07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 176177178179180 ...
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    The post I quoted was referring to a high body count in general. You can't take this one shooting and dismiss other forms of mass destruction because this shooter had s specific target type in mind.
    Definitely, we should examine the available options so that we can prevent future instances.

    Given the destructive potential of a pressure cooker, why do you think most mass murderers choose firearms instead? It seems that there are more shooting rampages than pressure cooker rampages.
    06-03-2014 03:35 PM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Given the destructive potential of a pressure cooker, why do you think most mass murderers choose firearms instead? It seems that there are more shooting rampages than pressure cooker rampages.
    It's easier to go buy a gun (even if it takes longer due to background checks) if you don't already have one, load some amo, and pull the trigger, vs. learning how to make a bomb and potentially blow yourself up in the process. Sure, not everyone is going to opt for a pressure cooker in the absence of fire arms, but there's many ways you can cause mass casualties than just with guns. The pressure cooker just happened to pop in my head first due to the recent events.
    06-03-2014 04:31 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    It's easier to go buy a gun (even if it takes longer due to background checks) if you don't already have one, load some amo, and pull the trigger, vs. learning how to make a bomb and potentially blow yourself up in the process.
    This is why it is important to examine a weapon's theoretical lethality versus its practical lethality. Could a pressure cooker be more lethal than a pistol? In theory, it could, but like you said, it requires more skill to implement. A pistol is more practical since it is literally a point and shoot device.
    06-03-2014 06:27 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    It seems that there are more shooting rampages than pressure cooker rampages.
    The National Pressure Cooker Association is sending a lobbyist down to D.C. as we speak.... lol
    06-03-2014 10:16 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    But the lunatic in the school shooting was targeting specific people. His rage was against people that he thought had a better life than his.
    The tragic part may be that nothing will change because of this shooting. California already has strict laws with respect to firearms. The shooter, Elliot Rodger, has been seeing therapists since he was 8-years-old. His own parents called the police on him. In the end, the only one that could stop Elliot Rodger was himself (by committing suicide).

    People may want to start wearing Kevlar on a regular basis because the next shooting may be just a matter of time.
    06-04-2014 12:06 AM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    Three shot at Seattle Pacific University before student tackles gunman - CNN.com

    How odd, I thought it took a good guy WITH a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun....hmmm.....
    06-06-2014 08:01 AM
  7. SteveISU's Avatar
    Or a pressure cooker...
    Or a van and some fertilizer.

    Firearms and self-defense-okc-bombing_3.jpg
    06-06-2014 10:52 AM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    How odd, I thought it took a good guy WITH a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun....hmmm.....
    If you had to stop a shooter, would you prefer to be holding a firearm, or would you prefer to be empty-handed?
    06-06-2014 02:41 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    Or a van and some fertilizer.
    How common are rampages with vans and fertilizer versus rampages with firearms?
    06-06-2014 02:44 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    If you had to stop a shooter, would you prefer to be holding a firearm, or would you prefer to be empty-handed?
    Since we're dealing in hypotheticals here, I'll take this for the win alex....

    Firearms and self-defense-vader-choke.gif
    06-06-2014 09:07 PM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    Since we're dealing in hypotheticals here, I'll take this for the win alex....
    Yes, I'm looking forward to the next Star Wars movie, too.

    I think most people would prefer to stop a shooter with a firearm of their own. You can take out an attacker from a distance, which is much safer than trying to rush in with bare hands. Does that make sense to you?
    06-06-2014 10:05 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    Yes, I'm looking forward to the next Star Wars movie, too.

