Booth kills baited bear

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17134
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by Strangelove » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:07 pm

ukcanuck wrote: I hate that shit, people do that a lot around here, and not just on this issue either...
Amen brother. :mex:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10752
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:42 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
You twisted SOB, stop trying to make it sound like Topper and yours truly are in favour of these shootings.
I hate that shit, people do that a lot around here, and not just on this issue either...

Oh is that what happens ??? You take some very clownish positions on this board. I appreciate differences of opinions......devils advocate for sure but don't go blaming others if they take issue with some of the shit you say uk.

Merry Christmas :drink: :drink:
TRY TO FOCUS ON HOW MY ASS TASTES IN ONE YEAR

User avatar
okcanuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:11 am
Location: Port Alberni

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by okcanuck » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:23 pm

Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by ukcanuck » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:30 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
You twisted SOB, stop trying to make it sound like Topper and yours truly are in favour of these shootings.
I hate that shit, people do that a lot around here, and not just on this issue either...

Oh is that what happens ??? You take some very clownish positions on this board. I appreciate differences of opinions......devils advocate for sure but don't go blaming others if they take issue with some of the shit you say uk.

Merry Christmas :drink: :drink:
Thats not really what I meant, if one takes the devils advocate you kind of want a reaction and the more emotional the better, its just that you and me we aren't our opinions and we definitely aren't one opinion. At least I don't hold yours against you. I mean I kind of like your posts and agree with some of them too even though I think your an asshole sometimes. Merry Christmas to you as well Blobber :)

Do you remember when you were getting raked over pretty hard for your opinion of Hodgson, If I recall people were attacking you for shit you didn't say too... :)
Last edited by ukcanuck on Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by ukcanuck » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:33 pm

okcanuck wrote:Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people and many times they do it for socio-economic reasons.

User avatar
okcanuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:11 am
Location: Port Alberni

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by okcanuck » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:49 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
okcanuck wrote:Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people and many times they do it for socio-economic reasons.
Listen UK you still haven't answered my previous questions. Why on earth do you think an ordinary person in the states should be able to own these semi-automatic weapons? Is it so they can defend themselves or is it so they can have fun at a gun range? And dont give me this fucking slippery-slope bull-shit.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by ukcanuck » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:12 am

okcanuck wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
okcanuck wrote:Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people and many times they do it for socio-economic reasons.
Listen UK you still haven't answered my previous questions. Why on earth do you think an ordinary person in the states should be able to own these semi-automatic weapons? Is it so they can defend themselves or is it so they can have fun at a gun range? And dont give me this fucking slippery-slope bull-shit.
I am a law abiding citizen and I am entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Who are you to tell me how when or where I can protect myself, how, when or where I have liberty or how when or where I am happy.

bottom line is I don't have to justify to you why I exercise my rights. if you want me to surrender my rights for the common good you have to show me how thats going to help... So far you have not made a convincing case.

-The Lanza kid could easily have killed 20 people with a shotgun and a couple of hand guns...
-Mass murder happens without guns as well
-we have barely begun to understand the psychology in such atrocities, perhaps dealing with child abuse would be a better start
-run of the mill crime and gun related deaths have more to do with poverty and drug abuse than availability of guns

fix these problems first, then see if guns are an issue and I'll bet they wont be near as bad as say ... automobile accidents

However, if after all that its still an issue then we can talk, but I'm not throwing even one right out the window until the last resort... too many good people died to win me those rights...

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9663
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by Topper » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:25 am

okcanuck wrote:Listen UK you still haven't answered my previous questions. Why on earth do you think an ordinary person in the states should be able to own these semi-automatic weapons? Is it so they can defend themselves or is it so they can have fun at a gun range? And dont give me this fucking slippery-slope bull-shit.
Because it is their constitutional right to do so.

In 1776, a rag tag bunch of poorly armed radicals standing up for self determination against an oppressive foreign power forced the surrender of the mightiest, most well armed and well trained force in the world. One of the first acts of the tyrannical power was an attempt to disarm the citizenry.

