The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Gun Lovers please Ignore this post. It may make you change your mind. Options
Chazlee
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 7:17:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
To all those who insist we average citizens need to own guns, or that the USA does not have a gun problem, please don't read any further, as your mind may be changed.

"A mother and her 4-year-old daughter were shot and killed Saturday night in Long Beach while walking home from the grocery store." That's right, they were walking home and both were shot and killed.
"No arrests have been made and police have not determined a motive for the shootings, authorities said."

Gun Lovers please be forewarned that clicking on the link will take you to pictures you may not want to see: Family members and friends of the victims crying, and a birthday party picture of the mother and her daughter.

I have nothing else to say.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-long-beach-toddler-shot-20160807-snap-story.html


Peace.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:01:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,565
Neurons: 46,024
Okay, I did. As the old saying goes, "one swallow does not a summer make".

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
towan52
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:26:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,691
Neurons: 161,752
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
FounDit wrote:
Okay, I did. As the old saying goes, "one swallow does not a summer make".


How about 13,286 swallows? "Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015"

"Today I was a hero. I rescued some beer that was trapped in a bottle"
Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 1:18:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
This is a very sad story. The article doesn't say who shot the mother and the daughter. My guess is the perpetrator is an illegal gun owner. Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 1:52:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Listening . . . wrote:
Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Guess it's a good thing no one is asking to make guns illegal then.
Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 2:09:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Guess it's a good thing no one is asking to make guns illegal then.



Apologies. Please clarify what I might be changing my mind about (as indicated in the title of the post)? I will try to respond accordingly if you could please help explain the question.
Chazlee
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 2:25:05 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Listening . . . wrote:
This is a very sad story. The article doesn't say who shot the mother and the daughter. My guess is the perpetrator is an illegal gun owner. Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Calling the murder of a young mother and her 4 year old daughter a "sad story," is a bit of an understatement, don't you think? Please try to not overlook the fact that they were walking home from the store when they were murdered.

Also, does it really matter who pulled the trigger which has now stopped a child from ever seeing her 5th birthday? You seem to think it makes a difference if the person with the gun had a permit to carry the gun, but based on the picture of the man as he cried over the death of his loved ones who were murdered on an American street as they walked home from the store, I don't think he would really care who the murderer is or if the person had a gun permit or not. All he knows is that his life will never be the same.

The problem with some of you gun loving people is that when a child and her mother lose their lives for simply walking home from the store, you focus on who the possible person was that shot them while ignoring the fact that the deaths DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN! It happened because the gun problem in America is out of control.

This mother and her 4 year old daughter should not have been murdered while walking home from the store. It is not a "sad story." It is a tragedy, which DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN! However, until you are really able to understand that fact, then you will also be unable to understand that America has a gun problem.


Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 2:36:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Ok. Thank you very much for pointing out that my use of the word "sad" did not satisfy the true tragedy of the situation. I have children. This is a tragedy.

You are outstanding in your capacity to point out all the wrongs in America. What is your solution to this gun problem that you say we have?
Chazlee
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 3:30:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Listening . . . wrote:
Ok. Thank you very much for pointing out that my use of the word "sad" did not satisfy the true tragedy of the situation. I have children. This is a tragedy.

You are outstanding in your capacity to point out all the wrongs in America. What is your solution to this gun problem that you say we have?


You're welcome. Do I really need to know that you have children? Does it really make a difference whether someone has children or not when it comes to the issue of gun violence in America?

Also, I have never pointed out "all the wrongs in America." I just point out some of them. The ones I think are very important, such as the fact that there are too many guns in America, and that too many innocent people are being injured and killed from guns each year.

You asked me "What is your solution to this gun problem that you say we have?" Are you really saying that it is only me who is stating we have a gun problem in the USA? There are thousands of deaths and injuries each year in America caused by guns. Why do you not feel there is a gun problem in America, even though we are posting messages to each other discussing the death of a young mother and her 4 year old daughter simply because they dared to walk home from the store?

My solution to "this gun problem" is that guns should not be owned by anyone who is not a law enforcement officer, currently in the military, or whose job does not require that person to have a gun.