    I think most people would prefer to stop a shooter with a firearm of their own. You can take out an attacker from a distance, which is much safer than trying to rush in with bare hands. Does that make sense to you?
    Well we can create best case scenarios where the "good guy with a gun" can actually be effective. What we can't do is control those scenarios. The Colorado theater massacre, what if that theater was packed with gun toting "good guys"? I'd hate to see what the body count would be. Would I love to be perched up on high ground with a high caliber sniper rifle during calm wind with low humidity when an attacker strikes? Ummmm, yes definitely. The problem is that we can't just arm everyone and walk around on pins and needles waiting for an attack to take place. What if one of the "good guys" carrying is so nerve racked waiting on another attack that he has an anxiety attack? Does he then become a "bad guy with a gun"?
    06-07-2014 07:24 AM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    Would I love to be perched up on high ground with a high caliber sniper rifle during calm wind with low humidity when an attacker strikes? Ummmm, yes definitely.
    The original question I asked was, "If you had to stop a shooter, would you prefer to be holding a firearm, or would you prefer to be empty-handed?" The answer you gave indicates that yes, in some instances, you would prefer to be holding a firearm.
    06-07-2014 08:27 AM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    The original question I asked was, "If you had to stop a shooter, would you prefer to be holding a firearm, or would you prefer to be empty-handed?" The answer you gave indicates that yes, in some instances, you would prefer to be holding a firearm.
    But, like I said, if we go into hypotheticals, lets say the attacker was evaluated correctly, wasn't allowed legal access to firearms, could not get his hands on high capacity magazines, I liken my chances better in this scenario. My point is that not everyone has to be armed to the gills to stop these kinds of incidents from taking place. Why not just have everyone implanted with a chip that has a self destruct sequence that blows up anyone that has dark thoughts of mass murder?
    06-07-2014 08:41 AM
  15. Scott7217's Avatar
    My point is that not everyone has to be armed to the gills to stop these kinds of incidents from taking place.
    That's why I limited the scope of my question. I merely asked what was your preference because it is easier for you to decide what to hold in your hand. You indicated that you would be willing to hold a firearm under some circumstances.
    06-07-2014 09:15 AM
  16. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    Summary:
    Family posts picture of their 10 year old son holding a rifle that appears to be an ar15 on Facebook. ... Someone calls child services to report this "abuse". ... Are people really this dense and stupid?
    They are. And, I'd argue, we, as a race, are growing more stupid, rather than less, as time passes. I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode in which the character Khan bemoans the lack of improvement in the human race--only we're not merely not getting mentally and physically better, but actually declining.

    I suppose the case worker has to investigate all calls,
    Perfect example. Just because some moron reported it didn't mean a social worker had to be even more moronic and do what she did. All she needed do was read the complaint, look at the facebook page (if possible), employ a bit of reasoning, conclude "what child abuse?" and file it. This was an unwarranted invasion of the victim family's right to be left alone and an utter waste of taxpayer funds.

    And look at this:
    One of the child welfare officials would not identify herself when Moore asked for her name, he said.
    That should be a disciplinary infraction, right there. (Probably won't be. At least not in New Jersey. One suspects abusing gun owners is deemed a legitimate government function in the "garden" state.)

    but 4 policemen?
    Well, there was a gun, and an Evil Black Rifle, no less

    I think I need to save my pennies and buy an EBR. Complete with "high-capacity" magazines. Not because I particularly want, much less need, one. I couldn't really afford to shoot one even if somebody gave it to me. But my merely possessing it would annoy a certain whacky segment of the population. That, alone, might make it worth the investment

    Jim
    06-07-2014 09:18 AM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    That's why I limited the scope of my question. I merely asked what was your preference because it is easier for you to decide what to hold in your hand. You indicated that you would be willing to hold a firearm under some circumstances.
    You might as well ask me if a wild animal was charging me, would I rather have a set of car keys, a hammer, or a high caliber weapon on me. My point is that I take issue with the NRA insisting that "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

    http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/mp...n-and-carry-on
    06-07-2014 09:25 AM
  18. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    ... the paranoia coming from one camp that insists that the government is trying to slowly disarm them and then overnight lock them up and throw away the key is the definition of insanity
    Tell that to the people of every other nation that has allowed incremental "gun control" that eventually resulted in total gun registration, followed by nearly complete gun confiscation. You want to see how such a thing would go? Just look at those nations.

    Or look at the U.S. government's behaviour regarding anything else deemed "socially unacceptable," or otherwise in need of its attention, into which it's gotten its teeth. Alcohol prohibition and the War On Some Drugs. Its reaction to 9/11 and the resulting infringements on American (and even foreign) privacy, security and safety. Some of the things it's done in reaction to "environmental concerns." Its inability to ensure the safety of the food and drug supply, but its ability to restrict or ban common remedies proven to be harmless (except to Big Pharma's bottom line). How about its nearly insatiable appetite for interfering in the energy industry (much of which, I'd agree, is, unfortunately, necessary), but its lack of ability to prevent tragedies like the Gulf Oil Spill? The list is nearly endless.

