|
|
foggyb
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1694
Merit: 1006
|
 |
December 21, 2012, 04:58:23 AM |
|
I think they should do a study on how many mass shootings happen in gun control areas as opposed to places where people can freely carry guns around. For example I dont know of any mass shootings in New Hampshire.
You mean like in Japan where gun control is effectively enforced uniformly? Guns are not necessary to carry out mass killing. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting wasn't the worst massacre at an elementary school in U.S. history. It was the second most deadly. In 1927, at a time before today's gun control laws, the school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe felt grieved over losing the 1926 town clerk election in Bath Township, Michigan. He spent the next year collecting and hiding dynamite and pyrotol in preparation for his perceived revenge.
On May 18, 1927, massive amounts of explosives detonated under the north wing of the Bath School, killing 38 children and six adults and injuring 58 others. Hundreds of pounds of explosives were found in the basement under the south wing as well, revealing Kehoe's plan to blow up the entire school and everybody in it. After the school explosion, Kehoe drove up and detonated himself inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing and injuring additional people.
|
I just registered for the $PLOTS presale! Thank you @plotsfinance for allowing me to purchase tokens at the discounted valuation of only $0.015 per token, a special offer for anyone who participated in the airdrop. Tier II round is for the public at $0.025 per token. Allocation is very limited and you need to register first using the official Part III link found on their twitter. Register using my referral code CPB5 to receive 2,500 points.
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:01:26 AM |
|
Yes, it does. Have you looked at the numbers? |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:02:45 AM |
|
I think they should do a study on how many mass shootings happen in gun control areas as opposed to places where people can freely carry guns around. For example I dont know of any mass shootings in New Hampshire.
You mean like in Japan where gun control is effectively enforced uniformly? Guns are not necessary to carry out mass killing. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting wasn't the worst massacre at an elementary school in U.S. history. It was the second most deadly. In 1927, at a time before today's gun control laws, the school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe felt grieved over losing the 1926 town clerk election in Bath Township, Michigan. He spent the next year collecting and hiding dynamite and pyrotol in preparation for his perceived revenge.
On May 18, 1927, massive amounts of explosives detonated under the north wing of the Bath School, killing 38 children and six adults and injuring 58 others. Hundreds of pounds of explosives were found in the basement under the south wing as well, revealing Kehoe's plan to blow up the entire school and everybody in it. After the school explosion, Kehoe drove up and detonated himself inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing and injuring additional people.
Carry on with this attitude for the rest of your life. It will never obscure the fact that effective gun control will have a massive effect on homicide rates. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:16:26 AM |
|
I think they should do a study on how many mass shootings happen in gun control areas as opposed to places where people can freely carry guns around. For example I dont know of any mass shootings in New Hampshire.
You mean like in Japan where gun control is effectively enforced uniformly? Guns are not necessary to carry out mass killing. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting wasn't the worst massacre at an elementary school in U.S. history. It was the second most deadly. In 1927, at a time before today's gun control laws, the school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe felt grieved over losing the 1926 town clerk election in Bath Township, Michigan. He spent the next year collecting and hiding dynamite and pyrotol in preparation for his perceived revenge.
On May 18, 1927, massive amounts of explosives detonated under the north wing of the Bath School, killing 38 children and six adults and injuring 58 others. Hundreds of pounds of explosives were found in the basement under the south wing as well, revealing Kehoe's plan to blow up the entire school and everybody in it. After the school explosion, Kehoe drove up and detonated himself inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing and injuring additional people.
