I Support Gun Rights. I Support Sensible Gun Control.
Post ReplyPost New TopicPosted 12/20/2012 by mapchic in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
 

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:29:42 AM

I have been reading all the reasons why guns owners feel they should have guns.

What I have decided it all means, when you cut through all the crap, is gun owners are ok with the mass murders of innocents, including children, just as long as they can keep their guns.

Fine. End of discussion.


Yes, that's EXACTLY what we are saying.
Go on, end the discussion, people like you are not into actually discussing issues anyway. You don't want to understand the other side, you don't want to compromise. You just want what you want and that's that. "Guns are evil. Why? Because they kill" umm...ok. It's just like pro-life people "Abortion is evil! Why? Because it kills babies!" That's not a rational discussion, that's not seeing the gray instead of just black and white. Ignoring every reason put forth by the other side is immature and dare I say ignorant. But you go on with your bad self, end the discussion. Until today I ended my discussion, because of people like and you people like Mrs. T on either side. Being in the middle of you all is exhausting and accomplishes nothing. And that's exactly what both sides will accomplish - NOTHING.




Meow!

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,668
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:35:01 AM

1) you must not know how to read because that is NOT AT ALL what gun owners have been saying.

2) I don't care what YOU have "decided".

3) YOU don't get to decide when the discussion has ended.



My my I must have hit a nerve. There is nothing wrong with my understanding of what is being discussed on this thread. Like I said, once you cut through all the crap it becomes really clear on how gun owners feel. You choose not to see it as it makes you and other gun owers look , what should we say, oh how about callous.


gar
Whoopea!

PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 15,219
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:51:11 AM

The discussion is over FOR YOU because nobody is going to take your opinion seriously when you dismiss everyone else


Except everyone isn't dismissing this line of thinking. There are many Americans, it would seem, who are very uncomfortable with the situation you are currently facing and are prepared to think radically about how things need to change.

Also, I saw this question (below) earlier (and it was one I asked myself I believe) and unless I missed it no one has responded.


If we have to put armed guards in schools where does it end? What do we do lynlam, put armed guards in all public places and businesses? Do firemen have to respond to a fire with armed guards? Put them on every street cornor?




Where does it end? What do your streets look like in 5 or 10 years time?





"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stephen Roberts


huskergal
Shameless Husker Fan

PeaNut 49,249
September 2002
Posts: 49,515
Layouts: 123
Loc: Husker Nation

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:56:25 AM
Way more freedoms are being lost if we have to have armed guards everywhere to protect the public than having more restrictions on gun ownership.


Susan



moretimeplease
PeaNut

PeaNut 85,465
May 2003
Posts: 480
Layouts: 1
Loc: Minnesota

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:00:27 PM

Owning a gun does not in and of itself infringe on the rights of someone else, and we don't make laws that make things illegal based on what someone may do

I see this argument used all the time, that we don't make things illegal just because of what CAN be done it. Not true, and not logical. By that logic, people should be able to own nuclear warheads, grow fields of marijuana, buy all the Sudafed they want, and compile 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

The people who express the sentiment about "prying my guns from my cold dead heads" sound a lot like Timothy McVeigh did when he was distributing gun rights literature in protest of the Waco siege.

And yes, I know the response will be that Sudafed and ammonium nitrate aren't specifically protected by the 2nd amendment. Please, for the sake of argument, use a different rationale to respond to the logic conundrum above. I'd like to know if anyone can, without that fallback response.


~Teri~

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:03:42 PM
Gar -- No, armed guards everywhere are not the answer. But until all illegal guns are removed from the streets those on the middle of the issue will not budge. Many gun owners own guns to protect themselves against criminals. Those do not mind the registration, the rules, etc. By taking away guns from legal owners you're not solving the issue of illegal guns, which is the bigger problem here. Once the criminals are disarmed, people will gladly give up their guns, except the extreme right. But you have to get the middle on your side. Left yelling at right is not going to accomplish that.




Meow!

AmeliaBloomer
BucketHead

PeaNut 509,476
May 2011
Posts: 695
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:06:25 PM

[My friends] love Oak Park and spend a lot of time there but they live in another suburb nearby and won't move to OP bc the husband would have to give up his collection to live there  


As a resident, I sincerely admire your friend for choosing to honor our former handgun ban. Tell him he can move here now. The Supreme Court declared our ban illegal in 2010. (We were the "et al" in the Chicago case.) From what you say, it sounds like he would be a responsible and conscientious gun owner, and respect other village ordinances.

The village still, though, attracts a lot of people who don't own guns, despite the reversal of the law. We also attract heaps of...erm...impassioned attention from the Illinois Rifle Association - most recently when we tried to prevent a gun shop from opening here. We became frequent fodder in the IRA's online forum and they exhorted members to flood our village trustees meetings. Carpetbagging at its finest.




AmeliaBloomer
BucketHead

PeaNut 509,476
May 2011
Posts: 695
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:07:43 PM

And honestly, being afraid for every possible place your child has ever played or spent time is a really pathetic way to live. Teach your children about guns... But to sit there and live every day with worry that they might be playing at a house that might possibly just maybe have a gun or at a place where someone who might be mentally unstable might happen to live... Wow. That is no way to live. I could not imagine living in such fear over what-if scenarios.


Mrs. Tyler,

I think you're responding to me. I generally do not respond to you because we have such different posting styles, exemplified here with your conclusion that mine is a "really pathetic way to live."

No, I am not surprised that you can not imagine living with the fear I have of guns, just as I can not imagine living as you do, with fear over other "what-if scenarios" that I have seen you express in countless threads.

