| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2014 05:38:13 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Cory:
We're not concerned about 99.9999% of the killing that guns do - we're only concerned about the very small number of unjustifiable homicides. |
I suspect I will regret asking, but are you saying that only 1 in 1,000,000 deaths by gun are unjustifiable homicides? Seems low to me.
Originally posted by Cory:
And folks, like it or not, guns have no exclusivity there. |
No, but can we agree that guns make up the lion's share? So far this year here in Chicago there have been 108 murders. About 80% have been shootings, 10% stabbing, 6% assault, 2% strangulation, and 2% other.
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 18:11:31. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 05:55:49 PM · #102 |
| My favorite guns are biguns. They'll never get banned, tho I suspect DNMC votes if they appear in this particular challenge. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 05:59:29 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Umm, first - you CAN own a grenade or a stinger - you just can't fricken deploy them against your neighbor. |
That's seriously f*cked up! So......like if you know someone is going to kill you, the cops can do nothing 'til you're dead.
By which time, your family & house could be a smoking crater.
Oh, sorry, sir, you can't do that......it's illegal.
Originally posted by Cory:
And they do require some more restrictive qualifications - a fact that I'm sure you're very happy about.. (oh, wait - no you're not - your desires about these policies are like bamboo runners - let them get in and they'll try to take over the whole yard) |
No, Cory.....you're either projecting, or you're not paying attention. I just want gun owners to be safe, responsible, and accountable.
It's gun owners that don't feel that they should be held to any accountability whatsoever that try and make a sensible idea seem like forfeiting rights.
Originally posted by Cory:
Frankly, I'd be more comfortable if many folks weren't allowed to operate a motor vehicle, and would feel much better if they were required to take intensive safety training each year, and learn to do rally racing well enough to keep pace. I'd also feel better if they weren't allowed to reproduce without a license. But those things would impinge upon their rights, so I don't suggest them as being good ideas. See how that works? Try it. |
Again with the straw points.....
Thing is.......driving is monitored. There is a system in place for dealing with driving issues.
I personally would like to see a system implemented that once drivers hit the age of sixty that they be required to take driver's tests every two years.
Don't like it? Don't drive. See......the very first thing they tell you here in this state when you apply for a license is that driving is a privilege, *NOT* a right.
How about that?
Here in Pennsylvania, the only way you lose your license for incompetence is after you have that third, fourth, fifth, etc., accident and doctor pulls your ticket. Or a family member yanks the keys and becomes a pariah. WTF?
That doesn't make sense either.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:32:20 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you seriously want your neighbor who knows nothing about how to responsibly use a firearm to have and use one? |
Not anymore than I want him operating a chainsaw on that 80ft maple in his backyard. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:33:56 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by markwiley:
Wow. If you see a parallel between "We have a gun violence problem, so let's register all guns" and "Well, most terrorists are Muslims, so let's make Islam illegal" then our perspectives and basic assumptions on this issue are so drastically different further discussion is pretty pointless. Thanks for clarifying things for me. |
...so tell me Spork99, what are your views regarding registration of vehicles or having people and companies register when dealing with ITAR controlled items, or things like explosives or hazardous materials.
Left alone, none of these things are dangerous to anyone are they... so why bother exercising any form of controls.
I look forward to your answer.
Ray |
There's nothing about driving or ITAR items in the Constitution of the US, now, is there? |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:38:34 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
No, but can we agree that guns make up the lion's share? So far this year here in Chicago there have been 108 murders. About 80% have been shootings, 10% stabbing, 6% assault, 2% strangulation, and 2% other. |
Exactly. Illinois, and Chicago, have some of the most restrictive firearms laws. That tells me two things: 1. That criminals don't give a rip about obeying gun laws. 2. That they know people, aside from other criminals, aren't going to be able to shoot back. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 08:55:44 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
...You have respect for a chainsaw, great. There's nothing to prevent anyone from buying a chainsaw, no age requirement, no licensing, absolutely nothing. |
Don't move to Canada my friend... we do have courses for operating a chain saw here and they are mandatory if you cut anything that is not on your own property.
It really does reduce the number of "Darwin Awards" recipients.