BTW, since you brought up the fact that you have children, I guess you think that since you own some guns, or carry a gun, that your family is being protected, but they are not. They are only possibly being protected when you are with them. However, unless they are adults and have a legal right to carry a gun, then you can't protect them when you are not with them. So, by arguing that we need more people carrying guns, you are actually being very selfish, and putting your children at risk. Your children may be safe when they are with you, but otherwise guns make them unsafe in America. It's too bad you can't see that, but you can't and that is the way it is.
Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:09:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Chazlee wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Ok. Thank you very much for pointing out that my use of the word "sad" did not satisfy the true tragedy of the situation. I have children. This is a tragedy.

You are outstanding in your capacity to point out all the wrongs in America. What is your solution to this gun problem that you say we have?


You're welcome. Do I really need to know that you have children? Does it really make a difference whether someone has children or not when it comes to the issue of gun violence in America? No, but I thought it did make a difference in showing that I understand the father's pain in this story. Didn't realize I'd have to point this simple detail out.
Also, I have never pointed out "all the wrongs in America." I just point out some of them. The ones I think are very important, such as the fact that there are too many guns in America, and that too many innocent people are being injured and killed from guns each year. You haven't been on the forum very long. Haven't seen many of your posts as positive-thinking.
You asked me "What is your solution to this gun problem that you say we have?" Are you really saying that it is only me who is stating we have a gun problem in the USA? This point has no bearing. I never implied this idea was yours alone.There are thousands of deaths and injuries each year in America caused by guns. Yes. Why do you not feel there is a gun problem in America, even though we are posting messages to each other discussing the death of a young mother and her 4 year old daughter simply because they dared to walk home from the store? I don't believe that the guns are the problem. The problem lies within the perpetrator.

My solution to "this gun problem" is that guns should not be owned by anyone who is not a law enforcement officer, currently in the military, or whose job does not require that person to have a gun. How will you keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

BTW, since you brought up the fact that you have children, I guess you think that since you own some guns, or carry a gun, that your family is being protected, but they are not. They are only possibly being protected when you are with them. However, unless they are adults and have a legal right to carry a gun, then you can't protect them when you are not with them. So, by arguing that we need more people carrying guns, you are actually being very selfish, and putting your children at risk. Your children may be safe when they are with you, but otherwise guns make them unsafe in America. It's too bad you can't see that, but you can't and that is the way it is.
Hilarious. Terrible argument.
Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 3:36:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Listening . . . wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Guess it's a good thing no one is asking to make guns illegal then.



Apologies. Please clarify what I might be changing my mind about (as indicated in the title of the post)? I will try to respond accordingly if you could please help explain the question.


In my opinion, I think it's impossible to take guns away from Americans. From what I heard, none of the candidates or current president is arguing that that should happen, either. The ones advocating a change (Obama and Hillary I believe - I haven't checked up on others) are trying to create a regulation that involves background checks and training. That would keep guns in the hands of those who aren't criminals, are sound of mind and know how to use them (and how not to use them). Unless you'd fail one of those categories, you'd get to keep your weapons.

The request for background checks, regulation and training doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It's no different from requiring people to have a driver's license to be able to drive a car. Sure, criminals can always steal a car/gun but having regulations in place makes it easier to pinpoint whether someone got their gun the legal way or not and punish them accordingly.

As for citizens being left unable to protect themselves, guns aren't the only way to do that. You could argue that a person without a license is disadvantaged on the job market (especially in America with distances being what they are) and you'd be right. You have solutions for that, too: public transportation, carpooling... I like to believe America is bright and creative enough to lend a hand and help out a neighbour. And, you know, there's always the police.

Chazlee is advocating to go straight to a removal of guns. While I also think that would be an ideal situation, I don't think it's feasible due to America's history and mentality, and I also don't think that a post of a single tragic story is going to change your mind. You can undoubtedly find a website with a story where a gun saved someone's life.
Chazlee
Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:18:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Guess it's a good thing no one is asking to make guns illegal then.



Apologies. Please clarify what I might be changing my mind about (as indicated in the title of the post)? I will try to respond accordingly if you could please help explain the question.


In my opinion, I think it's impossible to take guns away from Americans. From what I heard, none of the candidates or current president is arguing that that should happen, either. The ones advocating a change (Obama and Hillary I believe - I haven't checked up on others) are trying to create a regulation that involves background checks and training. That would keep guns in the hands of those who aren't criminals, are sound of mind and know how to use them (and how not to use them). Unless you'd fail one of those categories, you'd get to keep your weapons.