    No, I think gun owners are anything but "paranoid." It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

    Jim
    06-07-2014 09:33 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    Tell that to the people of every other nation that has allowed incremental "gun control" that eventually resulted in total gun registration, followed by nearly complete gun confiscation. You want to see how such a thing would go? Just look at those nations.

    Or look at the U.S. government's behaviour regarding anything else deemed "socially unacceptable," or otherwise in need of its attention, into which it's gotten its teeth. Alcohol prohibition and the War On Some Drugs. Its reaction to 9/11 and the resulting infringements on American (and even foreign) privacy, security and safety. Some of the things it's done in reaction to "environmental concerns." Its inability to ensure the safety of the food and drug supply, but its ability to restrict or ban common remedies proven to be harmless (except to Big Pharma's bottom line). How about its nearly insatiable appetite for interfering in the energy industry (much of which, I'd agree, is, unfortunately, necessary), but its lack of ability to prevent tragedies like the Gulf Oil Spill? The list is nearly endless.

    No, I think gun owners are anything but "paranoid." It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

    Jim
    I'm not advocating 100% elimination of guns. What I start to wonder (as what every rational person should wonder) why are certain assault style rifles needed by every day citizens? If we argue that these weapons are necessary to keep the government "at bay", then I have news for you, the government's arsenal "pwns". If you argue that you enjoy these weapons to hunt with, then I would say that maybe you need to stick to Duck Hunt for awhile until you get good enough at hunting.

    I don't think 100% gun prohibition would be the answer, but we need to have a rational logical conversation on the nature of our gun culture and find real viable solutions to the growing epidemic of gun violence. Just building up a tolerance to all the gun violence should not be an option. Try floating that idea to someone that's lost a loved one to gun violence and let me know what the reaction is.
    06-07-2014 09:48 AM
  20. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    I'm not advocating 100% elimination of guns.
    Not projecting this onto you, but that's what all gun control advocates claim.

    What I start to wonder (as what every rational person should wonder) why are certain assault style rifles needed by every day citizens?
    What does it matter? Why are high-performance automobiles "needed" by every day citizens? Few people "need" high-performance energy drinks. Since when do we define rights on perceived "needs?"

    Look: An AR-15 rifle is no different, functionally, from any other semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle. That's why firearms enthusiasts sarcastically refer to them as "EBR"s (Evil Black Rifles). So, okay, we ban EBRs. Then the next nutjob comes along and does evil with a "non-assault-style" rifle. Now we need to ban "high-capacity" magazines. (You define "high-capacity.") Next one comes along with a whole bag full of lower-capacity magazines in does the same thing. So we ban detachable magazines entirely. Next nutjob comes along and does the same with multiple pre-loaded firearms and maybe some home-made incendiary devices. So we ban semi-automatic firearms completely. Next nutjob comes along and...

    Do you see where this goes? This is exactly what has happened in every other country that drank the "gun control" kool aid." In Great Britain it got to the point where, when gun control didn't do the job, they went for knife control. Then "everything that could possibly be used as an offensive weapon" control. And still they've a problem with violent crime.

    Gun. Control. Does. Not. Work.

    Period.

    At least not to the end that control advocates claim to desire. It does, however, serve to disarm and render "safe" otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's real effective at that. Because, you see, only the law-abiding obey laws. (I'm continually surprised I have to point that out.)

    Jim
    06-07-2014 10:09 AM
  21. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I'm not advocating 100% elimination of guns. What I start to wonder (as what every rational person should wonder) why are certain assault style rifles needed by every day citizens? If we argue that these weapons are necessary to keep the government "at bay", then I have news for you, the government's arsenal "pwns". If you argue that you enjoy these weapons to hunt with, then I would say that maybe you need to stick to Duck Hunt for awhile until you get good enough at hunting.