Ray |
I'm sure it does, but does nothing to prevent someone from waltzing into Lowes, buying a chainsaw and cutting down that 80 ft Maple in their back yard that's leaning over their neighbors house. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 09:00:04 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Exactly. Illinois, and Chicago, have some of the most restrictive firearms laws. That tells me two things: 1. That criminals don't give a rip about obeying gun laws. 2. That they know people, aside from other criminals, aren't going to be able to shoot back. |
Illinois finally loosened up a bit and started issuing concealed carry permits in 2103 (the very last state to do so) and the murder rate in Chicago dropped to it's lowest rate in the last 58 years. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 09:16:18 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
...You have respect for a chainsaw, great. There's nothing to prevent anyone from buying a chainsaw, no age requirement, no licensing, absolutely nothing. |
Don't move to Canada my friend... we do have courses for operating a chain saw here and they are mandatory if you cut anything that is not on your own property.
It really does reduce the number of "Darwin Awards" recipients.
Ray |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm sure it does, but does nothing to prevent someone from waltzing into Lowes, buying a chainsaw and cutting down that 80 ft Maple in their back yard that's leaning over their neighbors house. |
Do you even believe these ridiculous statements you post???
Some guy gets mad at a long, losing night at poker, and he pulls out his pistol and shoots the guy he thinks is cheating. goes home and gets his chainsaw and drops a tree on his house.
Yeah, okay.....right.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 09:35:33 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Cory:
We're not concerned about 99.9999% of the killing that guns do - we're only concerned about the very small number of unjustifiable homicides. |
I suspect I will regret asking, but are you saying that only 1 in 1,000,000 deaths by gun are unjustifiable homicides? Seems low to me.
Originally posted by Cory:
And folks, like it or not, guns have no exclusivity there. |
No, but can we agree that guns make up the lion's share? So far this year here in Chicago there have been 108 murders. About 80% have been shootings, 10% stabbing, 6% assault, 2% strangulation, and 2% other. |
Yes. I'm saying that when you count the deaths caused by hunting with firearms (I mean animal deaths, not human), then the percentage of deaths which are classified as unjustifiable homicide seems like it must be pretty much CRAZY low. Which of course came from our discussion surrounding the 'nature' of the tool, which is that they're meant for killing.
We can agree that guns currently are the tool of choice for homicide in the US. What we probably do not agree on is whether people become nicer to one another once you remove guns from their hands... |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 09:39:25 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
...You have respect for a chainsaw, great. There's nothing to prevent anyone from buying a chainsaw, no age requirement, no licensing, absolutely nothing. |
Don't move to Canada my friend... we do have courses for operating a chain saw here and they are mandatory if you cut anything that is not on your own property.
It really does reduce the number of "Darwin Awards" recipients.
Ray |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm sure it does, but does nothing to prevent someone from waltzing into Lowes, buying a chainsaw and cutting down that 80 ft Maple in their back yard that's leaning over their neighbors house. |
Do you even believe these ridiculous statements you post???
Some guy gets mad at a long, losing night at poker, and he pulls out his pistol and shoots the guy he thinks is cheating. goes home and gets his chainsaw and drops a tree on his house.
Yeah, okay.....right. |
Really? Are you that dim?
..."pulls out his pistol and shoots" could be any of the following:
"lunges across the table and strangles"
"goes into the kitchen, returns with a butcher knife and stabs"
"gets a baseball bat from the closet and bludgeons"
...and so on...ad infinitum
You're concerned about the tool, not the action. As if a person who would kill in a fit of rage with a gun would not use another instrument to kill in a fit of rage, but would instead be content and happy, thinking only of kittens, rainbows and unicorns.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 10:18:12 AM · #112 |
| Can we all agree to disagree? Nobody is going to convert anyone's view on matter anyhow. So no point in trying to get points across after it has been discussed ad nauseam. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 10:49:35 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Can we all agree to disagree? Nobody is going to convert anyone's view on matter anyhow. So no point in trying to get points across after it has been discussed ad nauseam. |
But it's *SO* much fun to see/hear the absurd justifications people make to support their premise.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 10:58:57 AM · #114 |
| I think it's time to head for rant: this certainly isn't a "personal life" topic anymore... |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 11:14:28 AM · #115 |
Criminals will always have a way to get their weapons.. hell, in the olden days people used rocks to kill and the last school incidents, it was knives..
Evil will always run rapid and it is a sad thing especially when things hit close to home. For me the second amendment will always be important.