The request for background checks, regulation and training doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It's no different from requiring people to have a driver's license to be able to drive a car. Sure, criminals can always steal a car/gun but having regulations in place makes it easier to pinpoint whether someone got their gun the legal way or not and punish them accordingly.

As for citizens being left unable to protect themselves, guns aren't the only way to do that. You could argue that a person without a license is disadvantaged on the job market (especially in America with distances being what they are) and you'd be right. You have solutions for that, too: public transportation, carpooling... I like to believe America is bright and creative enough to lend a hand and help out a neighbour. And, you know, there's always the police.

Chazlee is advocating to go straight to a removal of guns. While I also think that would be an ideal situation, I don't think it's feasible due to America's history and mentality, and I also don't think that a post of a single tragic story is going to change your mind. You can undoubtedly find a website with a story where a gun saved someone's life.


Hi Lotje1000

Yes, it is true that I want a complete ban on all gun ownership unless a person can prove that he/she has an absolute reason to own or possess a gun. I know it seems to many people that this cannot happen, and actually I too think it is a pipe dream which will likely never happen in America, due to gun lobbyists, our ineffective and corrupt politicians who keep placing their own self interest above the good of the American people, and, as you wrote, "America's history and mentality." Still, I plan to keep pointing out the obvious: we have no legitimate need for so many guns in America.

Guns have ruined America in so many ways. Each year we see the statistics, thousands of people dead or injured due to guns, and so many people either try to rationalize what is happening or to ignore it.

Gun lovers accuse people like me of living our lives in fear, but actually they are the ones living in fear. They own and carry guns because they believe that they, or their family members, are likely to be harmed or killed by other people who also possess guns. They are so fearful that they believe that even while studying on a university campus, they are likely to be the victim of gun violence if they do not have a gun with them, which shows the degree of fear they are continually feeling.

So, gun lovers have something in common with people like me. We both fear guns and the damage they often do, but one group realizes and accepts that we fear what guns may do to us, or our loved ones one day, while the other group chooses to walk around in fear and carry guns to protect themselves, or their loved ones, while at the same time proclaiming that they are not afraid of guns.

Recently a 4 year old girl and her mother died while walking home from the store. As a nation, we Americans have become so immune to continuously hearing/reading about such stories that they frequently enter and exit our minds before any real thought is given to what has happened. Then, we often move on to another story, another tragedy, another murder. Yet, for some of us, it is difficult to do that. I know that somewhere in America there is a family grieving because of the murders of a young mother and her daughter who were killed simply because they chose to walk home from a store. I also know that gun lovers really don't care about this tragedy at all, and they don't care about any other people who will die or get injured from guns.


Peace to you.



Listening . . .
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:12:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Chazlee wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Guess it's a good thing no one is asking to make guns illegal then.



Apologies. Please clarify what I might be changing my mind about (as indicated in the title of the post)? I will try to respond accordingly if you could please help explain the question.


In my opinion, I think it's impossible to take guns away from Americans. From what I heard, none of the candidates or current president is arguing that that should happen, either. The ones advocating a change (Obama and Hillary I believe - I haven't checked up on others) are trying to create a regulation that involves background checks and training. That would keep guns in the hands of those who aren't criminals, are sound of mind and know how to use them (and how not to use them). Unless you'd fail one of those categories, you'd get to keep your weapons.

The request for background checks, regulation and training doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It's no different from requiring people to have a driver's license to be able to drive a car. Sure, criminals can always steal a car/gun but having regulations in place makes it easier to pinpoint whether someone got their gun the legal way or not and punish them accordingly. I completely agree. Currently, background checks and some type of training is required. However, there are some loopholes that need to be closed. Background checks and training are not required at Gun Shows or through person-to-person sales in the same state. I am supportive of this improved regulation.

As for citizens being left unable to protect themselves, guns aren't the only way to do that. You could argue that a person without a license is disadvantaged on the job market (especially in America with distances being what they are) and you'd be right. You have solutions for that, too: public transportation, carpooling... I like to believe America is bright and creative enough to lend a hand and help out a neighbour. And, you know, there's always the police.

