|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 14, 2012 16:35:59 GMT -5
Thinking about the tragedy there today. I have some friends there. Haven't heard from all of them yet, but I'm crossing my fingers.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 14, 2012 19:31:33 GMT -5
The four guns were registered to the mother. The brother who lives in NJ said his brother who committed the crime had mental issues.
WHY DOES A KINDERGARTEN TEACHER AND MOTHER HAVE FOUR GUNS IN HER HOUSE WHILE LIVING WITH HER SON WHO HAS MENTAL ISSUES?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 7:14:32 GMT -5
The four guns were registered to the mother. The brother who lives in NJ said his brother who committed the crime had mental issues. WHY DOES A KINDERGARTEN TEACHER AND MOTHER HAVE FOUR GUNS IN HER HOUSE WHILE LIVING WITH HER SON WHO HAS MENTAL ISSUES? Because Americans love guns and believe and preach it's THEIR right to own them...... It's still the wild west for some....guns should be banned and then you'd have some control....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 15, 2012 13:46:41 GMT -5
Well on the same day 20 some children were injured, some gravely, in a school knife attack in China. Connecticut has among the toughest gun laws in the U.S. The killer in fact was stopped from buying a rifle himself three days before the attack. People kill not the particular instruments in their hands. We live in a depraved culture were violence is glorified on television, in movies, in a lot of the popular music, video games, art, etc. We thus have generations of self-indulgent sociopaths who want instant gratification and have never been held accountable for their bad actions. Have never been told "No" and been forced to accept it! At least this MF blew his brains out unlike that punk coward in Colorado who killed all of those people in the movie theater and dyed his hair orange. A prison gang-rape is too merciful for him. People are killers not innate objects.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 15, 2012 16:04:07 GMT -5
McVeigh used fertilizer, didn't he?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 15, 2012 19:27:13 GMT -5
RIP:
CHILDREN
Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female (age 6)
Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male (age 7)
Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female (age 6)
Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female (age 7)
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female (age 6)
Dylan Hockley, 03/08/06, male (age 6)
Madeleine F. Hsu, 07/10/06, female (age 6)
Catherine V. Hubbard, 06/08/06, female (age 6)
Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male (age 7)
Jesse Lewis, 06/30/06, male (age 6)
James Mattioli, 03/22/06, male (age 6)
Grace McDonnell, 11/04/05, female (age 7)
Emilie Parker, 05/12/06, female (age 6)
Jack Pinto, 05/06/06, male (age 6)
Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male (age 6)
Caroline Previdi, 09/07/06, female (age 6)
Jessica Rekos, 05/10/06, female (age 6)
Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female (age 6)
Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male (age 6)
Allison N. Wyatt, 07/03/06, female (age 6)
ADULTS
Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female (age 29)
Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female (age 47)
Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female (age 52)
Lauren Russeau, 1982, female (age 29)
Mary Sherlach, 02/11/56, female (age 56)
Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female (age 27
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 16, 2012 2:41:39 GMT -5
. . . People kill not the particular instruments in their hands . . . Sorry JohnS, but if that particular instrument is commonly used inappropriately or is a danger to people, it is usually always removed or controlled: lawn darts, child safety seats, cribs, cars, power saws, drugs, tobacco, loud music, etc. None of these things are inherently dangerous if no one is around. Jeez, atom bombs are harmless if not used, but I'm glad they are regulated in those countries that have them and banned for those that don't. So, the argument that guns don't kill is not a valid argument against it's control or ban. Why this absolute unwillingness to strictly limit or ban it's use by some is incredulous. When one can show me that fewer kids were killed by guns than police officers, then one can take me off the gun control wagon. Look, no one is saying that banning guns will eliminate murder, or even multiple murders. Nor, will it eliminate mass killings, but it certainly will help a lot more than doing nothing. Plus, despite what fearmongers say, gun control will not lead to a quick or slow government-controlled totalitarian state where we all live in what will be called the People's Republic of the United States of America. Having said that, gun control is only half of the problem. We also have to work on the macho "gun use to solve your problems" mentality. Which IS very American.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 16, 2012 7:45:16 GMT -5