Therefore the framers of the US Constitution, amended the document in 1791 to include the right to bare arm and bring the US Constitution in line with many of the previously existing State Constitutions.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

What everyday use do semi automatic guns have. Many are great hunting rifles. Most are used by enthusiasts for target shooting. A hobby that keeps them off the streets at night.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by dbr » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:59 am

ukcanuck wrote:I never said that we all should be walking around armed to the teeth. There ought to be responsibility attached to freedom, but ham handed "guns are bad, lets ban them" is not a reasonable answer and attacks rights and freedoms.
Are you fucking kidding me? I don't know if anyone (except maybe RoyalDude, I can't manage more than a quick scan of his posts anymore) said anything even close to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

So your straw man "they're going to take our precious freedoms!" bullshit doesn't cut the mustard.
ukcanuck wrote:
dbr wrote:
Hey this is some super sound reasoning. Why not just stop having laws, since it doesn't seem to stop criminals from breaking them?
That's a slight exaggeration don't you think? How do you go from the sound logic that restricting legal weapons to prevent illegal ones being used in crimes won't work to well let's have no laws then?
Let's just say it's similar to going from "meaningful gun control helps reduce gun deaths" to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

Except I didn't seriously do that, nor did I proceed to form an argument against that position.. since you know, nobody actually believes it.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Oh I don't know, what's wrong with stripping rights guaranteed in the constitution? Perhaps freedom of speech will be next?
Pastor Martin frickin Niemoller, ladies and gentlemen.
Maybe then the next time some "responsible" gun owner and innocent civilian has a kid that wants to ventilate a local elementary school he'll have to do more than go rooting around in mommy's closet to get what he needs.
Does leaving firearms around for children to harm themselves and others sound responsible to you? It sure doesn't to me. obviously, there needs to be responsibility attached to every right.
Uhh gee, I thought only career criminals like Al Capone break laws. :crazy:

If there were meaningful laws covering who could own firearms, how they could be stored and so on and if those laws were enforced there would almost certainly be fewer gun deaths.
Making it harder to kill people is a good thing, even if a given change doesn't fix everything in and of itself.
only if the solution doesn't create more problems than it tries to solve, like starting or continuing a watering down of what it means to be free.
Funny you bring up the prohibition, most studies show that alcohol consumption fell (although certainly not to zero) during that time.
Lets argue about the validity of "studies" of acts done in secrecy...
It was against the law to consume alcohol, where did the data collectors get their stats?

Additionally, even if booze consumption dropped, organized crime certainly got a shot in the arm over prohibition...what makes you think the same wouldn't happen with guns?
I'm not going to get any further into this with you than this: they studied deaths by cirrhosis of the liver and other indicators of alcohol consumption.
I wonder how many lives would be saved by a comparable (30%) drop in gun ownership.. especially if that drop was comprised of the deadliest weapons or the weapons owned by the most menacing demographic or the least responsibly kept weapons?
Do you also think a 30 percent drop in computer availability would help in the reduction of teenagers commuting suicide over Facebook too?
Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to this.
London Met story....
The point of that story was that if the UK is a safer society because it prohibits guns, why does its police force operate like an elite special forces, theoretically the criminals here only have knives?
Ya, some people are always going to have guns. There goes my plan of establishing a completely gun-free society. :eh:
Well if the "criminal class" was solely responsible for gun deaths in the United States, or if illegally acquired firearms were the sole cause of gun deaths, you might have a leg to stand on....

And you're telling me that restricting the type of weapons sold, or regulating who can legally own guns, or regulating how they can be stored.. none of that is going to cut down on the number of gun deaths in the US? You can talk about fucking Al Capone all you want but Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother's closet.

...
To all of the above...what do you suppose committing murder or shooting an innocent bystander or leaving your firearms for innocent children to blow away their little buddies makes one????
A "bad guy" - which I guess by your reasoning means that nobody who ever commits a crime (you know, nobody who is "a bad guy") ever purchased the weapon they use to do so at Guns R Us. Too bad the facts don't back you up on that absolutely ludicrous claim.
That's right that would make you a criminal who doesn't respect the law. Who doesn't respect the rights they are born with.

And who should be held accountable for his actions...
duh huh. How do you hold someone who kills a bunch of people and them himself accountable, again?
as an aside, those stats where it says legally obtainable or acquired guns...do they bother to point out the difference between a gun that can be legally acquired and a legally acquirable gun with its numbers filed off...a slight difference don't you think?
Yeah actually, the difference is spelled out in my post if you'd bothered to read it carefully. The most common of the police shootings were the ones in which a legal gun owner used their legally obtained gun. If you add together the other instances in which a legally obtained gun was used by someone other than its legal owner (who was probably not storing it responsibly if they had it stolen, or do you think someone stole a gun with a trigger lock and then bothered to pick or break the lock on it when there are hundreds of millions of other firearms in that country) comprises a similar number.

