Most say it's the guns. I say, it's today's society

[Briana Lee]

Politics above human life you say, huh?

Your president supports abortion. I don't.

Well well well I must have touched a nerve.....the troll king himself has actually replied to me......

So if your wife was raped and fell pregnant with the rapists child you'd keep it would you?

 

[Sam Fisher]

Well well well I must have touched a nerve.....the troll king himself has actually replied to me......

So if your wife was raped and fell pregnant with the rapists child you'd keep it would you?

I am in my 50s, not married, so your analogy sinks in the water. Try again.

 

[Johan]

Politics above human life you say, huh?

Your president supports abortion. I don't.

And, actually, you may not have voted for him but it is your president as well...

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Nothing anyone says will make a blind bit of difference will it. You're just as bad as Sam in that you just turn this into a political attack on someone you didn't vote for who got into office.

I will never understand people like you put politics above a human life.......

How is this a political attack on you...I'm not even clear if your pro or anti gun. I simply used an example of how people don't like to be judged by who they are or what they believe....you just don't get what I'm saying, and that's fine. Fact is, there is not one single reason you can give me, that justifies ANY action to be taken against guns, or ammunition for any reason. If they enforced, and tightened up the laws they have first, and it all failed miserably, maybe we could try some new things, but the cost of freedom has always been expensive, and as terrible as it sounds, because it is, it's always paid for with human life. No, I didn't vote for him, I consider him and his administration a serious threat to the Constitution. I'm 47, I've been around the block once or twice, and I haven't missed a vote, OF ANY KIND, since I was 18. I vote, so I have a right to bitch. I write letters, I sign petitions. I care deeply about this country, and what it stands for. If this knucklehead wants to save human life so bad, he should bring our troops home, and worry about the boarder agents he's gotten killed

As far as comparing me to Sam...that isn't an insult...there are FAR more people here that I would rather not be compared to. I disagree with much of what he believes in, but at least he has the balls to say it like it is. Off topic, if my wife were raped and got pregnant, I most certainly wouldn't stop her from getting an abortion, nor would any politician. And the guy that raped her wouldn't be shot either. He would end up handcuffed to the wash basin in my basement, and his teeth would be pulled with Vise grips...and when he passed out, I would throw cold water on him, revive him, and start again. Then, when I was done.......I would get fucking evil.

 

[Sam Fisher]

NINE MUST SEE GUN CONTROL STATISTICS. (this will surprise you)

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/12/26022-9-must-see-gun-control-statistics/

 

[Jagger69]

NINE MUST SEE GUN CONTROL STATISTICS. (this will surprise you)

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/12/26022-9-must-see-gun-control-statistics/

:horse:

Give it a rest, Sam. We all totally get your position on this, OK? :suicide:

 

[ApolloBalboa]

How is this a political attack on you...I'm not even clear if your pro or anti gun. I simply used an example of how people don't like to be judged by who they are or what they believe....you just don't get what I'm saying, and that's fine. Fact is, there is not one single reason you can give me, that justifies ANY action to be taken against guns, or ammunition for any reason. If they enforced, and tightened up the laws they have first, and it all failed miserably, maybe we could try some new things, but the cost of freedom has always been expensive, and as terrible as it sounds, because it is, it's always paid for with human life. No, I didn't vote for him, I consider him and his administration a serious threat to the Constitution. I'm 47, I've been around the block once or twice, and I haven't missed a vote, OF ANY KIND, since I was 18. I vote, so I have a right to bitch. I write letters, I sign petitions. I care deeply about this country, and what it stands for. If this knucklehead wants to save human life so bad, he should bring our troops home, and worry about the boarder agents he's gotten killed

As far as comparing me to Sam...that isn't an insult...there are FAR more people here that I would rather not be compared to. I disagree with much of what he believes in, but at least he has the balls to say it like it is. Off topic, if my wife were raped and got pregnant, I most certainly wouldn't stop her from getting an abortion, nor would any politician. And the guy that raped her wouldn't be shot either. He would end up handcuffed to the wash basin in my basement, and his teeth would be pulled with Vise grips...and when he passed out, I would throw cold water on him, revive him, and start again. Then, when I was done.......I would get fucking evil.

