Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
There are many millions of people born into the same society who do not turn out to be criminals. Are there genetic and societal reasons for them to have a predisposition towards crime? Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have a personal responsibility *not* to do bad things. I'm sorry, you don't get a freebie because you were born to a poor family.
As for the CIA thing.. what? I never even mentioned anything of the sort, your arguments are just getting more exaggerated and twisted.
I never meant to sweep murders under the rug, that is NOT what I was saying at all. I'm saying that you're using the term "school shooting" and adding crimes that don't really apply to the general populations definition of it. You still haven't defined what a "school shooting" is in your own words.
OWD's stance pro or anti gun should not matter with the points that he brought up, he's saying the exact same thing I was trying to say. Or are you just automatically siding against anyone who approves of guns?
Written by:
Oh, you're right - I have got to apologize this time. It certainly is the criminals fault that they choose to be born in a society, which on one side provides 2% of the people with 90% of the wealth, in the meantime tells everybody that they can become part of those 2%, but hardly provide he means and then enables them access to guns... You're right, the Al Quaeda network was never funded by the CIA and neither was Saddam Hussein... You're right - I'm wrong...
There are many millions of people born into the same society who do not turn out to be criminals. Are there genetic and societal reasons for them to have a predisposition towards crime? Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have a personal responsibility *not* to do bad things. I'm sorry, you don't get a freebie because you were born to a poor family.
As for the CIA thing.. what? I never even mentioned anything of the sort, your arguments are just getting more exaggerated and twisted.
Written by:
So what’s the problem? 220 people were involved in school shootings. Sure, I’m making a point and I’m screaming "is not right or acceptable that all those people were killed at schools". I’m surprised you see nothing wrong with this situation. You are even trying to lower the number of people killed by guns to hide a serious problem, make guns look better.
I never meant to sweep murders under the rug, that is NOT what I was saying at all. I'm saying that you're using the term "school shooting" and adding crimes that don't really apply to the general populations definition of it. You still haven't defined what a "school shooting" is in your own words.
OWD's stance pro or anti gun should not matter with the points that he brought up, he's saying the exact same thing I was trying to say. Or are you just automatically siding against anyone who approves of guns?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm anti-guns in the communtiy.
But I'm also anti-use of distorted terminology to tweak stats, which is what Lurch is suggestiing has happened with the 'school shooting' stats.
If he's right, then I'd say that continuing use of those stats by the anti-guns-in-the-community people, ultimately weakens their arguments cos they lose credibility.
Written by: Stone
Dave I’m still not sure what you are playing at here.
Are you pro-gun or against guns in the community?
I'm anti-guns in the communtiy.
But I'm also anti-use of distorted terminology to tweak stats, which is what Lurch is suggestiing has happened with the 'school shooting' stats.
If he's right, then I'd say that continuing use of those stats by the anti-guns-in-the-community people, ultimately weakens their arguments cos they lose credibility.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Cheers, Fire Tom good suggestion. Time to relax and kick back
Lurch, I’m not sure what you’re saying about criminals. I think I defined a school shooting, as a shooting at a school. The problem with the stats is people keep focusing on the outliers, and not the average. This is a distraction, and shifts the focus from the real issues. As they say, there are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars
I don’t think it’s about siding against anyone. I just don’t think there is any middle ground in this debate. You are either pro-guns or against guns in the community.
Granted, guns have a place as tools for farmers, hunters, game keepers, sports shooters and alike. A case could also be made for cops, and the military having access to guns as part of their duty to the community. But after that, I think we are better off without them. When we let them loose in the community they tend to become the masters.
What I don’t get about America is the connection between the NRA, and the fight “so all law-abiding citizens can enjoy their constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms”.
Cheers, Fire Tom good suggestion. Time to relax and kick back
Lurch, I’m not sure what you’re saying about criminals. I think I defined a school shooting, as a shooting at a school. The problem with the stats is people keep focusing on the outliers, and not the average. This is a distraction, and shifts the focus from the real issues. As they say, there are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars
I don’t think it’s about siding against anyone. I just don’t think there is any middle ground in this debate. You are either pro-guns or against guns in the community.
Granted, guns have a place as tools for farmers, hunters, game keepers, sports shooters and alike. A case could also be made for cops, and the military having access to guns as part of their duty to the community. But after that, I think we are better off without them. When we let them loose in the community they tend to become the masters.
What I don’t get about America is the connection between the NRA, and the fight “so all law-abiding citizens can enjoy their constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms”.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
If you're defineing a 'school shooting' as broadly as that then you would have to define a mugging at an ATM as a bank robbery.
The problem with your stats is that the majority of those 220 'school shootings' are the outliers, thats what I was trying to say before.
There are middle grounds in this debate, I've already taken a middle stance since I agree that some people should not have guns, and I wouldn't want *everyone* to have them. You guys just seem to be on the extreme saying that we'de all be better off if noone could own them.
I'm not sure what you mean about guns becoming the masters of the community, could you elaborate on that?
As for the NRA 'so law abiding citizens can enjoy their constitutional right to keep and bear arms' statement. It's true, that that is one reason fundimentally that many people stand up for it. But that reason alone presents a weak argument, and if that is someones *only* reason for wanting a gun, then I don't fully agree with that either.
BTW, just for your knowledge, virtually every gun has a viable sporting purpose in one of the dozens of shooting sport groups in the country, and each one of those demands extremely high levels of responsibility by their members.
If you're defineing a 'school shooting' as broadly as that then you would have to define a mugging at an ATM as a bank robbery.
The problem with your stats is that the majority of those 220 'school shootings' are the outliers, thats what I was trying to say before.
There are middle grounds in this debate, I've already taken a middle stance since I agree that some people should not have guns, and I wouldn't want *everyone* to have them. You guys just seem to be on the extreme saying that we'de all be better off if noone could own them.
I'm not sure what you mean about guns becoming the masters of the community, could you elaborate on that?
As for the NRA 'so law abiding citizens can enjoy their constitutional right to keep and bear arms' statement. It's true, that that is one reason fundimentally that many people stand up for it. But that reason alone presents a weak argument, and if that is someones *only* reason for wanting a gun, then I don't fully agree with that either.
BTW, just for your knowledge, virtually every gun has a viable sporting purpose in one of the dozens of shooting sport groups in the country, and each one of those demands extremely high levels of responsibility by their members.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I’m not sure about the ATM bank robbery argument. I prefer the shoes argument: “You might as well say that “guns” must make people violent, since nearly all violent crime involves someone using a gun.”
The problem with your stats is that you consider the majority of people killed in shootings outliers.
Lurch, when you said you take the middle stance, are you trying to tell me you are not pro gun?
It’s guns, not the people who are in control of America. The American people don’t have free will when it comes to deciding if guns are good or bad for the community. Otherwise, how could you explain a civilised people allowing guns to bring such carnage into their communities.
Lurch, I’m not sure about the ATM bank robbery argument. I prefer the shoes argument: “You might as well say that “guns” must make people violent, since nearly all violent crime involves someone using a gun.”
The problem with your stats is that you consider the majority of people killed in shootings outliers.
Lurch, when you said you take the middle stance, are you trying to tell me you are not pro gun?
It’s guns, not the people who are in control of America. The American people don’t have free will when it comes to deciding if guns are good or bad for the community. Otherwise, how could you explain a civilised people allowing guns to bring such carnage into their communities.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
The ATM statement was to show the absurdity of your 'school shooting' definition, and I think it is a pretty good one. The "guns make people violent" argument is basically what you anti-gun folk have been saying all along and it's equally as absurd.
You're right, I've based an opinion on whether or not they should fall under a 'school shooting.' But when you say school shooting, most people will think of crimes like Virginia Tech, or Columbine, not of a pimp shot by police while he tries to kill a prostitute who just happens to be on school grounds.
I am on the pro side of the gun debate, but I am by no means the most extreme advocate of gun rights and use. I agree that there should be some regulation, and certain people should not be allowed to have weapons. You guys are basically all the way down the scale on the anti-gun side, and would prefer it if no one had guns at all.
What? Guns are inanimate objects. They do not have have personality, they do not have control over anything. They are tools. People personify them and fear them for illogical reasons. How on earth does a gun, or any object for that matter have an influence over me? How does a gun 'control' me and force me to have one?
How could a civilized people allow guns in their community? Because they don't want to be defenseless sheep should something bad happen. Because they understand guns, both the good and the bad, instead of being blind or refusing to see any potential.
If you're argument is simply guns should be outlawed because they do bad things, while ignoring the potential good, then you should also be fighting to outlaw cars, alcohol, swimming pools, and countless other inanimate objects that kill hundreds of thousands of more people across the globes than guns every year. You've given guns a "dark energy" and have fooled yourself into believing they're far worse than they actually are.
Dihydrogen monoxide kills THOUSANDS of children every year, but it's available in every supermarket across the country. It's even FREE in most public places.. Tasteless and odorless, inhalation of even small quantities results in death.. It should be banned!
Written by:
I’m not sure about the ATM bank robbery argument. I prefer the shoes argument: “You might as well say that “guns” must make people violent, since nearly all violent crime involves someone using a gun.”
The ATM statement was to show the absurdity of your 'school shooting' definition, and I think it is a pretty good one. The "guns make people violent" argument is basically what you anti-gun folk have been saying all along and it's equally as absurd.
Written by:
The problem with your stats is that you consider the majority of people killed in shootings outliers.
You're right, I've based an opinion on whether or not they should fall under a 'school shooting.' But when you say school shooting, most people will think of crimes like Virginia Tech, or Columbine, not of a pimp shot by police while he tries to kill a prostitute who just happens to be on school grounds.
Written by:
Lurch, when you said you take the middle stance, are you trying to tell me you are not pro gun?
I am on the pro side of the gun debate, but I am by no means the most extreme advocate of gun rights and use. I agree that there should be some regulation, and certain people should not be allowed to have weapons. You guys are basically all the way down the scale on the anti-gun side, and would prefer it if no one had guns at all.
Written by:
It’s guns, not the people who are in control of America. The American people don’t have free will when it comes to deciding if guns are good or bad for the community. Otherwise, how could you explain a civilised people allowing guns to bring such carnage into their communities.
What? Guns are inanimate objects. They do not have have personality, they do not have control over anything. They are tools. People personify them and fear them for illogical reasons. How on earth does a gun, or any object for that matter have an influence over me? How does a gun 'control' me and force me to have one?
How could a civilized people allow guns in their community? Because they don't want to be defenseless sheep should something bad happen. Because they understand guns, both the good and the bad, instead of being blind or refusing to see any potential.
If you're argument is simply guns should be outlawed because they do bad things, while ignoring the potential good, then you should also be fighting to outlaw cars, alcohol, swimming pools, and countless other inanimate objects that kill hundreds of thousands of more people across the globes than guns every year. You've given guns a "dark energy" and have fooled yourself into believing they're far worse than they actually are.
