Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 331
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,604
    vCash
    1500
    Do we just say that we can't stop all gun violence so we shouldn't even try? It sounds to me that is something people use to not do anything.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,542
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Do we just say that we can't stop all gun violence so we shouldn't even try? It sounds to me that is something people use to not do anything.
    The fact is working policies take time and as a nation we hardly get it right the first time. Thats fine as long as we work on the problem and understand that no one solution will fix it all but that doesn't mean there can't be a meaningful impact. I own a gun to hunt and for personal safety but I don't own a gun that can kill 20 people with a single clip and can go through a police officers vest.
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 12-17-2012 at 07:17 PM.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Do we just say that we can't stop all gun violence so we shouldn't even try? It sounds to me that is something people use to not do anything.
    No. But focusing on the freak occurrence is a recipe for bad policy.

    The gun control arguments are 100% based on emotion.

    That's why they wait until after a mass shooting to start making them. They lose the argument when people's thought processes are being less impacted by emotion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlife
    So I am suppose to ignore cars in your analogy and then you reinsert them in the very next sentence,, LOL. Sure ok.
    Well, your response to "let's ban cars" was "cars are useful."

    Ok. What about alcohol? (that's what I was getting at). Why not ban alcohol? How useful is alcohol? It seems to be purely recreational.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,477
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Sure.

    We survived as a species for quite a long time without cars. They aren't a necessity.

    But, ignore cars. What about alcohol? Look at how many people die in alcohol related car accidents. Does alcohol have some great benefit to society?

    Your child is much more likely to be killed on the road by a drunk driver than by a mass shooting. What's the benefit of letting people drink alcohol? They think it's fun? Well, a lot of people think guns are fun.
    ths is the kind of nonsense that sends me into a lather(lol).
    It is standard rush limbaugh, Glen beck gradeschool logic.

    The biggest cause of death is our poor eating habits.
    so you want to draw a false equivelancy to the dangers of twinkies, as to the dangers of Transportation, as to the dangers of weapons designed to take life.
    It simply doesnt exist.
    People slip in the shower, so lets outlaw water...or baths..people get struck by rocks or other faling objects, lets outlaw gravity.
    this is the really disengenuous game of childish logic your question asks.
    It is a common nonsensical ploy to change the subject.

    we arent discussing cars, or twinkies, or water, or gravity.
    we are discussing Guns.

    what is relevant in our societal regulation of Firearms can in no way be correlated to cars.The effective death rates of vehicle accidents is nearly incalculable to the number of trips that a person takes or makes in their life.
    to draw the ridiculous comparison youd like to, you would need to star there, not at a raw figure based on the involvement of the scape goat your looking for.

    People are killed while they are awake, so I propose, that people are kept in drug induced comas to eliminate that correlation.
    It can get as stupid as youd like to take it.

    You can overdose on aspirin, there for Heroin should be available as an over the counter headache relief option as well.


    its a game to discredit the debate, as worthless, and its not.

    much like with heatlth care we are almost the only industrialized western nation with laws this leinient regarding fireaems.

    We shuttered mental health facilities, because...it sucks to be you loser...
    we make guns as easily available as possible.
    we squeeze opportunity and compensation out of the middle class making it more and more stressful on the young, poor and unstable
    we force both parents into the workforce to survive

    and the RT. response is to say "gosh,theres just nothing we can do".

    Guns dont kill people, people kill people, ...rightt...and the gun in their hand dosnt make it AT ALL easier...does it.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    64,405
    vCash
    500
    If this is off-topic feel free to delete.

    I've seen this graphic floating around. Can someone explain to me why anyone would post this on their FB? The point must be flying right over my head. It seems so ridiculously stupid.

    http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...03340857_n.jpg

    Legalize bombs?

    I'm not blaming guns. But they are an easy tool for the person (guns don't kill people, people do...blah blah blah) to use to do their horrible act. I don't get that thought process. Anyone shed some light?
    I no longer care about anything here except for the Entertainment Forum, which sucks; the Music forum, which sucks; and the Magic forum, which does NOT suck.

    Love y'all!

    Except for all of y'all.

    #FreePablo
    #FreeManRam
    #FreePablo

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,604
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    No. But focusing on the freak occurrence is a recipe for bad policy.

    The gun control arguments are 100% based on emotion.

    That's why they wait until after a mass shooting to start making them. They lose the argument when people's thought processes are being less impacted by emotion.
    I don't think anyone is advocating a policy that would fix this specific instance. Most likely because there is no regulation you can write that would prevent this particular instance.

    Is it really? So there is no legitimacy to the idea that our gun laws are too lax in any area? I think that statement is as ludicrous as someone saying we should ban guns entirely. I think there is just as much emotion in a statement claiming all gun control arguments are 100% based on emotion.