The difference between us is that I would choose very different language to explain that to you.




jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,578
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:19:04 PM

Fine. We won't curtail gun ownership. So can we curtail gun usage?


We already do. Which means the laws aren't the problem. People are, and that is something that we are not taking seriously.


I am well aware we are not a Democracy. I also disagree with you on the idea that the United States is suddenly goin to turn into WWII Germany. I see no Hitler-ian leader in the horizon.


Then why do you keep using the term Democracy to describe our form of government? The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent a Hitler-ian leader from taking over. Do you honestly think that you would know it if you saw it? I don't think that any of our current leaders have that mentality, but a future leader might, and when you weaken the constitution, you give them more power. For instance, before FDR, it was just assumed due to tradition that a President would only serve two terms. But we dodged a bullet with him, considering that his wife wanted him to take over as a dictator. Had he lived, he might have. Thank goodness, congress and the states saw fit to make an amendment to limit the term a president can serve.


Exactly. We shouldn't make laws based on what may happen. So preparing for a political Armaggedon by stockpiling guns should be equally inappropriate, in your eyes.


We aren't making any new laws. We're observing those in place. The constitution is not a list of rights granted to the people by the government. The constitution is a list of what is inherently the rights of the people with or without the government, and a limitation on the scope of what a centralized government can become. That's why many progressives have not liked the constitution, because it severely limits them.


How do we curtail illegal gun use, then, in a "constitutionally appropriate manner?"


The same way we curtail anything we don't want people to do. You change their behavior and mentality. The problem is never going to be the weapon of choice, it is the mentality of the person behind it. That's what is really frightening to people, because they know that there will always be people who are dangerous. So they feel safer into fooling themselves that gun control will stop that person from creating violence.


The point being, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are ideals for which (you would expect) most Americans, humans even, would rally around and put down their lives for. Because these are high ideals. These are WORTH dieing for. And many have.


This is where I think we are just not seeing things from the same perspective. Gun owners firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was written expressly to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and they feel an infringement on that right puts those ideals at risk. And our military men and women fought to defend the constitution. The entire constitution, including the 2nd amendment. Our founding fathers wouldn't be upset, they wrote the 2nd amendment. They knew why they included it. What they would be upset by is a culture and society that glorifies violence in and condemns it at the same time.


What I have decided it all means, when you cut through all the crap, is gun owners are ok with the mass murders of innocents, including children, just as long as they can keep their guns.


You are entitled to your opinion. No matter how narrow minded and judgmental it is.



jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,578
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:28:54 PM

I see this argument used all the time, that we don't make things illegal just because of what CAN be done it. Not true, and not logical. By that logic, people should be able to own nuclear warheads, grow fields of marijuana, buy all the Sudafed they want, and compile 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.


Well I am actually for the decriminalization of drug use. The laws on drug use have had no positive effects. In fact they've done the opposite, they've contributed to the violence, and we still haven't decreased drug usage.

And it's always interesting that in order to oppose gun rights, gun control advocates always go to the extremes of nuclear weapons being in everyone's hands. I think it is safe to say that WMD is a good and reasonable limitation on the second amendment.


Where does it end? What do your streets look like in 5 or 10 years time?


Unless we change our culture of violence, it won't matter whether there are guns or not, they will not be any safer.


Way more freedoms are being lost if we have to have armed guards everywhere to protect the public than having more restrictions on gun ownership.


Ask yourself why there is increasing violence, increasing crime, etc. Once we figure out that, we won't need the placebo, we'll have the vaccine. And I would say, armed guards are nothing new. They've been used to protect different businesses and aspects of society forever. I don't understand why people don't focus on the WHY more than they do the WHAT.



AmeliaBloomer
BucketHead

PeaNut 509,476
May 2011
Posts: 695
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:04:20 PM

Amelia, let me put it another way.

I am concerned for you. You seem to be living a life based in fear of every possible evil and bad thing that could befall you and your children. I can only imagine how debilitating that kind of fear would be in your life and, if I were prone to those intense worries, I would seek therapy to help free myself from that kind of fear before it prevented me from truly getting the most out of life. I hope you can find a way to live free of the fears you expressed and also realize it can't be found by trying to take away legal gun ownership from law-abiding citizens.


Oh, for the love of Myrtle.

-You expressed strong puzzlement for how anybody could be afraid of "an inanimate object."
-I answered by explaining that I have well-founded fears, based on statistics, of gun accidents and tragedies in homes because of panic, irresponsible behavior by the owner, or poor choices by children or teens.
-Now you're gravely concerned that I'm consumed with fear and you've written a well-intentioned post recommending therapy?

I feel fortunate that my children grew up in our town during the tenure of our 20 year handgun ban. I feel fortunate that I seldom had to ask the parents of playmates if they had a gun in their house. My friend, who is an emergency room doc
, asks this question of the parents of every potential play date. Unlike me, she was not assuaged by assurances that a gun was locked up. She has seen WAY too many accidental shootings.

I'm sitting on an el train right now, going through the west side of Chicago (which I'm sure you've heard about). I am quite certain that at least one person in my car is carrying a gun, and probably for nefarious reasons. I am not quaking. I seldom quake.

Yes, I am afraid of this joker's "inanimate object," just as I'm afraid of many homeowners' inanimate objects. Like a previous poster, I don't believe most people have any need for a gun, although I understand it is perfectly legal.

I was trying to join the thread by responding to you and others. Your disagreement with me has ratcheted the discourse to a level where you believe I am in need of serious psychiatric intervention. Because I doubt even this post will help you understand what I'm trying to say, I don't believe it will be productive to respond again.

