Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4222 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 151 of 236 (668801)
07-24-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 2:30 PM


Re: Gun control question
landmines and RPG's and shit.
LOL... One of my fist thoughts was that the price he paid for one gun could of been spent on making a bomb that could have been a whole lot more destructive than what he achieved. (glad he didn't go down that path) I could go to 3 places in town and make a terrible IED in a day.
We are fortunate in many ways, getting on a bus in the US isn't much of a gamble, in some countries it is. Funny how some people in countries that don't have many guns per person have to worry about getting blown up at the market or on a bus.
If a man is determined to do bad, he will find a way.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:30 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 879 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 152 of 236 (668802)
07-24-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 2:40 PM


Re: Gun control question
More dangerous how? And to what?
Ask Crash, not me.
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted.
Think about this though: by blanketly saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles", don't you think that leaves it open to interpretation? In a discussion about gun laws, you are saying handguns are the most dangerous. Given how laws get written up (and who writes and enacts them), it seems to me that such a statement advocates a handgun ban in comparison to rifles. "Rifles are ok, but handguns are bad", "RPG's are ok, but handguns are bad", C4 is ok, but handguns are bad".
Me thinks you ought be more descriptive, no? This, IMO, is how shitty laws get passed, when even an advocate makes a sweeping statement such as this.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4222 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 153 of 236 (668803)
07-24-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 2:40 PM


Re: Gun control question
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted. He's calling handguns more dangerous than rifles because more people are killed each year by handguns than rifles. If you want to enact a law that protects people from being killed by guns, then handguns would be better to focus on than rifles.
Ok...Once all the handguns are gone the people will be getting killed with rifles and shotguns, then we get rid of them and use knives??? Where does it end?

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 3:00 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied
 Message 188 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 4:39 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 236 (668804)
07-24-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 2:21 PM


Re: Gun control question
So every handgun is more "reliable, versatile, and accurate" than every rifle?
I didn't say that.
But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous.
Yes, I did. Message 125 in response to you asking that exact question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:21 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 3:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 236 (668805)
07-24-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 2:49 PM


Re: Gun control question
More dangerous how? And to what?
Ask Crash, not me.
No, you were asking me which is more dangerous and I'm asking you more dangerous how?
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted.
Think about this though: by blanketly saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles", don't you think that leaves it open to interpretation?
I editted this in to my previous post while you were posting a reply (sorry):
quote:
Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.
Handguns are more dangerous to society in the US than landmines are, even tho an individual landmine can be more dangerous than an individual gun, because more people are killed by handguns. If you want to enact a law that prevents death, then tightening the regs on landmines would be a lot worse at that than tightening them on handguns.
Somebody was saying that the AR-15 should be outlawed because its so dangerous, and CF was countering that by pointing out that handguns are more dangerous to society because more people are killed by them. So if you want to outlaw something for being dangerous, you don't need to be looking at the AR-15. Regardless of the fact that an individual AR-15 can be more dangerous than an individual handgun.
In a discussion about gun laws, you are saying handguns are the most dangerous. Given how laws get written up, it seems to me that such a statement advocates a handgun ban in comparison to rifles. "Rifles are ok, but handguns are bad", "RPG's are ok, but handguns are bad", C4 is ok, but handguns are bad".
There's no reason to bring up explosive devices in a discussion about firearms.
But think about this; which would save more lives: A law tightening the use of C4, or a law tightening the use of handguns?
How many US civilians even died from C4 in the last decade? How would tightening C4 save any lives at all? In the context of laws pertaining to the citizens of the US, C4 is less dangerous than handguns. But that doesn't make C4 "okay"...
Me thinks you ought be more descriptive, no?
The context was sufficient for me to understand what he was saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:49 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 3:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 236 (668806)
07-24-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by fearandloathing
07-24-2012 2:56 PM