Dihydrogen monoxide kills THOUSANDS of children every year, but it's available in every supermarket across the country. It's even FREE in most public places.. Tasteless and odorless, inhalation of even small quantities results in death.. It should be banned!
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Lurch, as much as you accuse others, you are disorting the argument.
You make claims that you do not back up with numbers and (peered) websites. You make it very easy on yourself, because we should proove you wrong. Which we did already. But you continue to put out a pro gun argument - and that's the only reason why I am still participating in this.
Especially in the US, citizens have proven to be incapable to a responsible handling of guns. Alike drugs (drugs don't kill people, drugs don't hold negative energy and of course they do not cause addicions) there need to be regulations.
If you want to drive a car, you need to make a license. Not so, if you want to own a gun. In Germany you do need to make a license - not so in the US.
Guns are inanimate objects, as are bombs, fighter jets and nuclear (intercontinal) missiles. You are right, it's people who control and give them that dark energy. Why should Iran not have some, why should Iraq not have some?
I have tried to point it out to you: You do have little to no idea about politics and how a political system works. Please do read people like Macchiavelli (who you quoted in the first place) and inform yourself about the entire idea, BEFORE you chip off the part that suits you. "Divide and rule" is one of THE most basic principles, same applies to paranoia and fear, lack of education and a struggle to realize something like an "american dream" - at the same time not providing sufficient means, but to allow a high nuber of liquor and arms stores in areas with low income, school education and social tension (which I have observed in Los Angeles).
As a society we are no aiming to become sheep against wolves. We aim to live in peace and this does not necessarily involve or is not based upon the ownership of guns.
Cause and effect - that's a very basic law.
You create scenarios, which you can't back up. Which pimp tried to kill a prostitute, got shot by police and happened to be on school grounds? Where does one find this? This is proposterous!
You live in paranoia, but you are blind. You do NOT understand guns, if you say hat ALL of them have a sportive aspect, you do NOT act responsible if you favour that EVERYONE should have the right to own one. Especially if it comes to criminal offenders.
You want to ease access to guns, whilst I simply say that the access needs to (at least) be more regulated than it actually is (wihin the US). My argument is not as absurd as you put it, but I have no intention to spell it out the way that you need to understand it. I'm neither your dad, nor your sociology prof.
True, guns are inanimate, but as alcohol has restrictions (and the laws vary in our country to mine), so do cars. And certainly swiming pools need a different design, if people continue to drown in them. As it happened to rear mirrors, as people continuously underestimated them... (le sigh) It is obvious hat stupidity prevails and is sticky to mankind, we have to take this ino account.
You choose to live in denial - we simply don't.
Lurch, as much as you accuse others, you are disorting the argument.
You make claims that you do not back up with numbers and (peered) websites. You make it very easy on yourself, because we should proove you wrong. Which we did already. But you continue to put out a pro gun argument - and that's the only reason why I am still participating in this.
Especially in the US, citizens have proven to be incapable to a responsible handling of guns. Alike drugs (drugs don't kill people, drugs don't hold negative energy and of course they do not cause addicions) there need to be regulations.
If you want to drive a car, you need to make a license. Not so, if you want to own a gun. In Germany you do need to make a license - not so in the US.
Guns are inanimate objects, as are bombs, fighter jets and nuclear (intercontinal) missiles. You are right, it's people who control and give them that dark energy. Why should Iran not have some, why should Iraq not have some?
I have tried to point it out to you: You do have little to no idea about politics and how a political system works. Please do read people like Macchiavelli (who you quoted in the first place) and inform yourself about the entire idea, BEFORE you chip off the part that suits you. "Divide and rule" is one of THE most basic principles, same applies to paranoia and fear, lack of education and a struggle to realize something like an "american dream" - at the same time not providing sufficient means, but to allow a high nuber of liquor and arms stores in areas with low income, school education and social tension (which I have observed in Los Angeles).
As a society we are no aiming to become sheep against wolves. We aim to live in peace and this does not necessarily involve or is not based upon the ownership of guns.
Cause and effect - that's a very basic law.
You create scenarios, which you can't back up. Which pimp tried to kill a prostitute, got shot by police and happened to be on school grounds? Where does one find this? This is proposterous!
You live in paranoia, but you are blind. You do NOT understand guns, if you say hat ALL of them have a sportive aspect, you do NOT act responsible if you favour that EVERYONE should have the right to own one. Especially if it comes to criminal offenders.
You want to ease access to guns, whilst I simply say that the access needs to (at least) be more regulated than it actually is (wihin the US). My argument is not as absurd as you put it, but I have no intention to spell it out the way that you need to understand it. I'm neither your dad, nor your sociology prof.
True, guns are inanimate, but as alcohol has restrictions (and the laws vary in our country to mine), so do cars. And certainly swiming pools need a different design, if people continue to drown in them. As it happened to rear mirrors, as people continuously underestimated them... (le sigh) It is obvious hat stupidity prevails and is sticky to mankind, we have to take this ino account.
You choose to live in denial - we simply don't.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, as far analogies go. I’d agree with robberies at ATM’s, but not to bank robberies, as not all ATM’s are located at banks.
As for the stats, how are you more qualified than someone else reading a newspaper to say what they should think? The story I read suggested that Americas weren’t concerned by the number of shootings at schools. The newspaper had a point. Why aren’t Americans concerned by the number of killings, drug deals, pimps and prostitutes getting shot by the police on school grounds?
Lurch, you seem a fair person. I agree your views are in the middle on the scale of extreme advocate of gun rights.
I had a look at the NRA web site.
To answer your questions: How on earth does a gun, or any object for that matter have an influence over me? How does a gun 'control' me and force me to have one?
Inanimate objects have power, just look at consumerism. I think that the American gun cultureis more like a kind of religion than a Cargo cult.
The not wanting to be defenseless sheep seems like paranoia to me. I’ve suggested the programming comes from your past. A past with a long and sentimental attachment to the hunting/sporting ethos and the militia/frontier ethos.
I’m not saying that guns should be outlawed because they do bad things. I’m saying civilized people don’t need guns in their community. My ideal is that we live in a world where we don’t need guns, because mostly we use guns to kill each other.
The "dark energy" comes from Reagan’s Star Wars policy
Lurch, as far analogies go. I’d agree with robberies at ATM’s, but not to bank robberies, as not all ATM’s are located at banks.
As for the stats, how are you more qualified than someone else reading a newspaper to say what they should think? The story I read suggested that Americas weren’t concerned by the number of shootings at schools. The newspaper had a point. Why aren’t Americans concerned by the number of killings, drug deals, pimps and prostitutes getting shot by the police on school grounds?
Lurch, you seem a fair person. I agree your views are in the middle on the scale of extreme advocate of gun rights.
I had a look at the NRA web site. To answer your questions: How on earth does a gun, or any object for that matter have an influence over me? How does a gun 'control' me and force me to have one?
Inanimate objects have power, just look at consumerism. I think that the American gun cultureis more like a kind of religion than a Cargo cult.
The not wanting to be defenseless sheep seems like paranoia to me. I’ve suggested the programming comes from your past. A past with a long and sentimental attachment to the hunting/sporting ethos and the militia/frontier ethos.
I’m not saying that guns should be outlawed because they do bad things. I’m saying civilized people don’t need guns in their community. My ideal is that we live in a world where we don’t need guns, because mostly we use guns to kill each other.
The "dark energy" comes from Reagan’s Star Wars policy
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
That's not what Lurch is saying. He's repeatedly outlined several restrictions on gun ownership... however I'm wondering if these restrictions apply to private sales as well as sales by a licenced dealer.
Written by: FireTom
You live in paranoia, but you are blind. You do NOT understand guns, if you say hat ALL of them have a sportive aspect, you do NOT act responsible if you favour that EVERYONE should have the right to own one. Especially if it comes to criminal offenders.
That's not what Lurch is saying. He's repeatedly outlined several restrictions on gun ownership... however I'm wondering if these restrictions apply to private sales as well as sales by a licenced dealer.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
For gun licensing, you can drive without a license, so what is going to stop them from owning a gun without a license...I'm not saying licensing is bad, but that it alone is not going to solve the problem. Licensing is a good thing and should be required for all weaponry IMO
Personally, I don't see drugs as evil. How we react to them is. You can find addictions anywhere.
Tom, you go around claiming that no one has any idea about politics, except you and OWD. Strange. Coincidence?
No one is saying that there should be easy access. That is actually rather near the opposite. The restrictions themselves are a little in limbo as to what is need and appropriate. No one is saying that criminals should own or be able to get guns. Unfortuntately, there is an active black market.
Private sales are difficult, but if there were a title with a gun...well, there are permits...there should be a stricter watch on private sales
For gun licensing, you can drive without a license, so what is going to stop them from owning a gun without a license...I'm not saying licensing is bad, but that it alone is not going to solve the problem. Licensing is a good thing and should be required for all weaponry IMO
Personally, I don't see drugs as evil. How we react to them is. You can find addictions anywhere.
Tom, you go around claiming that no one has any idea about politics, except you and OWD. Strange. Coincidence?
No one is saying that there should be easy access. That is actually rather near the opposite. The restrictions themselves are a little in limbo as to what is need and appropriate. No one is saying that criminals should own or be able to get guns. Unfortuntately, there is an active black market.
Private sales are difficult, but if there were a title with a gun...well, there are permits...there should be a stricter watch on private sales
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
FireTom, I've already posted sites with numbers and stories to back up what i'm saying. https://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence04-05.html for example.
They list 24 school shootings in the 2004-2005 school year, but lets look at some of those "school shootings"
August 30, 2004: Maywood, IL
A 22-year-old male brother of a high school student was killed in a possible gang-related shooting in a high school student parking lot while waiting to pick up his brother around 2:30pm. The victim was reportedly standing outside his vehicle when he began quarreling with another male non-student in another car, at which time the second man reportedly pulled out a gun after exiting his car. The two reportedly struggled and the victim was shot once in the chest.
October 7, 2004: Newburyport, MA
A 15-year-old male high school student shot and killed himself outside of his high school around 10:00pm. The male was reportedly despondent after a falling out with a female student. He had attempted unsuccessfully to visit the female, who lived across the street, prior to the suicide. A total of five shots had been fired prior to his body being found on the steps of his high school. The school's superintendent held an assembly about the incident and made counselors available to students.
October 16, 2004: Houston, TX
A 19-year-old male was reportedly shot and killed by a school police officer around 1:45am on an elementary school campus. The officer indicated that he shot the male, who he encountered attempting to pry open an outdoor vending machine on campus, after the male threatened to shoot him and then reached in his pocket. The male was later found to have had a screwdriver in his pocket.
October 20, 2004: Hayward, CA
A 32-year-old male was shot and killed in the parking lot of an elementary school around 9:55pm.
The list goes on and on, are they sad? Of course they are, it's all tragic, but those are not what the general population thinks of when you say school shooting.