The fact is, it's just as hard for people who are against harder gun laws to find reasons that don't justify action against guns or ammunition. The argument that people have a right to bear arms is the last thing on a lot of people's minds when guns contributed to 28 deaths, 20 of them being kids.

 

[eponymous]

NINE MUST SEE GUN CONTROL STATISTICS. (this will surprise you)

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/12/26022-9-must-see-gun-control-statistics/

1. So let me get this straight: The US murder rate (not gun-related homicides, but homicides by any means) ranks 24th in the world behind Columbia, Mexico, numerous Central & South American nations, war-torn African nations, Russia, a spate of former Soviet Socialist Republics with more corruption than actual government in most of them, a teeny tiny island group in the pirate-infested waters off the horn of Africa, Jamaica, Thailand & Papua New Guinea? Wow, this is quite a club.

The case for gun legislation couldn't be stronger, based on these statistics. The only reason we're 24th on the list is because our gun homicide rate is so high. By reducing acts of gun violence in the U.S. through sensible legislation that reduces the number of guns that fall into the hands of criminals, we would find our overall murder rate fall closer to the rate among industrialized, liberal democratic nations that are more like us than any of the ones above us on this list.

Could the rate of civilian gun ownership have anything to do with our gun homicide rate being so high?

2. Violent crime decreased 65% from 1973 to 2009. I wonder why? What watershed judicial decision occurred in 1973 that could have impacted this statistic?

But aside from the fact that this really isn't a statistic about anything - because there are, in reality, so many reasons why this might be the case - is this supposed to make victims of violent crime feel better or something? How does that conversation go?

Person #1: "My family was killed." Person #2: "Well, fewer people have been victims of violent crime over the last 30 years." Person #1: "Fuck you, asshole, my family was killed!"

3. Murder rates (again, not gun-related homicides, but homicide by any means) have steadily decreased from 2006 to 2010, taking the biggest dip (8.1%) between 2008 and 2009.

These are pretty light statistics, and they don't clearly have anything to do with guns. If we want to know how guns factor into this trend, we would need to start by finding out how many of these murders are gun-related. We would also need to know where the gun homicides occurred, as they are most likely to occur in areas where the rate of gun ownership is highest. But in addition to this, I'd bet money that the rate of overall homicides is highest in areas where gun ownership is also high.

Another reason why homicide rates might be lower across the board over the past several decades is that a violent crime is not considered a homicide unless someone actually dies. Every year, medical advances prevent more and more people from dying from gun shot wounds, but they don't stop people from being shot. If we truly want to understand violent crime and the extent to which guns play a role, we should look at gun injuries, not just deaths. We should also look at the number of violent crimes that are committed with guns vs. those that are committed at knife-point, etc.

4. A 60% decrease in multiple victim public shootings and a 78% decrease in victims per attack in states that allow conceal carry permits.

These statistics are literally meaningless. A 60% decrease? Decrease from what to what? From prior year rates per state the year before conceal/carry was made legal to the year after? From state to state? Deviation from the national average, which would be less than meaningless considering the distribution of US population.

5. All but one public shooting since 1950 occurred in places where it is illegal to carry guns.

Okay, so what places are we talking about? Schools? A lot of them have been at schools. You think the answer is that we need to allow guns in schools?

6. Prior to Newtown, the worst K-12 public shootings occurred in Germany & the UK.

How many other school shootings occurred in those countries in those same years? How many years did they go without having another school shooting at all? Does the single day body count matter more than the total number of people who died in all school shootings?

7. Oh, please. Lightning strikes, are you serious? First of all, this assumes that all demographic, socioeconomic and political factors among those 8 million people are uniform, which clearly isn't the case, as the international statistics above show. And did you notice this is the only "fact" on the list that doesn't include a source?

8. Again, these are overall murder rates, not gun-related homicides. But besides that, this is supposed to be a side-by-side comparison of the U.S. vs. other developed European nations, so why are the U.S. stats not given for comparison? Hmmmm...one wonders?

9. "Banned" and "allowed." Those are the only options, right? It couldn't possibly be the case that the countries that "allow" them (the ones with lower murder rates) don't just allow them, but actually "regulate" them?