Re: Gun control question
Ok...Once all the handguns are gone the people will be getting killed with rifles and shotguns, then we get rid of them and use knives??? Where does it end?
Right, that actually furthers the point that banning AR-15's "because they are so dangerous" is even more stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:56 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 879 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 157 of 236 (668807)
07-24-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by crashfrog
07-24-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Gun control question
Yes, I did. Message 125 in response to you asking that exact question.
I thought it was message 64? Are you now admitting that you didn't define your usage until I called you on it?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 5:12 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 879 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 158 of 236 (668808)
07-24-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Gun control question
But think about this; which would save more lives: A law tightening the use of C4, or a law tightening the use of handguns?
How many US civilians even died from C4 in the last decade? How would tightening C4 save any lives at all? In the context of laws pertaining to the citizens of the US, C4 is less dangerous than handguns. But that doesn't make C4 "okay"..
That isn't the point I am making. I am being hyperbolic on purpose. Crash didn't define his usage until I called him on it, and even then he said he had already done so.
The context was sufficient for me to understand what he was saying.
Then any and all debate on this site about how people misuse words should be stricken from the record if we all get to use our own definition of words, right? How many threads have been curtailed because a creationist is using a non-standard definition of a word?Think: stellar evolution vs. biological evolution.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 3:31 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 236 (668809)
07-24-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 3:16 PM


Re: Gun control question
That isn't the point I am making. I am being hyperbolic on purpose. Crash didn't define his usage until I called him on it, and even then he said he had already done so.
I found Message 64 to be sufficient to understand the point he was making, especially given the context of the thread so far.
Then any and all debate on this site about how people misuse words should be stricken from the record if we all get to use our own definition of words, right? How many threads have been curtailed because a creationist is using a non-standard definition of a word?Think: stellar evolution vs. biological evolution.
Way too many. Y'all spend way to much time trying to make each other out to be wrong rather than trying to understand what the other person is actually saying. But that's not this topic, take it here:
Honest Debate: how do you read?
quote:
So do you read for understanding (as best you can)?
Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?
All too often people are more interested in the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 3:16 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 160 of 236 (668811)
07-24-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Briterican
07-23-2012 7:10 PM


Re: Gun control question
Briterican writes:
Funny that America is the only nation that blathers on about guns in this manner. Citizens of the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, these people feel a very strong sense of freedom in their societies without a doubt, and somehow they don't view the exclusion of deadly weaponry from their daily lives as some sort of denial of freedom.
Well, actually, Switzerland is ranked quite high when it comes to private gun ownership, having about 420.000 assault rifles (converted to semi-automatic), 320.000 other semi-automatics and several hunderd thousand semi-automatic "carbines" in circulation. The estimates of total guns owned by private people is estimated between 1.2 and 3 million. Considering there are about 8 million people there, that is a lot of guns.
Yet strangely, they don't kill each other in mass shootings over there. Why Americans do kill each other in such a fashion, I have no idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Briterican, posted 07-23-2012 7:10 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 07-24-2012 4:31 PM Huntard has not replied
 Message 185 by Briterican, posted 07-25-2012 3:14 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 161 of 236 (668813)
07-24-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 7:29 PM


Re: Gun control question
crashfrog writes:
No, I'm sure they don't. But they don't live in countries that originated in armed struggle.
I'd like to beg to differ. My country won its independence after an 80 year war of independence against Spain. Kinda puts those measly 8 years you lot spent fighting to shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 4:55 PM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 162 of 236 (668817)
07-24-2012 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 1:00 PM


Re: Gun control question
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban.
So I guess you are saying that over 1900 Police Chiefs, Sherrifs and County Prosecuters are stupid for advocating to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Also the 318,000-member Fraternal Order of Police supported the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act or the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I guess they are stupid too?
I know many of my fellow military member who are on both sides of this debate. Many are gun owners themselves who support more regulation of firearms.
How about you stop making stupid, idiotic remarks that you can't back up. There are many, many concerned gun owners who support tighter gun regulation.
Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
The federal Assault Weapons Ban is just one piece of legislation covering tighter gun regulation. I think more needs to be done, including closing gun show loop holes, in which people can purchace any gun including assault rifles with no background checks at all.
What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was?
My point exactly. You are the one taking me down that rabbit hole.
Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
So restricting magazine capacity and ammo/gun stockpiling is stupid. So stupid that several national and international organizations support reenacting it and beefing it up.
Okay, so how do you stop that and what is the justification?
I don't expect the renewing of the Federal Assault Weapons ban to solve all the problems. I am not even saying that we should just outright ban all semi-automatic weapons, just provide better regulation (i.e. background checks, limiting magazine sizes, etc). I am just advocating more regulation to close the holes on our current gun laws and try to reduce the amount of highly lethal weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 4:47 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9530
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 163 of 236 (668818)
07-24-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 1:08 PM