. . . People kill not the particular instruments in their hands . . . Sorry JohnS, but if that particular instrument is commonly used inappropriately or is a danger to people, it is usually always removed or controlled: lawn darts, child safety seats, cribs, cars, power saws, drugs, tobacco, loud music, etc. None of these things are inherently dangerous if no one is around. Jeez, atom bombs are harmless if not used, but I'm glad they are regulated in those countries that have them and banned for those that don't. So, the argument that guns don't kill is not a valid argument against it's control or ban. Why this absolute unwillingness to strictly limit or ban it's use by some is incredulous. When one can show me that fewer kids were killed by guns than police officers, then one can take me off the gun control wagon. Look, no one is saying that banning guns will eliminate murder, or even multiple murders. Nor, will it eliminate mass killings, but it certainly will help a lot more than doing nothing. Sayne, you and I are in agreement on the gun thing. I used to be more of a mind of "people kill; not guns" , but that has been changing lately , and I think as a result of these horrific public massacres which are now occurring every other day. Even back in 1980 when John Lennon was killed I didn't get so angry about guns -- but I think the death of these 20 children is what has completely turned my head around 100%. Look -- it's just common sense. The less guns you have, the less chance of murder by guns. The harder you make it for people to GET a gun, the less innocent people will be gunned down. It's all rather basic. As you say -- that does not mean that there will be "no" murders. Things like this may always occur, but the idea is to drastically reduce them and make it much more difficult. And how can ANY gun advocates disagree with that?? So in a case like this Connecticut tragedy, if it had not been possible for the killer's mother to have had guns in her home, then the guy wouldn't have had such easy access to those guns. He would have had to get a gun from somewhere else -- and maybe he could not do so, based on his history of mental illness. My girlfriend and I usually agree on most things but this morning we were discussing the gun control thing and we are at completely opposite ends here. She sounds like a fat old middle-aged conservative man when she talks about "the Second Ammendment" and "if someone wants to get a gun, they will find a way to get a gun" (blah, blah blah). I mean, really folks, think about it -- if you're honest about it, isn't it true that sometimes in making things much more difficult, it can deter a horrific incident like this? Maybe this young man would not have any idea where to go or how to accomplish getting guns. Maybe not, but maybe. But it's worth it to take that extra precaution. If the killer had entered the school with a knife or baseball bat or had to resort to using his own two hands, chances are a lot more children would have survived that day. (However, admittedly when it comes to a classroom full of kids and no adults after killing off the adult teacher, maybe little children wouldn't have had a chance under any circumstances -- though my point is still valid in theory). Bottom Line: Make it that much harder for evil-doers to commit murder. And that includes having fewer guns out there and harder to get into their hands. How in the world can anyone disagree with that?
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Dec 16, 2012 10:45:16 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, Joe. How would you respond to the assertions that: 1. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and 2. What we need are not new gun control laws, but stricter enforcement of current laws?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 16, 2012 12:09:24 GMT -5
The 20 plus children knifed in yet another school knife attack in China are no less traumatized than those who survived the Conn. shootings. The Chinese children who died in previous school knife attacks there are no less dead than gun victims.
Gun control is only one element. Society glorifies violence in popular media. We have raised generations of self-important, over-indulged brats. Add mental illness to that only casually addressed by parents and you have school shooters.
Most of the U.S. school shooters are kids who came from middle class homes with available health insurance and intact parents or at least one parent in the home. But the brats also had unlimited access to internet and all the crap on it, violent video games, violent music, violent movies, etc.
People are bad, not a gun nowhere around a human.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 16, 2012 12:31:20 GMT -5
Gun control is only one element. Society glorifies violence in popular media. We have raised generations of self-important, over-indulged brats. Add mental illness to that only casually addressed by parents and you have school shooters. Most of the U.S. school shooters are kids who came from middle class homes with available health insurance and intact parents or at least one parent in the home. But the brats also had unlimited access to internet and all the crap on it, violent video games, violent music, violent movies, etc. AGREED! In fact, here is what I just wrote over at another website: I wish the surviving children good luck. The poor things will definitely need it. When I was just a few years above their age, the closest I got to horror like this was watching ATTACK OF THE FIFTY FOOT WOMAN on New York's Creature Features, and peddling my bike at 8 am on a sunny summer morning to get to my candy store to find the latest copy of THE MONSTER TIMES.