Not one of these "facts" is valid on its face. Each one has more holes than Swiss cheese. Have you any reasoned responses or "arguments" that address the obvious flaws?

 

[Sam Fisher]

:horse:

Give it a rest, Sam. We all totally get your position on this, OK? :suicide:

I'll give it a rest Jagger, when you give your signature pic a rest. :horse:

We all totally get your position on this, OK?

 

[Jagger69]

I'll give it a rest Jagger, when you give your signature pic a rest. :horse:

We all totally get your position on this, OK?

Put up your own pro-gun signature then. I don't flood this board with incessant anti-death penalty posts like you do with your guns and your constant right-wing rhetoric. We've all heard you in innumerable threads about this so we get it. Hence, give it a rest is totally appropriate.

This forum is more than just about you in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Put up your own pro-gun signature then. I don't flood this board with incessant anti-death penalty posts like you do with your guns and your constant right-wing rhetoric. We've all heard you in innumerable threads about this so we get it. Hence, give it a rest is totally appropriate.

This forum is more than just about you in case you hadn't noticed.

This thread has gone 8 pages. And, a whole lot of people besides me have posted in this particular thread, and, I don't see very many other threads in this Forum that you say I started that are similar to this one.

So fuck off, Jagger. You don't like my posts / threads? Put me on ignore or bypass my threads all together. You're beginning to sound like the whiny little bitch that you became when you last left this board.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The fact is, it's just as hard for people who are against harder gun laws to find reasons that don't justify action against guns or ammunition. The argument that people have a right to bear arms is the last thing on a lot of people's minds when guns contributed to 28 deaths, 20 of them being kids.

Absolutely. There's no doubt about it, and I can think of no higher price, then the life of a child, but the gun control activist are using this tragedy to whore their agenda, with little remorse for the victims. To be honest, I don't even believe this is about the safety of children, or citizens in general. This, like every attempt at gun control is about disarming a populace, and not much more. So I do see your point, I hope you take a minute to think about what I've posted here, and elsewhere, and give it some consideration.

 

[eponymous]

Hey, people. Here's a thought:

Instead of restricting guns, let's require that every citizen own one, but let's change guns themselves to be non-lethal. We'll make them so they only fire Tranquilizer Darts, or something. What do you think?

This way, everybody who needs them for self-defense will have them, there would be more guns in public places to discourage violence, hell, you would even be able to hunt with them, you'd just have to do the actual killing with a knife or something once the beast was immobilized (you're going to gut it anyway, right?). Anyone you shoot in your home would be immobilized for the police to come and arrest them. I'm not talking about removing their practical use, only their lethality. I'm sure we could even design "multiple shot" tranq guns so you get more than one shot in case someone's really coming after you and you miss the first time, but we'll stop short of making semi-automatic weapons because you'd definitely be able to kill someone by filling them full of dozens of tranq darts.

And YES, we'd never be able to get rid of old-timey guns bought on the black market, and YES this wouldn't stop SOME people from converting the new non-lethal guns into lethal weapons, and YES people would OCCASIONALLY die from mishaps relating to adverse reactions to the tranquilizing agent or getting the dart in the eye or something, but let's set those things aside for the moment.

Why wouldn't this - in principle - solve all our problems and keep both the right and the left happy?

Any thoughts?

 

[Johan]

Hey, people. Here's a thought:

Instead of restricting guns, let's require that every citizen own one, but let's change guns themselves to be non-lethal. We'll make them so they only fire Tranquilizer Darts, or something. What do you think?

This way, everybody who needs them for self-defense will have them, there would be more guns in public places to discourage violence, hell, you would even be able to hunt with them, you'd just have to do the actual killing with a knife or something once the beast was immobilized (you're going to gut it anyway, right?). Anyone you shoot in your home would be immobilized for the police to come and arrest them. I'm not talking about removing their practical use, only their lethality. I'm sure we could even design "multiple shot" tranq guns so you get more than one shot in case someone's really coming after you and you miss the first time, but we'll stop short of making semi-automatic weapons because you'd definitely be able to kill someone by filling them full of dozens of tranq darts.