Chazlee is advocating to go straight to a removal of guns. While I also think that would be an ideal situation, I don't think it's feasible due to America's history and mentality, and I also don't think that a post of a single tragic story is going to change your mind. You can undoubtedly find a website with a story where a gun saved someone's life.


Hi Lotje1000

Yes, it is true that I want a complete ban on all gun ownership unless a person can prove that he/she has an absolute reason to own or possess a gun. I know it seems to many people that this cannot happen, and actually I too think it is a pipe dream which will likely never happen in America, due to gun lobbyists, our ineffective and corrupt politicians who keep placing their own self interest above the good of the American people, and, as you wrote, "America's history and mentality." Still, I plan to keep pointing out the obvious: we have no legitimate need for so many guns in America.

Guns have ruined America in so many ways. Just a thought, without guns, the America that you know may have never existed. Guns are the weapon that defeated the American Indian.
Each year we see the statistics, thousands of people dead or injured due to guns, and so many people either try to rationalize what is happening or to ignore it.

Gun lovers accuse people like me of living our lives in fear, (I don't believe I've ever heard this accusation!) but actually they are the ones living in fear. They own and carry guns because they believe that they, or their family members, are likely to be harmed or killed by other people who also possess guns. They are so fearful that they believe that even while studying on a university campus, they are likely to be the victim of gun violence if they do not have a gun with them, which shows the degree of fear they are continually feeling. Contrary to your belief, I do not live in fear. I own a tool. A tool. The tool does nothing without my consent and operation. Cars are tools. How many people have died needlessly in car accidents? Should we get rid of cars? Horses are available for transportation.

So, gun lovers have something in common with people like me. We both fear guns and the damage they often do, but one group realizes and accepts that we fear what guns may do to us, or our loved ones one day, while the other group chooses to walk around in fear and carry guns to protect themselves, or their loved ones, while at the same time proclaiming that they are not afraid of guns.

Recently a 4 year old girl and her mother died while walking home from the store. As a nation, we Americans have become so immune to continuously hearing/reading about such stories that they frequently enter and exit our minds before any real thought is given to what has happened. Then, we often move on to another story, another tragedy, another murder. Yet, for some of us, it is difficult to do that. I know that somewhere in America there is a family grieving because of the murders of a young mother and her daughter who were killed simply because they chose to walk home from a store. I also know that gun lovers really don't care about this tragedy at all, and they don't care about any other people who will die or get injured from guns.
This point is so irrational and unsubstantiated. I am prepared with a tool that could save my life or my family. This, in no way, makes me an uncaring, cold person who does not have the capacity to respect the value of life.

Peace to you.



Chazlee
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:39:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Listening . . . wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
[quote=Lotje1000][quote=Listening . . .]Making guns illegal takes the guns away from responsible citizens. It will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Guess it's a good thing no one is asking to make guns illegal then.



Apologies. Please clarify what I might be changing my mind about (as indicated in the title of the post)? I will try to respond accordingly if you could please help explain the question.


In my opinion, I think it's impossible to take guns away from Americans. From what I heard, none of the candidates or current president is arguing that that should happen, either. The ones advocating a change (Obama and Hillary I believe - I haven't checked up on others) are trying to create a regulation that involves background checks and training. That would keep guns in the hands of those who aren't criminals, are sound of mind and know how to use them (and how not to use them). Unless you'd fail one of those categories, you'd get to keep your weapons.

The request for background checks, regulation and training doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It's no different from requiring people to have a driver's license to be able to drive a car. Sure, criminals can always steal a car/gun but having regulations in place makes it easier to pinpoint whether someone got their gun the legal way or not and punish them accordingly. I completely agree. Currently, background checks and some type of training is required. However, there are some loopholes that need to be closed. Background checks and training are not required at Gun Shows or through person-to-person sales in the same state. I am supportive of this improved regulation.

As for citizens being left unable to protect themselves, guns aren't the only way to do that. You could argue that a person without a license is disadvantaged on the job market (especially in America with distances being what they are) and you'd be right. You have solutions for that, too: public transportation, carpooling... I like to believe America is bright and creative enough to lend a hand and help out a neighbour. And, you know, there's always the police.