Besides, I'm almost at my stop.



moretimeplease
PeaNut

PeaNut 85,465
May 2003
Posts: 480
Layouts: 1
Loc: Minnesota

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:34:43 PM

I think it is safe to say that WMD is a good and reasonable limitation on the second amendment

Surely you realize then that many, many of us feel that putting restrictions on private gun ownership (registration, limits to the number and type owned, licensing, tracking sales, background checks, mental fitness exams, etc.) is a good and reasonable limitation on the second amendment.

And the quoted statement does contradict your stance that the inanimate object isn't to be blamed and shouldn't be banned or restricted.



~Teri~

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:41:52 PM

I think it is safe to say that WMD is a good and reasonable limitation on the second amendment

Surely you realize then that many, many of us feel that putting restrictions on private gun ownership (registration, limits to the number and type owned, licensing, tracking sales, background checks, mental fitness exams, etc.) is a good and reasonable limitation on the second amendment.


WMD's serve no other purpose other than to wipe out a large chunk of population. Unlike guns that can be used for hunting and personal protection. Let's not get ridiculous here, please.




Meow!

jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,578
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 4:46:43 PM

Surely you realize then that many, many of us feel that putting restrictions on private gun ownership (registration, limits to the number and type owned, licensing, tracking sales, background checks, mental fitness exams, etc.) is a good and reasonable limitation on the second amendment.


Change the amendment to another one such as the right to vote. Doesn't sound so reasonable now does it? Should we do background checks or mental fitness exams to see if someone has the right to vote? Should we make people license their Bibles or Korans? I can understand why some people don't like guns. I really do. But until the 2nd amendment is gone, there will always be guns.

Aside from that. Guns are not the problem. It is their illegal use. And that mentality can't be fixed just by limiting access to guns. Again. Focus on the Why, not the What.

I would also say that fortunately because we are a Republic, the majority doesn't rule, so even if the majority want to get rid of the second amendment, they are going to have a tough fight. The Supreme Court has been pretty adamant on the 2nd amendment with recent rulings, regardless of what the majority feel.


I also know many think that the UN's passage of the small arms treaty means that if the US signs on, we can do away with the 2nd amendment that way. Wouldn't happen. One, the Supreme Court would likely not allow it, and two, that's the very reason gun rights advocates fight so hard. Not just to protect us from a corrupt government, but to protect us from any rule by outside quasi government units.



leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,078
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 12/27/2012 4:59:44 PM

Like I said, once you cut through all the crap it becomes really clear on how gun owners feel. You choose not to see it as it makes you and other gun owers look , what should we say, oh how about callous.



Calloused, meaning having a tougher skin due to repeated abrasion. Feelings that aren't always worn on the sleeve but are dealt with in a more rational manner.

In this situation, I think that's a pretty good adjective.



It is far different from not caring about slaughtered children, however. A point you have yet to realize.








If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,078
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 12/27/2012 5:21:01 PM

This is where I think we are just not seeing things from the same perspective. Gun owners firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was written expressly to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and they feel an infringement on that right puts those ideals at risk. And our military men and women fought to defend the constitution. The entire constitution, including the 2nd amendment. Our founding fathers wouldn't be upset, they wrote the 2nd amendment. They knew why they included it.




This is what I've been saying.



The difference between us is that I would choose very different language to explain that to you.








If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,668
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/27/2012 6:25:18 PM
How about lack of compassion? Or how about I don't give a damn as long as it doesn't happen to me or my family? Is that better?

You know letfturnonly. If "Responsible" gun owner really cared about slaughtered innocent children I mean really cared they would be leading the charge to solve the problem instead of hiding behind the 2nd amendment.

So far they have blamed the problem on the mentally ill and video games. With no solid proof I might add. Just pure speculation.

The only solution that has been offered is armed guards in schools. To me that is not an option because to do that admits defeat. Admitting the problem can't be solved. Why in the hell should children have to go schools with armed guards? When did that become ok?


jodster70
To the right, To the right

PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 6,190
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:25:20 PM

They dearly value the life of these innocent children far more than they value a gun. They want people to be free and be able to pursue a full life. They want their families to be safe just like you do.

They are very consistent in believing that the tougher the gun laws, the less safe all of us are. They see massacres in gun-free zones, shake their heads and wonder why anyone is surprised.

It's a completely different perspective, and it is far from not caring about the lives that have been destroyed.


Exactly Lefty. Very well put.

I truly appreciate those of you who are having a reasonable, thoughtful discussion about this topic on both sides.


**Jody**

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

sylvia71
I am Spartacus

PeaNut 16,364
June 2001
Posts: 7,993
Layouts: 2
Loc: Fore! More Years

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:26:36 PM

You know letfturnonly. If "Responsible" gun owner really cared about slaughtered innocent children I mean really cared they would be leading the charge to solve the problem instead of hiding behind the 2nd amendment.

So if responsible gun owners don't agree with you, they don't care about murdered kids??

Go fuck yourself.



So far they have blamed the problem on the mentally ill and video games. With no solid proof I might add. Just pure speculation.
You don't care about proof.
You don't have any proof that gun restrictions would stop mass shootings. If fact there is proof of the opposite.



The only solution that has been offered is armed guards in schools. To me that is not an option because to do that admits defeat. Admitting the problem can't be solved. Why in the hell should children have to go schools with armed guards? When did that become ok?

So they have offered a solution then? It's just that you don't agree with it.
So, you'd rather not have to "admit defeat" by having armed guards...than protect school children??

