Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Gun Control      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 301
view profile
History
Re: Gun ControlPage 13 of 50    (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
A woman being stalked by an ex can end up dead during the delay. I know you Canadians are swell guys, but here in America we're not so nice. Waiting periods for guns are anti-woman. Oh, and our Supreme Court recently declared that the police are not responsible for our safety.


Waiting periods for guns are anti-women ?

If some person snaps, and decides he/she wants a "38 caliber divorce" , I would much prefer that the measures we have were in place. The waiting period down there under the Brady bill is, I believe, five days.

I doubt you can weed out someone like that with only five days to verify their mental state and personality. Also, waiting a month may mean the person's rage has subsided.

At least here, you have a month - and the people that are potential victims have a say in the matter. That at least gives them some chance.

Of course, that depends on the pool of weapons you have available to begin with. It is rather difficult for even a criminal here to have access to firearms. In Canada a criminal shooting is a front page headline, not a footnote on page six.

That's the difference.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 302
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 1:07:34 PM


CountIbli
" A woman being stalked by an ex can end up dead during the delay."


An "ex" who is stalking a woman, should have all of his gun privileges revoked because
2) this registered gun owner is now obviously posing, "a threat to public safety".

A woman running out and buying a gun won't necessarily save her. Given that she could
easily be shot from a distance while she is unaware. If a woman ( or man) feels that
level of threat, i would suggest a temporary shelter. That's exactly why they are in hidden
locations, to Insure safety during the potentially lethal period of legal prosecution.
Restraining orders have been a valuable instrument in the prosecution of violent offenders
but they won't necessarily save anyone. Nor would a having a gun.

And btw., your prisons are presently holding many women who have been found guilty and
sentenced for killing abusive husbands even though the abuse was documented.

As to;


CountIbli
" ... our Supreme Court recently declared that the police are not responsible for our safety.


Would you care to elaborate ?



CountIbli
" It doesn't matter much given the huge number of car and gun owners. In either case
the percentages become negligible. Neither guns nor cars are the problem."


The gun related deaths would be considered, "negligible" , to anyone who has no
respect for life and the health and safety of their fellow citizens.



Montreal Guy
"You also have to provide the names of all partners in your life going back two years."

nittanylion
"There's definitely an argument to be made that this would be unconstitutional down here."


Nittany,
I'd love to consider the details of that argument, but especially your take on it.
I would think the withholding of a gun license, based on the opinion of 1 potentially
scorned ex, would be unfair. But several ? And if any violent history has been officially
documented ?
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 303
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 1:36:28 PM
lola,

Nittany,
I'd love to consider the details of that argument, but especially your take on it.
The details lie in how a fundamental right can be effected without violating the Constitution. There has to be a very strong gov't interest (which I think we can all agree that there is) and the gov't must meet it's goal/serve its interest in a way that is least restrictive to the person (re: the right in question.)

The means must be "narrowly tailored," so if there exists another way to accomplish the goal that is not as much of a restriction on the right, then the law would likely be unconstitutional.

If it's overbroad (impacts people who don't HAVE to be impacted to accomplish the goal) it's likely unconstitutional.

If it's underinclusive (doesn't accomplish it's goals across the board) then it's likely unconstitutional.

Etc.

Here, we have several identified fundamental rights (owning a firearm, privacy rights) that, you could argue, do little to necessarily further gun safety. Who you sleep with is not at all necessarily indicitive of how you would manage a weapon. Not to mention the fact that your rights can not be limited based on who you choose to sleep with (unless, of course, it's a criminal act.)

Kind of rambly... sorry...

There IS a point to be made, also, that the Constitution merely limits the control that the FEDERAL gov't can assert over firearms; therefore, generally, the only way that they can regulate them is under the Commerce Clause. However, States have more room to manuver, based on their Constitutions, etc.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 304
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 1:45:08 PM
We just had a case in Montreal where a man was refused a firearms license. He appealed the decision, and won.

The police had denied it because the individual had been good friends with Hell's Angels, owned a bar frequented by them; and was photographed coming out of their clubhouses, and at funerals for slain members, on numerous occasions.

His lawyer argued that they were lifelong friends, or customers of his bar.

