The Onion has it today.
PabloSerna said:Dad-O-Lot said:
Do nations with more hammers commit more carpentry, or do nations which have more carpentry have more hammers?
It is a ridiculous comparison or assertion regarding violence and the tools used in violence.
Guns are just a tool. No more good or evil than any other inanimate object.
Guns do not cause violence. I assert that on the whole, guns prevent more violence than they "cause".
So which is it? A ridiculous comparison or that guns are just like any other tool?
You really can't have gun violence without guns right? What folks like me are saying is that we need some sensible laws in place to keep guns, for the most part, out of the hands of lunatics. As it stands, any lunatic can purchase a gun and do stupid things. Even worse, any lunatic can purchase a gun that can shoot bullets faster than the average hunting rifle! And you are ok with the way it is now?
schmendeler said:
Do you support restrictions like Switzerland has in place?
Zobel said:schmendeler said:
Do you support restrictions like Switzerland has in place?
Probably not. I don't think this is a legislatable behavior.
I'm never going to shoot up a school. I've owned guns all my life, I started shooting when I was 4. You'd have to convince me that any measure would actually do something other than make my life more difficult and soothe the emotions of people like larry before I'd support it.
Quote:
I'm never going to shoot up a school. I've owned guns all my life, I started shooting when I was 4. You'd have to convince me that any measure would actually do something other than make my life more difficult and soothe the emotions of people like larry before I'd support it.
In this hypothetical, what is the exact language defining the subset of population prevented from owning guns?diehard03 said:Quote:
I'm never going to shoot up a school. I've owned guns all my life, I started shooting when I was 4. You'd have to convince me that any measure would actually do something other than make my life more difficult and soothe the emotions of people like larry before I'd support it.
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you support the highest level of restrictions that would still allow you to own and use guns as you responsibility do...yet would clearly keep some level (if not totally quantifiable) of people who don't have your level of responsibility from having them? Whether it would lead any change or not...why would want someone who doesn't respect firearms like you do having the same access as you do.
I can understand an argument against this on execution...but you seem to disagree with the premise before we get there.
Dad-O-Lot said:
Do nations with more hammers commit more carpentry, or do nations which have more carpentry have more hammers?
It is a ridiculous comparison or assertion regarding violence and the tools used in violence.
Guns are just a tool. No more good or evil than any other inanimate object.
Guns do not cause violence. I assert that on the whole, guns prevent more violence than they "cause".
swimmerbabe11 said:
I think people blame guns because it is an easy scapegoat, instead of looking at the fact that some kid, a real person was behind this and somehow reached a mental state where he could commit this sort of unspeakable violence.
Mental health issues are a much more complicated and difficult thing to solve than gun ownership. It is very difficult to institutionalize people and very easy to release and hope for the best.
I also think that the style of violence has changed. All the people watching these murder podcasts about heinous serial killers...most of those murders are decades ago.. people don't commit those types of crimes as much (murder/kidnapping/serial torture etc) Why? well, because society has changed. Committing one big blaze of glory action has instant gratification.
Quote:
In this hypothetical, what is the exact language defining the subset of population prevented from owning guns?
Can it by changed in the future?
What's the procedure for doing so?
ramblin_ag02 said:Quote:
Pegged my thoughts exactly. Would anyone be satisfied that this broken person walked into a school with a sword and started killing people? Or a bomb jacket? The disturbed barely man wanted to kill a bunch of people. He went with the most effective and available method. Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing. Maybe 2/3 or 1/2 as many people die if he uses a sword or builds a homemade flamethrower? Which is better I guess but still not a solution.
Can you read this back to yourself in your head. Do it over and over and slowly.Quote:
To me the question is "does America have more people that want to commit mass violence than other places and if so why?"
Uh, yes.
Quote:
Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing.
ramblin_ag02 said:swimmerbabe11 said:
I think people blame guns because it is an easy scapegoat, instead of looking at the fact that some kid, a real person was behind this and somehow reached a mental state where he could commit this sort of unspeakable violence.
Mental health issues are a much more complicated and difficult thing to solve than gun ownership. It is very difficult to institutionalize people and very easy to release and hope for the best.