When I was 7 it was the time of the Manson murders. I had no knowledge of it at all, no recollection now. Completely oblivious. Because it was easier for parents to monitor their kids back then, and there wasn't the Internet, I-phones, and World News on Cable TV in the way. But moreover, incidents of mass murder like that were not "every other day occurrences". The first time I recall being aware was in 1977 with the Son Of Sam killings. Again, a relative rare occurrence as compared to now It's a certainty that it's "people" who need changing -- but how precisely does that get accomplished on a worldwide scale when the genie has been poking his head further and further out of the bottle with each new decade? It's too late to put it back inside that bottle now -- this monster has been created because the envelope of what is tolerated has been pushed further forward a little more each year, what passes for music, TV, and movies today... thus resulting in a more desensitized attitude to things, and an "anything goes" attitude. And just ugliness and gray depression in general. More wholesome programming is no longer cool.
We used to play "tag" or wiffle ball. We were not confined to our own spaces while playing very realistic video games with the goal to murder people.
I hope things can and will change, I truly do with all my heart. I hope you're right. I also want this world not only to get better but to go on a long, long time. That being said, presently I'd have to say that IF there was ever a time for The Second Coming, it's now.Okay, so I therefore see it as you do. But everything I said about eliminating guns and seriously limiting them is also part of this "problem". Who says it all has to be one thing? This is a disgusting stew, with many contributing factors. JSD, how can you seriously not consider what I wrote about gun control? Sure, what we need to do is try to get the PERSON well and not inclined to kill others; however, there is no denying that if there are less guns or no guns, then there are going to be less gun murders or no gun murders -- and it makes things all that much more difficult for the killers... Period. I agree, but here aren't you blaming "things" like you're telling us not to do with guns? I'd challenge that. Guns are bad. They are made for one purpose only - TO KILL. They are evil, they are created to inflict harm, or death. Something like a knife may have many uses, and was not created specifically to injur.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 16, 2012 12:39:04 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, Joe. How would you respond to the assertions that: 1. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, All I can say is you're preaching to the former choir (me) -- or I should say, up until a couple of days ago you were saying exactly what I've always felt. However, this particular slaughtering of kindergarten babies has really made me feel it's worth taking the chance. I dare say that for all the "home defense" stuff, it seems to be a rarity when an intruder invades a home and the home owner defends himself by shooting the intruder; most often it's yet another case of the kids or someone else getting hold of the guns and massacring others. I'd go for that over doing nothing, but I still would prefer trying to ban guns all together. If that mom had not legally been able to keep guns for home defense, she would be alive today along with 20 little kids and the adults who were snuffed out. There is no denying this. Even if you consider it to be just one fluke incident, that's still 20 kids too many, and this happens way too often these days.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 16, 2012 12:50:31 GMT -5
The 20 plus children knifed in yet another school knife attack in China are no less traumatized than those who survived the Conn. shootings. The Chinese children who died in previous school knife attacks there are no less dead than gun victims. Gun control is only one element. Society glorifies violence in popular media. We have raised generations of self-important, over-indulged brats. Add mental illness to that only casually addressed by parents and you have school shooters. Most of the U.S. school shooters are kids who came from middle class homes with available health insurance and intact parents or at least one parent in the home. But the brats also had unlimited access to internet and all the crap on it, violent video games, violent music, violent movies, etc. People are bad, not a gun nowhere around a human. It does not matter what class you come from. Mental illness causes a horrific crime to be committed as was done in Ct. Add in a parent of such an individual who keeps guns in their house where the mentally ill indiviual also resides, for whatever reason, and you have a deadly recipe for disaster. There is no reason why the public at large needs to have the ability to obtain military-style weapons that fire multiple rounds of ammunition in rapid succession, whether they be assault rifles or handguns. Single shot weapons that hold a relatively small amount of ammunition without re-loading are sufficient for protection against criminal intrusion or hunting purposes. All assault weapons should be banned from possession by the general public. Will that stop all weapon-releated killings? No. But it will lessen the liklihood of mass killings in public places where the assailant can get off multiple rounds of fire in rapid succession before anyone can react and defend themselves. And background checks for weapon ownership must involve the owner providing information that anyone residing within the domicle of the person who will own and store the gun who has any record of mental illness not be allowed to own weapons of any kind under those circumstances. And if caught violating such laws, they will be held criminally responsible for owning any weapons or any misuse of those weapons by anyone else residing within their domicile who uses the guns for an illegal purpose. BAN ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. PERIOD.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Dec 16, 2012 13:14:27 GMT -5
I generally agree with lowbasso.