Chazlee is advocating to go straight to a removal of guns. While I also think that would be an ideal situation, I don't think it's feasible due to America's history and mentality, and I also don't think that a post of a single tragic story is going to change your mind. You can undoubtedly find a website with a story where a gun saved someone's life.


Hi Lotje1000

Yes, it is true that I want a complete ban on all gun ownership unless a person can prove that he/she has an absolute reason to own or possess a gun. I know it seems to many people that this cannot happen, and actually I too think it is a pipe dream which will likely never happen in America, due to gun lobbyists, our ineffective and corrupt politicians who keep placing their own self interest above the good of the American people, and, as you wrote, "America's history and mentality." Still, I plan to keep pointing out the obvious: we have no legitimate need for so many guns in America.

Guns have ruined America in so many ways. Just a thought, without guns, the America that you know may have never existed. Guns are the weapon that defeated the American Indian.

Ok. You use the murder of people who did not have the appropriate weaponry to defend themselves from people who wanted to steal their land as a justifiable reason for many people to have and use guns in 2016? Ok.


Each year we see the statistics, thousands of people dead or injured due to guns, and so many people either try to rationalize what is happening or to ignore it.

Gun lovers accuse people like me of living our lives in fear, (I don't believe I've ever heard this accusation!) Actually, I have been accused of living in fear by certain people on this site simply because I argue that there are too many guns in the USA.


but actually they are the ones living in fear. They own and carry guns because they believe that they, or their family members, are likely to be harmed or killed by other people who also possess guns. They are so fearful that they believe that even while studying on a university campus, they are likely to be the victim of gun violence if they do not have a gun with them, which shows the degree of fear they are continually feeling.

Contrary to your belief, I do not live in fear. I own a tool. A tool. The tool does nothing without my consent and operation. Cars are tools. How many people have died needlessly in car accidents? Should we get rid of cars? Horses are available for transportation. Cars? Tools? Are you drunk when you post messages? I am just wondering.

So, gun lovers have something in common with people like me. We both fear guns and the damage they often do, but one group realizes and accepts that we fear what guns may do to us, or our loved ones one day, while the other group chooses to walk around in fear and carry guns to protect themselves, or their loved ones, while at the same time proclaiming that they are not afraid of guns.

Recently a 4 year old girl and her mother died while walking home from the store. As a nation, we Americans have become so immune to continuously hearing/reading about such stories that they frequently enter and exit our minds before any real thought is given to what has happened. Then, we often move on to another story, another tragedy, another murder. Yet, for some of us, it is difficult to do that. I know that somewhere in America there is a family grieving because of the murders of a young mother and her daughter who were killed simply because they chose to walk home from a store. I also know that gun lovers really don't care about this tragedy at all, and they don't care about any other people who will die or get injured from guns.



[color=blue]This point is so irrational and unsubstantiated. I am prepared with a tool that could save my life or my family. This, in no way, makes me an uncaring, cold person who does not have the capacity to respect the value of life.


[color=red]So a gun is nothing more than a tool? So your reaction would be the same if you saw a child holding a hammer as it would be if you saw that same child holding a gun? Again, I ask if you are drunk when you post your messages?





Listening . . .
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:56:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
No. Not drunk. Just educated.
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:29:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Listening . . . wrote:
No. Not drunk. Just mis-educated.


Fixed that for you.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:32:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Listening . . . wrote:
You are outstanding in your capacity to point out all the wrongs in America.


Just a little bit hypocritical.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Listening . . .
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:42:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
progpen wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
No. Not drunk. Just mis-educated.


Fixed that for you.


Very nice.
Listening . . .
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:43:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
progpen wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
You are outstanding in your capacity to point out all the wrongs in America.


Just a little bit hypocritical.


How so?
Tovarish
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:10:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,110
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Must be a typo, isn't it 'uneducated' not mis-educated?
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:07:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Tovarish wrote:
Must be a typo, isn't it 'uneducated' not mis-educated?


Uneducated would mean the lack of education and possibly the lack of access to an education, whereas mis-educated tends to be more self-inflicted.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:42:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Some items I'd like to respond to:

Listening . . . wrote:
I completely agree. Currently, background checks and some type of training is required. However, there are some loopholes that need to be closed. Background checks and training are not required at Gun Shows or through person-to-person sales in the same state. I am supportive of this improved regulation.
I am glad to see someone in favour of implementing regulations (and closing loopholes).