Actually that depends where you are, each state has individual requirements, and some require purchase permits... You may want to read up on US gun laws before you go making such comments
We're not talking about bombs and nuclear weapons, we're talking about firearms, come on now stay focused.
Just because I agree with part of Macciavelli's writings doesn't mean I have to agree with them all. I'm not sure why you think that is so. Hitler may have liked oranges. I like oranges too, does that make me a nazi? Come on.
You're probably the type to demand fire alarms in all buildings. When the reality is (no matter where you are in the world) you're far more likely to be attacked and be a victim in a violent crime than caught in a fire. You should be demanding security guards, or the ability to protect yourself.
You're right, I did make up the pimp one, but it's no less proposterous than the real stories, we'll look at a couple more for you..
This one isn't a school shooting, but it's marked as a death
April 9, 2005: St. Charles, IL
A 53-year-old police sergeant collapsed and died of a heart attack while chasing a student suspect who was one of five high school seniors arrested and charged for attempted burglary at the school.
April 12, 2005: New York, NY
An 18-year-old male high school student was stabbed to death while awaiting a train to school at a Bronx subway. Two fellow students were also stabbed while trying to escape the attack by a group of men.
Now how does being stabbed on the subway have anything to do with school violence? *gasp* he's highschool aged and a student! lets throw it in with all the other ones that vaguely tie to a school
May 17, 2005: Lower Allen Township, PA
A 47-year-old male allegedly shot a 32-year-old female several times and then turned the gun on himself during an argument around 3:00pm in an elementary school parking lot. The murder-suicide was described as resulting from "domestic violence" which did not result in direct harm to students or staff at the school.
It's not anywhere near as easy to buy a gun (legally) as you seem to think it is. What are the restrictions for alcohol? You have to be 21. That's not much of a restriction comepared to the fingerprinting, federal background and criminal check that you have to go through to buy a gun. Our gun laws have changed constantly, and I'm fine with that, but blinding enacting MORE laws that are just voted on by people who have no understanding of what they actually mean I'm against.
Part of that is that the true number of school shootings isn't what the article suggests, as hopefully I've shown with the examples above.. Secondly we *are* concerned. We do need more police officers, more training, but we don't need more laws. We already have laws against such activity, what does making more do? A little piece of paper doesn't really stop someone, you need people out there willing to make a difference. Law enforcement can't be everywhere. It's an impossibility, thats why I would like to do my part to ensure my personal safety should the need come. Whether the crime is on school grounds or not makes little difference, someone killed in a parking lot of a school is no more tragic than someone killed in front of a walmart.
How is it paranoia? You cite our crime statistics and blame our guns, then you say we have nothing to fear there are no bad guys? There *are* people out there willing to do harm to other people. Most are at it for material gain, some are simply sociopaths. But there *are* people there, to deny such a thing is foolhardy. The chances of me coming into contact with them in a violent encounter? Virtually nill, but there is still a chance, and I would like to be prepaired. That is not paranoia.
Written by:
You make claims that you do not back up with numbers and (peered) websites. You make it very easy on yourself, because we should proove you wrong. Which we did already. But you continue to put out a pro gun argument - and that's the only reason why I am still participating in this.
FireTom, I've already posted sites with numbers and stories to back up what i'm saying. https://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence04-05.html for example.
They list 24 school shootings in the 2004-2005 school year, but lets look at some of those "school shootings"
August 30, 2004: Maywood, IL
A 22-year-old male brother of a high school student was killed in a possible gang-related shooting in a high school student parking lot while waiting to pick up his brother around 2:30pm. The victim was reportedly standing outside his vehicle when he began quarreling with another male non-student in another car, at which time the second man reportedly pulled out a gun after exiting his car. The two reportedly struggled and the victim was shot once in the chest.
October 7, 2004: Newburyport, MA
A 15-year-old male high school student shot and killed himself outside of his high school around 10:00pm. The male was reportedly despondent after a falling out with a female student. He had attempted unsuccessfully to visit the female, who lived across the street, prior to the suicide. A total of five shots had been fired prior to his body being found on the steps of his high school. The school's superintendent held an assembly about the incident and made counselors available to students.
October 16, 2004: Houston, TX
A 19-year-old male was reportedly shot and killed by a school police officer around 1:45am on an elementary school campus. The officer indicated that he shot the male, who he encountered attempting to pry open an outdoor vending machine on campus, after the male threatened to shoot him and then reached in his pocket. The male was later found to have had a screwdriver in his pocket.
October 20, 2004: Hayward, CA
A 32-year-old male was shot and killed in the parking lot of an elementary school around 9:55pm.
The list goes on and on, are they sad? Of course they are, it's all tragic, but those are not what the general population thinks of when you say school shooting.
Written by:
If you want to drive a car, you need to make a license. Not so, if you want to own a gun. In Germany you do need to make a license - not so in the US.
Actually that depends where you are, each state has individual requirements, and some require purchase permits... You may want to read up on US gun laws before you go making such comments
Written by:
Guns are inanimate objects, as are bombs, fighter jets and nuclear (intercontinal) missiles. You are right, it's people who control and give them that dark energy. Why should Iran not have some, why should Iraq not have some?
We're not talking about bombs and nuclear weapons, we're talking about firearms, come on now stay focused.
Written by:
You do have little to no idea about politics and how a political system works. Please do read people like Macchiavelli (who you quoted in the first place) and inform yourself about the entire idea, BEFORE you chip off the part that suits you. "Divide and rule" is one of THE most basic principles, same applies to paranoia and fear, lack of education and a struggle to realize something like an "american dream" - at the same time not providing sufficient means, but to allow a high nuber of liquor and arms stores in areas with low income, school education and social tension (which I have observed in Los Angeles).
Just because I agree with part of Macciavelli's writings doesn't mean I have to agree with them all. I'm not sure why you think that is so. Hitler may have liked oranges. I like oranges too, does that make me a nazi? Come on.
Written by:
As a society we are no aiming to become sheep against wolves. We aim to live in peace and this does not necessarily involve or is not based upon the ownership of guns.
You're probably the type to demand fire alarms in all buildings. When the reality is (no matter where you are in the world) you're far more likely to be attacked and be a victim in a violent crime than caught in a fire. You should be demanding security guards, or the ability to protect yourself.
Written by:
You create scenarios, which you can't back up. Which pimp tried to kill a prostitute, got shot by police and happened to be on school grounds? Where does one find this? This is proposterous!
You're right, I did make up the pimp one, but it's no less proposterous than the real stories, we'll look at a couple more for you..
This one isn't a school shooting, but it's marked as a death
April 9, 2005: St. Charles, IL
A 53-year-old police sergeant collapsed and died of a heart attack while chasing a student suspect who was one of five high school seniors arrested and charged for attempted burglary at the school.
April 12, 2005: New York, NY
An 18-year-old male high school student was stabbed to death while awaiting a train to school at a Bronx subway. Two fellow students were also stabbed while trying to escape the attack by a group of men.
Now how does being stabbed on the subway have anything to do with school violence? *gasp* he's highschool aged and a student! lets throw it in with all the other ones that vaguely tie to a school
May 17, 2005: Lower Allen Township, PA
A 47-year-old male allegedly shot a 32-year-old female several times and then turned the gun on himself during an argument around 3:00pm in an elementary school parking lot. The murder-suicide was described as resulting from "domestic violence" which did not result in direct harm to students or staff at the school.
Written by:
True, guns are inanimate, but as alcohol has restrictions (and the laws vary in our country to mine), so do cars. And certainly swiming pools need a different design, if people continue to drown in them. As it happened to rear mirrors, as people continuously underestimated them... (le sigh) It is obvious hat stupidity prevails and is sticky to mankind, we have to take this ino account.
It's not anywhere near as easy to buy a gun (legally) as you seem to think it is. What are the restrictions for alcohol? You have to be 21. That's not much of a restriction comepared to the fingerprinting, federal background and criminal check that you have to go through to buy a gun. Our gun laws have changed constantly, and I'm fine with that, but blinding enacting MORE laws that are just voted on by people who have no understanding of what they actually mean I'm against.
Written by:
As for the stats, how are you more qualified than someone else reading a newspaper to say what they should think? The story I read suggested that Americas weren’t concerned by the number of shootings at schools. The newspaper had a point. Why aren’t Americans concerned by the number of killings, drug deals, pimps and prostitutes getting shot by the police on school grounds?
Part of that is that the true number of school shootings isn't what the article suggests, as hopefully I've shown with the examples above.. Secondly we *are* concerned. We do need more police officers, more training, but we don't need more laws. We already have laws against such activity, what does making more do? A little piece of paper doesn't really stop someone, you need people out there willing to make a difference. Law enforcement can't be everywhere. It's an impossibility, thats why I would like to do my part to ensure my personal safety should the need come. Whether the crime is on school grounds or not makes little difference, someone killed in a parking lot of a school is no more tragic than someone killed in front of a walmart.
Written by:
The not wanting to be defenseless sheep seems like paranoia to me. I’ve suggested the programming comes from your past. A past with a long and sentimental attachment to the hunting/sporting ethos and the militia/frontier ethos.
How is it paranoia? You cite our crime statistics and blame our guns, then you say we have nothing to fear there are no bad guys? There *are* people out there willing to do harm to other people. Most are at it for material gain, some are simply sociopaths. But there *are* people there, to deny such a thing is foolhardy. The chances of me coming into contact with them in a violent encounter? Virtually nill, but there is still a chance, and I would like to be prepaired. That is not paranoia.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I looked up school shootings and they are defined as “School shooting is a term popularized in the United States and Canada media to describe gun violence at educational institutions, especially the mass murder or spree killing of people connected with an institution.
The site you are criticizing clearly states that “For purposes of this monitoring report, school-related violent deaths are homicides, suicides, or other violent, non-accidental deaths in the United States in which a fatal injury occurs. I don’t see anything misleading about that statement.
Lurch, you don’t need a gun to ensure your personal safety. If the chance of you coming into contact with them (criminals) in a violent encounter is virtually nil, then I think you are being a tad paranoid. Paranoia, being a baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
Sure I cited crime statistics on gun violence in the home, but you rejected them because they didn’t fit with your romanticised opinion of guns. Why do you even question Kellermann? Even if he is half-right, why ignore the risk, or even worse try to disprove him?
Lurch, I looked up school shootings and they are defined as “School shooting is a term popularized in the United States and Canada media to describe gun violence at educational institutions, especially the mass murder or spree killing of people connected with an institution.
The site you are criticizing clearly states that “For purposes of this monitoring report, school-related violent deaths are homicides, suicides, or other violent, non-accidental deaths in the United States in which a fatal injury occurs. I don’t see anything misleading about that statement.