Right to have arms shouldn't mean assault weapons. If an individual has an intruder, a single weapon should suffice.
With a home invasion you probably wouldn't have time to grab your assault weapon anyway. Chances are the invaders would end up using it against you.
Anything greater in home conflicts we are all in trouble.
Also no problem with better screening, including family accountability. This woman had a gun collection with a child with some very loose screws. I don't take mental illness lightly. Maybe she tried to get him help, but a gun collection in the house?
These are compromises, not removing your right to own a gun.
I also think violent video games and even some horror movies should be banned. They are now more realistic than old gore movies, and are pretty sick in concept. While I hate censorship, I think society has gotten wayyyy out of hand.
We are seriously f@#king up our future.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 16, 2012 16:21:10 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, Joe. How would you respond to the assertions that: 1. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and 2. What we need are not new gun control laws, but stricter enforcement of current laws? The problem with the first statement are the biases embedded in the terms "outlawed" and "outlaw", which tend to be absolute or misleading and, thus, will always stifle any rationality. First, ANY talk of regulation causes many people to jump way over to the "outlawing" word. "Regulation" is NOT "outlawing." It seems that "regulation" has become a bad word. Oooh, government regulation - BADDDDDD! Well, I for one like that things like food quality, airplane manufacturing and maintenance, medical trials, and construction projects are regulated. Gun use is not nearly as regulated as some advocates think. Also, remember, speech, voting, religion - all rights in the Constitution are all regulated. Why not guns? Especially when the Constitution actually says "well-regulated militia." There is currently nothing regulated about our citizen militia. Also, in the 1st statement is the meme behind the word "outlaw." It's an albatross to hide the fact that most gun injuries and deaths are not at the hands of "bad guys," but by suicide. Also, when guns are used for homicides, well over 75% of those that die are "bad guys" (they kill each other), rather than innocent people in their homes or being mugged on the streets. And, when people do use guns in their homes, it usually turns out badly for the gun owner, not some bad intruder. So, relatively speaking, most of us will not encounter an armed gunman. This "protection against 'outlaws' is a lie used to convince us that we all need guns. As for the second statement, in order for us to be able to really strictly enforce the gun laws we do have, we would have to have a most totalitarian government. Look at it like this. Instead of lowering the speed limit, let's strictly enforce speed laws. Okay, EVERYONE going 66 mph gets a ticket. Aside from the fact that it couldn't be done, how would you all feel about your freedoms then? So, to enforce the gun laws right, it would require mega-law enforcement powers, which we don't have. The gun lobbyists know that. That's why the gun lobbyists always sing the "greater enforcement" song. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They know that they have lobbied to make the gun laws inherently weak and practically unenforceable, all the while claiming that they are the good guys because they have cooperated with legislators. They know that under current laws, there is no REAL fear of their guns being taken away, but they sure cry as though they will be. But, you know that if laws were changed so that strict enforcement of gun laws could be accomplished, they would be the first to play the totalitarian/fascist/Communist/Socialist cards. I'm on to their propaganda strategy.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 16, 2012 20:09:26 GMT -5
I don't own any handguns, have 22 caliber rifle that is bolt action and would not permit me to commit mass murder and a 12 gauge shotgun which hurts my shoulder when I do shoot it.
I am just saying the problem goes way beyond access to guns. I support gun registration and bans on certain firearms to the public.
But the problem is much deeper and mental illness is sometimes the problem but more often pure evil is overwhelming all of humanity. Like Mike said, humans are more and more messed up and they will find a way to kill.