It's nice to know that if he kills someone, it will be with a now legal weapon.

See, our system DOES work....

It also seems that the law on both sides of the border is not only blind...but stupid.

Thanks for that update on how fast you can get a weapon down there. I thought Brady had stopped that concept.

Sigh...
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 305
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 3:13:06 PM
Thankyou herkimer, for offering the details concerning the statistics you quoted.
And sharing reputable sources. Which indicate :



1997 => Total firearms deaths 32,166

1997 => 981 Unintentional firearms injury deaths to children => ages of 5 and 19 - 1 year. Not considering => Intentional ... 'firearms injury deaths' affecting children - 1 year.

" Nonfatal injuries associated with firearms " 1995 (Annest, Mercy, Gibson and Ryan )
" ... for each unintentional firearms death there were about 12.8 nonfatal injuries. "
So lets roughly average 981 deaths x 12.8 nonfatal injuries...
=> 12,557 non fatal injuries associated with firearms.

" Nonfatal injuries associated with firearms " 1996 (Sinauer, Annest and Mercy) - 2 yrs.
" 34,485 persons were => Treated ... for unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries "
... divided x 2 => 17,243 => 2,906 => children between the ages of 0-14. - 1 yr.
Again, no inclusion of => Intentional nonfatal firearm-related injuries to children - 1 yr.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So lets conclude annually, roughly;

=> 1000 Unintentional firearm Deaths to children.
With no inclusion of statistics for ...
=> ( ? ) Intentional firearm Deaths to children by suicide or murder.

And then, roughly,
=> 3,000 unintentional nonfatal firearm-related injuries to children.(*treated*)
which according to (Annest, Mercy, Gibson and Ryan - 1995) could be ... x 12.8....
=> 38,400 unintentional nonfatal firearm-related injuries to children.
Without inclusion of the numbers of ....
=> ( ? ) Intentional nonfatal firearm-related injuries to children.



Exactly, how comfortable ... are you, with these statistics ?



herkimer
" Law abiding educated gun owners are not and never will be part of that problem. "


How would you propose then, dealing with, "that problem" ?
I've heard gun supporters frequently mention the enforcement of existing gun laws.
But i don't see any mention of ways that could and should be done, apart from
advocating for for gun ownership education. And some agreement as to the need of
following gun safety standards. The deterence factor of the existing laws have power
only to the extent that they are severely enforced. Otherwise it's just paper.

The real threat to the rights of Responsible gun owners is not as much from people
who 'just don't like guns', but the irresponsible gun owners who put everyone at risk.
In my mind, these are the people that Responsible gun owners should be addressing
for the future preservation of their rights. I feel gun owners collectively share in the
responsibility to minimize the the negative consequences gun ownership can have in
their society. If that were the case, an anti-gun lobby may not exist.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 306
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 3:33:16 PM
Thankyou Nittany,
Your 'take' in your posts are often so interesting and illuminating.

"Commerce Clause" huh?
... Targeting the manufacturers and sellers for liability and negligence?
... Responsibility to educate for product safety ?
... Violation of restrictive access laws by ... gun sellers ?




Nittany
"... States have more room to manouver, based on their Constitutions, etc. "


Like, ... variable State membership with the NRA.
And the consequential, well funded, political pressure on State politicians ? Kinda ?



btw. Based on your explanation concerning the preservation of Constitutional Rights,
surely there can be ways to ensure public safety effectively, with improvements that
are " least restrictive , narrowly tailored " without being, " overbroad or underinclusive".
There are some brilliant minds in your legal system. ;)
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 307
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 3:40:37 PM
uh... yeah. lol

The other difficulty is that what the federal gov't legislates, the fed gov't has to enforce. It can't require states to enforce the federal guidelines.

Oops. I just remembered you aren't from the US... I'm not at all familiar with Canadian constitutional law. Sorry. So forget all that stuff about "compelling gov't interest and narrowly tailored means" (the components of "strict scrutiny," which all laws must pass down here in order to affect a fundamental right.)
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 308
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 3:55:17 PM


nittanylion
"... federal gov't legislates, the fed gov't has to enforce. It can't require states to enforce the federal guidelines. "


How then, are federal guidelines generally enforced, if not within the individual States ?