    I don't think 100% gun prohibition would be the answer, but we need to have a rational logical conversation on the nature of our gun culture and find real viable solutions to the growing epidemic of gun violence. Just building up a tolerance to all the gun violence should not be an option. Try floating that idea to someone that's lost a loved one to gun violence and let me know what the reaction is.
    What we need is a socital change. Why do people shoot each other? Why do crazies go crazy? Why are guns feared and misunderstood? Answer these questions and you will be on the right path to solving gun violence.

    I am actually perfectly fine with some more gun legislation. Minimum universal background checks would be a good idea(as long as there is a some sort of allotment for gun shows and private sales). Making some more dangerous weapons slightly harder to get is fine too. Even punishing those that fail to properly secure their weapons is fine.

    Now notice I did not say registration. I also did not say pistol grips or other "ooo scary" accessories nor did I say magazine limits or any other legislation that stems from pure ignorance of the subject.

    You see, we have 2 paranoid sides. Not one like you suggest. The anti gun side, as a whole, knows nothing about guns or gun culture past whatever action movie Hollywood makes or some video of a crazy that a news site posts. They are fear mongering instead of educating. Exploiting tragedy instead of using it as an excuse to truly fix problems. It is evident in every bill they publish that they do not know what they are talking about.

    When the other side begins to actually understand firearms and suggest legislation that is common sense and not full of ignorant pork, the gun culture will start to listen. Right now, stonewalling is the easiest and safest solution. Better than dealing with a scorpion that knows nothing about what they are talking about and will take the first opertunity to betray you. Understanding is key. Without it, nothing will change.
    06-07-2014 10:24 AM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    Not projecting this onto you, but that's what all gun control advocates claim.


    What does it matter? Why are high-performance automobiles "needed" by every day citizens? Few people "need" high-performance energy drinks. Since when do we define rights on perceived "needs?"

    Look: An AR-15 rifle is no different, functionally, from any other semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle. That's why firearms enthusiasts sarcastically refer to them as "EBR"s (Evil Black Rifles). So, okay, we ban EBRs. Then the next nutjob comes along and does evil with a "non-assault-style" rifle. Now we need to ban "high-capacity" magazines. (You define "high-capacity.") Next one comes along with a whole bag full of lower-capacity magazines in does the same thing. So we ban detachable magazines entirely. Next nutjob comes along and does the same with multiple pre-loaded firearms and maybe some home-made incendiary devices. So we ban semi-automatic firearms completely. Next nutjob comes along and...

    Do you see where this goes? This is exactly what has happened in every other country that drank the "gun control" kool aid." In Great Britain it got to the point where, when gun control didn't do the job, they went for knife control. Then "everything that could possibly be used as an offensive weapon" control. And still they've a problem with violent crime.

    Gun. Control. Does. Not. Work.

    Period.

    At least not to the end that control advocates claim to desire. It does, however, serve to disarm and render "safe" otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's real effective at that. Because, you see, only the law-abiding obey laws. (I'm continually surprised I have to point that out.)

    Jim
    If we ever get to a point where a high performance automobile or a high performance drink starts to kill people off at an alarming rate, then we can answer that question. From the reports that I've seen, Australia hasn't had these types of issues since they gave up their guns. But, it's a point I'll stress again, it's not about taking EVERY SINGLE gun out of citizens' hands, it's about limiting the amount of death that a crazed person can wield upon society because they weren't taught coping mechanisms to keep them from lashing out.
    06-07-2014 10:25 AM
  23. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    If we ever get to a point where a high performance automobile or a high performance drink starts to kill people off at an alarming rate,
    Perhaps you should view the news with a less biased eye? Automobiles, high-performance or otherwise, kill far more people than do firearms. Do we blame the automobiles? And high-performance drinks? I guess you haven't been reading or seeing the "news" stories about what these things contain and (reportedly) what they do to children.

    From the reports that I've seen, Australia hasn't had these types of issues since they gave up their guns.
    I love that phrase "since they gave up their guns." They didn't "give them up," they were confiscated. Saying Australians "gave up their guns" is like saying American citizens of Japanese descent "gave up their freedom" when they were interned in prison camps during WWII.