Lurch, you don’t need a gun to ensure your personal safety. If the chance of you coming into contact with them (criminals) in a violent encounter is virtually nil, then I think you are being a tad paranoid. Paranoia, being a baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
Sure I cited crime statistics on gun violence in the home, but you rejected them because they didn’t fit with your romanticised opinion of guns. Why do you even question Kellermann? Even if he is half-right, why ignore the risk, or even worse try to disprove him?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Do you wear a seatbelt while driving? What are your chances of getting in a car accident? I've never been in one in my life but I still wear it. Am I paranoid about that as well?
I'm not criticizing that site, I'm criticizing the media, and the people who only see half the story when they look at those numbers.
You're right that I probably don't *need* to have a gun to ensure my personal safety. I've made it over two decades without needing one. Is the argument over whether or not I need one now? Or whether I am allowed to have one?
I would question any research that has been highly criticized with proven faults, or contradictory evidence. No matter which side it was in. Kellermann is an irresponsible "scientist" IMHO. What about the studies showing nearly 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses annually? Even if those are partially right, and they prevented death in only a percentage of those, thats still thousands of people *saved* because a gun was present. Why would you ignore that?
Do you wear a seatbelt while driving? What are your chances of getting in a car accident? I've never been in one in my life but I still wear it. Am I paranoid about that as well?
I'm not criticizing that site, I'm criticizing the media, and the people who only see half the story when they look at those numbers.
You're right that I probably don't *need* to have a gun to ensure my personal safety. I've made it over two decades without needing one. Is the argument over whether or not I need one now? Or whether I am allowed to have one?
I would question any research that has been highly criticized with proven faults, or contradictory evidence. No matter which side it was in. Kellermann is an irresponsible "scientist" IMHO. What about the studies showing nearly 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses annually? Even if those are partially right, and they prevented death in only a percentage of those, thats still thousands of people *saved* because a gun was present. Why would you ignore that?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Faith - where do you find me claiming that I am the only one (besides OWD) who knows about politics?
However:
Not happy at all, Lurch.
Drug offences = criminal offences, therefore:
a heroin addict = a criminal (and/ or how much I oppose this is not the question here)
Now review your above statement...
And: Drugs do not hold power, hence they are illegal (in most UStates...)
BTW Stone has pointed out "Cargo Cult" - you have no opinion about this?
Would you be able to name ONE single incident where a LEO was disciplined for an unlawful drug/ alcohol test?
Would you be able to name those "estimate" sources?
Let me state some unpeered estimates:
200.000.000 guns/ firearms owned by civilians within the US (pop. est. 280.000.000 citizens)
8.000.000 guns/ firearms sold to US civilians every year.
Lets carry on:
So you have a CCWP and a gun, NOT to prevent crime, but exclusively to defend yourself and to prevent killings of innocent lives in such described event - is that right?
- How about the 15 yr old kid who got shot in the backyard of some guy (and who deserved to die - as you put it]? How about some of the news reports earlier this thread?
Nobody said you ALL are reckless - we just assume that some significant percentage of the American people is not trained and educated enough/ do not have enough emotional stability, hence are legally owning guns.
Stone now focussed on "school shootings" - I do not hold this focus. I focus on the number of gun related deaths/ day - and in particular on those where innocent ppl are involved (homicide, killing sprees, accidents, including the VT and Columbine shootings).
- You deny all reason - whilst you are correct that I do not hold detailled knowledge of each and every UStates individual gun law - do YOU hold knowledge of every such law?
Having said this we should focus on gun laws of your state, right?
- Have you posted any study that proved the previous statement?
- We are talking about the right to bear arms. We are talking about the US imposing their views and values on the rest of the planet. Why can the US, Europe and Israel have such "smoking guns", but Iraq, North Korea and Iran are ethically/ morally too instable to hold them in their possession? What about THEIR right to own "smoking guns"? Why are there double standards?
Hitler was a vegetarian - certainly that doesn't make every vegetarian a Hitler. I didn't claim that and never said that you subscribe to Macciavellism, but IF you would read more of his views, you would get an idea what (gun) laws in the US (and elsewhere) might be truly about. Know the devil, to see how he works in the machine...
You are making assumptions now. But a fire alarm in every (residential) building would save lives - same IMO applies to tightened gun control.
- Why are you making up such stories in order to prove your point? AND tell me to stay "focussed" at the same time?
- Again: Cargo Cult?
However: Did that baby have to supply fingerprints? He certainly didn't have a criminal record, but who is in control of the gun NOW? Would you reckon that - for say - a father (with criminal record) could apply for a license for his baby son and - by this - gain control over a gun?
THIS is about BOTH: Why you are allowed to have a gun - and subsequently - why you own one, if you don't need it (taking all the risks into account that comes with it).
Certainly I will make a stand, if you promote (US) gun culture in (this) community. If you'd do that within the NRA, I wouldn't bother much about you.
Faith - where do you find me claiming that I am the only one (besides OWD) who knows about politics?
However:
Written by: me
The law is there in oder to prevent crime. A heroin addict should never be able to have a "concealed weapon carry permit (CCW)"
Written by: Lurch
What sort of qualifications do you have to make such a statement? Personally, soft 'drug' type crimes have little to nothing to do with someone owning a gun. It's rediculous to overstep lines like that, but it happens all too often. The same way people caught urinating in public are now labelled sexual offenders. Drugs do NOT = violent crime. While I wouldn't particually like drug addicts walking around with guns, I will fight to the end for their right to do it *legally*. Luckily, the ones I would truely have to worry about would rather spend their money on drugs, than on a CCW permit and legal weapon, so they're doing it illegally anyways, and are criminal, and should be charged. You happy there?
Not happy at all, Lurch.
Drug offences = criminal offences, therefore:
a heroin addict = a criminal (and/ or how much I oppose this is not the question here)
Now review your above statement...
And: Drugs do not hold power, hence they are illegal (in most UStates...)
BTW Stone has pointed out "Cargo Cult" - you have no opinion about this?
Would you be able to name ONE single incident where a LEO was disciplined for an unlawful drug/ alcohol test?
Written by: Lurch
Estimates also say that there are close to 2,000,000 uses of defensive guns (that don't involve
killing someone) that STOP crimes in progress.
Would you be able to name those "estimate" sources?
Let me state some unpeered estimates:
200.000.000 guns/ firearms owned by civilians within the US (pop. est. 280.000.000 citizens)
8.000.000 guns/ firearms sold to US civilians every year.
Lets carry on:
Written by: Lurch
If you were robbing a store, and I was a bystander.. I would probably not draw if it looked like you would leave peacefully. If you'd already hurt people, then I would be justified to brandish and challenge, and at least draw your attention to ME rather than an innocent person. If you put down your gun, thats it, it's over.. If I see you shoot someone in cold blood, and I have reason to believe I, or someone else is going to be next, you better believe in shooting first and asking questions later.
So you have a CCWP and a gun, NOT to prevent crime, but exclusively to defend yourself and to prevent killings of innocent lives in such described event - is that right?
Written by: LurchWritten by:
Friend of mine the other day caught some kid/troublemaker/opportunist maybe even, trying to short cut through his garden, went out to shout at him, just caught his back as he bolted through the side gate and across the street in front of his house. didn't think twice about it till another friend said if it was the US, it'd be quite likely the guy could have had a gun, would assume he had a gun in the house, and would probably have felt no choice but to shoot first as my friend stood at the door shouting, or catch it in the back as he tried to run away.
Wha? That is just full of insane assumptions that shows that you guys don't really know much about society over here. The logic itself is rather screwed up as well, if a criminal thinks everyone is armed, and going to shoot them in the back for running through a back yard. WHY would they run through a back yard?? Running through a yard is NOT justification to do *anything*. We're not a bunch of gun toting sociopaths looking to kill anyone who steps on our toes.
- How about the 15 yr old kid who got shot in the backyard of some guy (and who deserved to die - as you put it]? How about some of the news reports earlier this thread?
Written by: Lurch
Um, no, again, wild assumptions. Killing over material possessions is wrong, and illegal regardless. A DVD player can be replaced. A wife, or child, cannot. I too find that sickening, and sickening that you would blindly assume thats how we are. We're not nearly as reckless as you people seem to think.
Nobody said you ALL are reckless - we just assume that some significant percentage of the American people is not trained and educated enough/ do not have enough emotional stability, hence are legally owning guns.
Stone now focussed on "school shootings" - I do not hold this focus. I focus on the number of gun related deaths/ day - and in particular on those where innocent ppl are involved (homicide, killing sprees, accidents, including the VT and Columbine shootings).
Written by: Lurch
Written by: me
If you want to drive a car, you need to make a license. Not so, if you want to own a gun. In Germany you do need to make a license - not so in the US.
Actually that depends where you are, each state has individual requirements, and some require purchase permits... You may want to read up on US gun laws before you go making such comments
- You deny all reason - whilst you are correct that I do not hold detailled knowledge of each and every UStates individual gun law - do YOU hold knowledge of every such law?
Having said this we should focus on gun laws of your state, right?
Written by: LurchWritten by: me
You make claims that you do not back up with numbers and (peered) websites. You make it very easy on yourself, because we should proove you wrong. Which we did already. But you continue to put out a pro gun argument - and that's the only reason why I am still participating in this.
FireTom, I've already posted sites with numbers and stories to back up what i'm saying.
- Have you posted any study that proved the previous statement?
Written by: Lurch
Written by: me
Guns are inanimate objects, as are bombs, fighter jets and nuclear (intercontinal) missiles. You are right, it's people who control and give them that dark energy. Why should Iran not have some, why should Iraq not have some?
We're not talking about bombs and nuclear weapons, we're talking about firearms, come on now stay focused.
- We are talking about the right to bear arms. We are talking about the US imposing their views and values on the rest of the planet. Why can the US, Europe and Israel have such "smoking guns", but Iraq, North Korea and Iran are ethically/ morally too instable to hold them in their possession? What about THEIR right to own "smoking guns"? Why are there double standards?
Written by: Lurch
Just because I agree with part of Macciavelli's writings doesn't mean I have to agree with them all. I'm not sure why you think that is so. Hitler may have liked oranges. I like oranges too, does that make me a nazi? Come on.
Hitler was a vegetarian - certainly that doesn't make every vegetarian a Hitler. I didn't claim that and never said that you subscribe to Macciavellism, but IF you would read more of his views, you would get an idea what (gun) laws in the US (and elsewhere) might be truly about. Know the devil, to see how he works in the machine...
Written by: Lurch
Written by: me
As a society we are not aiming to become sheep against wolves. We aim to live in peace and this does not necessarily involve or is not based upon the ownership of guns.
You're probably the type to demand fire alarms in all buildings. When the reality is (no matter where you are in the world) you're far more likely to be attacked and be a victim in a violent crime than caught in a fire. You should be demanding security guards, or the ability to protect yourself.
You are making assumptions now. But a fire alarm in every (residential) building would save lives - same IMO applies to tightened gun control.
Written by: Lurch
Written by: me
You create scenarios, which you can't back up. Which pimp tried to kill a prostitute, got shot by police and happened to be on school grounds? Where does one find this? This is proposterous!
You're right, I did make up the pimp one, but it's no less proposterous than the real stories, we'll look at a couple more for you..
- Why are you making up such stories in order to prove your point? AND tell me to stay "focussed" at the same time?
Written by: LurchWritten by: me
True, guns are inanimate, but as alcohol has restrictions (and the laws vary in our country to mine), so do cars. And certainly swiming pools need a different design, if people continue to drown in them. As it happened to rear mirrors, as people continuously underestimated them... (le sigh) It is obvious hat stupidity prevails and is sticky to mankind, we have to take this ino account.
It's not anywhere near as easy to buy a gun (legally) as you seem to think it is. What are the restrictions for alcohol? You have to be 21. That's not much of a restriction comepared to the fingerprinting, federal background and criminal check that you have to go through to buy a gun. Our gun laws have changed constantly, and I'm fine with that, but blinding enacting MORE laws that are just voted on by people who have no understanding of what they actually mean I'm against.
- Again: Cargo Cult?
However: Did that baby have to supply fingerprints? He certainly didn't have a criminal record, but who is in control of the gun NOW? Would you reckon that - for say - a father (with criminal record) could apply for a license for his baby son and - by this - gain control over a gun?
THIS is about BOTH: Why you are allowed to have a gun - and subsequently - why you own one, if you don't need it (taking all the risks into account that comes with it).
Certainly I will make a stand, if you promote (US) gun culture in (this) community. If you'd do that within the NRA, I wouldn't bother much about you.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Now now FireTom, I didn't come preaching anything to you nor anyone else. I came defending my beliefs. I didn't start this thread, but I don't want to see my rights trampled on, and I don't like seeing people have a blantent disregard for anothers choices.
You're really digging back to some old posts in this one so let me try and restate things again for you...
You are lumping drug addicts, or even recreational drug users in with murderers and rapists? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Just because you commit one crime does *not* mean you'll commit another. As I've said countless times, being addicted to drugs is not a crime. Taking or having drugs is. Beating your wife is different than smoking some weed with your friends at a party. Why is it so hard for you to see that difference? Thank god you don't believe in the death penalty or jay walkers would be executed
Your point being? That would put it at roughly 1% of guns used defensivly every year.. Now how many people are killed? Maybe a few thousand? A whole hell of a lot less than saved.
My gun is to protect me and those around me, I'm not a vigilante, I'm not going to go play superhero. Sorry to burst your bubble.
That kid was NOT yard hopping, he was committing ARMED ROBBERY.. I'd say there is a difference but all criminals are the same to you apparently so you can't seem to comprehend that.
I'll at least look up the laws
Go re-read the VT thread, I'm not going to dig up and repost things that I've already stated. I had multiple references to FBI and National Defense studies, along with peer reviewed works.
No, we're not. We're not imposing our views on the rest of the world. The NRA isn't out campaigning in Iraq. Would you want them to have bombs? You'de probably prefer it if noone had them. I would to, but it's not a realistic, nor safe stance to take.
In terms of violent crime, a gun in every house would save lives. Would you rob a house if you knew the owner was home, and armed? Or would you be more willing to rob an unarmed helpless victim?
Now now FireTom, I didn't come preaching anything to you nor anyone else. I came defending my beliefs. I didn't start this thread, but I don't want to see my rights trampled on, and I don't like seeing people have a blantent disregard for anothers choices.
You're really digging back to some old posts in this one so let me try and restate things again for you...
Written by:
Not happy at all, Lurch.
Drug offences = criminal offences, therefore:
a heroin addict = a criminal (and/ or how much I oppose this is not the question here)
You are lumping drug addicts, or even recreational drug users in with murderers and rapists? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Just because you commit one crime does *not* mean you'll commit another. As I've said countless times, being addicted to drugs is not a crime. Taking or having drugs is. Beating your wife is different than smoking some weed with your friends at a party. Why is it so hard for you to see that difference? Thank god you don't believe in the death penalty or jay walkers would be executed
Written by:
Would you be able to name those "estimate" sources?
Let me state some unpeered estimates:
200.000.000 guns/ firearms owned by civilians within the US (pop. est. 280.000.000 citizens)
8.000.000 guns/ firearms sold to US civilians every year.
Your point being? That would put it at roughly 1% of guns used defensivly every year.. Now how many people are killed? Maybe a few thousand? A whole hell of a lot less than saved.
Written by:
So you have a CCWP and a gun, NOT to prevent crime, but exclusively to defend yourself and to prevent killings of innocent lives in such described event - is that right?
My gun is to protect me and those around me, I'm not a vigilante, I'm not going to go play superhero. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Written by:
- How about the 15 yr old kid who got shot in the backyard of some guy (and who deserved to die - as you put it]? How about some of the news reports earlier this thread?
That kid was NOT yard hopping, he was committing ARMED ROBBERY.. I'd say there is a difference but all criminals are the same to you apparently so you can't seem to comprehend that.
Written by:
- You deny all reason - whilst you are correct that I do not hold detailled knowledge of each and every UStates individual gun law - do YOU hold knowledge of every such law?
I'll at least look up the laws
Written by:
- Have you posted any study that proved the previous statement?
Go re-read the VT thread, I'm not going to dig up and repost things that I've already stated. I had multiple references to FBI and National Defense studies, along with peer reviewed works.
Written by:
- We are talking about the right to bear arms. We are talking about the US imposing their views and values on the rest of the planet. Why can the US, Europe and Israel have such "smoking guns", but Iraq, North Korea and Iran are ethically/ morally too instable to hold them in their possession? What about THEIR right to own "smoking guns"? Why are there double standards?
No, we're not. We're not imposing our views on the rest of the world. The NRA isn't out campaigning in Iraq. Would you want them to have bombs? You'de probably prefer it if noone had them. I would to, but it's not a realistic, nor safe stance to take.
Written by:
You are making assumptions now. But a fire alarm in every (residential) building would save lives - same IMO applies to tightened gun control.
In terms of violent crime, a gun in every house would save lives. Would you rob a house if you knew the owner was home, and armed? Or would you be more willing to rob an unarmed helpless victim?
Written by:
- Why are you making up such stories in order to prove your point? AND tell me to stay "focussed" at the same time?Written by:
Oh dear, I got a bit lazy and didn't want to dig up a specific example so I made one up off the top of my head, you might as well just ignore everything I've said so farWritten by:
However: Did that baby have to supply fingerprints? He certainly didn't have a criminal record, but who is in control of the gun NOW? Would you reckon that - for say - a father (with criminal record) could apply for a license for his baby son and - by this - gain control over a gun?
First off, the kid didn't buy the gun, it was gifted to him. His paperwork was to make him the legal owner. There are also laws in place that prevent and make it illegal (a felony I believe) for someone to buy a gun for someone who isn't allowed to have one. Have you really not done any research into American gun laws?Written by:
THIS is about BOTH: Why you are allowed to have a gun - and subsequently - why you own one, if you don't need it (taking all the risks into account that comes with it).
I still don't think I have to justify why I own a gun to you at all. It's none of your business quite frankly.Written by:
Certainly I will make a stand, if you promote (US) gun culture in (this) community. If you'd do that within the NRA, I wouldn't bother much about you.
All you've done is show you're unwilling to listen to reason.#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, in Australia we are required to wear seat belts by law. I wouldn’t jump into a car without putting one on. I’ve seen enough road carnage to know they save lives.
I think we touched on seat belts before. I said compared to guns they actually provide protection, more like bullet-proof clothing. I’d compare jumping into a car with out a seat belt, to having a gun hoping it wold protect me.
I’ve always maintained that you could own a gun. I questioned whether you really needed one. I don’t think it’s paranoia. You like guns, that’s fine. What I don’t get is why so many Americans feel the need to have so many guns. It’s not like the all really need them or actually use them.
As far as interpreting research goes. I would suggest you read the research papers, and judge for yourself the value of the research. If you only read the criticisms then you are not in a position to judge Kellermann.
The studies showing nearly 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses annually isn’t actually research. The estimates are predictions, probably based on a model. Models are open to many errors, and I think it would extremely difficult to “validate” the 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses with current data.
I agree Fire Tom, I think the gun culture is driven by “the right to bear arms”.
Lurch, in Australia we are required to wear seat belts by law. I wouldn’t jump into a car without putting one on. I’ve seen enough road carnage to know they save lives.
I think we touched on seat belts before. I said compared to guns they actually provide protection, more like bullet-proof clothing. I’d compare jumping into a car with out a seat belt, to having a gun hoping it wold protect me.
I’ve always maintained that you could own a gun. I questioned whether you really needed one. I don’t think it’s paranoia. You like guns, that’s fine. What I don’t get is why so many Americans feel the need to have so many guns. It’s not like the all really need them or actually use them.
As far as interpreting research goes. I would suggest you read the research papers, and judge for yourself the value of the research. If you only read the criticisms then you are not in a position to judge Kellermann.
The studies showing nearly 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses annually isn’t actually research. The estimates are predictions, probably based on a model. Models are open to many errors, and I think it would extremely difficult to “validate” the 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses with current data.
I agree Fire Tom, I think the gun culture is driven by “the right to bear arms”.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, in Australia we are required to wear seat belts by law. I wouldn’t jump into a car without putting one on. I’ve seen enough road carnage to know they save lives.
I think we touched on seat belts before. I said, compared to guns they actually provide protection, more like bullet-proof clothing. I’d compare jumping into a car with out a seat belt, to having a gun hoping it wold protect me.
I’ve always maintained that you could own a gun. I questioned whether you really needed one. I don’t think it’s paranoia. You like guns, that’s fine. What I don’t get is why so many Americans feel the need to have so many guns. It’s not like the all really need them or actually use them.
As far as interpreting research goes. I would suggest you read the research papers, and judge for yourself the value of the research. If you only read the criticisms then you are not in a position to judge Kellermann.
The studies showing nearly 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses annually isn’t actually research. The estimates are predictions, probably based on a model. Models are open to many errors, and I think it would extremely difficult to “validate” the 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses with current data.
I agree Fire Tom, I think the gun culture is driven by “the right to bear arms”.
Lurch, in Australia we are required to wear seat belts by law. I wouldn’t jump into a car without putting one on. I’ve seen enough road carnage to know they save lives.
I think we touched on seat belts before. I said, compared to guns they actually provide protection, more like bullet-proof clothing. I’d compare jumping into a car with out a seat belt, to having a gun hoping it wold protect me.
I’ve always maintained that you could own a gun. I questioned whether you really needed one. I don’t think it’s paranoia. You like guns, that’s fine. What I don’t get is why so many Americans feel the need to have so many guns. It’s not like the all really need them or actually use them.
As far as interpreting research goes. I would suggest you read the research papers, and judge for yourself the value of the research. If you only read the criticisms then you are not in a position to judge Kellermann.