(confused and perplexed)
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 309
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 3:57:03 PM
By federal employees. Federal legislation can't require state employess to do the job. That's all. Sorry to be unclear.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 310
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 4:45:55 PM
evanism
You're right. That data was skewed. You're wrong in your conclusions.
The data was skewed to account for the UNINTENTIONAL ....

" Unintentional firearms injury deaths to children => ages of 5 and 19" => 1000
" Unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries to children between the ages of 0-14.
potentially => 38,400

It was skewed in it's lack of inclusive statistics concerning,
INTENTIONAL gun related deaths and injuries.

In which your examples of, "Teenagers ... "gettin capped" ....
and kids "killed by stray bullets from a drive by or a gang hit " would be included.
That is still an act of intentional murder, though the target was an error.

You may want to reevaluate that data. However, i did suggest 4 times that the data
was "skewed". ... In the opposite way.




evanism
" ... some that are getting killed by stray bullets from a drive by or a gang hit...
Sorry I won't lose a wink of sleep over them. They want to play that game they deserve
what they get. "


What game ? Living in a poor neighboorhood with high levels of gang violence ?
And, in error, getting shot dead in a drive by, by a gang member holding a stolen gun
obtained from the housing of someone like you ? Who has already stated that you
refuse to lock yours up and, refuse to spend any money on bars for your windows to
secure that gun?

btw. I believe you about the ... no lost sleep.



evanism
" One could argue that it's just natures way of thinning out the herd."


Spartans used to throw babies with birth defects off cliffs.
However,... since then, there's been some progress in something called civilization.
I sense, a foreign concept to you, but in brief, an ongoing evolution of ideals of humanity
which attempts to protect the poor, the sick or the weak in a society. There is even
concern for the stupid people.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 311
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 7:44:18 PM

I doubt you can weed out someone like that with only five days to verify their mental state and personality. Also, waiting a month may mean the person's rage has subsided.

At least here, you have a month - and the people that are potential victims have a say in the matter. That at least gives them some chance.


How should we handle the waiting period for STEALING guns, as most criminals do? How about we tack on a fine of say $500, and murderers can't be executed until they pay the fine!
Guns are not the problem!
I have owned guns for over 30 years, and to date not a single one has injured man or beast. Clearly it is not the gun or the responsible owner that needs to be penalized. All things in existance have been abused in someway by mankind ... it is the nature of man to abuse, and I don't think legislation will alter that, at least it hasn't so far.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 312
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 8:11:02 PM
The same reason you care about sexual harassment laws in California... interesting conversation!
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 313
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/25/2005 8:59:26 PM

evanism
" Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country, all guns are illegal. Has that helped to curb murders there? Not a bit. "




evanism
" When a locality allows conceal and carry permits, crime rate drops. When they institute more gun laws, ie: D.C., violence goes up. "


Care to back up those statements with some credible sources and reliable data ?
I'd be happy to, " do the math " .
However, i suspect it'll be a long wait.

btw. evanism, here's a News Flash.
POF is a Canadian site. That welcomes everyone to it's discussion board.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 314
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 4:57:45 AM

lola
"Care to back up those statements with some credible sources and reliable data ? "


Response :



evanism

" A google search on D.C.'s gun laws will provide any info you might need."

" For the conceal and carry stats. Just google conceal and carry crime stats or rates or study. There's gobs of info from reliable studies. "

(and) " safestreetsdc.com "



SafeStreetsDC.com is a Police watchdog group.
"Web campaign to document police inaction, prejudice, harassment and corruption in
Washington, DC. "

On their homepage statistics are quoted.



" (Note: 2002 data is used below as it is the latest official data available from the FBI) "

Violent Crime Overall
(Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault)
1998 2002 % Change
8988 9322 +3.7%

Homicide Clearance Rate
1998 2002 2003
65% 55% 43%

Homicides
1998 2002 2003 %Change
260 262* 248 -4.6%

*Note: Homicides were up 24% in 2002 year over 2001.

