| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2014 07:23:26 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Cory:
In your first point, you're failing to recognize that those 11 were able to escape, but once he had reloaded, he continued on as though nothing had happened. |
11 kids are alive because Lanza had to reload, Josh Nowlan is alive because the Aurora attacker's drum magazine jammed, the Tuscon shooter was stopped when he had to reload, yesterday's Seattle shooter was stopped when he was reloading. More reloading = more opportuties to flee or take action. It's very basic math.
Originally posted by Cory:
On the second point, did you actually read what I wrote? I specially excluded the Muhammad case. |
Yes, I saw that you tried to exclude the very case you originally asked me to address. Hilarious.
Originally posted by Cory:
do you now also support random police inspections of our homes, or just arranged police inspections? Gotta get rid of that silly 4th amendment too huh? |
The 4th amendment is only violated if you refuse inspection and they proceed anyway without a warrant. Voluntary safety inspections for building codes, fire safety, etc. are hardly novel, but you're making a straw man argument anyway since even modest self-imposed compliance would make significant difference in the utility of stolen guns. Math again.
Originally posted by Cory:
regulating [drugs] like alcohol or prescription medications, or at least like tobacco would be a sufficient measure. |
Alcohol and prescription medications involve universal and mandatory proof of eligibility, buying and selling at only licensed dealers, safety measures such as packaging designed to prevent use by children, retailer inspections with severe penalties for violators, widespread restrictions on where you can use them (no open carrying a beer in a car or school!), quantity limitations, federal databases, research of efficacy and potential danger... This is the part where you suddenly walk back drugs as a comparison to guns after dismissing the very things you now say would be "sufficient measure" for curbing abuse.
Message edited by author 2014-06-06 21:58:38. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 04:39:18 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by ubique:
Cory, I will tell you exactly who is responsible for all these crazed and demented and incomprehensible shootings. You are. Every 'responsible gun owner' is exactly that: responsible.
If there were no 'responsible gun owners' then none of this madness would happen. You make it possible. In fact, you make it inevitable. |
To even suggest such a thing is ludicrous and is clearly intended only to be inflammatory.
--
I wish you hadn't felt the need to interject yourself into a conversation in which you really have very little part, and very little relevant input to give. And to interject yourself in such a needlessly inflammatory way is really beyond the pale dude.
I've responded to you via PM, let's keep this one between us in private shall we Paul, since your irrational hatred toward Americans really doesn't have shit to do with this issue. |
Cory, I didn’t post in order to debate the issue. It’s beyond debate, as far as I’m concerned. I posted to say something that ought to be self-evident, but isn’t.
There’s a price to pay for misappropriating the anachronistic ‘right to bear arms’.
A price for equating guns with power and righteousness.
A price for associating guns with personal and societal security.
A price for glamourizing guns in entertainment.
A price for relentlessly casting guns, in both fiction and real life, as the ‘go-to’ solution.
That price is a regular tide of indiscriminate gun killings by demented individuals who feel powerless, inadequate, enraged, insecure, socially marginalized and frustrated.
If you give these social misfits such a well-lit path to follow, how can you then blame them for following it? And how can you not blame a culture that normalises and even celebrates gun ownership for lighting the bloody lamps?
Guns are delivered, figuratively if not literally, into the hands of these crazed killers by a culture of ‘responsible gun owners’. As is the impulse to use them.
Like you, I doubt that Australian-style gun control would be effective in the USA. In Australia, those few individuals who want to own guns for no good reason beyond stroking their own delusions are quite rightly viewed as puerile wankers, and shunned accordingly.
Message edited by author 2014-06-07 07:03:08. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 05:34:23 AM · #178 |
I did like the Onion's take on the UCSB shootings.
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Or as Patten Oswald Tweeted "That the phrase "latest shooting" exists should HORRIFY us. But we've become used to it. Which is...horrifying. #UCSB" |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 01:20:51 PM · #179 |
| The key fail here is that Cory revived the thread to point out a mass shooting in Canada as an example of gun restrictions not working– a tragedy that nearly every news account describes as rare in Canada. It's like the rest of the world figured out how to cure 84% of cancer cases and he's boasting over one of the exeptions as "proof" that something repeatedly demonstrated to work can never work. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 03:18:48 PM · #180 |
Ok, fine. I'm done trying to explain simple and straightforward concepts. You spoiled rich liberals really have no clue about some stuff, and you think you know everything, it's astonishing.
So, instead, I'll speak in terms that you can understand, and have no ability to argue against.
This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it.