The studies showing nearly 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses annually isn’t actually research. The estimates are predictions, probably based on a model. Models are open to many errors, and I think it would extremely difficult to “validate” the 2,000,000 estimated defensive handgun uses with current data.
I agree Fire Tom, I think the gun culture is driven by “the right to bear arms”.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Is it that you avoid some of my questions, regarding earlier statements that you have made? (as ONE reference to a LEO disciplined IN YOUR COUNTY (if that helps you) for having attempted an unlawful drug test?)
you be you won't find one... (*psst* maybe you cease to make up stories in discussions about highly sensitive topics, involving (human) lives.... ?!!!!)
Don't put words into my mouth.
I have neither claimed to be the only one who knows about politics, nor have I "lumped drug addicts ... (together) with murderers and rapists". This is slanderous.
FACT is that I said: under current legislation a person who is (ab)using (illegal) drugs is regarded a "criminal" (by law - and I have spared comments on what I personally think about these laws!)
Therefore it's FACT, that you (under the current legislation) would provide criminals with guns.
HEY - I didn't make these laws. I would like to see them change myself (including gun laws).
Your numbers have been "estimates", therefore they are highly arguable. How many of these guns are used for attacks, crimes, killings?
No bubble, no burst... As it was stated earlier: The risks of having guns present outweigh their benefits.
No, not all criminals are the same. Someone who uses weed (and is a criminal by law) certainly is NOT the same as someone killing someone else. Stat!
But where do you get the kids intent from? However, even IF he was about to commit armed robbery, didn't you just say that
So what is your point?
This is debatable.
I would want Iran not wanting to own nukes in the first place, I would like to see the nuclear threat banned once and for all. After the "cold war" ended, many of us thought it would be possible, but it seems as if politics needs threats in order to keep their population in check.
Phew, "a gun in every house" Personally I wouldn't rob a house or a person in the first place. Your question is highly hypothetical. But I know that people do act stupid again and again. Maybe they think they can draw faster, maybe they think they will not be noticed. Maybe they think the owner is out, when in fact he is at home...
You said: "Killing over possessions is wrong" - what is this now about? I wouldn't (want to) shoot a burglar or robber, just because he does what he does. Many times these people are family members to somebody and as such irreplaceable. My DVD is. Therefore I would get an insurance.
Well when it comes to (human) lives I dislike getting sloppy. Maybe I should ignore everything you have said, but as I stated it: If this wouldn't promote gun ownership within the community, I would propably ignore you.
So you want to indicate that the grandfather committed a felony?
As the baby has not reached a certain age, his parents are his custodians and as such they do (in fact) have the control over this gun. What if the father was a criminal (not occasional smot poker , but rapist or charged with violent assault)? Would legislation be able to "trample" the kids civil rights, just because it's dad is a criminal?
No, it's none of my (personal) business 
Well, Lurch that is not the case. If I may help your memory:
I initially opposed ALL civil gun ownership.
By the arguments that you (Pounce and yourself) have put forward, I said "right you are", acknowledged that some ppl in fact sometimes might need guns (as for example ppl like you in search and rescue operations and ppl like Pounce in her office, ppl like security guards and a few other "civilians").
Therefore they should have the right to carry one (within their engagement. I put forward my personal ideas of how this scenario could look like, but - most unfortunately - you dismiss ANY of these points, simply pointing at your civil rights...
I spelled it out before, what more to say? (*LE SIGH*)
Is it that you avoid some of my questions, regarding earlier statements that you have made? (as ONE reference to a LEO disciplined IN YOUR COUNTY (if that helps you) for having attempted an unlawful drug test?)
you be you won't find one... (*psst* maybe you cease to make up stories in discussions about highly sensitive topics, involving (human) lives.... ?!!!!)Written by: Lurch
You are lumping drug addicts, or even recreational drug users in with murderers and rapists? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Just because you commit one crime does *not* mean you'll commit another. As I've said countless times, being addicted to drugs is not a crime. Taking or having drugs is. Beating your wife is different than smoking some weed with your friends at a party. Why is it so hard for you to see that difference? Thank god you don't believe in the death penalty or jay walkers would be executed
Don't put words into my mouth.
I have neither claimed to be the only one who knows about politics, nor have I "lumped drug addicts ... (together) with murderers and rapists". This is slanderous. FACT is that I said: under current legislation a person who is (ab)using (illegal) drugs is regarded a "criminal" (by law - and I have spared comments on what I personally think about these laws!)
Therefore it's FACT, that you (under the current legislation) would provide criminals with guns.
HEY - I didn't make these laws. I would like to see them change myself (including gun laws).
Written by: Lurch in regards of 200 million guns privately owned in the US
Your point being? That would put it at roughly 1% of guns used defensively every year.. Now how many people are killed? Maybe a few thousand? A whole hell of a lot less than saved.
Your numbers have been "estimates", therefore they are highly arguable. How many of these guns are used for attacks, crimes, killings?
Written by: Lurch
My gun is to protect me and those around me, I'm not a vigilante, I'm not going to go play superhero. Sorry to burst your bubble.
No bubble, no burst... As it was stated earlier: The risks of having guns present outweigh their benefits.
Written by: Lurch
That kid was NOT yard hopping, he was committing ARMED ROBBERY.. I'd say there is a difference but all criminals are the same to you apparently so you can't seem to comprehend that.
No, not all criminals are the same. Someone who uses weed (and is a criminal by law) certainly is NOT the same as someone killing someone else. Stat!
But where do you get the kids intent from? However, even IF he was about to commit armed robbery, didn't you just say that
Written by: Lurch
Killing over material possessions is wrong
So what is your point?
Written by: Lurch
No, we're not. We're not imposing our views on the rest of the world.
This is debatable.
Written by: Lurch
The NRA isn't out campaigning in Iraq. Would you want them to have bombs? You'de probably prefer it if noone had them. I would to, but it's not a realistic, nor safe stance to take.
I would want Iran not wanting to own nukes in the first place, I would like to see the nuclear threat banned once and for all. After the "cold war" ended, many of us thought it would be possible, but it seems as if politics needs threats in order to keep their population in check.
Written by: Lurch
In terms of violent crime, a gun in every house would save lives. Would you rob a house if you knew the owner was home, and armed? Or would you be more willing to rob an unarmed helpless victim?
Phew, "a gun in every house"
Personally I wouldn't rob a house or a person in the first place. Your question is highly hypothetical. But I know that people do act stupid again and again. Maybe they think they can draw faster, maybe they think they will not be noticed. Maybe they think the owner is out, when in fact he is at home...You said: "Killing over possessions is wrong" - what is this now about? I wouldn't (want to) shoot a burglar or robber, just because he does what he does. Many times these people are family members to somebody and as such irreplaceable. My DVD is. Therefore I would get an insurance.
Written by: Lurch
Oh dear, I got a bit lazy and didn't want to dig up a specific example so I made one up off the top of my head, you might as well just ignore everything I've said so far
Well when it comes to (human) lives I dislike getting sloppy. Maybe I should ignore everything you have said, but as I stated it: If this wouldn't promote gun ownership within the community, I would propably ignore you.
Written by: Lurch
First off, the kid didn't buy the gun, it was gifted to him. His paperwork was to make him the legal owner. There are also laws in place that prevent and make it illegal (a felony I believe) for someone to buy a gun for someone who isn't allowed to have one. Have you really not done any research into American gun laws?
So you want to indicate that the grandfather committed a felony?
As the baby has not reached a certain age, his parents are his custodians and as such they do (in fact) have the control over this gun. What if the father was a criminal (not occasional smot poker
, but rapist or charged with violent assault)? Would legislation be able to "trample" the kids civil rights, just because it's dad is a criminal? Written by: Lurch
I still don't think I have to justify why I own a gun to you at all. It's none of your business quite frankly.
No, it's none of my (personal) business
Written by: Lurch
All you've done is show you're unwilling to listen to reason.
Well, Lurch that is not the case. If I may help your memory:
I initially opposed ALL civil gun ownership.
By the arguments that you (Pounce and yourself) have put forward, I said "right you are", acknowledged that some ppl in fact sometimes might need guns (as for example ppl like you in search and rescue operations and ppl like Pounce in her office, ppl like security guards and a few other "civilians").
Therefore they should have the right to carry one (within their engagement. I put forward my personal ideas of how this scenario could look like, but - most unfortunately - you dismiss ANY of these points, simply pointing at your civil rights...
I spelled it out before,
what more to say? (*LE SIGH*) the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Tom, here are quotes to me and pounce and lurch from the last three or four pages
"have tried to point it out to you: You do have little to no idea about politics and how a political system works. Please do read people like Macchiavelli (who you quoted in the first place) and inform yourself about the entire idea, BEFORE you chip off the part that suits you. "Divide and rule" is one of THE most basic principles, same applies to paranoia and fear, lack of education and a struggle to realize something like an "american dream" - at the same time not providing sufficient means, but to allow a high nuber of liquor and arms stores in areas with low income, school education and social tension (which I have observed in Los Angeles).
I would highly appreciate it, if you would at least make a minimal effort and try to inform yourself about where we are coming from... do a Google search and just punch in "European gun laws" and it's all out there for you... [/pungent irony]
You seem to have a blind eye to how a political system works"
We are not imposing our ideas on anyone but ourselves. Some people own guns, other's don't. Some people don't want them in the house. Others use them recreationally. Some use them for protection.
For why people have so many: rifles and shotguns, hunting different animals. handguns, I suppose, because each has a unique quality. One is more accurate. One has a longer range.
The seatbelt analogy works in that we hope we never need to use our gun. From what I heard, the people who do carry guns, haven't needed them. People wear seatbelts but don't drive crazy hoping to have a situation where they are needed.
There are different types of drug users too. Weed is illegal. Someone who smokes that is a criminal. Then you have the people who would geek their grandmother for a 10 piece.
The cargo culture? That is some type of joke right. There is no worship of guns. We treat them with respect because they are potentially dangerous. We do not worship.
Tom, here are quotes to me and pounce and lurch from the last three or four pages
"have tried to point it out to you: You do have little to no idea about politics and how a political system works. Please do read people like Macchiavelli (who you quoted in the first place) and inform yourself about the entire idea, BEFORE you chip off the part that suits you. "Divide and rule" is one of THE most basic principles, same applies to paranoia and fear, lack of education and a struggle to realize something like an "american dream" - at the same time not providing sufficient means, but to allow a high nuber of liquor and arms stores in areas with low income, school education and social tension (which I have observed in Los Angeles).
I would highly appreciate it, if you would at least make a minimal effort and try to inform yourself about where we are coming from... do a Google search and just punch in "European gun laws" and it's all out there for you... [/pungent irony]
You seem to have a blind eye to how a political system works"
We are not imposing our ideas on anyone but ourselves. Some people own guns, other's don't. Some people don't want them in the house. Others use them recreationally. Some use them for protection.
For why people have so many: rifles and shotguns, hunting different animals. handguns, I suppose, because each has a unique quality. One is more accurate. One has a longer range.
The seatbelt analogy works in that we hope we never need to use our gun. From what I heard, the people who do carry guns, haven't needed them. People wear seatbelts but don't drive crazy hoping to have a situation where they are needed.
There are different types of drug users too. Weed is illegal. Someone who smokes that is a criminal. Then you have the people who would geek their grandmother for a 10 piece.
The cargo culture? That is some type of joke right. There is no worship of guns. We treat them with respect because they are potentially dangerous. We do not worship.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
... says the woman who claims to have found a gun in her car and finally traded it for food.
Cargo Cult unfortunately is no joke.
Where in the above do you find me saying that "I am the only one (apart from OWD) who knows about politics"? Which is what you claim I said.
... says the woman who claims to have found a gun in her car and finally traded it for food.
Cargo Cult unfortunately is no joke.
Where in the above do you find me saying that "I am the only one (apart from OWD) who knows about politics"? Which is what you claim I said.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
claim? so now you question my integrity, what happened to trusting people? and what is that in reference to? the fact that we don't worship guns-my getting rid of it should be evidence of that. After the threat was over, I didn't want it in the house. It is evidence of the preventive nature. Because we didn't even get attacked or swindled or nothing
There is no one place where you said that you guys (the antigun ownership side) were the only one who knew politics. I have three quotes there from poking this morning. I cannot find all three now, but two of them were posted
5/24@2:10 paragraph 1
5/24@5:24 paragraph 11
the other one may be 5/25@3:34
claim? so now you question my integrity, what happened to trusting people? and what is that in reference to? the fact that we don't worship guns-my getting rid of it should be evidence of that. After the threat was over, I didn't want it in the house. It is evidence of the preventive nature. Because we didn't even get attacked or swindled or nothing
There is no one place where you said that you guys (the antigun ownership side) were the only one who knew politics. I have three quotes there from poking this morning. I cannot find all three now, but two of them were posted
5/24@2:10 paragraph 1
5/24@5:24 paragraph 11
the other one may be 5/25@3:34
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
You know, I think this is a brilliant point, and let's focus on this. Do you own a car? Does that car have a seatbelt? How about a kitchen knife set, do you have one of those? Or how about this (this is one I find most fascinating), do you have children, or do you plan to have children?
Why are we questioning our right or need to own anything at all? Since when is that your business? I have no problems questioning these things, I think it's healthy and imperative to do so to continue to the evolution of a society. BUT if we're questioning America's "need" to own guns, then we need to question everything on a whole as well. We need to question where this "dark energy" "your" side attributes to guns. We need to question why you're agreeing with (IMO) an extremely lame definition of what constitutes a school shooting. We need to question the same statistics you hold as true and why you believe that. What is it about guns that make you feel the need to question whether or not people should own them when there are just as many swimming pools, knives (including kitchen knives!), or even BIRTHS that contribute to the death of an individual?
Seriously, let's go there. Let's question the rights of a human being to give birth, to create another human being, ESPECIALLY given the amount of people in this world who [censored] up parenting royally. You need a license to drive, to fish, to hunt, to own a gun, to get married....why not require a license to reproduce? Heck, I'll even be fair and knock off some of those superficial ones and just stick to our "natural" instincts.....fishing, hunting, feeding ourselves....we still need a license to do that now, but no license to give birth to a child. Why not? Do you realize how many people end up killing their own child or raise them to be killers? How many parents neglect their children, or use drugs and alcohol during pregnancy that end up deforming that child and leaving them defenseless for the rest of their lives? How many mothers addicted to crack that continue to have child after child after child and never take care of a single one of them, leaving the child to enter into foster care? Why are we not questioning the "need" for humans to reproduce? There are FAR more disturbing statistics that involve violence towards children than there are violence by the use of a gun.
So tell me, Stone, why are you questioning this one thing? Why is America's gun control so important to you?
Written by: Stone
I’ve always maintained that you could own a gun. I questioned whether you really needed one. I don’t think it’s paranoia. You like guns, that’s fine. What I don’t get is why so many Americans feel the need to have so many guns. It’s not like the all really need them or actually use them.
You know, I think this is a brilliant point, and let's focus on this. Do you own a car? Does that car have a seatbelt? How about a kitchen knife set, do you have one of those? Or how about this (this is one I find most fascinating), do you have children, or do you plan to have children?
Why are we questioning our right or need to own anything at all? Since when is that your business? I have no problems questioning these things, I think it's healthy and imperative to do so to continue to the evolution of a society. BUT if we're questioning America's "need" to own guns, then we need to question everything on a whole as well. We need to question where this "dark energy" "your" side attributes to guns. We need to question why you're agreeing with (IMO) an extremely lame definition of what constitutes a school shooting. We need to question the same statistics you hold as true and why you believe that. What is it about guns that make you feel the need to question whether or not people should own them when there are just as many swimming pools, knives (including kitchen knives!), or even BIRTHS that contribute to the death of an individual?
Seriously, let's go there. Let's question the rights of a human being to give birth, to create another human being, ESPECIALLY given the amount of people in this world who [censored] up parenting royally. You need a license to drive, to fish, to hunt, to own a gun, to get married....why not require a license to reproduce? Heck, I'll even be fair and knock off some of those superficial ones and just stick to our "natural" instincts.....fishing, hunting, feeding ourselves....we still need a license to do that now, but no license to give birth to a child. Why not? Do you realize how many people end up killing their own child or raise them to be killers? How many parents neglect their children, or use drugs and alcohol during pregnancy that end up deforming that child and leaving them defenseless for the rest of their lives? How many mothers addicted to crack that continue to have child after child after child and never take care of a single one of them, leaving the child to enter into foster care? Why are we not questioning the "need" for humans to reproduce? There are FAR more disturbing statistics that involve violence towards children than there are violence by the use of a gun.
So tell me, Stone, why are you questioning this one thing? Why is America's gun control so important to you?
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
pounce the whole world is questioning American gun politics after the Virginia Tech massacre.
Why is America's gun control so important to you?
Look at your foreign policy. Read back for details.
The "dark energy" comes from Reagan’s Star Wars policy
pounce the whole world is questioning American gun politics after the Virginia Tech massacre.
Why is America's gun control so important to you?
Look at your foreign policy. Read back for details.
The "dark energy" comes from Reagan’s Star Wars policy
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
It's important to me because it's my country, it's my civil liberties.
Why should the Virginia Tech shootings take precendence over any of the other tragedies that happen every single day? Don't get me wrong, it's sad, it's tragic, there is a lesson to be learned. But I find it very interesting (and aggravating) that you (and I mean both you specifically and the general populus) are questioning America's people "need" or desire to own a gun when there are a million greater tragedies out there as well. You said it specifically, you are questioning Lurch's "need" to own guns....but why? Why this issue? Why not other issues? Why not the right to parenting like I mentioned?
And what does America's foreign policy have to do with it? We're jumping topics. You yourself said American gun policy is being questioned after the Virginia Tech shootings. What does that have ANYTHING to do with foreign policy???
Ok I get it, you're poking fun at the "dark energy" issue, but I wasn't the one to name it that, that came from Tom. Either way, it still doesn't make it any less of an important point.
It's important to me because it's my country, it's my civil liberties.
Why should the Virginia Tech shootings take precendence over any of the other tragedies that happen every single day? Don't get me wrong, it's sad, it's tragic, there is a lesson to be learned. But I find it very interesting (and aggravating) that you (and I mean both you specifically and the general populus) are questioning America's people "need" or desire to own a gun when there are a million greater tragedies out there as well. You said it specifically, you are questioning Lurch's "need" to own guns....but why? Why this issue? Why not other issues? Why not the right to parenting like I mentioned?
And what does America's foreign policy have to do with it? We're jumping topics. You yourself said American gun policy is being questioned after the Virginia Tech shootings. What does that have ANYTHING to do with foreign policy???
Ok I get it, you're poking fun at the "dark energy" issue, but I wasn't the one to name it that, that came from Tom. Either way, it still doesn't make it any less of an important point.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
pounce, good to see you back into this debate. The reason that people are questioning Americas "need" or desire to own a gun. Is because it’s obvious that America has a “blind spot” when it comes to guns.
It’s not just me, but leaders from ever civilized country on earth are asking when is America going to do something about their complacency towards guns? I would suggest that guns are also a contributing factor to the million other tragedies out there as well.
The rest of this mainly a repeat of earlier posts to refresh your on where I’m coming from.
A look inside America's gun culture, by an Australian.
America’s foreign policy, same as its domestic policy, is dominated by frontier philosophies, guns, paranoia and your “right to bear arms”. A current example of this frontier policy is the American led invasion of Iraq. There were no WMD; President Bush misled the world on that one.
pounce, if you were concerned about the safety of families and children then why are you criticizing Kellermann’s research? Kellermann found there was a 2.7 times increase in the risk of homicide if you keep firearms in the home, and this risk was attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
If that doesn't answer you questions then read back a few pages.
pounce, good to see you back into this debate. The reason that people are questioning Americas "need" or desire to own a gun. Is because it’s obvious that America has a “blind spot” when it comes to guns.
It’s not just me, but leaders from ever civilized country on earth are asking when is America going to do something about their complacency towards guns? I would suggest that guns are also a contributing factor to the million other tragedies out there as well.
The rest of this mainly a repeat of earlier posts to refresh your on where I’m coming from.
A look inside America's gun culture, by an Australian.
Written by:
The debate surrounding guns tends to flare up in America every time there is a mass shooting.
The reaction to this latest massacre in the United States will play out predictably. The first 24 hours will be full of the shock of crying witnesses, traumatised victims and mournful families. Then, almost immediately, the discussion will switch to America's gun culture. Anti-gun activists will call on President George W Bush and the Congress to restrict the availability of weapons. But the pro-gun lobby will respond with outrage, citing the US Constitution's 'right to bear arms' and other familiar mantras such as 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Then the whole issue will disappear until the next, inevitable mass shooting.
Gun control is one of the most fraught issues in the USA. It may be incomprehensible to Australians, but guns, like abortion, occupy a unique, high-profile position in US politics. The right to own a gun and defend oneself is central to the American identity and stems in part from the nation's frontier history.
Written by:
And what does America's foreign policy have to do with it? We're jumping topics.