..

But anyways this is all pointless and right now I am only arguing with your posts because it's fun to be so incredibly, one-sidedly correct - since you pretty much admitted earlier you are arguing against a complete straw man and actually hold similar views to mine (some weapons should be restricted, some people should not be able to own guns, guns should be stored in a safe and responsible manner, people who break these and other laws should be held accountable for their actions).

My last question would be though, how can you be in favour of free speech and in favour of people scratching, clawing and kicking to keep every bit of every aspect of their "rights" and still be in favour of legislation against hate speech? :look:

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by dbr » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:20 am

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote: homicide levels [in the UK] are just a third of what they are in the USA
Again with the stats eh? :hmmm:

Okay you asked for it, a little more perspective....

(right-click on the graphs and open them in a new window)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

*snip*

Of the 206 countries in the world, USA is #103.

Middle of the pack y'might say. :drink:
Hey Doc, you make a truly convincing argument: the United States of America truly is not among the worst of the third world countries on the planet. :look:
Some other interesting stats from that article:
In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."
Interesting, no?
It is. Honestly this is why I think nothing is going to be done about gun control in the US.. sure there is the odd blip like Sandy Hook or Columbine but mostly it is just second class citizens killing each other and it's not enough to risk alienating all the gun-loving, god-fearing Americans trying to do anything about it.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11498
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by RoyalDude » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:45 am

dbr wrote: Hey Doc, you make a truly convincing argument: the United States of America truly is not among the worst of the third world countries on the planet. :look:
lol

Anyhow, found another great heart warming gun acquiring murder weapon story in the Province this morning, headline reads something like 'Internet Company HELPS B.C. man buy murder weapon to kill ex-girlfriend in Chicago'. As Shell Bussy says "IT'S JUST THAT EASY FOLKS'! Story - http://www.theprovince.com/news/Armslis ... story.html
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by ukcanuck » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:46 am

dbr wrote:
Are you fucking kidding me? I don't know if anyone (except maybe RoyalDude, I can't manage more than a quick scan of his posts anymore) said anything even close to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

So your straw man "they're going to take our precious freedoms!" bullshit doesn't cut the mustard.
Actually it was Chez boyardee I was responding to that started this conversation, but I do realize that (and would expect) a more reasoned response from the regulars on here,
However, this forum isn't the only place people are talking and there are a lot of people I've heard anyway who are talking like the sky is falling and all guns need to go...

Instinctively I hate knee jerk solutions and I would point to Hitler's suspension of Germany's constitution in 1933 as a prime example of such.

Granted, Sandy hook as a tragedy is way more serious than the Reichstag fire, but as rabble rousing goes, I'd just rather not go headlong into crazy over reaction.


ukcanuck wrote:
dbr wrote:
Hey this is some super sound reasoning. Why not just stop having laws, since it doesn't seem to stop criminals from breaking them?
That's a slight exaggeration don't you think? How do you go from the sound logic that restricting legal weapons to prevent illegal ones being used in crimes won't work to well let's have no laws then?
Let's just say it's similar to going from "meaningful gun control helps reduce gun deaths" to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

Except I didn't seriously do that, nor did I proceed to form an argument against that position.. since you know, nobody actually believes it.
It seems we are arguing against ourselves here for no reason...
How about we say that somewhere between, "I shall have any gun I want, whenever or wherever I want, to "there is no good reason whatsoever to own a gun so lets ban them" lies the reasoned position?
What exactly is wrong with that?
Oh I don't know, what's wrong with stripping rights guaranteed in the constitution? Perhaps freedom of speech will be next?
Pastor Martin frickin Niemoller, ladies and gentlemen.
its not such a ridiculous position to take, have you been paying attention since 9/11? Home land security for starters...

Aside: I was absolutely stunned to find out you now need to produce your drivers license to be scanned to enter a night club in BC...doesn't that magnetic strip contain personal information...ahem, Right to privacy anyone?