Message edited by author 2014-06-07 15:19:11. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 03:21:26 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The key fail here is that Cory revived the thread to point out a mass shooting in Canada as an example of gun restrictions not working– a tragedy that nearly every news account describes as rare in Canada. It's like the rest of the world figured out how to cure 84% of cancer cases and he's boasting over one of the exeptions as "proof" that something repeatedly demonstrated to work can never work. |
You see, this entirely proves you didn't hear a goddamned thing I was saying. My point is that the day-to-day shootings won't get legislation passed, rather, it will be some event like this that acts as the final straw, and that's really upsetting because the fact of the matter is that you cannot stop these types of incidents. And you won't even agree that a temporary 'test' of the law is a good idea, nope, you don't give a damn what the results are, you just want to feel safe via the removal of my rights. You suck. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 05:11:19 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Cory:
To even suggest such a thing is ludicrous and is clearly intended only to be inflammatory. |
Don't be too hard on him. Paul probably doesn't have the massive amounts of time to properly camouflage it like some of the pros around here. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 05:18:40 PM · #183 |
| LOL... right back to the "can't stop all the bad guys" perfect solution fallacy and "they want to take our guns away" nonsense. Pay no attention to the fact that Canadians own lots of guns while this type of incident is rare. Your rights, by Supreme Court affirmation, were not removed when sawed off shotguns and large capacity magazines were banned, nor would they be removed by the same kinds of measures that you personally claimed would be sufficient to curb drug abuse. We also have a right to our lives, and a very recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not the entirety of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 05:22:31 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Cory:
This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it. |
A popular quote of polygamists, whalers and human sacrifice devotees. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 05:25:30 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Cory:
This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it. |
I am truly intrigued by this comment. Both Americans and Canadians live in North America, our backgrounds are rather similar yet you cling to this belief that the ownerships of personal weapons is akin to a divine right.
We have guns here my friend, but we don't cling to them like a newborn to a teat...and perhaps that is why we have such a hard time understanding this resistance our bretheren in the USA have to any suggestion of controls relative to firearms.
I guess this is just one of those things were our views are simply diametrically opposed and that this is not apt to change any time soon.
Ray
Message edited by author 2014-06-08 09:43:45. |
|
|
|
06/07/2014 05:31:04 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Cory:
This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it. |
The insults aside, the "Peculiar Institution" defense has been vigorously defended and defeated before.
There will eventually be some rational restrictions put in place, similar to what has worked in other countries, but will not be the nightmare of total confiscation that the NRA has put forward as the dream of anyone who sees a problem with the status quo. You say "you can't stop these type of incidents", yet it is obvious that other countries have. It not only can be done, it must be done. There will still be some mass shootings, sure, but we must make them much much more rare. The crazies in China attack with knives; 5 attackers, 33 dead, but scores that they stabbed survived, who would have died had the attackers had guns. We will not eliminate crazies, but we can make it harder for them to create an arsenal.
I'm sure some will hear in my words a desire to eliminate guns, but they would be wrong. I want my child to live in a country where she will be not be 20 times more likely to be shot than she will be in any other western country. I also want to be able to take my PSG1 down to the range and blow holes in paper at 200 yards, not because I have to, but because I like to and it harms no one. These are not views at war with each other, they can be found in a rational middle ground.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2014 01:12:12 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...These are not views at war with each other, they can be found in a rational middle ground. |
Alas I fear that any form of compromise is seen by some as a sign of weakness and that because of this, it may be a while before a general concensus is reached in this regard.
There is always hope.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/08/2014 03:25:22 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, fine. ...
... This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it. |
You're right Cory. We can't deal with that. Nobody can deal with that.
Which, alas, is why the gun problem can never be solved in the USA.
Message edited by author 2014-06-08 05:47:06. |
|
|
|
06/08/2014 04:15:22 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it. |
The insults aside, the "Peculiar Institution" defense has been vigorously defended and defeated before.
There will eventually be some rational restrictions put in place, similar to what has worked in other countries, but will not be the nightmare of total confiscation that the NRA has put forward as the dream of anyone who sees a problem with the status quo. You say "you can't stop these type of incidents", yet it is obvious that other countries have. It not only can be done, it must be done. There will still be some mass shootings, sure, but we must make them much much more rare. The crazies in China attack with knives; 5 attackers, 33 dead, but scores that they stabbed survived, who would have died had the attackers had guns. We will not eliminate crazies, but we can make it harder for them to create an arsenal.
I'm sure some will hear in my words a desire to eliminate guns, but they would be wrong. I want my child to live in a country where she will be not be 20 times more likely to be shot than she will be in any other western country. I also want to be able to take my PSG1 down to the range and blow holes in paper at 200 yards, not because I have to, but because I like to and it harms no one. These are not views at war with each other, they can be found in a rational middle ground. |
While I think most of what you say is sensible, there's one base assumption you spell out that I think is quite wrong: namely that other countries have stopped these types of incidents. Last I checked, no other country has ever actually had quite this problem have they? And they almost certainly didn't have anything even close to the black-market that we do.