    But, it's a point I'll stress again, it's not about taking EVERY SINGLE gun out of citizens' hands, ...
    You cannot avoid another's points by simply ignoring them. I'll assume, since you didn't answer mine (re: "where do you draw the line?"), you have no answer.

    That means this discussion is done.

    Jim
    06-07-2014 11:23 AM
  24. anon8126715's Avatar
    Perhaps you should view the news with a less biased eye? Automobiles, high-performance or otherwise, kill far more people than do firearms. Do we blame the automobiles? And high-performance drinks? I guess you haven't been reading or seeing the "news" stories about what these things contain and (reportedly) what they do to children.


    I love that phrase "since they gave up their guns." They didn't "give them up," they were confiscated. Saying Australians "gave up their guns" is like saying American citizens of Japanese descent "gave up their freedom" when they were interned in prison camps during WWII.


    You cannot avoid another's points by simply ignoring them. I'll assume, since you didn't answer mine (re: "where do you draw the line?"), you have no answer.

    That means this discussion is done.

    Jim
    Lets see, drunk driving cause more deaths, so we lower the legal BAC (no outrage), cars aren't providing much safety during collisions, so we mandate improved safety standards, (still no outrage). Do you sense a pattern? Why is it that we can legislate to reduce deaths in that regard, but if someone tries to introduce a bill that requires a little more of a thorough background check, the gun lovers go nuts?

    Your idea that the government would slowly begin to erode away gun rights until we're all slaves to some sort of gun hating overlord still baffles me. Your citing of European countries where they have taken guns out of citizens' hands doesn't have me convinced. What about the UK makes you think that they live in some sort of oppressed state? I mean besides the fact that they cook their food kind of weird?
    06-07-2014 03:39 PM
  25. Old Stoneface's Avatar
    Lets see, drunk driving cause more deaths, so we lower the legal BAC (no outrage),
    Strawman. We aren't talking about irresponsible behaviour, we're talking about preemptively taking away from law-abiding Americans a right. Getting behind the wheel of an automobile with a BAC above a certain level is certainly irresponsible. Simply owning an EBR is not. Outlawing EBRs because "somebody might use one badly" would be like banning alcoholic beverages or automobiles because somebody might drink and drive. Lastly: Neither alcoholic beverages nor driving are protected by the Constitution. The RKBA is.

    cars aren't providing much safety during collisions, so we mandate improved safety standards, (still no outrage).
    Strawman. If a firearm has a safety deficiency, that is to say: When operated as it's intended to operate, some feature of its operation may result in an unsafe condition, that, of course, should be corrected. But to say "because a certain class of semi-automatic rifle may be used for Evil, that class of semi-automatic rifle must be banned," would be the same as saying "because an automobile may be used to mow down unsuspecting pedestrians, automobiles must be banned."

    Do you sense a pattern?
    In your debating skills, I do

    Why is it that we can legislate to reduce deaths in that regard, but if someone tries to introduce a bill that requires a little more of a thorough background check, the gun lovers go nuts?
    Because it's regarded by many as an unreasonable burden on law-abiding citizens who engage in what are called "casual sales." It's the same reason that people who hold garage or yard sales generally aren't required to get permits or business licenses. Furthermore: It's not just "gun nuts" that feel universal background checks are unreasonable, or even dangerous. Some non-firearms related organization, including the ACLU, think the idea dangerous. The fear shared by most who are opposed to them is they would result in a defacto universal registration scheme.

    Your idea that the government would slowly begin to erode away gun rights until we're all slaves to some sort of gun hating overlord still baffles me.
    Despite the fact that nearly everywhere universal registration has occurred, it's been followed by confiscation?

    Your citing of European countries where they have taken guns out of citizens' hands doesn't have me convinced.
    Ah, now we're getting down to it . You don't care if there's confiscation. You may even support the idea?

    What about the UK makes you think that they live in some sort of oppressed state?
    Strawman. I simply pointed-out that universal registration is nearly always been followed by confiscation. But it's becoming clear you don't really care about that. That being the case: I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

    Jim
    06-07-2014 04:35 PM
4,617 ... 176177178179180 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD