- Nov 24, 2017 at 10:40 pm #3503919
Yes, most terrible. Can’t imagine having to own killing a person like that.Nov 29, 2017 at 5:41 am #3504605Nov 29, 2017 at 5:45 am #3504606Dec 6, 2017 at 3:05 am #3505786Dec 6, 2017 at 3:31 am #3505790
No problem, issue all students with PNDs, problem solved. Surely it is their constitutional right?
(PND: Personal Nuclear Device).Dec 6, 2017 at 9:29 am #3505834
Not being callous, but the solution is as painfully obvious as it is necessary – ban, purchase, confiscate all automatic weaponry, and vigorously change gun culture.Dec 6, 2017 at 2:34 pm #3505845Dec 6, 2017 at 5:13 pm #3505880
jeffrey armbrusterBPL Member
@bookLocale: Northern California
From the link:
“So, to clarify: I would favor banning all hammers (claw, ball-peen, sledge, upholstery, etc.) that can be used to kill 59 people and injure another 500 in a crowd in less than 15 minutes. I also would support the banning of any devices that enable someone to modify a hammer in such a way that it could do that sort of damage. I am fine with keeping all other hammers even knowing that some of them will be used to do violence.”Dec 6, 2017 at 6:03 pm #3505892
how about nitrogen fertilizer, like what was used in the Oklahoma City bombing? : )Dec 6, 2017 at 9:22 pm #3505938
what are there, 30,000 gun deaths per year? 300 million people? 1 in 10,000 chance of me being killed, pretty small
most gun deaths are suicide, next biggest category is killing family or friends. Me and my family/friends don’t own guns. Therefore, the risk to me is negligible. The (small) risk is to the gun owner, family, and friends.
I think people should be allowed to own guns if they’re okay with the (small) risk
This is one of the issues “they” want us to argue about to distract us while they pass tax bills to enrich “them”. Maybe liberal and conservative voters should quit arguing about this. Let’s ban together and go after “them”. What can we do so that we can good paying jobs to support ourselves and our familes. It’s not deport illegal immigrants and get rid of trade agreements – if you analyze, that won’t make a big difference to jobs, although maybe a little. Those are just another distraction to get us to argue about. The high cost of education would make a bigger difference.
If it was up to me, a Britain/Australia model would make more sense, but it’s not up to me.Dec 6, 2017 at 10:46 pm #3505955
Or for that matter, a Korean or Japanese model.Dec 7, 2017 at 12:39 am #3505971
Again with the jokes Robert. Insensitive or uncomfortable much?Dec 7, 2017 at 12:48 am #3505972
Uncomfortable with the needless death and suffering, and insensitive to the arguments of the gun lobby. Fearful also, that eventually, this presumption of the right of the individual to possess and carry assault weapons will migrate to other countries. Simply take action as a society, get it done, get rid of automatic assault weaponry – which has no place in civilized society, while allowing sportsmen and target shooters to do their thing with responsible licensing. It ought to be painfully obvious that in principle, we are not opposed on this issue – i.e. the need to resolve gun violence.Dec 7, 2017 at 2:03 am #3505986
P.S. Ken, you might have misinterpreted my immediately prior post (of Dec 6, 2017 at 10:46 pm) (or else are making your own joke?) – my comment was intended strictly at face value, and not as a play on words – the Korean and Japanese models of gun control are as good exemplars of responsible policy as the British and Australian models referenced by Jerry. Gun ownership in both Korea and Japan is tightly controlled, and deaths and injury from gun violence are rare. I suspect also the low rates of gun violence in both countries are in part attributable to the Confucian influence, which is powerful (e.g. avoidance of overt conflict, viewing social relationships in familial terms (father/mother, son/daughter, elder/younger brother/sister, etc.), importance of preserving face of the other, as well as oneself).
Dec 10, 2017 at 4:09 am #3506604Dec 14, 2017 at 12:42 am #3507375Dec 17, 2017 at 4:54 pm #3507967Dec 17, 2017 at 7:39 pm #3507990
- This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by Robert Meurant.
Weren’t you just whining about how you wished people wouldn’t talk about god, guns, and government?Dec 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm #3507991Dec 17, 2017 at 8:00 pm #3508002
NamasteDec 17, 2017 at 11:43 pm #3508045
No point in wishing for better.
BTW, Welcome back, I guess.Dec 23, 2017 at 4:44 pm #3508954Dec 23, 2017 at 4:48 pm #3508955
TX police, good job durfwads.Dec 23, 2017 at 5:02 pm #3508959
The lady they were going after was unarmed, although maybe the police didn’t know that
Ooops, they accidentally shot and killed a bystander
Hopefully they’ll analyze the incident carefully to see if they could change their policies to avoid this in the futureDec 23, 2017 at 5:42 pm #3508964
@bivysack-com-2-2Locale: East Washington
“It is certainly true that for Canada as a whole, murder rates are still considerably lower than for the United States as a whole. For 2011, Canada had 1.73 homicides per 100,000 people; the United States had 4.8 murders and non-negligent homicides per 100,000 people. What I find fascinating, however, is to look at murder rates for Canadian provinces and compare them to their immediate American state neighbors. When you do that, you discover some very curious differences that show gun availability must be either a very minor factor in determining murder rates, or if it is a major factor, it is overwhelmed by factors that are vastly more important.”
“There are very real social problems that contribute to differences in murder rates. If gun availability is one of those contributors, it must be a very unimportant part of that contribution. Perhaps those focused on gun control as a method of saving lives might be better off concentrating on the social problems that really matter.”
- This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by owareusa.com.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.