I am just saying let's address all of the elements of a depraved society. No one want to address personal responsibility and self-restraint and self-control.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 17, 2012 7:13:28 GMT -5
and a 12 gauge shotgun which hurts my shoulder when I do shoot it. But would it hurt someone else's shoulder if - heaven forbid - they got a hold of it? Well, of course. But what's wrong with making it even more difficult? That's what this is about. There will always be mental illness and pure evil, but if there are far less guns or no guns, then there will be less mass murders. It is likely that this Lanza nut could not have killed as many (or any) people if he did not have the convenience of his mom's gun collection at his disposal. Of course we do. It's all part of the mixture. But you're never going to have everyone exercising personal responsibility and self-control. You CAN, however, make it downright difficult or impossible for the unstable ones out there to obtain guns so easily, or at all.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 17, 2012 10:45:49 GMT -5
. . . I am just saying the problem goes way beyond access to guns . . . I agree with that, which is what I alluded to in my first post. We not only have to SERIOUSLY look at our gun laws and our gun fetishes, but we have to look at ourselves as a culture. The whole world sees us as a violent nation. Just as we as individuals don't see ourselves as we are, but others clearly see us for what we are, people around the world definitely see us as a violent country. We have to look at our violent nature as a people and our drug laws and our penal system and our views on early childhood education and our views of the mentally ill and our views on poverty and our glorification of violence, etc. Look, I'm not naive enough to believe that gun control (banning of certain arms in some cases) is THE answer. But, those of you who are like Charlton Heston and shout that we will have to take your guns out of your "cold dead hands," have to give in. There has to be compromise. Nothing is absolute. Any solutions to our violence against each other HAS to include guns in the conversation. As long as gun laws are not part of solution, no amount of social/legal action will succeed, AND at the same time, if gun laws are the ONLY solution chosen, then that won't solve the problem, either. We all have to be balanced and comprehensive on this.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 17, 2012 19:20:44 GMT -5
. . . I am just saying the problem goes way beyond access to guns . . . The whole world sees us as a violent nation. Just as we as individuals don't see ourselves as we are, but others clearly see us for what we are, people around the world definitely see us as a violent country. We have to look at our violent nature as a people and our drug laws and our penal system and our views on early childhood education and our views of the mentally ill and our views on poverty and our glorification of violence, etc. You would think those Radical Islamics would be afraid of us, wouldn't you? Any solutions to our violence against each other HAS to include guns in the conversation. As long as gun laws are not part of solution, no amount of social/legal action will succeed, AND at the same time, if gun laws are the ONLY solution chosen, then that won't solve the problem, either. The government is trying to get a group of people to go around and get all the guns from the licensed gun holders. Any volunteers here? I'm trying to find out if we will be armed or not.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 17, 2012 20:56:58 GMT -5
The 20 plus children knifed in yet another school knife attack in China are no less traumatized than those who survived the Conn. shootings. The Chinese children who died in previous school knife attacks there are no less dead than gun victims. And kids who see their dog get hit by a car are traumatized, too. Knives are not guns and are not comparable. Not to diminish the increase and horror of the knife attacks in China, but at least people stand a chance against a knife. At least you can run away from a knife. The gun lobby is ALWAYS using extreme examples and comparisons to justify guns. Analogies hide nuances and obfuscate chasms. The gun lobby always outlandishly exaggerates the boundaries of their arguments to fit themselves. It's no different than Huckabie saying that school shootings are a result of taking God out of the schools or that New Orleans was deluged because of it's support of gay lifestyles. Guns should be spoken about on their own merit. Guns should be rationalized in their own right - without any fear mongering about the Russians coming or Obama's Socialist agenda or those black gangbangers who want to rape white women, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 17, 2012 21:05:09 GMT -5
You would think those Radical Islamics would be afraid of us, wouldn't you? Once again, another extreme example to try to justify a tenuous view. C'mon, radical Islam is wack. Let's compare apples to apples, as in the US to Canada or France or England or Norway or Germany or any other industrialized Western nation. Jeez, I'm surprised a comparison to Somalia to prove how safe we are wasn't made. By the way, Somalia is a good example of what happens when you have a true libertarian society where guns are not regulated. Yeah, let's go in that direction, Representative Gohmert.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 17, 2012 21:43:47 GMT -5