And YES, we'd never be able to get rid of old-timey guns bought on the black market, and YES this wouldn't stop SOME people from converting the new non-lethal guns into lethal weapons, and YES people would OCCASIONALLY die from mishaps relating to adverse reactions to the tranquilizing agent or getting the dart in the eye or something, but let's set those things aside for the moment.

Why wouldn't this - in principle - solve all our problems and keep both the right and the left happy?

Any thoughts?

God idea but they would never accept it 'cause you can't overthrow a tyrannic government with non-lethal guns (nor with lethal guns but many think they actually can)

 

[eponymous]

Yeah, I'm under no illusions that it isn't practical. I just want to know what things people on both sides would find objectionable about it in principle. On the one hand, it takes all guns away, which should satisfy the left, and on the other hand, it leaves guns intact for people who support the right to defend themselves. But the guns would be useless for killing. In order for criminals to kill someone, they would have to use their own bare hands or a knife or something.

So the most any nut could do in a school is immobilize a couple people before being immobilized himself, after which he would be taken to jail. Someone who robs a store could shoot the clerk and clean out the register, but the clerk or store owner wouldn't die. There would be dramatically fewer deaths, exponentially fewer long-term injuries, and maybe some kind of overall reduction in crime.

 

[Rattrap]

To be honest, I don't even believe this is about the safety of children, or citizens in general.

I think this is grossly untrue. *Maybe* *some* politicians are sinisterly thinking otherwise (although even this I doubt, but I'll get to that in a second), but most of the everyday citizens involved on the control-side of the debate very, very much care about their safety.

This, like every attempt at gun control is about disarming a populace, and not much more. So I do see your point, I hope you take a minute to think about what I've posted here, and elsewhere, and give it some consideration.

The right loves this argument, and it may have historically held true. It really doesn't these days. Why? The government doesn't need to disarm you to take away rights or control you. I've said this before, but where were guns to protect us against the infringement of our rights from the Patriot Act, or the Supreme Court's ruling that one can be strip-searched for any reason whatsoever (even erroneous ones), that one can no longer produce and sell their own milk, or any number of right-infringing examples in the last ten years alone?

There are subtler ways to control a country than by opaque force and your guns are useless against them. The best defense an American has against their government is an educated vote. Which as we've seen, means America is pretty damned defenseless against its government.

 

[Johan]

Absolutely. There's no doubt about it, and I can think of no higher price, then the life of a child, but the gun control activist are using this tragedy to whore their agenda, with little remorse for the victims.

Actually, pro-guns pundits are using this tragedy to push their agenda as well (ex: when they say teachers should have guns) without remorse.

 

[yada46]

It all goes back to parenting and supervision of your children. That includes LISTENING TO THEM, being aware of who they hang out with, what they watch on TV, what video games they play, etc. How many 7-12 year old boys in this world play video games which rated M with guns, blood and violence involved? That's a huge problem in today's society and a lot of parents let them get away with it and that's the real problem. NO DISCIPLINE leads to NO RESPECT for anyone, even their own mommy and daddy.

 

[eponymous]

It all goes back to parenting and supervision of your children. That includes LISTENING TO THEM, being aware of who they hang out with, what they watch on TV, what video games they play, etc. How many 7-12 year old boys in this world play video games which rated M with guns, blood and violence involved? That's a huge problem in today's society and a lot of parents let them get away with it and that's the real problem. NO DISCIPLINE leads to NO RESPECT for anyone, even their own mommy and daddy.

True, but when parents fail, I'm sure we'd all prefer their kids don't have access to a gun so they can go on a spree.

There is no one solution.

 

[Jagger69]

This thread has gone 8 pages. And, a whole lot of people besides me have posted in this particular thread, and, I don't see very many other threads in this Forum that you say I started that are similar to this one.

So fuck off, Jagger. You don't like my posts / threads? Put me on ignore or bypass my threads all together. You're beginning to sound like the whiny little bitch that you became when you last left this board.

:clap: So you finally reverted all the way back to the same ol' fucking troll you have always been, eh? How long did that resolution last....about 2 weeks? Knew it all along....it was just a matter of time before you simply resorted to name-calling. Why don't you put me on ignore, Sam? Please.