Uhh gee, I thought only career criminals like Al Capone break laws. :crazy:
Ok if I concede that stricter gun control might have impeded Lanza enough to either delay his rampage or change it enough to result in a different outcome,
Would you admit that if there are less guns in the hands of the " good guys" (the other result of gun control) there will be less to stop the bad guys?

Btw I hope you aren't gonna say that's what the police are for ...


I'm not going to get any further into this with you than this: they studied deaths by cirrhosis of the liver and other indicators of alcohol consumption.
That's interesting, I have to admit I didn't think of that, however, wouldn't it make sense that if you take booze away from alcoholics they will die sooner and in bigger numbers from drinking bathtub gin, rubbing alcohol, or some other rot gut? Thereby skewing numbers? (off topic I know but interesting nonetheless)

Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to this.
Actually I kind of was, but only to point out the non sequitur. I can't see how a reliable inference could be drawn just by looking at numbers... You know, "lies, damn lies, and all that...
London Met story....
The point of that story was that if the UK is a safer society because it prohibits guns, why does its police force operate like an elite special forces, theoretically the criminals here only have knives?
Ya, some people are always going to have guns. There goes my plan of establishing a completely gun-free society. :eh:
Shame, would be a wonderful world...

A "bad guy" - which I guess by your reasoning means that nobody who ever commits a crime (you know, nobody who is "a bad guy") ever purchased the weapon they use to do so at Guns R Us. Too bad the facts don't back you up on that absolutely ludicrous claim.
Okay your point that there is a death toll related to the existence of guns in society is point taken, but that in of itself is not enough reason to control them beyond the intentions of existing laws.
Lets just enforce what's on the books already...
(For the life of me I can't figure out why that's such a clusterfuck by the way, its not like the technology doesn't exist..)
duh huh. How do you hold someone who kills a bunch of people and them himself accountable, again?
How hard is it to attach a serial number to the rightful purchaser and owner and hold that guy responsible for that weapon a long as he owns it?
Would it be that difficult to hold the guy who owns the gun at least partially responsible for any deaths that occur from the use of that gun...Even if he didn't pull the trigger himself?

The way I see it, like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is a noble ideal, however if someone else loses their rights in the process- obviously that's a major league fail.

mechanisms need to be in place to prevent that, but the sticky part is how to di that without "infringement"

One way is to track the guns from manufacture to destruction, a monumental task in the past, but with data collection technology in existence now, not so impossible. ..

But anyways this is all pointless and right now I am only arguing with your posts because it's fun to be so incredibly, one-sidedly correct - since you pretty much admitted earlier you are arguing against a complete straw man and actually hold similar views to mine
You're welcome, however, I'm not sure you agree with the right to bear arms as sacrosanct.

(some weapons should be restricted, some people should not be able to own guns, guns should be stored in a safe and responsible manner, people who break these and other laws should be held accountable for their actions).
That's a reasonable position alright, but the trouble I see with it is the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment. How does limiting my ability to bear certain arms jibe with that I'm not sure...throw in state level constitutions and its a hodgepodge...
My last question would be though, how can you be in favour of free speech and in favour of people scratching, clawing and kicking to keep every bit of every aspect of their "rights" and still be in favour of legislation against hate speech? :look:
I don't really know how to answer that other than to say I recognize my rights can't infringe your rights...

If my words or my gun hurts you then I'm in the wrong..

I will say however one huge reason I argue against gun control as a response to Sandy Hook is that I don't want people to go "Ok ban automatic weapons and problem solved" that sucks because whatever is going on is systemic and its way deeper than gun control.

letting what's going with these kids destroying themselves be about gun control is crime in of itself.

HockeyGeek
CC Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:21 am

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by HockeyGeek » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:02 pm

Man, there is a boatload of stupid on both sides of the fence in this discussion. The problem with using statistics in an argument is that people don't see how many variables go into each statistic. It is so easy to say gun ownership rates have a direct correlation to homicide rates. It's also easy to blame a certain ethnicity for bloated homicide rates as was done earlier in this thread, however things aren't nearly as simple as that. As I mentioned earlier, there are many variables that oftentimes get overlooked when people start quoting statistics. The big ones are population density, education level, socioeconomic standing, and yes, how easy it is to acquire firearms. Plainly speaking, you pack a bunch of poor uneducated people into a small place and give them a bunch of guns and surprise surprise there are a lot of murders. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