America’s foreign policy, same as its domestic policy, is dominated by frontier philosophies, guns, paranoia and your “right to bear arms”. A current example of this frontier policy is the American led invasion of Iraq. There were no WMD; President Bush misled the world on that one.
pounce, if you were concerned about the safety of families and children then why are you criticizing Kellermann’s research? Kellermann found there was a 2.7 times increase in the risk of homicide if you keep firearms in the home, and this risk was attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
If that doesn't answer you questions then read back a few pages.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Stone, believed me, I understand why people are questioning America's gun laws. It was more of a rhetorical question. I'm trying to point out that we are becoming so narrowly focused on one issue when there is a larger, underlying issue at hand, which is education. It's been my stance all along. I stepped out of this debate because of several reasons, one being that fact alone. I'm tired of arguing this one nitpicky issue when I genuinely believe it's not the problem. We (as in the entire human race) have become a society that has stopped looking at each other as fellow human beings. We've become sue happy. We think we can just slap more laws on a problem and that will fix it. But guess what? Laws are simply concepts written on a piece of paper. Nothing stops people from breaking those laws except their conscience and morals, and that is what we need to start addressing. Teach responsibility, teach compassion, just plain teach. I don't break the law or violate other people's rights because I was raised by parents who taught me good morals and compassion for others. This whole bullshit Tom is alleging about people who haven't broken the law "yet" irritates the [censored] out of me, and to be honest, I've stopped reading anything he posts. I see no value in anything he says. And that's not fair for this discussion, so I stopped responding to everyone altogether. But I'm frustrated with this whole thing. We aren't getting anywhere and everyone is intent on convincing the other side to their way that they stop listening to what people have to say. And the true irony in that is that several of us "pro-gun"-ers have said we would be happy to have all guns banned (the stance of the "anti-gun"-ers) if we could address the true issues that underly this whole gun debate.
You could get rid of all the guns in the entire world and it still wouldn't stop these issues from happening. People will find a way. It's inevitable. Education, compassion, morals, conscience....that is the key.
Stone, believed me, I understand why people are questioning America's gun laws. It was more of a rhetorical question. I'm trying to point out that we are becoming so narrowly focused on one issue when there is a larger, underlying issue at hand, which is education. It's been my stance all along. I stepped out of this debate because of several reasons, one being that fact alone. I'm tired of arguing this one nitpicky issue when I genuinely believe it's not the problem. We (as in the entire human race) have become a society that has stopped looking at each other as fellow human beings. We've become sue happy. We think we can just slap more laws on a problem and that will fix it. But guess what? Laws are simply concepts written on a piece of paper. Nothing stops people from breaking those laws except their conscience and morals, and that is what we need to start addressing. Teach responsibility, teach compassion, just plain teach. I don't break the law or violate other people's rights because I was raised by parents who taught me good morals and compassion for others. This whole bullshit Tom is alleging about people who haven't broken the law "yet" irritates the [censored] out of me, and to be honest, I've stopped reading anything he posts. I see no value in anything he says. And that's not fair for this discussion, so I stopped responding to everyone altogether. But I'm frustrated with this whole thing. We aren't getting anywhere and everyone is intent on convincing the other side to their way that they stop listening to what people have to say. And the true irony in that is that several of us "pro-gun"-ers have said we would be happy to have all guns banned (the stance of the "anti-gun"-ers) if we could address the true issues that underly this whole gun debate.
You could get rid of all the guns in the entire world and it still wouldn't stop these issues from happening. People will find a way. It's inevitable. Education, compassion, morals, conscience....that is the key.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
and I even side that 
Education is the key to the future. Very important point raised. DE-escalation strategies and mediation, sociology, ethics and a whole bigger package is needed in order to get where we need to go.
Why is this knowledge is not taught at schools? We do know the benefits of a proper education, certainly politicians do know the benefits of a proper education...
Pounce I was raising the point (of ppl not having broken the law "yet") ONCE - if you find it offensive it's your choice.
Unfortunately this is how current legislation works. For example drugs are prohibited without anyone having taken them, you can't grow hemp in your backyard, because your government assumes you to be a criminal, without you having smoked a single bud of it. This is current legislation and only one example amongst others - I dislike it as much as you do.
My point is that (IMO) governments do have no intention to change this. Instead into education, 170 Million US dollars are poured into the "abstinence only" (not speaking of what has been spent on this program already), whilst this money is urgently needed elsewhere. It's only to get votes, not to help people.
I tried to point out that the political system is not interested in solving fundamental problems of society, but even perpetuates them, to perpetuate itself. As I see it, in the US the government provides it's citizens with the right to bear arms and feeds paranoia at the same time. The government creates circumstances where "matters of (national) security" become FAR more important than educating and feeding those who are in desperate need.
Who would you reckon benefits from that?
Arms manufacturers do not exclusively export to the US and IMO someone who buys a gun, contributes to global suffering as s/he helps to fund arms manufacturers.
[edit]I doubt that I have made a claim that "we" (as in the anti-gun side) are the only ones who know about politics. I asked you to verify, you cease to. Your decision. IF that is what came across, then I rephrase it:
Please do inform yourself MORE about how political systems work (for say about "Macchiavellism") - you might find it (as) obvious (as I do) that current (global and national) events are tailored in order to separate us from each other ("Divide and rule" vs. "Together we stand"). I can't see you peeking over your diners plate rim (which is a common, but specifically a US problem - if measured against the opportunities you have).
Finally let me ask you one thing: Where did you trade that gun for food?
[edited for clarity and aesthetics]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1180726179)
and I even side that Education is the key to the future. Very important point raised. DE-escalation strategies and mediation, sociology, ethics and a whole bigger package is needed in order to get where we need to go.Why is this knowledge is not taught at schools? We do know the benefits of a proper education, certainly politicians do know the benefits of a proper education...
Pounce I was raising the point (of ppl not having broken the law "yet") ONCE - if you find it offensive it's your choice.
Unfortunately this is how current legislation works. For example drugs are prohibited without anyone having taken them, you can't grow hemp in your backyard, because your government assumes you to be a criminal, without you having smoked a single bud of it. This is current legislation and only one example amongst others - I dislike it as much as you do.
My point is that (IMO) governments do have no intention to change this. Instead into education, 170 Million US dollars are poured into the "abstinence only" (not speaking of what has been spent on this program already), whilst this money is urgently needed elsewhere. It's only to get votes, not to help people.
I tried to point out that the political system is not interested in solving fundamental problems of society, but even perpetuates them, to perpetuate itself. As I see it, in the US the government provides it's citizens with the right to bear arms and feeds paranoia at the same time. The government creates circumstances where "matters of (national) security" become FAR more important than educating and feeding those who are in desperate need.
Who would you reckon benefits from that?
Arms manufacturers do not exclusively export to the US and IMO someone who buys a gun, contributes to global suffering as s/he helps to fund arms manufacturers.
[edit]I doubt that I have made a claim that "we" (as in the anti-gun side) are the only ones who know about politics. I asked you to verify, you cease to. Your decision.
IF that is what came across, then I rephrase it:Please do inform yourself MORE about how political systems work (for say about "Macchiavellism") - you might find it (as) obvious (as I do) that current (global and national) events are tailored in order to separate us from each other ("Divide and rule" vs. "Together we stand"). I can't see you peeking over your diners plate rim (which is a common, but specifically a US problem - if measured against the opportunities you have).
Finally let me ask you one thing: Where did you trade that gun for food?
[edited for clarity and aesthetics]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1180726179)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Fire Tom, I think pounce is saying we were being negative, and we need to be positive. It would be a good idea if we moved on, and looked at how education could address the underlying social issues that are the root of the problems.
pounce, I agree, “we (as in the entire human race) have become a society that has stopped looking at each other as fellow human beings.”
What are your ideas on education? I think we tend to look at all human beings, outside our circle of family and friends, as potential enemies. To live in harmony on a large scale doesn’t seem to be in the human genetic make up. As individuals, we seem to be getting more insular by the day.
I’ve been learning about mindfulness meditation. From what I’ve learnt so far, I’d say that if we as human beings were a little more mindful about who we were being, then anything was possible.
Fire Tom, I think pounce is saying we were being negative, and we need to be positive. It would be a good idea if we moved on, and looked at how education could address the underlying social issues that are the root of the problems.
pounce, I agree, “we (as in the entire human race) have become a society that has stopped looking at each other as fellow human beings.”
What are your ideas on education? I think we tend to look at all human beings, outside our circle of family and friends, as potential enemies. To live in harmony on a large scale doesn’t seem to be in the human genetic make up. As individuals, we seem to be getting more insular by the day.
I’ve been learning about mindfulness meditation. From what I’ve learnt so far, I’d say that if we as human beings were a little more mindful about who we were being, then anything was possible.
Written by:
Many Buddhists believe that world peace can only be achieved if we first establish peace within our minds. The idea is that anger and other negative states of mind are the cause of wars and fighting. They believe we can live in peace and harmony only if we abandon the anger in our minds and learn to love each other.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
see the point here was that I was not doing the attacking. I did not feel ... were necessary because it wasn't needed. the things before or after did not affect the feeling of the quote.
I said that it was just you and OWD because essentially you have said something similar to nearly everyone else. It is a long thread carrried over from another thread, I don't have time to go through and find every spot where you said others had no intelligence or no idea of politics. I do not need to educate myself on foreign gun policy mostly because this is a domesitic issue. You have no right to criticize any one for a personal attack (and it wasn't and attack, it was an observation of what you said) because in the past you have made those quotes and criticized our intelligence because we don't agree with you.
Who do you think? We were hungry sleep deprived addicts. I didn't want it in the house.
I like your quote stone. I think it is very right. If we had peace in our minds we wouldn't hate and violence would decrease. It's hard though with all the people do and the unfairness in the world.
I know if you want to own a gun, you need to take meditation classes
Hi pounce
see the point here was that I was not doing the attacking. I did not feel ... were necessary because it wasn't needed. the things before or after did not affect the feeling of the quote.
I said that it was just you and OWD because essentially you have said something similar to nearly everyone else. It is a long thread carrried over from another thread, I don't have time to go through and find every spot where you said others had no intelligence or no idea of politics. I do not need to educate myself on foreign gun policy mostly because this is a domesitic issue. You have no right to criticize any one for a personal attack (and it wasn't and attack, it was an observation of what you said) because in the past you have made those quotes and criticized our intelligence because we don't agree with you.
Who do you think? We were hungry sleep deprived addicts. I didn't want it in the house.
I like your quote stone. I think it is very right. If we had peace in our minds we wouldn't hate and violence would decrease. It's hard though with all the people do and the unfairness in the world.
I know if you want to own a gun, you need to take meditation classes
Hi pounce
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Myself I am not free from guilt to have contributed to boil things up and certainly I have hurt other ppls feelings... It seems to be one part of the process.
You are right: It became a massive thread and I would also like to move on and talk about solutions, rather than continue to feed the frenzy.
Having peace in the head is not easy - has never been...
Forget my question about the place/ person you traded that gun, because basically it's meant to be a booby trap
Myself I am not free from guilt to have contributed to boil things up and certainly I have hurt other ppls feelings...
It seems to be one part of the process. You are right: It became a massive thread and I would also like to move on and talk about solutions, rather than continue to feed the frenzy.
Having peace in the head is not easy - has never been...
Forget my question about the place/ person you traded that gun, because basically it's meant to be a booby trap
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law * license murder] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1294 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com