I also think that the style of violence has changed. All the people watching these murder podcasts about heinous serial killers...most of those murders are decades ago.. people don't commit those types of crimes as much (murder/kidnapping/serial torture etc) Why? well, because society has changed. Committing one big blaze of glory action has instant gratification.
Pegged my thoughts exactly. Would anyone be satisfied that this broken person walked into a school with a sword and started killing people? Or a bomb jacket? The disturbed barely man wanted to kill a bunch of people. He went with the most effective and available method. Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing. Maybe 2/3 or 1/2 as many people die if he uses a sword or builds a homemade flamethrower? Which is better I guess but still not a solution.
To me the question is "does America have more people that want to commit mass violence than other places and if so why?"
diehard03 said:Quote:
Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing.
What's the proof in this? (versus not doing it at all)
schmendeler said:ramblin_ag02 said:swimmerbabe11 said:
I think people blame guns because it is an easy scapegoat, instead of looking at the fact that some kid, a real person was behind this and somehow reached a mental state where he could commit this sort of unspeakable violence.
Mental health issues are a much more complicated and difficult thing to solve than gun ownership. It is very difficult to institutionalize people and very easy to release and hope for the best.
I also think that the style of violence has changed. All the people watching these murder podcasts about heinous serial killers...most of those murders are decades ago.. people don't commit those types of crimes as much (murder/kidnapping/serial torture etc) Why? well, because society has changed. Committing one big blaze of glory action has instant gratification.
Pegged my thoughts exactly. Would anyone be satisfied that this broken person walked into a school with a sword and started killing people? Or a bomb jacket? The disturbed barely man wanted to kill a bunch of people. He went with the most effective and available method. Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing. Maybe 2/3 or 1/2 as many people die if he uses a sword or builds a homemade flamethrower? Which is better I guess but still not a solution.
To me the question is "does America have more people that want to commit mass violence than other places and if so why?"
9 or 10 dead kids is better than 19. No?
schmendeler said:
How about reduce the number while you also try to address the problem?
But while you're addressing the problem, the body count of dead children is lower.
diehard03 said:
Sorry, i have no idea what this means.
A lightbulb and words strung together do not an argument make.
schmendeler said:
How about reduce the number while you also try to address the problem?
But while you're addressing the problem, the body count of dead children is lower.
Quote:
Since we are not in an ideal world, I am curious as to what everyone thinks should be done, if anything, by government?
larry culpepper said:
It is staggering, absolutely staggering, seeing otherwise educated people bend so far backwards and do all these mental gymnastics to blame ANYTHING but guns. They will blame decline in religion, mental health, and other stupid bull**** like LGBT people becoming more accepted, premarital sex, and climate change activism.
Let me state it in plain English: AMERICA HAS A GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM BECAUSE WE HAVE FAR TOO MANY GUNS, IT'S EASY TO ACCESS THESE GUNS, AND WE HAVE AN ENTIRE POLITICAL PARTY HELLBENT ON ENSURING THE STATUS QUO NEVER CHANGES.
My God, our obsession with guns is so troubling. People are denying a reality that is sitting in front of our faces, and we get reminded of this reality over and over and over and over again. We will do anything to blame anything but the guns. There's a reason we have the most mass shootings in the developed world. Europe is less religious than we are and shootings are very rare. It's not about the decline of God. Stop denying reality and accept the facts.
The United States of America is not the best country in the world. We tolerate mass murder because a bunch of slaveowners from the 1780s wrote something on a piece of paper and our government is run by a bunch of extremist lunatics beholden to the gun lobby. And our citizenry accepts this **** as normal. None of this is normal at all.
/rant
Macarthur said:
Fetuses are not children. YOu can call them babies and children all you want but they are not children and they are not babies.
Nope. a fetus is wholy dependent upon a host. it's only alive because of that host. Fetuses are potential humans but they are not children and/or babies. They are fetuses.FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Macarthur said:
Fetuses are not children. YOu can call them babies and children all you want but they are not children and they are not babies.
If the fetus is growing, it must be alive
If it has human parents, it must be human
Living humans have inherent value
Fetuses are unborn humans deserving of the same legal rights as any human.
Macarthur said:
For the record, I don't want to fight anyone.
But I'm damn tired of being lectured on when is the right time to talk about these things and when the wrong time is....There are families of the dead kids that are talking about our lax gun laws. Is it okay for them?