Wow, It appears that you are the one that doesn't care about the slaughtered innocent children.



_______________________________________

You're so vain, I bet you think this sig line is about you.

________________________

Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money. Joseph Sobran





sylvia71
I am Spartacus

PeaNut 16,364
June 2001
Posts: 7,993
Layouts: 2
Loc: Fore! More Years

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:29:29 PM

I truly appreciate those of you who are having a reasonable, thoughtful discussion about this topic on both sides.


Sorry, when someone says I don't care about dead kids... They can go fuck themselves.



_______________________________________

You're so vain, I bet you think this sig line is about you.

________________________

Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money. Joseph Sobran





Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,668
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:35:40 PM
"the gun itself is not the source of the problem"

But it is the means.

I assure you that if I was to kill someone I would not use a knife. I would not use a car. I would not use a bow & arrow. I would use a gun because it is fast. It is efficient. And it will do the job because that is why guns were invented. To kill.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the ready availability of guns give these wackos the courge to kill as many people as they can?

I hVe no doubt you were upset after the shooting. But now you're hiding behind the 2nd amendment spouting you're little scernerio about armed guards in school and that its acceptable. The sad part is is that you don't undestand that IT IS NOT acceptable. It should never be acceptable under any circumstances.

jodster70
To the right, To the right

PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 6,190
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:44:35 PM
Sylvia...

Believe me, as one who supports gun rights, I completely understand why you're so insulted. I'm to the point where those people are about to go on ignore. If that's their attitude, then I don't need to waste my time reading what they have to say, because what they say has no value to me.

However, we're never going to get anywhere if all we ever do is argue, and that's what I was talking about. People who are earnestly trying to understand the other side's POV so that we can make reasonable changes to gun laws are who I was talking to.


**Jody**

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

look4angel
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,811
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn

Posted: 12/27/2012 8:53:07 PM

"the gun itself is not the source of the problem"

But it is the means.

I assure you that if I was to kill someone I would not use a knife. I would not use a car. I would not use a bow & arrow. I would use a gun because it is fast. It is efficient. And it will do the job because that is why guns were invented. To kill.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the ready availability of guns give these wackos the courage to kill as many people as they can?

I have no doubt you were upset after the shooting. But now you're hiding behind the 2nd amendment spouting you're little scernerio about armed guards in school and that its acceptable. The sad part is is that you don't understand that IT IS NOT acceptable. It should never be acceptable under any circumstances.

ITA with this, just because armed guards, (and that is what they are, no matter what title you want to give them, because if they were just liaison officers, they won't need guns, only guards need guns)is acceptable to you, doesn't make them acceptable to EVERYONE.

The majority of America wants stricter gun controls, not banning, but every time ANY type of tighter restrictions are mentioned here they are shot down because it infringes on "their" rights, what about "our" rights, and our children's rights not be subjected to your guns? Our freedom's, and right's are just as important as yours.

Yet the majority of gun owners have yet to put forth any new restrictions that the rest of the "gun owners" find acceptable. SO what are they specifically, not just generic quotes about restrictions what are those restrictions that responsible gun owner's can agree to that wacko owners will approve? Bans on clips, bans on semi automatics, limits on ammunition, what? Instead of just bashing everyone, provide solutions to the gun problems, with what would pass...specifically.

There also has not been any real solutions put forth as to when will all the "armed guards" end. Will they next be in shopping malls, theaters, kid's sporting events, etc. etc. etc...? Gun owner's solution to this is "we" non gun owners, must now arm ourselves to protect ourselves from you...I for one will not be supporting ANY gun shop with the purchase of a gun, and I'm sure there are many other people out there that feel the same as I do.

As for sane "responsible" gun owners, sometimes all it takes is one break up with a girlfriend, ex-wife, losing a job, losing child custody case, one too many drinks, etc.. for that "responsible" gun owner to become an "irresponsible gun owner", for that gun to kill someone.



Check out my blog at:
Scrap-aholic blog
My Pinterest
My Design Teams:
Picture That Sound

look4angel
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,811
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn

Posted: 12/27/2012 9:25:18 PM

As for sane "responsible" gun owners, sometimes all it takes is one break up with a girlfriend, ex-wife, losing a job, losing child custody case, one too many drinks, etc.. for that "responsible" gun owner to become an "irresponsible gun owner", for that gun to kill someone.

So are we going to ban automobiles too? Because the same argument can be made about personal catastrophe turning a 'responsible driver' into someone who kills himself and takes out family and strangers while he's at it using the means of a car.


We already have stricter laws on cars than we currently have on guns! Currently you have to register ALL cars, are required to have insurance, and a title if it is sold, and an up to date license for the car and the driver proving they know how to drive the car.

You'll not find nearly as many laws for guns, so if they want to start requiring gun owners to have the same laws as car owner/drivers, that is at least a start..


Check out my blog at:
Scrap-aholic blog
My Pinterest
My Design Teams:
Picture That Sound

TraceyS
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 25,442
December 2001
Posts: 2,782
Layouts: 16
Loc: Kentucky

Posted: 12/27/2012 9:27:00 PM
I have a little trouble with the notion that sane, rational people are only one "bad news" away from a killing rampage.

I've grown up around guns, knew where they were kept when I was younger, and have my own now. I've been drunk, fired from a job, disappointed by friends, relatives, and employers, and betrayed in the worst possible way by a man I thought would love me forever.

