would be willing to consider a $650/gun tax?
From an article:
That prompted the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun organization, to immediately release a statement pointing out that there were two armed guards at Columbine High School who could not stop a pair of students from killing 15 people.
âThey twice engaged and fired at [gunman] Eric Harris in an effort to stop the shooting, but were unsuccessful because they were outgunned by the assault weapons wielded by the two teens,â the statement said.
Message edited by author 2012-12-21 15:17:52. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:17:42 PM · #960 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Although a $650 tax on each gun sold, I think, would go a long way. The American people respond to nothing like the stick of a tax. It's been shown over and over. |
But you'd have to shoot Grover Norquist before any Republicans could vote for that ... |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:18:25 PM · #961 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Although a $650 tax on each gun sold, I think, would go a long way. The American people respond to nothing like the stick of a tax. It's been shown over and over. |
But you'd have to shoot Grover Norquist before any Republicans could vote for that ... |
Well, the guns actually stay legal. That's the genius of the plan! ;) |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:18:26 PM · #962 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A TV or video game fantasy doesn't kill people. Guns do. |
ROFL, did you really just argue that culture has nothing to do with this? |
Not only did I argue that, I can prove it. The same "culture of violence" exists in Japan, Great Britain, Australia and Germany. The same level of gun homicides does not. Humans have had violence in entertainment since long before Roman gladiators and Aztec games. What they didn't have is a readily accessible way for cowards to play Rambo for real. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:18:53 PM · #963 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What is the "random episode" you're referring to? Her illness? She didn't shoot someone, did she? And isn't the whole point of this discussion to try to figure out how someone like that would not have easy access to firearms? |
Yes - apparently (and I am surprised by this) it would seem there are medical reasons why people just go batshit crazy and get suddenly violent.
Frankly it's scary - just imagine if she had easy access to a gun, or had a car. God forbid she snapped on a bus on the interstate - could have killed dozens.
It's probably best that we recognize the severe threat to everyone that is represented by this sort of random medical episode. Clearly leaving other people roaming about, just waiting to snap and kill other people is completely unacceptable.
So, until we can eventually develop the technology to instantly alert authorities whenever someone starts to feel angry, it's probably best if we remove any weapon that can kill someone from accessibility by the general public.
While I couldn't support a ban of important items like forks, despite their obvious dangers - I think we will all need to get used to the idea of chewing again - since knives should absolutely be banned, they are clearly more useful for killing and cutting meat than anything else (really, I mean WHAT else do you do with your knives?) - besides, we don't even need knives - we have teeth for exactly that reason.
Although - as the article I posted earlier pointed out - our hands have evolved specifically to be very dangerous weapons themselves. Have you ever seen the damage a trained person can do with their hands? I mean, any civilian can go get the SAME or BETTER training in hand to hand combat techniques as that which is provided to our MILITARY - it's truly insane.
Perhaps it's best that we think about the serious need for either genetic modification to reduce the ability of the hands to be used as weapons, or perhaps forced amputations would be more effective. I mean, we're developing robots, and hands are used in EVERY MURDER that is ever committed. If you program a robot correctly, it will never hurt a human, and if you remove everyone's hands, so that the robots must do everything for us, then by necessity then no one would ever hurt anyone again. It's just common sense really.
Of course, guns and other things like cars are beyond even discussing, since it's obvious that without hands, and with the robots that we must develop quickly, we won't have any real need for any such primitive objects in such a wonderfully advanced society.
I hope you'll join me in my support of this most admirable cause. |
All you're saying here is that if we can't have a perfect world, one without violence of any kind, or one without accidental death of any kind, then it's not worth trying to reduce the level of violence or, in the case of automobile accidents, the number of accidental deaths due to unsafe driving habits or unsafe vehicles. It's a silly argument, because we have and always should strive to improve these situations, without expecting perfection. |
No, actually, I was saying we can have it - we just have to give up our freedom and ability to make our own decisions. Something many seem perfectly willing to do in order to be "safe". |
You'll have to tell me again why banning semi-automatic weapons equates to giving up our freedom and ability to make our own decisions. Quite a leap.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:19:17 PM · #964 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]An armed, one would assume high-trained guard at each school. I actually think we may be onto something here... |
Typical gun excuse #1: The bad guys seek out undefended targets. Therefore, if you have a guard at school, you'll also need one at every daycare, movie theater, playground, church, little league game and Chuck E Cheese lest that becomes the new soft target. You're gonna need a bigger checkbook.