You would think those Radical Islamics would be afraid of us, wouldn't you? Once again, another extreme example to try to justify a tenuous view. C'mon, radical Islam is wack. Let's compare apples to apples, as in the US to Canada or France or England or Norway or Germany or any other industrialized Western nation. Jeez, I'm surprised a comparison to Somalia to prove how safe we are wasn't made. By the way, Somalia is a good example of what happens when you have a true libertarian society where guns are not regulated. Yeah, let's go in that direction, Representative Gohmert. Sorry, I was only trying to justify a joke, which is sometimes hard for me to defend. I would come down on the side of getting rid of the guns, but I think it's a little too impossible to do at this point. Hence my second comment where I'm voluteering to come around the neighborhoods to pick them up, provided I'm armed. If I were going to try to justify owning arms, I would have said I got my handgun because someone threatened to come by my appartment and kill me. And it wasn't some internet psycho hater who knows who I am and where I live. (Relax. No one here has said that to me. We're all cool here.)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 17, 2012 23:43:53 GMT -5
The 20 plus children knifed in yet another school knife attack in China are no less traumatized than those who survived the Conn. shootings. The Chinese children who died in previous school knife attacks there are no less dead than gun victims. And kids who see their dog get hit by a car are traumatized, too. Knives are not guns and are not comparable. Not to diminish the increase and horror of the knife attacks in China, but at least people stand a chance against a knife. At least you can run away from a knife. As an aside, I'd rather die quickly from a clean bullet shot or two from a gunman several yards or feet from me than have some O.J. physically on top of me slashing me dozens of times as I feel every flesh tearing, organ ripping slash to my body and have the killer sweating, drooling and otherwise getting funky on me in addition to killing me in a slow, very painful fashion. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 17, 2012 23:50:55 GMT -5
As an aside, I'd rather die quickly from a clean bullet shot or two from a gunman several yards or feet from me than have some O.J. physically on top of me slashing me dozens of times as I feel every flesh tearing, organ ripping slash to my body and have the killer sweating, drooling and otherwise getting funky on me in addition to killing me in a slow, very painful fashion. But that's just me. Now this is REALLY getting silly. OK - then I'd rather be one of the ones who survived because I was able to run away while the slasher was taking a long time hacking up someone else, instead of firing a quick round of shots. These gun lovers will try everything and anything to rationalize.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 18, 2012 0:33:26 GMT -5
As an aside, I'd rather die quickly from a clean bullet shot or two from a gunman several yards or feet from me than have some O.J. physically on top of me slashing me dozens of times as I feel every flesh tearing, organ ripping slash to my body and have the killer sweating, drooling and otherwise getting funky on me in addition to killing me in a slow, very painful fashion. But that's just me. Now this is REALLY getting silly. OK - then I'd rather be one of the ones who survived because I was able to run away while the slasher was taking a long time hacking up someone else, instead of firing a quick round of shots. These gun lovers will try everything and anything to rationalize. I said "as an aside" meaning I was stepping out of the debate for a moment to express my personal terror of being stabbed to death. And I am not a gun fanatic! I own the Barney Fife arsenal and I haven't shot those in decades. My argument is gun control is just one element. We must also address other elements that encourage, lead to or promote violence!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 18, 2012 0:59:42 GMT -5
. . . Sorry, I was only trying to justify a joke . . . Oh, okay. I get it. That is funny. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 18, 2012 1:02:39 GMT -5
. . . I own the Barney Fife arsenal . . . Then, I guess we need to change the argument. Guns don't kill people, people with one bullet kill people.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 18, 2012 1:05:06 GMT -5
As an aside, I'd rather die quickly from a clean bullet shot or two from a gunman several yards or feet from me than have some O.J. physically on top of me slashing me dozens of times as I feel every flesh tearing, organ ripping slash to my body and have the killer sweating, drooling and otherwise getting funky on me in addition to killing me in a slow, very painful fashion. But that's just me. Me, too. That's why I avoid slasher movies and can stomach sniper movies.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Dec 18, 2012 10:24:39 GMT -5
I'd be really scared walking round parts of America because the perception is that most of you are carrying guns. I definitely wouldn't want to offend anyone for fear of being pumped full of lead and being labelled as some kind of pinko, commie, aetheist, stalinist, leninist, maoist, leftie evolutionist, abortionist and liberal socialist causing the downfall of the western world! When all I'd said was that the British National Health Service was wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Dec 18, 2012 11:45:56 GMT -5
I'd be really scared walking round parts of America because the perception is that most of you are carrying guns. I definitely wouldn't want to offend anyone for fear of being pumped full of lead and being labelled as some kind of pinko, commie, aetheist, stalinist, leninist, maoist, leftie evolutionist, abortionist and liberal socialist causing the downfall of the western world! When all I'd said was that the British National Health Service was wonderful. You wouldn't offend me. Come out to San Francisco. We like our commie pinko atheist marxist leninist beatlemaniacs.
|
|