But in all of that, never once has it ever even passed through my mind that I should shoot someone. It really isn't like we are all sitting around waiting for someone to "make our day." The only way I use a gun against someone else is if I believe that it is them or me (or my child, or some other innocent party). I hope that day never comes.

look4angel
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,811
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn

Posted: 12/27/2012 9:27:14 PM

Actually, the police officers who work in schools are called Liaison officers. They carry a gun because they are police officers for the city. They are liaisons because they work in a public school building. They are not called armed guards. They don't sit and guard the doors. They have other duties. Regardless of what you imagine or want to call them. And just because you're unnecessarily scared of the idea of having armed police officers in every school doesn't mean it's not a good idea.


and just because you like it doesn't mean everyone else does either. Man + gun = guard. I was a Liaison officer for the Navy, I was not required to have a gun to be one.


Check out my blog at:
Scrap-aholic blog
My Pinterest
My Design Teams:
Picture That Sound

look4angel
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,811
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn

Posted: 12/27/2012 9:32:17 PM

I have a little trouble with the notion that sane, rational people are only one "bad news" away from a killing rampage.

I've grown up around guns, knew where they were kept when I was younger, and have my own now. I've been drunk, fired from a job, disappointed by friends, relatives, and employers, and betrayed in the worst possible way by a man I thought would love me forever.

But in all of that, never once has it ever even passed through my mind that I should shoot someone. It really isn't like we are all sitting around waiting for someone to "make our day." The only way I use a gun against someone else is if I believe that it is them or me (or my child, or some other innocent party). I hope that day never comes.


Great for you, but you are totally ignoring the fact that it happens, and until it happened that person was probably considered a responsible gun owner.


Check out my blog at:
Scrap-aholic blog
My Pinterest
My Design Teams:
Picture That Sound

jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,578
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 10:14:22 PM

But it is the means.

I assure you that if I was to kill someone I would not use a knife. I would not use a car. I would not use a bow & arrow. I would use a gun because it is fast. It is efficient. And it will do the job because that is why guns were invented. To kill.


And I can assure you that if a gun wasn't available, a person who has snapped will use whatever they have at hand.

We need to put more focus on WHY this is happening, and not WHAT is being used to do it. There is something broken in our society.



look4angel
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,811
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn

Posted: 12/27/2012 10:21:41 PM

But it is the means.

I assure you that if I was to kill someone I would not use a knife. I would not use a car. I would not use a bow & arrow. I would use a gun because it is fast. It is efficient. And it will do the job because that is why guns were invented. To kill.


And I can assure you that if a gun wasn't available, a person who has snapped will use whatever they have at hand.

We need to put more focus on WHY this is happening, and not WHAT is being used to do it. There is something broken in our society.

And what you are missing it that when it happens with a gun it's easier to kill a large amount of people quickly, and with deadly force. You are also missing that fact that "WHY" it's happening is because we have so many guns available in this country. You could analyze "why" till the cows come home and still find thousands of answers, and even more questions but the "how" in this topic is still guns.


Check out my blog at:
Scrap-aholic blog
My Pinterest
My Design Teams:
Picture That Sound

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,078
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:53:51 PM

You know letfturnonly. If "Responsible" gun owner really cared about slaughtered innocent children I mean really cared they would be leading the charge to solve the problem instead of hiding behind the 2nd amendment.


You know, Krazy, if people were "good", I mean really good people, they'd all embrace my religion. They'd be clamoring to learn more so they could convert as soon as possible.

There's a flaw in that logic, and it's the same flaw found in your argument.

You are assuming that not only do you have all the answers, but you are projecting an interpretation of a value onto others that they just do not hold.


People are not hiding behind the 2nd amendment. In fact, they aren't hiding at all. They are boldly supporting the rights that they have as we currently legally understand them.

Do you think Congress is doing a wonderful job? I sure don't! Why in the world would you expect law abiding citizens who think our current Congress is failing to be capable of making good new law regarding our 2nd amendment when they've refused to even allow a vote in the Senate for a budget for 3 solid years now?

That's the very definition of irresponsible to so many.







If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,578
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/27/2012 11:55:24 PM

You are also missing that fact that "WHY" it's happening is because we have so many guns available in this country.


If you think people are violent because of the existence of guns, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that someone want to commit mass acts of violence won't find a way without guns, you are mistaken. There is a reason that these people are going out and committing mass murder, and it isn't because the gun is telling them to do it.



look4angel
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 49,444
September 2002
Posts: 2,811
Layouts: 181
Loc: Tn

Posted: 12/28/2012 12:21:09 AM

You are also missing that fact that "WHY" it's happening is because we have so many guns available in this country.


If you think people are violent because of the existence of guns, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that someone want to commit mass acts of violence won't find a way without guns, you are mistaken. There is a reason that these people are going out and committing mass murder, and it isn't because the gun is telling them to do it.


I am neither sadly mistaken, or do I misunderstand that the relation of guns available vs the number of people killed by them is directly related, as other countries with stricter gun laws have statics to prove. When less guns are available, then less people are killed with them. You are mistaken if you are ignoring those facts.

Do I think there is always going to be ways people can kill each other, yes, I do, but I am not burying my head in the sand and pretending that we don't have a gun/death issue in this country, which is what this topic is about. Trying to deflect those facts don't change them.

If you'd like to talk about bombing and knives, etc. then perhaps you need to start a new thread with those topics, this one is about gun control.


Check out my blog at:
Scrap-aholic blog
My Pinterest
My Design Teams:
Picture That Sound

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,668
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/28/2012 12:24:27 AM
No the gun is not telling them to do it but it provides them with means to do it very efficiently I might add.