Just a thought, without guns, the America that you know may have never existed. Guns are the weapon that defeated the American Indian.
I agree. Whether all of that is a good thing, I'm not sure of. It is certainly very telling, however.

I don't believe the American Indian needed defeating (though undoubtedly there were hostile/unreasonable tribes out there, as there are in any culture), at least not until they fought back because their lands were taken from them. But isn't that what the second amendment is for? To defend yourself? If only they'd had guns, I guess.


Contrary to your belief, I do not live in fear. I own a tool. A tool. The tool does nothing without my consent and operation. Cars are tools. How many people have died needlessly in car accidents? Should we get rid of cars? Horses are available for transportation.
Arguably, a tool can do many things without consent and only requires operation. Operation is not always under control (hence the need for extensive training). Hence the occurrence of car accidents.

The difference is that a gun is a tool for killing. A car is a tool for transportation. If you kill someone with a car, it's more often than not an accident. If you kill someone with a gun (accidental or not) it's a tool that's doing exactly what it was made to do.

progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:18:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Lotje1000 wrote:
The difference is that a gun is a tool for killing. A car is a tool for transportation. If you kill someone with a car, it's more often than not an accident. If you kill someone with a gun (accidental or not) it's a tool that's doing exactly what it was made to do.


Applause Bingo.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Listening . . .
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:08:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Lotje1000 wrote:
Some items I'd like to respond to:

Listening . . . wrote:
I completely agree. Currently, background checks and some type of training is required. However, there are some loopholes that need to be closed. Background checks and training are not required at Gun Shows or through person-to-person sales in the same state. I am supportive of this improved regulation.
I am glad to see someone in favour of implementing regulations (and closing loopholes).

Just a thought, without guns, the America that you know may have never existed. Guns are the weapon that defeated the American Indian.
I agree. Whether all of that is a good thing, I'm not sure of. It is certainly very telling, however.

I don't believe the American Indian needed defeating (though undoubtedly there were hostile/unreasonable tribes out there, as there are in any culture), at least not until they fought back because their lands were taken from them. But isn't that what the second amendment is for? To defend yourself? If only they'd had guns, I guess.
Whether that is a good thing or not is a whole new thread. Short and sweet, my belief is that the land was not ours to fight for.


Contrary to your belief, I do not live in fear. I own a tool. A tool. The tool does nothing without my consent and operation. Cars are tools. How many people have died needlessly in car accidents? Should we get rid of cars? Horses are available for transportation.
Arguably, a tool can do many things without consent and only requires operation. Operation is not always under control (hence the need for extensive training). Hence the occurrence of car accidents.

The difference is that a gun is a tool for killing. A car is a tool for transportation. If you kill someone with a car, it's more often than not an accident. If you kill someone with a gun (accidental or not) it's a tool that's doing exactly what it was made to do.


True. However, there are so many things that can be used as killing tools. A car can be used to kill (ask the family of the woman who put her kids in one, buckled them in, and drove the car into a lake). A knife can be used to kill. Fire can be used to kill. When these other items that are not guns are used to kill, we blame the killer not the tool used to do the killing. Why? Because they weren't designed to kill?
We should always blame the killer regardless of what they used to kill.

Thank you, Lotje, for your thoughtful post and mindful discussion on this subject. I appreciate the concerted effort not to be rude even though we don't agree.
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:11:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Listening... wrote:
True. However, there are so many things that can be used as killing tools. A car can be used to kill (ask the family of the woman who put her kids in one, buckled them in, and drove the car into a lake). A knife can be used to kill. Fire can be used to kill. When these other items that are not guns are used to kill, we blame the killer not the tool used to do the killing. Why? Because they weren't designed to kill?
We should always blame the killer regardless of what they used to kill.

Hence the regulations you agreed were necessary. I was pointing out that we are keen to regulate all those other tools which are not intended to kill but which can accidentally or otherwise cause death. At the same time, many are loathe to impose those same regulations on something that is a tool intended for killing. As the chance of death with use of a tool intended for killing is by definition greater, it's remarkable that regulations are so strongly resisted.