Re: Death penalty
CS writes:
I don't see it as them asking the vicitims' families how they should proceed, I see it as them considering the wishes of the families as part of their objective assessment of the situation.
Well of course you can see it any way you like, but the fact is that the state is consulting with the victims about whether to execute him or not. That is not likely to result in an objective assessment and is never done for any other situation. You don't think perhaps this might just possibly be political PR?
None. And he should be put to death as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Well now you don't seem to want to take the wishes of the victims family into consideration at all, you want to do what you want to do. But what if the victim's family wanted to cut small pieces off him for a month or so? Why make the options only death or life imprisonment? And suppose the victims family were all nice liberals and didn't want the death penalty but the rest of society insisted on it? What then?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 164 of 236 (668820)
07-24-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Huntard
07-24-2012 3:49 PM


Re: Gun control question
Why Americans do kill each other in such a fashion, I have no idea.
And that is a very valid question.
When I was growing up family I knew had guns, there was a gun rack in the den or the shot gun by the back door, most any pick up had a gun rack with a loaded carbine and usually the doors unlocked and the windows rolled down as it sat parked on the street. Guns were ubiquitous. But there were very few shooting and almost no accidental shootings and no guns stolen and kids were taught firearms safety and yes, this was in suburbia and the city, not out on the farm.
When I was little, likely third grade or so, I took my Dad's Colt 45 Slabside to school for show-n-tell and gave a talk about handgun safety. The teacher passed the gun around so all the kids could see how heavy it was and nobody pointed it at another kid and the teacher quizzed everyone on the basics of gun safety. In fact, the teacher was so impressed that I got to give the show-n-tell to other classes that day.
But the gun was really heavy and so I asked the teacher if she could keep it until after school.
All that was a half century or so ago now but still within my lifetime.
As a culture the US has changed. The weapons themselves haven't changed all that much (you could still mail-order a Thompson fully automatic submachine gun then) but education and responsibility have. August 1, 1966 was a watershed day in the issue and it was not a matter of automatic weapons or AR-15s.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2012 3:49 PM Huntard has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 236 (668821)
07-24-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by DevilsAdvocate
07-24-2012 4:16 PM


Re: Gun control question
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban.
So I guess you are saying that over 1900 Police Chiefs, Sherrifs and County Prosecuters are stupid for advocating to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Also the 318,000-member Fraternal Order of Police supported the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act or the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I guess they are stupid too?
Did they write the law?
How about you stop making stupid, idiotic remarks that you can't back up. There are many, many concerned gun owners who support the federal assault weapons ban.
Well they may or may not be stupid. But the people who wrote that law are definately stupid.
What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was?
My point exactly. You are the one taking me down that rabbit hole.
No, you took yourself down it in Message 57:
quote:
What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet.
There are many people who have experience with weapons who want tougher gun laws, myself included. Stop speaking from ignorance.
If those people aren't the ones who wrote the law, then how does it pertain to the point?
Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
So restricting magazine capacity and ammo/gun stockpiling is stupid. So stupid that several national and international organizations support reenacting it and beefing it up.
You haven't read about the Assault Weapon Ban, have you? It doesn't restrict magazine capacity, its restricts pistols from having magizines that attach outside of the grip. Who the hell cares where the magazine goes in and how does that address how dangerous a gun is and whether or not its an "assault weapon"? Its stupid!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 4:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 9:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024