Robberies
1998 2002 % Change
3,606 3,834 +6.3%

Aggravated Assaults
1998 2002 % Change
4,932 4,962 +<1%

Stolen Autos
1998 2002 % Change
6,501 9,599 +48%

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/blog/index.html




The good news, Homicide rates are in decline. - -4.6%
The bad news, " Stolen autos are WAY up " - +48%

In reference to, "*Note: Homicides were up 24% in 2002 year over 2001. "
Where are the stats for 2001 ?

An interesting read is at: Police Reclassify Assault Statistics (washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59707-

Another one is at: Homicide Count Up 12% This Year (washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49090-2002Dec28¬Found=true

(from which i quote the following,)



Washington Post : Homicide Count Up 12%

"D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey cited several potential factors: greater use of the volatile drug PCP, a low homicide closure rate, an unusually hot summer and a city rife with handguns. "

" Other killings in Washington were the result of sudden, violent arguments. The court files detail numerous cases in which a verbal altercation or a fistfight seemingly ended but then one of the combatants returned with a gun. "

" ... sniper shootings accounted for 10 of the deaths, authorities said, "

"Antonio E. Baker, 20, was held up at gunpoint in a Southeast Washington parking lot Nov. 7, the assailants discovered that Baker's pockets were empty, police said. Although Baker begged for his life, according to court documents, he was shot in the back of the head. "

"Antalon Babb, 24, and Terrance Crawford, 23, were shot to death Nov. 20 in the 200 block of 35th Street NE by a friend who was high on PCP, police said. "

" "I think we really see a continuation of the types of crime we've had from Montgomery County in the past, that is, domestic-related," said Capt. Bernard Forsythe, head of the department's major crimes unit. "

" The victims included a 2-year-old boy who was fatally shot in October by a neighbor as he rode in a pickup truck with his father, who was critically wounded, police said. An ongoing dispute over a security light was believed to have led to the shootings. "

"In what sheriff's officials described as a domestic dispute, a man fatally shot his wife and another man at a convenience store in Mechanicsville before taking his own life. "

"Police said most of the killings, including the June shootings of two brothers, age 11 and 14, arose from domestic disputes. "


As for the conclusions;



evanism
" Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country, all guns are illegal. Has that helped to curb murders there? Not a bit. "

" When a locality allows conceal and carry permits, crime rate drops. When they institute more gun laws, ie: D.C., violence goes up. "


It would seem to be faulty reasoning to conclude that progressive gun laws increase crime and murder in, " a city rife with handguns ". When the present situation is a result of the
previous lack of gun laws. And correct me if i'm wrong but does Washinton State have State
Border guards ? ... Vehicle check points ? ... What about a toll booth ?



evanism
" I just don't see why it bothers people from Canada what our gun laws or any laws are. It's not like you have to follow them. I'm not saying that you shouldn't post just that I can't see why it bugs you so much when you have gun control laws there. "


evanism , at the risk of stating the obvious, Canada shares a very permeable border with the US. In spite of our gun control laws, a large number of the illegal guns that are used on our streets are coming in through that border.

And if you really want to know what, " bugs me " ...

People who don't care about other people, bug me.
The haunting memory of a beautiful 23 year old friend lying in the morgue after a gunshot to the head, Reeeally ... Bugs me. I was one of few who identified her.
She was killed by her ex with an *illegal* gun 3 months after dumping him.

(Montreal Guy, if you're reading, June 1995, Atwater Tunnel )
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 315
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 5:37:36 AM

It would seem to be faulty reasoning to conclude that progressive gun laws increase crime and murder in, " a city rife with handguns ". When the present situation is a result of the previous lack of gun laws. And correct me if i'm wrong but does Washinton State have State Border guards ? ... Vehicle check points ? ... What about a toll booth ?

I don't recall reading any claim that additional gun laws INCREASE crime rates, there is however, evidence (by the stats you posted), that stricter gun laws do nothing to DECREASE crime rates. No state in the US has "border guards", other than the produce stops at the California border, there are no inspection points in the US. The Washington he was referring to was not Washington State, but rather Washington D.C.
I still don't think the answer is in additional legislation, instead I think it lies in increased penalties for illegal usage. I don't think any law abiding citizen would lose a minutes sleep if any criminal who used a gun recieved an automatic 25 years sentence in addition to the sentence they would receive had they not used a gun. Granted it would do nothing to stop a crime of passion such as the one your friend was a victim of. Just out of curiosity, what was the penalty your friends murderer received?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 316
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 5:46:56 AM

She was killed by her ex with an *illegal* gun 3 months after dumping him.

