|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It worked fine! But using hollow points for target practice, and other things about the desperate attempts to downplay government purchases of enough ammo to kill every U.S. citizen ... Though as that's a five-year contract, they're going to have to do it in installments. They can shoot everyone between A and F the first year ...
... doesn't pass everyone's "smell test" HugeDomains.com Well, the website claims that anyone who's serious about practicing shooting practices with different equipment than they're actually planning to use. Kind of like how Formula One drivers always practice in Honda Civics. But it seems at least possible that someone who's really serious about practicing something might practice the thing they're actually going to do. But if this is not the case, then what are they practicing with? I mean, presumably they do practice, yes? And apparently we can find out what bullets they're buying. So if they're not practicing with the hollow-points, someone should be able to show me a similarly large order of Special Practice Bullets. --- Curiously enough, I've never persuaded any conservative to bet on their apocalyptic future scenarios. Could I persuade you or any of your chums to a little flutter? My money says that next year, as usual, more U.S. citizens will be killed by private firearms than by those in government hands. Can I get anyone to take the other end of the bet? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It is rather difficult to shoot a hurricane or a drought ... It's fairly easy to shoot a hurricane. It's difficult to make one bleed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's not a case of forgetting, I didn't know anyone thought that purchases of guns and ammo by today's U.S. government were anywhere near voters, or even elected officials. We don't vote for anyone in the Dept. of Homeland Security, the EPA, the IRS, the Dept. of Justice, the FMCSA, the list of U.S. bureaucracies with purchasing power is almost endless. And yet they are under the control of our representatives --- if, for example, Congress votes to cut taxes, the IRS can't raise them instead 'cos they think that would be better.
But by looking at gun violence as a human behavior issue rather than a hardware issue, it can greatly broaden the discussion, if anti-gun violence people are honest. This plea for honesty would have come across better if you hadn't followed it by reciting dumb lies. Yes, I know you didn't make 'em up yourself. But you should have checked.
Would you say they showed "blind, pitiless, indifference in their acts of murder? No. They were pitiless, but malevolence is not blind indifference. There is a moral distinction between a tornado (for example) that kills ten people --- without, of course, intending to --- and a gunman who does the same, but with intent.
Steven Weinberg, a scientific leader similar in status to Dawkins, claimed that one of science's greatest accomplishments should be to weaken the hold of religion. One of the things that they, and many other leaders in the scientific community will do as they attempt to weaken the hold of religion, is to refer to Christians as "sheep", or a "flock" who follow a certain leader, or even Bible teachings. I'm fairly sure that's a Christian metaphor, as employed by this chap Jesus, you may have heard of him. E.g. "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."
So could the blind, pitiless indifference of scientific sheep, who follow scientific community leaders be linked in any way to the blind, pitiless indifference of the above mass murderers? The link is that both are made up in your head. The murderers, as I have pointed out, are pitiless but not blind or indifferent; and people who understand science are usually none of the three.
If not, maybe an overhaul of the way public school children are taught could go much further in reducing gun violence than gun laws for law abiding people. I'm not advocating teaching religion, but more actual history would be a good start, or any other secular subject that could more clearly show that there really is (and always has been) good and evil in the world, despite the remarks of Richard Dawkins. Or we could teach reading comprehension, so that people understand the remarks of Richard Dawkins.
Again, how about the consideration of news media sensationalism with the evidence that some shootings are "copycat" shootings? A windfall profits tax on them wouldn't violate their first amendment rights one iota. Can you expand on how this would work?
Or how about a law that prohibits them from displaying a picture of the shooter? There could be any number of laws that would at least somewhat discourage the news media from doing anything they want to cash in on mass shootings. Yes, well, it's hard to get round the First Amendment. You can't make laws preventing people from accurately reporting matters of fact. Also, if you could do that, where would you stop? I mean, consider the case of the mass shooter Jim David Adkisson:
Adkisson, a former private in the United States Army from 1974 to 1977, said that he was motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals. According to an affidavit by one of the officers who interviewed Adkisson on July 27, 2008: During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country ... So, if we're allowed to ban speech because it might incite gun violence, then ... wait, you don't fancy the idea so much now? OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The Geography of Gun Deaths.
The chart below shows the correlation between gun deaths per state and other demographic factors. Note that the correlation between gun deaths and immigrants is inverse. Of course, correlation is not causation, I'm not saying that immigrants make us safer; but on the other hand if they actually endangered us with their "gibber-jabber" and their Mexican restaurants, you'd expect the correlation to be positive.
I leave it to you to decide whether we should change our education system to produce more Democrats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why are we arguing gun control, when alcohol related deaths are much more frequent? I guess because when you drink, I don't get cirrhosis of the liver. If that was how it worked, we'd be doing a lot more to control alcohol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I have never blacked out due to shooting too much I have never woke up next to a perfect stranger due to a gun in my hand I have never been in a traffic accident due to my gun on the seat Alcohol changes your mind set and makes you unaware of your decisions, thus putting those around you in danger. Guns do not. Please argue this intelligibly But again, I have no problem with you blacking out, or with you waking up next to a stranger. I care even less about those contingencies than I do about you damaging your liver. It's no skin off my nose. I do have a problem with you drinking and driving, because it endangers me, and guess what, that's illegal. We did that.
Alcohol changes your mind set and makes you unaware of your decisions, thus putting those around you in danger. Guns do not. Holding a gun does change your mindset. http://www.psychologytoday.com/...gun-inhibits-mentalization Expert: Holding a gun changes the way people perceive others, objects Apparently, it makes you more aggressive and more likely to see threats that aren't there ... I don't know if anyone's done research on whether it also makes you more likely to sing karaoke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, they will start to question their illegal and wicked ways. You'd be astonished how little time dead people spend on introspection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Perhaps you could set us all a good example by writing more posts containing actual data and links to scientific studies, and fewer posts insulting and whining about the people who have the temerity to disagree with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I would argue the validity of that study, based on my experience with those that own numerous guns. Spoken like a True Scientist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Guns make people more safe by pure logic ... Have you noticed how reality doesn't conform to this "pure logic" of which you speak? This suggests that while it may be a pure example of something, that something is probably not logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This although they themselves have been taking advantage of the situation to promote gun control. "Taking advantage of the situation"? Faith, when the Space Shuttle crashed, people said, let's try to make sure this doesn't happen again. When terrorists crashed planes into the Twin Towers, people said, hey, let's take steps to make sure this isn't repeated. If an oil well blows up, Faith, if a levee breaks, people's thoughts will turn to one question: how to build a better stable door. There is one, and only one kind of disaster, where you can get criticized for responding to it by suggesting preventative measures for the future. If a tragedy is caused by a a guy with a gun, why then and only then is it "taking advantage of the situation", is it exploiting a tragedy, is it a tasteless politicization of the issue, to say: let's try to stop this from happening again. Why is that, Faith? What makes bad things caused by psychopaths with firearms so different from every other bad thing that's happened in the entire history of ever, that we should react to them in a completely different way? Do explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Faith, when other things go bad, there may also be differences of opinion --- may be and usually are differences of opinion --- about what caused them and how to prevent them in the future. All these years after 9/11, and people are still arguing about how much airport security we need. When Americans started dying of Ebola, cue an instant political debate about whether the President, the hospitals, and the CDC were handling it right. But such differences of opinion are not usually taken as prohibitive of discussing an issue. Indeed, if everyone knew exactly how to fix a problem, that would render discussion redundant, and we wouldn't have to think about whether it was "taking advantage" of anything.
But when a nutter goes on a rampage with a gun, then, and only then, does it become a gross breach of decorum to say --- "hey, how can we stop nutters going on rampages with guns?" and to start making suggestions. Why? It's not because there are different opinions on that, Faith, because in fact there are different opinions on everything. It's because one side doesn't want us to think about that question, it doesn't want us to ask that question, to consider that question --- much less try to answer it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And there are some odd similarities between some of the situations ... Ooh, I found another odd similarity that you seem to have missed. Apparently someone did a study and in every single mass shooting the perpetrators had --- what does this say, my eyes are so bad --- buns, I think it says buns. Someone should look into that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I inadvertently posted that half--draft that you answered. You might want to go read the final version. Yes it is YOUR side that tries to shut up MY side when these discussions get going, not the other way around. You don't even go that far, you don't even think there IS another side. Go read that final version. Yeah, I saw that. It seemed to me to be more of the same, with extra self-pity and paranoia sauce.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024