The problem, I fear, is that we cannot eliminate crazies, and unfortunately, we would have to be SUPER aggressive in all forms of gun control in order to even dampen the availability on the black market for those who really want a gun and don't mind breaking the law - (and face it, these guys wouldn't really be likely to worry about breaking the law, ya know, seeing as how murder is already pretty darn illegal)..
So - really, it all sounds great, until you factor in that one small error, then everything falls apart. :( |
|
|
|
06/08/2014 04:22:06 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, fine. ...
... This is a part of my heritage and culture. You have no right to impinge upon that. Deal with it. |
You're right Cory. We can't deal with that. Nobody can deal with that.
Which, alas, is why the gun problem can never be solved in the USA. |
I hate to fuel your irrational dislike of Americans, but really Paul, we have deeper problems that you're just not recognizing. The guns and gun crime is only a symptom of a much deeper cultural issue here. I honestly don't know how to fix it, short of draconian solutions anyway, all I do 'know' is that just banning guns probably won't help a hell of a lot.
And for what it's worth, that's a bullshit argument anyway, I don't believe it too strongly, even though it is a major part of my culture - its just the easy response to emotionally motivated arguments. As I said before, I wouldn't even really object to a temporary test of stringent controls here, for no longer than a decade, at which point I think evidence should be examined and if the law was ineffective, the law(s) should be immediately repealed. Of course, if there was strong evidence that the measures were working, I suppose I'd have little choice but to be in favor of the changes. And the only real way to know is to try it, that much is for sure. I just don't like it when trying things becomes a way to force though permanent changes regardless of the effectiveness towards the stated objective, and THAT is what I strongly fear would happen. I think the measures would be ineffective, and we'd be stuck with them. |
|
|
|
06/08/2014 06:56:07 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by Cory:
other countries have stopped these types of incidents. Last I checked, no other country has ever actually had quite this problem have they? |
Yes, they have, and yes, they did. Not stopped, but made rare (perfect solution fallacy).
Originally posted by Cory:
And they almost certainly didn't have anything even close to the black-market that we do. |
Wrong again, and America is the #1 source of black market guns worldwide courtesy of people like you.
Originally posted by Cory:
we cannot eliminate crazies... those who really want a gun |
Perfect solution fallacy (again), and "the bad guys will find a way." Both proven bogus.
Originally posted by Cory:
just banning guns probably won't help a hell of a lot. |
Nobody is proposing taking your guns away. Unless you're mentally ill.
Originally posted by Cory:
it is a major part of my culture |
So was slavery, and guns are no less a part of Canadian or Australian culture.
Originally posted by Cory:
I just don't like it when trying things becomes a way to force though permanent changes regardless of the effectiveness towards the stated objective |
Slippery slope fallacy. And wrong. Lots of people own guns in Canada and Australia.
I would post links, but it couldn't be more obvious that you don't look at them or you wouldn't keep repeating the stuff John Oliver ridiculed. Meanwhile, here's the mass shooting du jour (the first two victims apparently "good guys with guns").
Message edited by author 2014-06-08 19:22:18. |
|
|
|
06/09/2014 01:30:20 PM · #192 |
I would be curious to know if there are gun owners here that do NOT have a problem with any and all gun registration, some basic safety training requirements, and don't feel that freedom as we know it will be compromised by these minor points.
Does it seem reasonable with all the issues that we have that anyone can just go right into a sporting goods store and buy a semi-automatic pistol that holds a dozen or more rounds on the spot without even a modicum of safety instruction? Or that he/she could be mad and go right out and shoot someone? Wasn't there at one time a waiting period?
I don't really buy into the whole deal about losing all my freedom because the guv'mint wants me to register my rifle.........sign me up if it might help.
It seems so odd to me that this issue is *so* volatile. We have a problem........isn't it worth trying damn near anything as long as we still are permitted to keep weapons, albeit a little more tightly, and sensibly, controlled?
This really isn't an all or nothing issue is it?
|
|
|
|
06/09/2014 01:47:05 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I would be curious to know if there are gun owners here that do NOT have a problem with any and all gun registration, some basic safety training requirements, and don't feel that freedom as we know it will be compromised by these minor points.? |
But of course our freedoms will be compromised. Any increase in regulation of firearms will add a burden to those of us who own guns.