    People wait until these types of instances because they are the right time to galvenize public support. We don't hear a word about gun control from anyone outside the far left until something like this happens because of how our culture views guns and ourselves. We view ourselves as a Clint Eastwood type character who just for the sake of a few laws is ready and able to take down the bad guy. The idea that a more packing populace is the recipe to remove murder and crime seems like just as much of an emotional argument as anything on the left.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Andyville
    Posts
    2,854
    vCash
    1500
    I thought the mental health angle might be off topic - but now the argument is that if you want to talk about gun control you may as well ban Vodka Tonics too?

    Gun control deserves unique discussion, as weapons play a unique role in our society. You cannot draw a parallel from a weapon to a beverage or a vehicle. Its not only inaccurate but lazy. It prevents any actual conversation from taking place because you're stuck arguing that YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT IT.

    Do you believe mentally ill convicted felons should be able to purchase grenade launchers? No, you don't. The question is not whether you support gun control, but how much. Where we go from there in that conversation can and should be debated - but there can be no question that this is something that needs to be seriously talked about.
    lol nothing matters

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,459
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRamForPrez24 View Post
    If this is off-topic feel free to delete.

    I've seen this graphic floating around. Can someone explain to me why anyone would post this on their FB? The point must be flying right over my head. It seems so ridiculously stupid.

    http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...03340857_n.jpg

    Legalize bombs?

    I'm not blaming guns. But they are an easy tool for the person (guns don't kill people, people do...blah blah blah) to use to do their horrible act. I don't get that thought process. Anyone shed some light?
    They are doing the same thing as we are doing here with the car discussion. Changing the subject. Make the discussion about mcveigh and bombs instead of assault guns and kids. When you don't want to discuss the topic at hand, change the discussion. This probably has a debate name like strawman or deflection or something.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,477
    vCash
    1500
    I think the first place to start is to end the 2nd amendment arguments for the open sale of fireaems.

    the context of the amendment has been almost completely dilluted in the face of our advances as a society.

    Number one, a militia was needed not to protect against the tyrany of the US government, but to take the place of a standing army which an unfunded federal government could not provide.
    Frontier living was more the norm, then city living, you neede a rifle for food, defense, it was as valuable a tool as a hammer.

    Peoples guns will not ever...EVER play a role in govenmental overthrow.
    Weve seen this dynamic a hundred times, and the types of weapons systems and the amount of rounds neccessary to mount a legitament defense is enourmous..with out some outside help, your greatest fear of Governmental tyrany is simply a phone call away
    fellas, and there aint a damn thing you or your rifles, or a group of your buddies, could do to stop the US army from steam rolling through your neighborhoods.so lets stop with the whole revolutionary nonsense.
    2.Guns are an integral part of many areas of this country.Alaska, Arkansas, Luisianna,Texas, Oregon, Montana...MOST of the country should be allowed greater access and lieniancy, they choose to live in enviorments with LESS governmental intrusion, they are minimalists and as such have choosen for themselves and thier families to live as such.
    What we are REALLY debating is population centers, Geographic regions of high density.
    These are the areas of concern on many levels.

    In densely populated areas, stress levels rapidly increase,a corresponding rise to the occurence and severity of mental health issues is also noted.
    so a focus, on gun control, and mental health services should be applied in these areas.
    Want your guns, and a whole lot of em? Montana awaits you....
    wanna live in DFW? sorry, rules are a little different here.
    that seems like a effective comprimise, I really dont want to hear the excuses and rebuttal of why it wont work because that is tantemount to surrender.
    If it doesnt work, what the worse that could happen? a Repeat of whats already occured.
    You try EVERYTHING. and are married to nothing, but the idea that background checks, and assualt weapon restrictions, and quantity limitations, and capacity control, are somehow a violation of someones personla freedom rights is a very dumb argument to make.

    I suppose if you want a tactical nuclear warhead we should start a debate on the reasonable yeild that should be "ok" for public purchase, after all you never know when the russians are gonna come back and take over the walmart down the block, Im not comfortable leaving the retaliation options in the hands of Government, I need to be able to respond myself.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,883
    vCash
    1500
    Yes so if you are not armed at all you stand a much better chance then if you were right?

    There is a war going on in Afghanistan that disagrees with you. A small group with zero mechanized infantry and zero air support has held one of the most powerful military's on earth to a stalemate. We will quit once again and go home just like the nations that have tried before us.