Thank you, Lotje, for your thoughtful post and mindful discussion on this subject. I appreciate the concerted effort not to be rude even though we don't agree.
Listening . . .
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:40:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening... wrote:
True. However, there are so many things that can be used as killing tools. A car can be used to kill (ask the family of the woman who put her kids in one, buckled them in, and drove the car into a lake). A knife can be used to kill. Fire can be used to kill. When these other items that are not guns are used to kill, we blame the killer not the tool used to do the killing. Why? Because they weren't designed to kill?
We should always blame the killer regardless of what they used to kill.

Hence the regulations you agreed were necessary. I was pointing out that we are keen to regulate all those other tools which are not intended to kill but which can accidentally or otherwise cause death. At the same time, many are loathe to impose those same regulations on something that is a tool intended for killing. As the chance of death with use of a tool intended for killing is by definition greater, it's remarkable that regulations are so strongly resisted.


Lotje, there are regulations in place. Background checks have been required since 1994. Training is also required before a weapons permit is obtained. Issues arise when purchases at gun shows and person-to-person take place. Also, not all states report mentally ill patients -background checks won't stop sales to the mentally unstable in those states. Background checks also do not include those on the no-fly lists. These issues are all areas in which I support a "clean-up" of the current regulation. Resistance to regulation comes in when a father can't pass down his grandfather's gun to his son without government stepping in. Resistance also enters the discussion when certain types of guns (assault style) or ammunition will become illegal to own. Once again, this all comes down to the fact that the tool itself doesn't cause the killing. The person controlling the tool does.

If violence is a problem in a society, the problem generally will lie with the culture that teaches or doesn't teach empathy. People who oppose guns think they are improving the situation to remove guns. If there are no guns, a society without empathy that is frustrated or filled with anger will find a new tool to express those feelings. Our solution lies within a strong framework of family, community, country, and world connection. (And, a little personal responsibility, too.)
progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:45:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
The argument that a gun is a tool is false. This because a tool is used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work. A tool can also be "Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession". So unless your job is combat military, a sport hunter, a competitive sports marksman, a police officer, or a professional killer a gun is not a tool.

The gun lobby and arms industry in the US have tried very hard to redefine weapons in the mainstream media and this is just a glimpse into how that shows up in everyday conversation. The "oh my gun is just a tool", is facetious at best.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:48:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
We have also been inundated with the "if they don't have a semi/automatic weapon, they will just use a knife" argument, which doesn't require debunking because no one in their right mind would equate the damage that an assault weapon can do with the damage a knife can do.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:11:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Listening . . . wrote:
Lotje, there are regulations in place. Background checks have been required since 1994. Training is also required before a weapons permit is obtained. Issues arise when purchases at gun shows and person-to-person take place. Also, not all states report mentally ill patients -background checks won't stop sales to the mentally unstable in those states. Background checks also do not include those on the no-fly lists. These issues are all areas in which I support a "clean-up" of the current regulation.

Resistance to regulation comes in when a father can't pass down his grandfather's gun to his son without government stepping in.
If the son is covered by the regulations and training, then he can get the gun. Otherwise no. Unless, of course, it's not in working order. I think safety is more important here than sentimentality over an heirloom.

Resistance also enters the discussion when certain types of guns (assault style) or ammunition will become illegal to own.
I don't see how anyone would need an assault style weapon. Unless they're in the military of course. Surely a handgun is enough to defend yourself if you're been properly trained.

Once again, this all comes down to the fact that the tool itself doesn't cause the killing. The person controlling the tool does.
And the type of tool determines how much killing is done.

If violence is a problem in a society, the problem generally will lie with the culture that teaches or doesn't teach empathy. People who oppose guns think they are improving the situation to remove guns. If there are no guns, a society without empathy that is frustrated or filled with anger will find a new tool to express those feelings. Our solution lies within a strong framework of family, community, country, and world connection. (And, a little personal responsibility, too.)
There's a company making weapons that fire rounds which include salt and other substances. It is great for self-defense without killing. The guns effectively neutralize a target because the round bursts at impact and spreads the substance around. The powder has a similar effect to spraying mace in their eyes. Arguably you wouldn't even need to aim that carefully.