As for the whole debate over high powered semi-automatic weapons and mass murders, some people seems to think if those weapons are removed from the equation mass murders will go away. On the other side of the argument some people think identifying people more at risk to commit these mass murders before they happen is the key. No and no. Everyone has their breaking point. For some it's earlier than others. When some people break they want to hurt as many people as possible. Identifying these people before they commit these mass murders would only be possible in an Orwellian world where everything we do is monitored, recorded and analyzed. The resources required to do this on a country-wide scale simply don't exist. So these kinds of mass murders will continue to happen. The only thing we can do is try to limit their effectiveness. If it becomes harder for someone to acquire weapons that make it easier to kill at a faster rate then we give potential victims more of a fighting chance to get away or stop their assailant. Common sense people, use it.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by dbr » Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:37 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
dbr wrote:
Are you fucking kidding me? I don't know if anyone (except maybe RoyalDude, I can't manage more than a quick scan of his posts anymore) said anything even close to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

So your straw man "they're going to take our precious freedoms!" bullshit doesn't cut the mustard.
Actually it was Chez boyardee I was responding to that started this conversation, but I do realize that (and would expect) a more reasoned response from the regulars on here,
However, this forum isn't the only place people are talking and there are a lot of people I've heard anyway who are talking like the sky is falling and all guns need to go...

Instinctively I hate knee jerk solutions and I would point to Hitler's suspension of Germany's constitution in 1933 as a prime example of such.

Granted, Sandy hook as a tragedy is way more serious than the Reichstag fire, but as rabble rousing goes, I'd just rather not go headlong into crazy over reaction.
Another example of "headlong into crazy" or "knee jerk" might be bringing up the Nazis in a discussion about gun control. :lol:

Anyway yeah I should have known that kind of posting was probably the end result of someone taking RD far too seriously, I'm sure you know old line (Mark Twain I think?) about arguing with idiots.
Let's just say it's similar to going from "meaningful gun control helps reduce gun deaths" to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

Except I didn't seriously do that, nor did I proceed to form an argument against that position.. since you know, nobody actually believes it.
It seems we are arguing against ourselves here for no reason...

How about we say that somewhere between, "I shall have any gun I want, whenever or wherever I want, to "there is no good reason whatsoever to own a gun so lets ban them" lies the reasoned position?
Yeah. That position is what I have occupied, and what you've occupied as well. Except you departed from there to make a bunch of goofy statements about how we might as well giftwrap our free speech rights. :sly:
Pastor Martin frickin Niemoller, ladies and gentlemen.
its not such a ridiculous position to take, have you been paying attention since 9/11? Home land security for starters...

Aside: I was absolutely stunned to find out you now need to produce your drivers license to be scanned to enter a night club in BC...doesn't that magnetic strip contain personal information...ahem, Right to privacy anyone?
Yeah our rights and freedoms are being trampled left right and center. I'm not saying I'm in favour of that in principle, in case you hadn't gathered that yet.

I'm saying that someone's right to buy an assault rifle and leave it standing in the corner behind their front door with the safety off isn't as important as say, someone's else's right to live.

Whether the US government recognizes that and implements significant and standardized gun control along with meaningful encforcement of it or not, other encroachments on the rights of citizens of that country will continue to happen and it will be up to those citizens to stand up against it.
Uhh gee, I thought only career criminals like Al Capone break laws. :crazy:
Ok if I concede that stricter gun control might have impeded Lanza enough to either delay his rampage or change it enough to result in a different outcome,
Would you admit that if there are less guns in the hands of the " good guys" (the other result of gun control) there will be less to stop the bad guys?

Btw I hope you aren't gonna say that's what the police are for ...
There's not much point in speculating about what exactly might have been different in the Sandy Hook shooting.. anyway as Topper said Connecticut has meaningful gun control on the books already.

What is worth considering as that stricter gun control across the US might stop thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.

To me a gun in the hands of a "good guy" (and I used "bad guy" in quotes because I don't want someone thinking I would seriously use such a ridiculous blanket statement, switching over the "good guys" isn't a big improvement on that) being some kind of saving grace is a myth.

Show me a case of an honest citizing whipping out their firearm to stop someone from putting the lives of innocent people in jeopardy and I'll show you a handful of firefights (and dead "innocent bystanders".. remember them?).