Carry on with this attitude for the rest of your life. It will never obscure the fact that effective gun control will have a massive effect on homicide rates. Furthermore, the saddest thing ever is the fact that it is precisely your self fulfilling belief that your views are necessary for safety that leads exactly to the self sustaining problem in this country. Precisely because you carry on with this attitude and insistence for gun rights is the true cause of gun crime in America. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:21:20 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:25:53 AM |
|
So discussing some deaths over the course of many years deludes you into thinking you've looked at the aggregate data? You're a stupid man (who sees scary men in every dark shadow, and hides with his like kind government haters to feel support for his views). |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:28:20 AM |
|
So discussing some deaths over the course of many years deludes you into thinking you've looked at the aggregate data? You're a stupid man (who sees scary men in every dark shadow, and hides with his like kind government haters to feel support for his views). Dude, you're the one who told me to compare the numbers. How far back you gonna scoot those goalposts? |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:33:30 AM |
|
So discussing some deaths over the course of many years deludes you into thinking you've looked at the aggregate data? You're a stupid man (who sees scary men in every dark shadow, and hides with his like kind government haters to feel support for his views). Dude, you're the one who told me to compare the numbers. How far back you gonna scoot those goalposts? No dude, compare the numbers of homicides per 100,000. If this forum weren't overrun with your type, others would be calling you out for your biased stupidity and deceptive tactics (which does in fact happen, despite the niche crowd here). But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows. |
|
|
|
|
jgarzik
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1091
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:33:41 AM |
|
It is self-evident that guns make it easier to perform mass killing. Guns are tools designed to kill, possibly at a distance. Far more effective than a knife, by design.
It is also self-evident that history has shown time and again that disarming all citizens makes oppression and slavery much easier.
Pick your poison...
|
Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:37:27 AM |
|
But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows.
Gun ownership is a right. Self defense is a right. When you infringe upon that right, people die. That's the gun problem. It has nothing to do with your imaginings about me. |
|
|
|
|
sega01
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:46:18 AM |
|
But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows.
Gun ownership is a right. Self defense is a right. When you infringe upon that right, people die. That's the gun problem. It has nothing to do with your imaginings about me. I completely agree. Gun ownership is a right. A person wanting to wrongfully kill another is usually not going to respect any notion of "gun free zones" or gun laws, anyways. And guns save many lives every year in not just self defense, but avoiding the danger in the first place. I'm pretty sure that any thief will chime in that an NRA sticker on someone's house is much more worrying for them than any security system. The same goes anywhere else. People generally leave the gun owners alone, and go for the unarmed. You always go for the weakest link, which is never a gun owner. Having more people able to armed (and learn how to properly use a firearm) seems like the best solution in my mind. It won't stop everything bad from happening, but I think it can make things better. |
|
|
|
|
|
Monster Tent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:51:15 AM |
|
We arent even allowed to own tasers here let alone guns.
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3010
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:53:03 AM |
|
It is self-evident that guns make it easier to perform mass killing. Guns are tools designed to kill, possibly at a distance. Far more effective than a knife, by design.
It is also self-evident that history has shown time and again that disarming all citizens makes oppression and slavery much easier.
Pick your poison...
If you have a decent virtual reality simulator, go into a crowd with a knife and start killing people. See how much longer you're able to kill silently than if you have a gun and open fire and everyone who isn't deaf or dumb starts running, either as far away as possible, or just far enough away that their position is good enough to return fire from. Some will take a concealed position, some will go for hard cover, a few will just draw where they stand, and fewer still will rush you either unarmed or wearing badges and body armor after minutes have passed since the 911 call was received and tons are dead because nobody could defend themselves. |
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:54:18 AM |
|
But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows.
Gun ownership is a right. Meaningless. You can't prove it. It's simply five words strung together. I can tell, that in truth, the deaths of 12,000 people a year does not really bother you. More important to you is a tenuous concept that makes you feel better, mostly because of the political intellectual games you like to play. Your own selfish desire to engage in your own self aggrandizing pontification of an ill thought out political ideology trumps any real concern you have for the deaths of people. If you actually cared about people and their lives, you would look harder at the numbers, both deeper and broader. It's apparent, that no matter what numbers or philosophies that are presented to you, would not matter. You're the worst of the worst, both in argumentative style, and in obtuseness, putting your unhealthy beliefs and fears above the health of society. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:59:59 AM |
|
But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows.
Gun ownership is a right. Meaningless. You can't prove it. It's simply five words strung together. You left out the meaningful part: Self defense is a right. When you infringe upon that right, people die. |
|
|
|
|
sega01
|
|
December 21, 2012, 06:11:05 AM |
|
But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows.