If we're talking self-defense, this could solve everyone's problem. You get to protect yourself and no one needs to get blood on their hands. If you're trained, it should be as incapacitating as a gun (minus the killing).

progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:40:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
I'm also curious to understand the reasoning behind this:

Handgun owners who are trained, licensed and have their weapon locked up in their home will defend those who have massive arsenals including assault weapons, no training, are unlicensed and have demonstrated threatening intent to US citizens and the US Government (in essence, domestic terrorists).

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Listening . . .
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:28:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Lotje1000 wrote:
Listening . . . wrote:
Lotje, there are regulations in place. Background checks have been required since 1994. Training is also required before a weapons permit is obtained. Issues arise when purchases at gun shows and person-to-person take place. Also, not all states report mentally ill patients -background checks won't stop sales to the mentally unstable in those states. Background checks also do not include those on the no-fly lists. These issues are all areas in which I support a "clean-up" of the current regulation.

Resistance to regulation comes in when a father can't pass down his grandfather's gun to his son without government stepping in.
If the son is covered by the regulations and training, then he can get the gun. Otherwise no. Unless, of course, it's not in working order. I think safety is more important here than sentimentality over an heirloom.

Resistance also enters the discussion when certain types of guns (assault style) or ammunition will become illegal to own.
I don't see how anyone would need an assault style weapon. Unless they're in the military of course. Surely a handgun is enough to defend yourself if you're been properly trained.

Once again, this all comes down to the fact that the tool itself doesn't cause the killing. The person controlling the tool does.
And the type of tool determines how much killing is done.

If violence is a problem in a society, the problem generally will lie with the culture that teaches or doesn't teach empathy. People who oppose guns think they are improving the situation to remove guns. If there are no guns, a society without empathy that is frustrated or filled with anger will find a new tool to express those feelings. Our solution lies within a strong framework of family, community, country, and world connection. (And, a little personal responsibility, too.)
There's a company making weapons that fire rounds which include salt and other substances. It is great for self-defense without killing. The guns effectively neutralize a target because the round bursts at impact and spreads the substance around. The powder has a similar effect to spraying mace in their eyes. Arguably you wouldn't even need to aim that carefully.

If we're talking self-defense, this could solve everyone's problem. You get to protect yourself and no one needs to get blood on their hands. If you're trained, it should be as incapacitating as a gun (minus the killing).

Are you talking about the A-Salt gun? http://bugasalt.com/pages/how-gun-works Dancing
Listening . . .
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:32:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
progpen wrote:
I'm also curious to understand the reasoning behind this:

Handgun owners who are trained, licensed and have their weapon locked up in their home will defend those who have massive arsenals including assault weapons, no training, are unlicensed and have demonstrated threatening intent to US citizens and the US Government (in essence, domestic terrorists).


Why must the assault weapon owners be "unlicensed" and "demonstrated threatening intent to US citizens and the US Government"? There are assault weapon owners who are licensed and never made such threats.
progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:28:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,637
Neurons: 229,032
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Listening . . . wrote:
progpen wrote:
I'm also curious to understand the reasoning behind this:

Handgun owners who are trained, licensed and have their weapon locked up in their home will defend those who have massive arsenals including assault weapons, no training, are unlicensed and have demonstrated threatening intent to US citizens and the US Government (in essence, domestic terrorists).


Why must the assault weapon owners be "unlicensed" and "demonstrated threatening intent to US citizens and the US Government"? There are assault weapon owners who are licensed and never made such threats.


I didn't say they must be, you did. I simply said "Handgun owners who are trained, licensed and have their weapon locked up in their home will defend those who have massive arsenals including assault weapons, no training, are unlicensed and have demonstrated threatening intent to US citizens and the US Government (in essence, domestic terrorists)". It is true. It is happening. I'm just curious why law abiding people would support those who threaten the US and its people.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:16:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Listening . . . wrote:
Are you talking about the A-Salt gun? http://bugasalt.com/pages/how-gun-works Dancing


Yes I am, thanks for the link
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:32:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 913
Neurons: 412,249
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Man runs a red light and hits a woman. Both drivers survive and get out of their cars. Man gets out with a rifle and shoots the woman multiple times. She's taken to the hospital but declared dead.

Not sure why the man needed a rifle (or a gun). Article mentions no drugs or alcohol in his system, nor any symptoms of ptsd (the man had served in Iraq).

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.