Being an x- NRA member, my kids were tearing down guns, cleaning them and learning about them since they were 5. My son now 22 and he goes hunting. My daughter shoots, she knows how to handle and care for a gun. Now,it is her choice and she doesn't wish to handle a gun at all even for practice shooting. It is fine and I respect that, if there comes a time in her life where she may need to defend herself, she will know how to do it...my husband shoots, I shoot. I was not raised in a gun owned home and my family is totally against guns.
I am just happy that states are really allowing concealed weapons because I do think that it lowers crime just a bit, because you never know who may be carrying or who doesn't. I don't carry concealed and never will choose too. I also think these kids who are shooting down schools and incidents, it is much easier to be a criminal and to be noticed, and its auto popularity by the social media and our social world than by getting popular by doing anything good. There names are known ASAP and they are glorified because of what they have done.
It is a choice, The fact is: It is what it is. no matter what views are or opinions are of others.. Everyone has their own thoughts and their stubbornness way of life with the morals and cultures that we all were raised up in, that will go along with it. I have been a stalker on this thread and it has been interesting for sure. Some I agree with, others I do not. That is fine. I respect everyone's views on this subject no matter what they were, and I found it very interesting.
For that, Kudos for those that did speak out to be known about guns, I think this has been a very provoking subject and touchy.. by having this be a photography challenge and for people to just get their views known.
Does this change the way I feel about people here on the forums just because things were spouted off? No, it doesn't and it won't. Just makes things more respectable and for me to learn a bit more tolerance for things that I may or not believe in, for me it also reminds me on how different we really are. :-))
By the way; Happy Wed!
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 11:47:12. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 01:28:28 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We have a constitutional right to bear arms in this country. Absolutely nobody denies this, but any effort to restrict access for those who DON'T have that right, such as convicted felons, the mentally ill or illegal immigrants, makes the guns rights crowd go crazy out of fear that THEY will somehow be affected. For that reason, they have opposed any research on the problem of gun violence, any sort of federal database or universal checks of the buyers. We have another constitutional right that allows us to vote for our representatives in government, however there has been a recent push to restrict access for those who DON'T have that right, such as convicted felons, the mentally ill or illegal immigrants. To accomplish this, proponents demand research to find evidence that a problem even exists, extensive federal databases and universal checks of voter identity. There is a strong correlation between these two groups. It's madness. |
Dare I add another issue with a similar response? Oh, why not. Try to put any restriction on abortion and half the country goes nuts with infringement of a "woman's right" to choose ... woman's health ... etc. I'm sure there are other examples since our politics are so polarized these days.
...and then there is that little tiff about "global warming" among some of the science folks.
On second glance, I may have attributed the comment to the wrong person. It may be spork99 that made the comment. It seams I am "thread-challenged". In any event, I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth and apologize if I got the attribution wrong.
(Bear_Music: the attribution is correct, It's Shannon that originally said that)
Message edited by Bear_Music - calrified an attribution. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 01:59:40 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Really? Are you that dim?
..."pulls out his pistol and shoots" could be any of the following:
"lunges across the table and strangles"
"goes into the kitchen, returns with a butcher knife and stabs"
"gets a baseball bat from the closet and bludgeons"
...and so on...ad infinitum |
Which would you rather face, an angry opponent with a knife, a bat, bare hands ... or someone with a loaded handgun? Realistically, which situation gives you a more reasonable chance of survival?
And please stop prefacing your remarks with personal insults. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 02:20:38 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Really? Are you that dim?
..."pulls out his pistol and shoots" could be any of the following:
"lunges across the table and strangles"
"goes into the kitchen, returns with a butcher knife and stabs"
"gets a baseball bat from the closet and bludgeons"
...and so on...ad infinitum |
Which would you rather face, an angry opponent with a knife, a bat, bare hands ... or someone with a loaded handgun? Realistically, which situation gives you a more reasonable chance of survival?
And please stop prefacing your remarks with personal insults. |
Assuming your opponent is angry enough to not care about laws, would you rather face your angry firearm wielding opponent: with a knife, a bat, bare hands ... or a loaded handgun? |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 02:56:51 PM · #119 |
You are evading the question.
Besides, I thought you wanted to take away guns from the New Mexico Police ... ;-) |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 04:42:46 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are evading the question.
Besides, I thought you wanted to take away guns from the New Mexico Police ... ;-) |
LOL. I wasn't evading the question Paul - and you know it.