Gun ownership is a right. Meaningless. You can't prove it. It's simply five words strung together. I can tell, that in truth, the deaths of 12,000 people a year does not really bother you. More important to you is a tenuous concept that makes you feel better, mostly because of the political intellectual games you like to play. Your own selfish desire to engage in your own self aggrandizing pontification of an ill thought out political ideology trumps any real concern you have for the deaths of people. If you actually cared about people and their lives, you would look harder at the numbers, both deeper and broader. It's apparent, that no matter what numbers or philosophies that are presented to you, would not matter. You're the worst of the worst, both in argumentative style, and in obtuseness, putting your unhealthy beliefs and fears above the health of society. myrkul is not alone. I am also the worst of the worst, as I fundamentally share the same belief. I believe in freedom. I don't like deaths, but if freedom kills, so be it. I will fight for my freedom, whatever it takes. Freedom means the freedom to have firearms or not. It means freedom of speech, association, currency, and so much else. I am perfectly fine if you do not wish to associate with those who have firearms, nor own one yourself. I'm not stopping you from that. I will have my revolver, and hopefully more firearms in the future. I feel that myself and those around me are safer because I have a firearm. My safety and the safety of my parents, friends, and neighbors is important to me. I believe that owning a firearm enables me to ensure greater security in that regard. While numbers of deaths per 100,000 are certainly interesting to look at, they are not something to base life on. That train of thought will lead you to ban foods, practices, getting to bed too late, excessive stress, and just about every other "unhealthy" practice. And knives, too. So I'm not asking you to respect firearms. I am asking you to respect my right, myrkul's right, and everyone else's right to them. And if that makes me the worst of the worst, I am okay with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Monster Tent
|
|
December 21, 2012, 06:22:50 AM |
|
But let's not let honest discussion about the gun problem and the 12,000 deaths a year get in the way of you supporting your own fetish desires to shoot watermelons and fantasize about the muggers in the shadows.
Gun ownership is a right. Meaningless. You can't prove it. It's simply five words strung together. I can tell, that in truth, the deaths of 12,000 people a year does not really bother you. More important to you is a tenuous concept that makes you feel better, mostly because of the political intellectual games you like to play. Your own selfish desire to engage in your own self aggrandizing pontification of an ill thought out political ideology trumps any real concern you have for the deaths of people. If you actually cared about people and their lives, you would look harder at the numbers, both deeper and broader. It's apparent, that no matter what numbers or philosophies that are presented to you, would not matter. You're the worst of the worst, both in argumentative style, and in obtuseness, putting your unhealthy beliefs and fears above the health of society. Do you think its ethical to prevent people from being able to defend themselves ? |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
December 21, 2012, 06:41:19 AM |
|
As to "can't prove it," witness:
You have a right to life.
It therefore follows that:
By virtue of that right to life, you have a right to defend yourself when someone attempts to take it. To infringe upon this right is to infringe upon the right to life.
It therefore follows that:
By virtue of that right to self-defense, you have the right to own the most effective tools for self defense. To infringe upon this right is to infringe upon the right to defend your life.
It therefore follows that:
Gun ownership is a right.
|
|
|
|
Mellivora
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
|
|
December 21, 2012, 05:26:07 PM |
|
If I am not mistaken, there has been a time or two when governments have participated in genocide. I’m not going to crunch the numbers, because I’m sure others have already. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTMWithout looking, I would guess that the number of people killed by governments are pretty staggering, making school and mall shootings insignificant (except for those involved). Kind of like the carbon dioxide released by a big volcano eruption compared to a gas powered leaf blower. If we really want to protect the children, we should ban all governments. You never know when a government might snap and go crazy on its people. (Actually, civilian disarmament might be a valid indicator since this tends to happen prior to most genocide.) Seriously, all joking aside, we don’t want to end government…after all they are the great protector and provider of us all. What we need are better laws to ensure nothing bad happens and we can all live in peace. Rather than take decades for laws to evolve to reach this mighty goal, why not just get there now and eliminate years of pain and carnage? I think padded rooms with strait jackets and an IV into our arms (for nutrition and medication) would allow us all to reach that goal of world peace. Remember, peace is the goal, and freedom is the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