(Montreal Guy, if you're reading, June 1995, Atwater Tunnel )


Damn, I am so sorry to hear that. I don't remember that specific incident, but I can understand your attitude much more clearly now.

I see that tower of the Universite de Montreal often, as I walk through my neighborhood. Every single time I do, I remember that horrible night.

( For those outside of Canada, a man walked into that university and slaughtered 14 women and wounded 15 other women on December 6. 2004 - before killing himself. )

It was the worst mass murder in Canadian history, and forced massive changes in our already tough gun laws.
 Herkimer
Joined: 5/17/2005
Msg: 317
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 6:06:40 AM

I will agree that comparing firearm related deaths to automobiles is a flawed argument. I do however note that the majority of deaths from firearms are either self inflicted(both intentional and unintentional) or in commision of an illegal act. Law abiding educated gun owners are not and never will be part of that problem.


That is my complete quote, as stated the major problem exists in self inflicted and illegal activity..

as for my comfort level with the other numbers, they are dramatic and concerning but again to me no more so then many other causes of injury and death among children. I grew up in a household that had firearms and my children are growing up in one. The understand and respect what a firearm is and is capable of doing. Looking solely at numbers does not really give one a true picture of firearm related accidents. We have no way of knowing how these accidents happened.

I grew up in a small town where yes, firearms safety was part of the junior high school curriculum. It was called hunters safety and covered much more then just firearms. Unfortunately this has been removed. Even if a child grows up in a household without firearms and may never even touch one they should understand about them and have respect for them; just as a child may never drive a car, bake a cake or play music professionally these are all taught in the schools!
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 318
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 6:31:00 AM
The problem again becomes that it only takes a very small percentage of "bad" gun owners to cause mayhem. The ready availibilty of guns also, in and of itself, ensures a stream of weapons into the criminal market.

Canada has few illegal weapons, and I would guess that 99 percent of those come from the USA. Most criminals here are not armed. I work with police every day, and I can tell you that finding a suspect with a real gun is RARE.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 319
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 6:53:18 AM
From what I understand about Candian Police, finding the suspect is pretty rare as well!

 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 320
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 8:04:31 PM


timpommell
" Just out of curiosity, what was the penalty your friends murderer received? "


Last i heard, hes doing a life sentence. For her murder, though, they held him for questioning, and monitored him for some time, but they had ...

No witnesses, ... she was shot while driving in a tunnel.
No smoking gun, no prints.... (there is a lovely canal about 5 minutes from this tunnel)

No direct evidence, .... plus this generally violent guy, hyped up on steriods, who already owned a number of illegal guns, managed to insure some back-up from a couple of 'friends' as to his "whereabouts' at the time of the murder ... 'that he was working out at an overnight gym'.

After the break-up, this already loosely hinged guy had become increasingly irrational and enraged. Well, certainly based on the phonecalls that i had recieved from him.
I, and a number of people, had became aware that he had also begun stalking my friend.

It's amazing what people can get away with, in spite of so many fascinating forensic tv shows. (!)

He is, presently, doing 'life' in prison because police did eventually get him, for later murdering another young guy, with an illegal firearm, ... i'd heard, over some ridiculously small debt.

Thank god, i didn't have a gun during my highly charged emotional response to my friends murder, or it would probably have been me doing a life sentence now. i am generally one of the most 'anti-violence' people, one could meet. And yet briefly, it was the first and only time ever, that i contemplated murder. i did have, fairly good access to illegal guns and unlike her brothers, who also wanted to 'get him', he remained ungaurded with me.
In a million years, he wouldn't have seen it coming.

~ I controlled myself. But for those who can't, we need gun control and the minimizing of access to illegal street guns.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 321
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 8:11:41 PM
~ evanism, ~ Got any more "statistics" ?