I'm not going to get any further into this with you than this: they studied deaths by cirrhosis of the liver and other indicators of alcohol consumption.
That's interesting, I have to admit I didn't think of that, however, wouldn't it make sense that if you take booze away from alcoholics they will die sooner and in bigger numbers from drinking bathtub gin, rubbing alcohol, or some other rot gut? Thereby skewing numbers? (off topic I know but interesting nonetheless)
Yeah maybe, I don't know. My point is simply that you can't argue "see people kept drinking during the Prohibition so there's no point in having gun control."
Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to this.
Actually I kind of was, but only to point out the non sequitur. I can't see how a reliable inference could be drawn just by looking at numbers... You know, "lies, damn lies, and all that...
Well I am not saying "introduce X law and you will see a Y decrease in fatalities," I am just saying that with thousands and thousands of people dying every year in a nation with millions and millions of guns, cutting down on access to firearms would probably cut down the number of related deaths. I wouldn't even attempt to guess how many.
duh huh. How do you hold someone who kills a bunch of people and them himself accountable, again?
How hard is it to attach a serial number to the rightful purchaser and owner and hold that guy responsible for that weapon a long as he owns it?
Would it be that difficult to hold the guy who owns the gun at least partially responsible for any deaths that occur from the use of that gun...Even if he didn't pull the trigger himself?
Well in the case of Nancy Lanza, I don't think she's too worried about being held accountable for the deaths of 26 others. Certainly no more than Adam Lanza is, anyway.

But.. if people who purchased firearms knew that they would be held responsible for the future use of those firearms I would imagine they'd have far more incentive to keep them safely.

(That being said, can you imagine how loud the gun lobby would be howling about the first accessory-to-murder charge placed on an NRA member who had their car stolen or their house broken into? I would bet a law like that would be thrown out of court before the ink was dry on the page..)
But anyways this is all pointless and right now I am only arguing with your posts because it's fun to be so incredibly, one-sidedly correct - since you pretty much admitted earlier you are arguing against a complete straw man and actually hold similar views to mine
You're welcome, however, I'm not sure you agree with the right to bear arms as sacrosanct.
Well whatever. I'm no more committed to the principle that people have a sacred right to own firearms than I am to the notion that there is no need for firearms beyond law enforcement, war and hunting.

I don't see any reason to "ban" guns just like I don't see any reason to let everyone/anyone own military grade weaponry willy nilly.
(some weapons should be restricted, some people should not be able to own guns, guns should be stored in a safe and responsible manner, people who break these and other laws should be held accountable for their actions).
That's a reasonable position alright, but the trouble I see with it is the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment. How does limiting my ability to bear certain arms jibe with that I'm not sure...throw in state level constitutions and its a hodgepodge...
Yeah it would be a god damned quagmire trying to achieve meaningful change to this kind of policy on a national level in that country.

Thankfully for current politicians those who have joined the group pushing for it in the last month have short memories.. the rest can go on being ignored just like they were over the last couple decades.
My last question would be though, how can you be in favour of free speech and in favour of people scratching, clawing and kicking to keep every bit of every aspect of their "rights" and still be in favour of legislation against hate speech? :look:
I don't really know how to answer that other than to say I recognize my rights can't infringe your rights...

If my words or my gun hurts you then I'm in the wrong..

I will say however one huge reason I argue against gun control as a response to Sandy Hook is that I don't want people to go "Ok ban automatic weapons and problem solved" that sucks because whatever is going on is systemic and its way deeper than gun control.

letting what's going with these kids destroying themselves be about gun control is crime in of itself.
Well it's clearly not just about gun control.

It's also about mental health, but you'd have an easier time collecting and destroying every firearm in the USA than you would ensuring that people experiencing mental health crises got both the acute and the long term care and support they needed to ideally recover, or even just stop their lives from sliding down the tubes.

It's about half a dozen other things as well but they are even more nebulous and even harder to fix. Fixing the one most obvious problem here and ignoring the others isn't a good thing, but it's one step better than doing nothing (which is a real possibility here, since the NRA's cracker jack plan isn't going to be implemented either).

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3560
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Booth kills baited bear

Post by Per » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:12 am

It's both about not adressing mental health problems and access to fire arms. What would happen if you just address access to guns? You'd probably see more articles like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world ... .html?_r=0

Please note the difference in the number of casualties, compared to the Newtown massacre.
Last edited by Per on Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

Post Reply