I was pointing out that gun restrictions and more laws will probably be nearly as effective as those neat "Gun Free Zone" signs. (Which seem to attract mass shooters like carrion attracts flies)...
In short, the law abiding aren't the problem, and the problem doesn't abide by the law. You can create whatever restrictions you want, and all you'll do, at least for a while, is to affect the people who are not a problem, thereby potentially causing an unintended negative consequence for them.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 05:35:18 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Can we all agree to disagree? Nobody is going to convert anyone's view on matter anyhow. So no point in trying to get points across after it has been discussed ad nauseam. |
But it's *SO* much fun to see/hear the absurd justifications people make to support their premise. |
Like Jeb's. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 05:39:53 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by markwiley:
Wow. If you see a parallel between "We have a gun violence problem, so let's register all guns" and "Well, most terrorists are Muslims, so let's make Islam illegal" then our perspectives and basic assumptions on this issue are so drastically different further discussion is pretty pointless. Thanks for clarifying things for me. |
...so tell me Spork99, what are your views regarding registration of vehicles or having people and companies register when dealing with ITAR controlled items, or things like explosives or hazardous materials.
Left alone, none of these things are dangerous to anyone are they... so why bother exercising any form of controls.
I look forward to your answer.
Ray |
There's nothing about driving or ITAR items in the Constitution of the US, now, is there? |
Nope, and you will notice that I made no mention of the constitution in my question either... now try answering the question.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 05:53:12 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Really? Are you that dim?
..."pulls out his pistol and shoots" could be any of the following:
"lunges across the table and strangles"
"goes into the kitchen, returns with a butcher knife and stabs"
"gets a baseball bat from the closet and bludgeons"
...and so on...ad infinitum |
Which would you rather face, an angry opponent with a knife, a bat, bare hands ... or someone with a loaded handgun? Realistically, which situation gives you a more reasonable chance of survival?
And please stop prefacing your remarks with personal insults. |
I have a more realistic chance of survival when I have the gun.
I would rather not face such an opponent at all, but your assumption is that my chance of survival is greater if I am strangled, beaten or stabbed than if I am shot…any of them will make me just as dead. Which is the entire point, it's not the gun that makes the person a threat, it's the person that makes themselves the threat.
In fact, if you're armed with a gun, facing an opponent inside 21 ft and they are armed with a knife, club or other weapon, you are at a disadvantage. A typical assailant can cover that distance in 1.5 seconds… I've done the drills with dummy weapons there's a lot less time before you'd be dead in those situations, even IF you did have a gun. It's not like the movies where the guy with the gun is the guaranteed winner. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 06:01:14 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
In fact, if you're armed with a gun, facing an opponent inside 21 ft and they are armed with a knife, club or other weapon, you are at a disadvantage. A typical assailant can cover that distance in 1.5 seconds… I've done the drills with dummy weapons there's a lot less time before you'd be dead in those situations, even IF you did have a gun. It's not like the movies where the guy with the gun is the guaranteed winner. |
...and unless your opponent is really really handy with his knife, and assuming that I have a quality 45mm semi-auto handgun I still believe that the odds are very much in my favour.
Also, we I consider the training I had in my youth, even unarmed I still had a chance since I might possibly jam some intruders nose through his brain.
You are right, it is not like the movies, but I still (even today) would like my chances.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 06:39:11 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by markwiley:
Wow. If you see a parallel between "We have a gun violence problem, so let's register all guns" and "Well, most terrorists are Muslims, so let's make Islam illegal" then our perspectives and basic assumptions on this issue are so drastically different further discussion is pretty pointless. Thanks for clarifying things for me. |
...so tell me Spork99, what are your views regarding registration of vehicles or having people and companies register when dealing with ITAR controlled items, or things like explosives or hazardous materials.
Left alone, none of these things are dangerous to anyone are they... so why bother exercising any form of controls.
I look forward to your answer.
Ray |
There's nothing about driving or ITAR items in the Constitution of the US, now, is there? |
Nope, and you will notice that I made no mention of the constitution in my question either... now try answering the question.
Ray |
Driving a vehicle on public roads is a privilege granted by the state, so that gives the government absolute authority to regulate it.
The government also has the authority to regulate international trade.
Bearing arms is a fundamental right of the people, as guaranteed in the Constitution. You can't ignore the facts you don't like to make your argument. If it wasn't one of the rights guaranteed to the people, we wouldn't be having this discussion
|
|