The question is what benefits to society will come about by burdening gun owners with more red tape. I do not look forward to it. Of course I do not like the renewing my driver's licence and registering my car, nor do I like paying for my Building Contractors licence and having to submit building plans to county or have my projects inspected and approved of by municipal officials. I don't like having to have a special licence to be able to buy certain weed killers.
But I put up with all those limitations and burdens because they make roads, homes, and rivers safer for everyone. The fact that weed killer is more tightly controlled than a sniper rifle is kind of silly. |
|
|
|
06/09/2014 01:59:20 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fact that weed killer is more tightly controlled than a sniper rifle is kind of silly. |
That's because weed killer isn't spelled out by name as a Constitutional right. If smoking cigarettes had been listed as a Constitutional right, then some people would literally kill to prevent any sort of restriction regardless of the consequences (and stockpiling cartons just in case). Bills would be proposed and laws passed to get cigarettes back into schools and public places so more people are addicted and accustomed to them. Because cigarettes don't kill people, and it's a right, and it's part of our heritage, and restrictions will lead to banning chocolate, and bad guys will still find a way to get unfiltered Camels and blow carcinogens in our face, and limiting tobacco can never work. |
|
|
|
06/09/2014 02:09:47 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fact that weed killer is more tightly controlled than a sniper rifle is kind of silly. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's because weed killer isn't spelled out by name as a Constitutional right. If smoking cigarettes had been listed as a Constitutional right, then some people would literally kill to prevent any sort of restriction regardless of the consequences (and stockpiling cartons just in case). Bills would be proposed and laws passed to get cigarettes back into schools and public places so more people are addicted and accustomed to them. Because cigarettes don't kill people, and it's a right, and it's part of our heritage, and restrictions will lead to banning chocolate, and bad guys will still find a way to get unfiltered Camels and blow carcinogens in our face, and limiting tobacco can never work. |
All snippiness aside, do you feel that all guns should be outlawed from private citizens, Shannon?
Or, more like me, do you just wonder why you can go into Wal-Mart and buy something called a "Tactical Shotgun"?
|
|
|
|
06/09/2014 02:20:36 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
All snippiness aside, do you feel that all guns should be outlawed from private citizens, Shannon? Or, more like me, do you just wonder why you can go into Wal-Mart and buy something called a "Tactical Shotgun"? |
Of course not, and yes. You need authorization to buy 500 Tylenol 3 tablets, but you can buy 500 bullets with no questions asked.
By the way, a civilian carrying a concealed weapon confronted the bad guys in yesterday's shooting (the NRA's "solution"). Now he's dead.
Message edited by author 2014-06-09 16:51:31. |
|
|
|
06/11/2014 09:05:27 PM · #197 |
Dave Ross: Don't Worry ó We're Here To Protect You
Originally posted by Dave Ross:
I got a call from someone I know pretty well who was in a coffee shop in a certain Seattle suburb, when a guy walked in with a pistol on his hip - just as the latest school shooting outside Portland - was all over the news.
She called me up and asked what's with that? Why would someone openly wear a pistol in a Starbucks?
I explained that the law here allows the open carrying of pistols, and that he probably believes that it puts the bad guys on notice. If somebody were to come in with the idea of shooting up a coffee shop, which has happened here, the shooter would see the openly-carried pistol, think twice, and attack some other coffee shop, or preferably, see the error of his ways and become a sane, law-abiding citizen.
The stated principle behind it is to make people feel safer, since the police can't be everywhere.
Yet, she said that seeing the gun didn't make her feel particularly safe. Which of course is why she had called. So I told her, 'You're free to leave.'
But it does bring up a reasonable question for the open-carry movement. If the intention is to make the other customers feel safe, what happens when the other customers, for what ever reason, find they feel less safe?
Do their feelings matter? Or should they be dismissed as naive?
And when say, five or six people show up at a business with handguns on their hips - or, as has been happening in Texas, rifles slung over their shoulders - how are the other customers supposed to tell whether they've come to buy coffee or take hostages?
Difficult questions.
I guess that's why so many people use the drive-thru. |
|
|
|
|
06/11/2014 10:01:29 PM · #198 |
| Of course when enough people are carrying, there will be the occasional "woopsie. Like leaving your loaded 9mm on the shelf of the toy department at Target. |
|
|
|
06/11/2014 10:05:01 PM · #199 |
| It's OK, they were only target shooting ... |
|
|
|
06/11/2014 11:58:38 PM · #200 |
I found this portion of the report rather interesting: "Authorities said the 9-mm handgun had not been reported stolen and had eight bullets inside. Officers said they would review security camera footage to try to determine who left the gun in the store"
...Should this not be a slam dunk...I mean guns are registered right?
Ray |
|