    How would Syria's rebels have fared in the war against their government if they allowed the government to confiscate their weapons from them three or four years ago?
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7
    what is relevant in our societal regulation of Firearms can in no way be correlated to cars.The effective death rates of vehicle accidents is nearly incalculable to the number of trips that a person takes or makes in their life.
    to draw the ridiculous comparison youd like to, you would need to star there, not at a raw figure based on the involvement of the scape goat your looking for.
    And the amount of guns greatly exceeds the number of people being harmed by guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
    Is it really? So there is no legitimacy to the idea that our gun laws are too lax in any area? I think that statement is as ludicrous as someone saying we should ban guns entirely. I think there is just as much emotion in a statement claiming all gun control arguments are 100% based on emotion.
    You'd have to present me with a specific argument and a specific law.

    Most of the concern I see from gun control advocates is really overblown.
    Last edited by gcoll; 12-17-2012 at 11:39 PM.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,542
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    No. But focusing on the freak occurrence is a recipe for bad policy.

    The gun control arguments are 100% based on emotion.

    That's why they wait until after a mass shooting to start making them. They lose the argument when people's thought processes are being less impacted by emotion.


    Well, your response to "let's ban cars" was "cars are useful."

    Ok. What about alcohol? (that's what I was getting at). Why not ban alcohol? How useful is alcohol? It seems to be purely recreational.
    No what you are getting at is that certain things can cost society as a whole. Sayimg drunk driving is bad so we should make laws against such action make sense and very few people would disaggree. Now take that to gun control and you are arguing for the opposite.

    If you want to know how alcohol is useful I can direct you to more than one study of how it can make you live longer... lol. Drunk driving is not accpeted as a praactice of our society so why should that apply to your ignorant analogy.
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 12-18-2012 at 12:50 AM.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    No what you are getting at is that certain things can cost society as a whole. Sayimg drunk driving is bad so we should make laws against such action make sense and very few people would disaggree. Now take that to gun control and you are arguing for the opposite.

    If you want to know how alcohol is useful I can direct you to more than one study of how it can make you live longer... lol. Drunk driving is not accpeted as a praactice of our society so why should that apply to your ignorant analogy.
    Well, pointing to drunk driving laws in this analogy, is like pointing to the laws against murder in the gun example.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,477
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    Yes so if you are not armed at all you stand a much better chance then if you were right?

    There is a war going on in Afghanistan that disagrees with you. A small group with zero mechanized infantry and zero air support has held one of the most powerful military's on earth to a stalemate. We will quit once again and go home just like the nations that have tried before us.

    How would Syria's rebels have fared in the war against their government if they allowed the government to confiscate their weapons from them three or four years ago?
    In Afghanistan, 1st of all,we are not at war.
    The war in Afgahanistan ended after a few weeks.
    We have been trying to establish an Imperical presence there without commiting to the process.Secondly The Resugent Taliban are being allowed unfettered access back and forth between a neighboring country, third they are infact being armed and resupplied outside of Afghanistan.

    Syrias rebels went absolutley NOWHERE until they started recieving weapons from outside sources.
    Syrians have a long and storied history of resentment towards the assad regime.

    I think we talked about this already Randy, as you too are a Vet.
    All that really is an issue is how bad does the Government want it?
    In a world where we can paint a target with an infra red marker from 6 miles away,and send a guided smart bomb JUST so we can win a public image campaign, the idea that Rebel fighters, would stand against a FULL FORCE effort I find difficult to accept.

    WE committed little of nothing as far as our capabilities to Iraq, or Afghanistan.
    WE have 2.3 million military personel.
    we used a total of around 300,000 combined personel from multiple countries to prosecute both the Iraq and Afghansitan wars.
    Not much of an effort.
    Assad could have,and WOULD have gassed his people had we not told him he wouldnt see another tomorrow if he tried it.
    Its a romantic notion, but not very realistic.
    Weve both seen first hand what we are capable of doing and we havent really trotted out some of our most destructive options, Neutron based tech,is a great example.
    there have been some claims we used it in a limited fashion in Iraq at some strategic locations, simply becasue when you wipe out 200-300 enemy combatants and leave every structure intact...something is fishy.

    Again, IMO the notion a popular uprising , without outside financing, or inside resistance from the Military/government, would get evicerated by the ridiculous destructive capabilities we have at our dosposal.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,942
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    If you can tell me the shooter used an assault weapon, then I'll concede this isn't exactly what it is- Feinstein treading over the bodies of dead kids to get what she wants.

    **** her. She can come and try to get them. I'll be waiting.

    Seriously folks, if the government actually tries to do this, I will know that it is no longer my government. And we will have one ****ing big problem.
    The ban is on future sales manufacture and import. And demanding trigger locks so that people othe than those who are licensed can't use them. It also bans high load clips. Seems like a measured response to me. I don't think you will need to have a big problem.

    I shouldn't say the ban... But the ban as Feinstein has explained it on the newshour.
    Last edited by flips333; 12-18-2012 at 08:23 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •