Re: Some cases where guns would have helped and where they did help
I think guns were widely available before abortions.
Did you mean to say this?
Abortions have been around since man first discovered plants that worked as an abortifacient.
quote:Induced abortion has long history, and can be traced back to civilizations as varied as China under Shennong (c. 2700 BCE), Ancient Egypt with its Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE), and the Roman Empire in the time of Juvenal (c. 200 CE).[93] There is evidence to suggest that pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.
quote:Rodrigo Diaz, 22, was driving around with his girlfriend and two friends when he pulled into a driveway, thinking they had arrived at another friend’s house, his brother says. But instead he pulled into the driveway of Phillip Sailors, 69, who thought his home was being robbed, his lawyer says. Sailors then shot Diaz, according to the police report, citing what Sailors told officers at the scene. Diaz later died while in the intensive care unit.
Basically, what happened is they were looking for one of my brother’s girlfriend’s friends, says his brother David E. Diaz-Valencia, 23. The guy came outside and my brother’s girlfriend said he was screaming, ‘Get off my property!’ and he shot into the air. My brother was backing out fast because he was scared and he rolled down the window to say he was sorry and he was not doing anything wrong. Then the guy shot him in his head.
The intruder is tryng to join a gang and his initation is for him to break into a house kill all the occupants and rob the house while gang members are watching the proceedings.
Cuz that happens every day.
I am sure in your fantasy they are brown or black, right.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Re: Some cases where guns would have helped and where they did help
If you actually knew anything about the military and law you would know that the military has to use jacketed(see spelling, not jacked) bullets. They are not used just for practice.
quote:The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions
But I have checked and a lot of the police forces use hollow point bullets to practice with.
Well it would be really stupid to practice with ammo different than what you would use on the job. You do realize that different bullets perform differently in the same firearm, don't you. Sometimes significantly depending on bullet weight, type and shape.
You would think someone that is such a gun aficionado would know these things.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Re: Some cases where guns would have helped and where they did help
The second amendment was written because the British tried to confiscate the guns of the colonist.
Uhmm, no. I see you know as much about history as you seem to know about firearms.
This was not the reason for the 2nd amendment. Also, the british were not going to confiscate the weapons of individual colonists. They had heard of a stockpile of weapons. That is what they were going to confiscate. Are you saying if a group was advocating violence against the US government and the governement knew they ahd a stockpile of weapons, then the US gov't should do nothing?
Your rightwing propaganda is full of holes. Learn the truth not whacko conspiracy shit.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Re: Some cases where guns would have helped and where they did help
All we have is a bunch of Chicken Little's. The sky isn't falling. The government is not out to get you.
A prime example of this mentality seems to be Petrophysics1 who is jeering everyone that is debating ICANT. It seems that he thinks ICANT's unhinged comments are more palatable than any type of gun regulation at all.
Don't confuse him with the facts his mind is made up, but not willing to provide any evidence to support his viewpoint. It is kind of silly to jeer factual data.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Re: Some cases where guns would have helped and where they did help
'Tis true, but deigning to acknowledge a silly jeer costs you a bit of street cred.
I am not whining about getting a jeer or two. I actually hold them as a badge of honor when certain people jeer me(not Faith, that is more like having a mosquito buzzing).
I am pointing out that we can see that actual mentality unfold right here before our eyes.
I let my arguments stand on their own. Not too worried about street cred. There are those here whose opinions I respect and I feel I stand ok in their eyes. There are others that I really don't care what they think of me.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Today, in the UK, a report has been published on the reduction in suicide deaths from paracetamol poisoning by 42% since pack size was reduced to 16 in shops. (32 in pharmacies).
I believe this is acetaminophen. Here in the states you can by a bottle of 1200. Last time I bought some I had trouble buying less than 120. I
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Nevertheless, just as we applaud adaptations that improve car safety we applaud the same for guns, but so far nothing proposed by the gun phobics offers even the slightest protection for the children of schools like Sandy Hook. Shouldn't the emphasis be on doing something about THAT? Isn't THAT what this discussion is supposed to be about?
The NRA and the industry have no desire to make guns safer.
quote:At his press conference after the Newtown massacre the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre insisted, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
But as James Bond illustrates here (isn’t Bond just full of life lessons) this isn’t always the case. Sometimes the good guy doesn’t have a gun. And in this case, a gun that won’t shoot in the hands of a bad guy is a pretty good defense.
The New York Times’ Nick Bilton points out today that this technology currently exists. This is not Buck Rogers type of stuff, says professor Robert Spitzer of SUNY Cortland.
After Newtown the national conversation about guns reached a particularly fevered vitriol about accessit became an all-or-nothing consideration about whether we should be allowed to have them. But what about just making them smarter? What about doing mandatory background checks on anyone who wants a gun and making it so that the only guns available will fire in the hands of certified good guys? Could we all agree on that?
Doesn’t sound like it.
Bilton notes that LaPierre has dismissed this ideaway back in 2002 LaPierre said, Tragic victims couldn’t have been saved by trigger locks or magazine bans or ‘smart-gun’ technology.
But the technology is here now-it’s not just in Bond movies. Again Bilton quotes Dr. Spitzer who says The gun industry has no interest in making smart-guns. There is no incentive for them.
quote:According to gun policy expert Robert J. Spitzer, the gun industry has little incentive to make smart-guns, and making smart-guns would also create more regulatory work for the government.
"Many guns are bought and sold on the secondary market without background checks, and that kind of sale would be inhibited with fingerprinting-safety technologies in guns, Spitzer told Bilton.
™ Version 4.2