As to your comment that if I wanted to kill someone and a gun wasn't available I would use something else. Yes if was an impulse killing. But if I planned it first I would use a gun. I believe it has been determined that most if not all of the mass killings were planned out first.

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,668
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/28/2012 6:47:21 AM
Nightowl what do you suggestbe done? Nothing or?

WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!

PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,982
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's

Posted: 12/28/2012 6:58:26 AM

If you think people are violent because of the existence of guns, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that someone want to commit mass acts of violence won't find a way without guns, you are mistaken. There is a reason that these people are going out and committing mass murder, and it isn't because the gun is telling them to do it.
So what is it exactly, since you seem to know the reason we have perfected the recipe for creating mass violence, with or without guns?


Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown

Sukkii
PeaNut

PeaNut 539,967
January 2012
Posts: 442
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/28/2012 7:17:53 AM
Mrs Tyler said this-


Exactly.

And there have been school shootings across Europe. Here are just a few...
-March 1996- 16 children and a teacher shot and killed in Dunblane Scotland

-April 2002- Germany: In the town of Erfurt 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser opened fire after saying he was not going to take a math test. He killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two pupils and a policeman at the Gutenberg Gymnasium, before killing himself.

-September 2008- Finland vocational school shooting took the lives of 9 students and a teacher before the gunman killed himself.

-March 2009, Germany: A 17-year-old gunman dressed in black combat gear killed more than a dozen people, including nine students and three teachers at the Albertville Realschule school in Winnenden. He fled and later killed himself after a gunbattle with police.

-March 2012 Toulouse, France- three school children and a teacher were murdered


So 80 people killed in schools over a 15 year period makes Europe unsafe? I also question her sources. Wikipedia is not always reliable

Mrs Tyler, answer this - how many children have been killed in schools in the US over the last 15 years, how many in cinemas, in shopping malls? You can try to fudge the figures but per capita the US are winning this one, hands down. I bet you are so proud of the 2nd Amendment

jacqab
AncestralPea

PeaNut 68,440
February 2003
Posts: 4,386
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/28/2012 8:09:10 AM

I would love to know what other people think would be good ideas for new gun regulations. Particularly what regulations would have stopped the events in Sandy Hook. Statements like 'Nobody needs guns' or 'outlaw all guns' are not sensible and don't help. Perhaps some people feel better once they have vented that but it is not ever going to happen in America.

I wholeheartedly agree with your OP, mapchic.

I find it sad that there are those that think getting rid of 'the guns' will solve the problem of those who feel the need to maim and kill. The choice of weapon does not stop this, nor does the access to weapons stop this.


Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.




______________________________________________________________________________

From What Voters Should Know

...before voting for anything read Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.



dottyscrapper
PeaAddict

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,866
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 12/28/2012 8:24:41 AM


So what is it exactly, since you seem to know the reason we have perfected the recipe for creating mass violence, with or without guns?




I was wondering this too WannaPea.



I'm also trying to get my head round this quote from Mrs T !


we must never compromise the rights and liberties afforded to law-abiding citizens. We don't take away rights of law abiding people when others break the law. It just is incredibly irresponsible and lacking in judgement and sanity to react to criminal behavior by stripping away liberties from those who abide by the current laws.



We ( the UK) Australia and Canada must all be so incredibly irresponsible, lacking in judgement and most of all SANITY to benefit from laws that allow us to live in freedom and also have the priviledge of not experiencing a paranoid feeling of fear for our everyday safety.

The UK must be particularly insane though - we don't even have armed Policemen to protect us or our children!!!! For the record they carried out a survey of all Police Authorities in the UK a while ago and they all overwhelmingly answered that they did NOT want to be armed. Some Police officers went so far as to say that they would leave if that ever came about.

Oddly enough we do have our share of criminals as well as the mentally ill, who are not that well looked after here either, but we've still survived without the need for everyone without good reason to own a firearm.

Without delving into the historical records and lets face it ours are far older than the US's. I have no doubt that we, as citizens of Britain, have given up many of our " rights" for the good of society as a whole. We in no way feel violated or oppressed by accepting the changes written from laws/rights that were written hundreds of years ago.
I really need to check the Magna Carta to see what we've given up since it was written in 1215 or maybe that I should feel fear that our Queen will suddenly decide that she needs her regain her power !!!





jacqab
AncestralPea

PeaNut 68,440
February 2003
Posts: 4,386
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/28/2012 8:36:08 AM

OK, I'll bite.

Isn't the push back against sex ed that once you teach the kids what their bodies are capable of, they will want to go home and practice?

No, teaching kids what their bodies are capable of isn't the issue, giving condoms in school is the issue.

Doesn't the same thing apply with gun ed?

Only if you are sending the student home with a gun after the course.


Aw hell, I teach in the middle of East Los Angeles, in a high poverty/high crime area. How in the hell am I going to teach gun control? "Tell Uncle Tito that he needs to give up the Glock and the sawed-off shotgun, yo, because he might cap too many homies with them?"

I think in that situation, lessons focusing on more effective strategies for dealing with conflict without violence might be good teaching.




There is a danger in simply trying to prevent another event precisely like Sandy Hook, like fighting the last war, instead of looking at a broader scope of useful reforms in mental health care as well as firearm policies that will prevent the next plot, regardless of whether it's in a school, a theater, a mall, a place of worship,or somewhere else.

I think there is value to teaching children how to be safe in the presence of a firearm they might encounter somewhere. Not just in their home, or Grandma's, or Cousin Ernie's, or that nice Mr. Jeffries down the street. But walking through a field or on a trail, playing in the woods with a friend.

I think there is value in giving age appropriate information on why people have guns for legitimate purposes - why we have a gun culture where people use guns for protection from predators of various sorts, target shooting, hunting for food for their family, etc.

I think there is value in making sure students, by the time they finish high school, understand the entire constitution, not in a law school level course, but really understanding what was written, why it was written that way, at the very least for the Bill of Rights. What those 10 amendments mean and generally what has been interpreted to be Constitutional irt those amendments and what isn't. And that includes the 2nd Amendment.

I totally agree.


______________________________________________________________________________

From What Voters Should Know

...before voting for anything read Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.



Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/28/2012 8:46:50 AM
So here are the options (a little tongue-in-cheek obvi):

A. Ban All the Guns!! -- OK So we banned them, now what? Law abiding citizens are now left without means to hunt or protect themselves. But criminals still have guns, illegal and often high-powered ones. Brilliant! And the mass murderers still want to kill masses so they now do it either with illegal guns (which are so easy to obtain!) or by using the McVeigh method, or by stealing trucks transporting gasoline or by building other explosive devices. It's not that hard to make one. Molotov cocktails anyone? And those who snap just use other means as well -- kill your ex with a car, gun, knife, baseball bat, throw acid in her face. Or the recent NYC favorite pastime - pushing people in front of trains. Point is "where there's a will there is a way."

Ok, maybe banning all the guns is too much, let's do gun control! Gun restrictions! National registry!
B. Gun control -- None of plans proposed in this thread (including mine) would have stopped AL from doing what he did. So his mom would have jumped through all the hoops, registered all her guns, now what? Would AL sit there and go "well I was going to shoot up the school, but since my mom's guns are all on the national registry I won't. I'll continue playing video games." Yeah, ok. All the national registry would do is let everyone know who has and doesn't have gun, and most of us agreed on another thread that this is not a good idea.

So what do we do??
C. Rational thinking -- get rid of the illegal guns! Personal protection is a huge issue with gun owners. For many it's the primary reason to own a gun. Who are we protecting ourselves from? Criminals! Disarm the criminals, tighten borders, secure military bases (a lot of theft there) and we are already a much safer country as a whole. Next - figure out WHY AL did what he did. How do we prevent those like him from snapping. How do we stop glorifying violence and the perpetrators. Stop the news from saying his name? Focus on mental illness? Focus on changing our values? The WHY is the key here.

DISCLAIMER -- I don't have the answer to the WHY or the solution to the WHY. But this is where we need to focus our efforts, to discuss, to talk, to compromise, to figure things out. I just don't understand why people don't see that the WHY is what matters. If we don't eliminate the WHY (he did it) but eliminate the HOW (he did it) there are plenty of other HOW's to take their place (see A above).




Meow!

jacqab
AncestralPea

PeaNut 68,440
February 2003
Posts: 4,386
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:04:39 AM

"the gun itself is not the source of the problem"
--------------------------------
But it is the means.

I assure you that if I was to kill someone I would not use a knife. I would not use a car. I would not use a bow & arrow. I would use a gun because it is fast. It is efficient. And it will do the job because that is why guns were invented. To kill.

You say that now, but those who truly want to maim and kill don't care about the weapon.


Did you ever consider the possibility that the ready availability of guns give these wackos the courge to kill as many people as they can?

To even think or suggest that this has anything to do with courage is abhorrent and sickening.



ITA with this, just because armed guards, (and that is what they are, no matter what title you want to give them, because if they were just liaison officers, they won't need guns, only guards need guns)is acceptable to you, doesn't make them acceptable to EVERYONE.

And you are wrong that liaison officers are just armed guards and that the needs of guns makes guards.

Insulting and maligning isn't going to win the argument.



______________________________________________________________________________

From What Voters Should Know

...before voting for anything read Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.



WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!

PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,982
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:06:09 AM

I have no doubt that we, as citizens of Britain, have given up many of our " rights" for the good of society as a whole. We in no way feel violated or oppressed by accepting the changes written from laws/rights that were written hundreds of years ago.
It can be done, obviously. We just haven't reached our threshold yet, sadly. As the other article in the other thread stated, Americans seem to take the killing of their politicians and their children in stride.

We haven't had our fill just yet. I don't know if we ever will. We're great at sending condolences, shedding tears and offering prayers for murdered kindergarteners and their parents. We just can't wrap our heads around doing what's necessary to stop it.


Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:30:32 AM

We haven't had our fill just yet. I don't know if we ever will. We're great at sending condolences, shedding tears and offering prayers for murdered kindergarteners and their parents. We just can't wrap our heads around doing what's necessary to stop it.


The problem is that getting rid of guns won't stop this. I outlined above why. I am so tired of people thinking that those of us who don't want a ban of guns are not doing what's necessary to stop or don't care about the victims. We have a plan of action, it just happens to be different from yours and yet you refuse to see the other side AT ALL. This is why nothing is being done!!

And can we stop looking at other countries as an example. USA is so unique in it's make-up, first of all. And secondly UK and Australia do not have our gang problems, do not have a violent neighboring country whose citizens cross our borders to and fro so easily. They do not have immigrants from violent countries perpetrating that same violence on each other and others. We are not as homogeneous of a country as they are. Stop!




Meow!

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,668
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:31:04 AM

To even think or suggest that this has anything to do with courage is abhorrent and sickening.


Well ok, but that doesn't make any less a true statement.

dottyscrapper
PeaAddict

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,866
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:34:59 AM
jacqab - you may want to read a more official and updated report than the journalistic link that you posted earlier which is inaccurate in it's " facts".