<== ( Tips her cap, ... squints her eyes ...and assumes a very, impressive batting posture.)
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 322
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 9:39:43 PM

~ I controlled myself. But for those who can't, we need gun control and the minimizing of access to illegal street guns.

So your position is to restructure the rights of society as a whole to accommodate those who seem unable to deal with emotional stress, those few cannot function responsibly in a civilized society? Sounds rather extremist to me...
Where would you have us draw the line? You can put it anywhere you want, when guns are gone, then come knives, baseball bats, sticks, slingshots, rocks... We can go back and regulate those too. Anyone caught with an unregistered rock will face severe penalties! Should we also outlaw fast-food for those who can't control their appetite? Perhaps bring back prohibition for those who can't control their alcohol intake?
In my opinion, the line is drawn right were it needs to be, with personal accountability.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/26/2005 10:48:52 PM
timpommell ,
The apparently common tendency by 'gun experts' to equate
guns with ==> " knives, baseball bats, sticks, slingshots, and rocks." ...
Still, ... never fails to amaze me. The error of making such a comparison would seem to me,
to be so glaringly obvious, that i'd be pretty surprised if a 10 year old couldn't figure it out.

Given that i have previously addressed the logical error of this comparison, i suggest that
you reexamine this thread and look for it, or ... you could try asking a 10 year old.



timpommell
" So your position is to restructure the rights of society as a whole to accommodate those who seem unable to deal with emotional stress, those few cannot function responsibly in a civilized society?


Uhhhhh, .... yeeeeaaaah ! Now ! You'rrrre gettin it !!!


Outlaw "fast-food " ? ... Prohibit "alcohol " ? ... along with guns ?
There's another one of those, ... real odd, comparisons again.
All 3 have the potential for self harm, ...
1 has a significantly higher potential for harm to others as well.
If you still can't figure it out, ... ask that 10 year old. ;)
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 324
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/27/2005 5:11:04 AM

The apparently common tendency by 'gun experts' to equate guns with ==> " knives, baseball bats, sticks, slingshots, and rocks." ... Still, ... never fails to amaze me.

That's ok, I can't understand how seemingly educated people can assume that an inanimate object is somehow the source of all the evil in the world.
Weapons evolved just as man did - rocks, sticks, knives, slingshots, bows & arrows, guns... Guns didn't create the act of murder, and getting rid of them won't impact peoples ability to function in society in a more positive manner. It occured to me, that of the first four people on earth (according to the bible), 25% were murderers.... and guess what the first murder weapon was.... (drumroll please) a rock! There's even a story in there about a mass murderer using the jaw bone of an ass... If you remove an element of technology, people will simply revert to the most efficient method previously available to them. If someone wants to take a life badly enough, they will do so with whatever means is available, whether the weapon is an AK47 or a Q-tip. If you can't understand the principals of evolution on society, perhaps you should limit the amount of logic that you obtain from 10 year olds, clearly they aren't able to see the big picture.


Outlaw "fast-food " ? ... Prohibit "alcohol " ? ... along with guns ?
There's another one of those, ... real odd, comparisons again.

Why is it so odd, all deal with penalizing the masses because a select few shouldn't be provided with the implements that some how, by your take, encourage them to act irresponsibly. Early deaths related to obesity and alcohol abuse far exceed those caused by the illegal use of firearms. Not to mention the financial impact it has on health care that ALL of us have to share in. Since your goal is to remove elements that allow people to act irresponsibly, they are logical "next steps".


The error of making such a comparison would seem to me,
to be so glaringly obvious, that i'd be pretty surprised if a 10 year old couldn't figure it out.

I did ask a 10 year old, and he wants to know if you'll be his teacher.... he seems to feel that you might be the last person on earth naive enough to actually believe that a dog ate his homework.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 325
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 7/27/2005 5:48:32 AM
The essential problem with firearms is the relative ease and speed with which you can dispatch another human being, or a bunch of them.

Killing someone with a knife or a rock or a baseball bat takes a little effort, and gets rather messy. A gun allows you to eliminate someone in much the same way you flip a switch. You can even be a good distance away, with the right set-up.

One small movement, and that is all the investment and effort you need. Either by accident, or design, that simple fact makes firearms a MUCH greater danger.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Gun Control