+1 Exactly. |
Why is it you can so easily see that no number of armed guards will stop these things from killing people, but you can't see that there's no amount of legislation that will stop them? |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:19:40 PM · #965 |
| I'm waiting for Cory's apology... |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:21:22 PM · #966 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Why is it you can so easily see that no number of armed guards will stop these things from killing people, but you can't see that there's no amount of legislation that will stop them? |
Because the latter has already been done. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:22:25 PM · #967 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]An armed, one would assume high-trained guard at each school. I actually think we may be onto something here... |
Typical gun excuse #1: The bad guys seek out undefended targets. Therefore, if you have a guard at school, you'll also need one at every daycare, movie theater, playground, church, little league game and Chuck E Cheese lest that becomes the new soft target. You're gonna need a bigger checkbook.
+1 Exactly. |
Why is it you can so easily see that no number of armed guards will stop these things from killing people, but you can't see that there's no amount of legislation that will stop them? |
Another "all or nothing" argument.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:22:27 PM · #968 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A TV or video game fantasy doesn't kill people. Guns do. |
ROFL, did you really just argue that culture has nothing to do with this? |
Not only did I argue that, I can prove it. The same "culture of violence" exists in Japan, Great Britain, Australia and Germany. The same level of gun homicides does not. Humans have had violence in entertainment since long before Roman gladiators and Aztec games. What they didn't have is a readily accessible way for cowards to play Rambo for real. |
I'm not convinced that our culture doesn't play a role through some strange sort of interplay of glorifying violence, selfishness, celebrity worship, and the media.
Still, your argument does at least seem to prove that it's more than just the TV violence and video games. But I'm using "culture" in a much broader sense. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:23:31 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Cory's apology... |
You might be waiting for a while - I don't recall being sorry about anything. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:24:08 PM · #970 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]An armed, one would assume high-trained guard at each school. I actually think we may be onto something here... |
Typical gun excuse #1: The bad guys seek out undefended targets. Therefore, if you have a guard at school, you'll also need one at every daycare, movie theater, playground, church, little league game and Chuck E Cheese lest that becomes the new soft target. You're gonna need a bigger checkbook.
+1 Exactly. |
Why is it you can so easily see that no number of armed guards will stop these things from killing people, but you can't see that there's no amount of legislation that will stop them? |
Another "all or nothing" argument. |
Yes. DO it RIGHT or don't fricken bother. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:25:20 PM · #971 |
What we really need, it's obvious, is a war on guns.
Yeah.. That'll work good I bet. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:27:04 PM · #972 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Cory's apology... |
You might be waiting for a while - I don't recall being sorry about anything. |
I thought maybe you'd feel slightly bad about calling me thick when you didn't understand what I was saying... |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:27:44 PM · #973 |
My point is this-
It's a hell of a problem - and the end game is simple - either we value every life - or we value all our freedoms.
I am in the freedom camp - and I think many people gave their lives to defend the freedom we have - it's a shame to give up a single bit of any of those freedoms to save a few lives.
Yet, if I were in the other camp I think I would say that every life is so precious that there is no cost too great. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:29:37 PM · #974 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Cory's apology... |
You might be waiting for a while - I don't recall being sorry about anything. |
I thought maybe you'd feel slightly bad about calling me thick when you didn't understand what I was saying... |
If I had said you are thick I would have felt horrible!
I said "You might actually be that thick" .. And I said that, after I asked if you were that thick in a comment directly previous to it.
I don't honestly think you're anywhere near as silly as your rhetoric makes you appear sometimes.
(and the same is almost assuredly true of myself. ;) ) .. |
|
|
|
12/21/2012 03:30:54 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A TV or video game fantasy doesn't kill people. Guns do. |
ROFL, did you really just argue that culture has nothing to do with this? |
Not only did I argue that, I can prove it. The same "culture of violence" exists in Japan, Great Britain, Australia and Germany. The same level of gun homicides does not. Humans have had violence in entertainment since long before Roman gladiators and Aztec games. What they didn't have is a readily accessible way for cowards to play Rambo for real. |
I'm not convinced that our culture doesn't play a role through some strange sort of interplay of glorifying violence, selfishness, celebrity worship, and the media.
Still, your argument does at least seem to prove that it's more than just the TV violence and video games. But I'm using "culture" in a much broader sense. |
Those cultural influences exist in those other countries, and the rates of physical assault (and "mental illness") are also relatively similar, but the rate of assaults resulting in homocide (usually with guns) is far higher in the US. |
|