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf








Kelpea
Owner of "best tacky invitation" thread EVER

PeaNut 176,832
November 2004
Posts: 13,582
Layouts: 2
Loc: Stalking Dave Gahan

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:42:40 AM


I've grown up around guns, knew where they were kept when I was younger, and have my own now. I've been drunk, fired from a job, disappointed by friends, relatives, and employers, and betrayed in the worst possible way by a man I thought would love me forever.

But in all of that, never once has it ever even passed through my mind that I should shoot someone. It really isn't like we are all sitting around waiting for someone to "make our day." The only way I use a gun against someone else is if I believe that it is them or me (or my child, or some other innocent party). I hope that day never comes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Great for you, but you are totally ignoring the fact that it happens, and until it happened that person was probably considered a responsible gun owner.








So, so, true. How many times have we heard "but he was always such a quiet man. A great neighbor. Never gave anyone any trouble." BLAH BLAH BLAH.




Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,171
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:43:28 AM

Well ok, but that doesn't make any less a true statement.


There are tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners who has never had the "courage" to use their guns on anyone and in fact hope and pray they never have to shoot it at all. It's not the guns that gave AL the "courage" it's his mental illness. To even suggest that an inanimate object can have so much power over someone's mind is preposterous. If you don't have murderous mind a gun will not give you one.
And let me reiterate the other post -- to say what AL and others did took "courage" is disgusting. What they did was the most supreme act of cowardice.




Meow!

jacqab
AncestralPea

PeaNut 68,440
February 2003
Posts: 4,386
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:44:09 AM

We ( the UK) Australia and Canada must all be so incredibly irresponsible, lacking in judgement and most of all SANITY to benefit from laws that allow us to live in freedom and also have the priviledge of not experiencing a paranoid feeling of fear for our everyday safety.

And yet the violent crime rate has more then doubled in the UK since 1998.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.


Irresponsible, lacking in judgement? Don't think so, but I do think it shows a disconnect between understanding violence and banning weapons.



Take a serious look at mental health treatment, not with the view of "how many dollars can we toss that direction" but with a serious approach to the legal gaps in obtaining treatment for the mentally ill, requiring treatment for those who are a potential danger over their own objections, and communicating the status of people at risk to the background check system for purchasing weapons. If the NRA has made gun regulation challenging, the ACLU is just as culpable in creating a system that dares psychiatric professionals to keep dangerous people out of the population.

I'm just quoting one part of your post, but I think the entire post is right and shows that you see clearly.

A mass murder doesn't just have one cause or solution.


I think this parallels discussions of abortion. We can't stop abortions by taking away the legal HOW. We have to look at the WHY and change minds and hearts. HOW will always be there in one form or another. Understanding the WHY is how those who are most effective in persuading someone not to abort their baby do so.

I find it interesting that the very people insistent that removing the "HOW" of legal abortion will not stop abortions, just make them more dangerous (and I think there is validity to that argument) because we don't care about the "WHY" component seem to be the same people only interested in removing the "HOW" of mass shootings, and saying the WHY is irrelevant. I think HOW and WHY are both issues to be addressed on both subjects, and WHY is more key, because if WHY no longer exists, HOW becomes irrelevant.

I agree.


I have no doubt that we, as citizens of Britain, have given up many of our " rights" for the good of society as a whole. We in no way feel violated or oppressed by accepting the changes written from laws/rights that were written hundreds of years ago.
-----------------------------------------
It can be done, obviously. We just haven't reached our threshold yet, sadly. As the other article in the other thread stated, Americans seem to take the killing of their politicians and their children in stride.

We haven't had our fill just yet. I don't know if we ever will. We're great at sending condolences, shedding tears and offering prayers for murdered kindergarteners and their parents. We just can't wrap our heads around doing what's necessary to stop it.

And with UK violent crime rate doubling, that means they haven't had their threshold and fill yet, right?


To even think or suggest that this has anything to do with courage is abhorrent and sickening.
-----------------------------------

Well ok, but that doesn't make any less a true statement.

Actually, it does make it less then true, it makes it a false statement.



______________________________________________________________________________

From What Voters Should Know

...before voting for anything read Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy.



WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!

PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,982
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:45:13 AM

The problem is that getting rid of guns won't stop this. I outlined above why. I am so tired of people thinking that those of us who don't want a ban of guns are not doing what's necessary to stop or don't care about the victims. We have a plan of action, it just happens to be different from yours and yet you refuse to see the other side AT ALL. This is why nothing is being done!!

And can we stop looking at other countries as an example. USA is so unique in it's make-up, first of all. And secondly UK and Australia do not have our gang problems, do not have a violent neighboring country whose citizens cross our borders to and fro so easily. They do not have immigrants from violent countries perpetrating that same violence on each other and others. We are not as homogeneous of a country as they are. Stop!
Oh, this excuse is wearing thin. Wearing thin on those who want the violence to end and wearing thin with the rest of the world.

We're so different, so special, the rest of the world just doesn't get it! Yeah, I've heard that so many times on this board.

Of course we can't look to other countries who have successfully tackled this menace on their population. Hard to see anything with our collective heads up our asses.

We seem to have an answer and an excuse for everything don't we? Except how to stop the violence, that is.


Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown

Kelpea
Owner of "best tacky invitation" thread EVER

PeaNut 176,832
November 2004
Posts: 13,582
Layouts: 2
Loc: Stalking Dave Gahan

Posted: 12/28/2012 9:46:25 AM
And here's a lovely gun story for you all...

gunfoundinsidedonatedteddybear


< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Post Reply . Post New TopicShow/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}