Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Blame the product not the user.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
I'm gonna go sue McDonalds because they got me fat.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Meschrist, the children still got stabbed.
Am I the only person here, who sees something wrong with that?
Just because they didn't die, it must be so much better?
I don't know what to say. If you honestly don't think it is way better for the families and the kids and society that they did not die, I'm at a loss for words.
Of course it fuking sucks. Nobody said it didn't suck. But how could anyone possibly argue that the outcome was not WAY better than if all those kids had been filled with 5-10 bullets each? It is sickening, pathetic, and ignorant to suggest the two outcomes are on par with with each other... and even more so to suggest that acknowledging that one had a better outcome than the other means we see nothing wrong with kids getting stabbed.
And there you go again with the flippant, illogical horseshit that makes it impossible to discuss this topic with your side. You getting fat at McD;s is a little different than someone coming in and shooting 26 people.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Meschrist, the children still got stabbed.
Am I the only person here, who sees something wrong with that?
Just because they didn't die, it must be so much better?
I don't know what to say. If you honestly don't think it is way better for the families and the kids and society that they did not die, I'm at a loss for words.
Of course it fuking sucks. Nobody said it didn't suck. But how could anyone possibly argue that the outcome was not WAY better than if all those kids had been killed? It is sickening, pathetic, and ignorant to suggest the two outcomes are on par with with each other... and even more so to suggest that acknowledging that means we see nothing wrong with the stabbing.
There you go again, flipping my words. I NEVER ONCE STATED, that it is TERRIBLE THE KIDS DID NOT DIE, EVER. This sort of tragedy, NO MATTER THE OUTCOME, should NOT happen in the first place. BUT IT DOES.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
...and when it happens with guns, it is WAY worse.
Just because they didn't die, it must be so much better?
YES!!!! Just because they didn't die, it IS ABSOLUTELY 1000% better.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
"I really am trying to figure out why people who love guns are so against ANY further regulation."
Go back and read my posts. If you are still confused why I will go in depth.
"And how they can flippantly regurgitate the "don't blame the guns" or "guns don't kill people" crap in the face of a tragedy... rather than admit that NEVER would have happened with a knife or a club or anything other than a gun."
That ain't me saying that babe. But along those lines I would advise you to look at Mexico, where they have strong gun control laws and yet still have out of control kidnapping and other crimes that involve guns and suggest to you that all the gun regulation in the world won't get criminals to stop being criminals. There were over a million angry (but impotent) citizens march in Mexico City complaining about the daily kidnappings. There are several things we can do that would be much more effective, also go reread my posts for that, why keep repeating myself as you don't seem to read anything that doesn't already fit what you think should be in your version of reality. It's a complex issue that won't fit into a 2 sentence sound bite that your attention span seems to require.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Maybe if we rose taxes for %40 to pay for more police, crime would be lower.
And didn't give welfare to just anyone.
Until then.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
I don't blame the "product", guns.
But I do blame the easy availability of certain kinds of military style assault guns
I blame guns shows and private sales for not requiring ANY background checks
I blame the NRA for giving tens of millions to buy Republican politician's votes that favor absolutely no reasonable restrictions on background checks.
Why wouldn't ANYONE feel the same
No, the feds are not coming for YOUR guns, get it yet?
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
why keep repeating myself as you don't seem to read anything that doesn't already fit what you think should be in your version of reality.
the most poignant thing anyone on these type of threads has written
Let it go.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Every time I've done PPT, it's the same background check as from a store.
I'm not following you Norton. Cali has a bunch of useless steps to go through to get a gun.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
But along those lines I would advise you to look at Mexico, where they have strong gun control laws and...
a very corrupt government. Come on man! Same old bullsh#t. You can throw out Mexico, and I can throw out Germany... blah blah blah.
When it comes down to it what is the number 1 reason we should not have stricter requirements to get guns?
A) Because you say it won't work so what's the point
B) You don't want to be inconvenienced
C) Guns don't kill people so there is no point in regulating who has access to them
D) You can provide a country or two (which have very corrupt governments) in which gun regulations are ineffective
E) FILL IN THE BLANK
Maybe if we rose taxes for %40 to pay for more police, crime would be lower.
And didn't give welfare to just anyone.
Until then.
Until then, what? There is no point in trying to do anything?
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
What do you suggest happen, Mechrist?
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
So what, let me be ignorant and say;
"Like who is going to buy a gun to shoot anyone?"
So if I paid insurance, it'd stop me from wanting to shoot anyone in the face? How does that add up...
---------------------
A prosecutor can build a case off anything. That post is nothing.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Wes,
The issue for me is one of transition. We could pass all kinds of laws making firearm ownership more restrictive, and law-abiding citizens will follow them. What about those who won't? How will that change the balance in an otherwise free society?
In a way, it's like those problems where you have a two-person canoe and a group of cannibals and missionaries that need to cross a stream. If there are more cannibals than missionaries on either shore, the missionaries become meals. How do you get them across? If at some point between our current 300,000,000 or so firearms and the desired distributions of firearms, violent criminals have a much greater percentage of the weapons in circulation than they do now, what happens?
It's that issue that leads to the slogans about criminals and guns, and it's that issue that I seldom see advocates of stricter controls address. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion without addressing that issue.
Now your insurance point, on the other hand, is a good one, and well within existing tort reality. If I am negligent, and my negligence is the proximate cause of injury of another, I am liable. If I engage in an ultrahazardous activity, and that activity is the proximate cause of another's injury, I am liable. If firearms owners can't get insurance, or if (much more likely) any insurer starts to require certain conditions for the insurance to be in effect (e.g., that the insured meet certain educational or competency requirements, and that the firearms be stored in a locked safe, etc.) and charge a premium commensurate with the likely financial risk, this may provide the most effective means to optimize gun ownership in the U.S.
John
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
If I want to shoot you in the face and don't care about the consequences, why would I pay insurance?
That's not the point. You clearly aren't an idiot, so stop pretending to be one. There are plenty uninsured motorists out there who don't give a fuk. If they get busted, there are consequences. Insurance is for accidents... like if you "accidentally" leave your guns where your mentally unstable son can get them and kill dozens of innocent people... or if you "accidentally" lose a gun that is then used in a crime. Currently there is nothing in place to promote responsible gun ownership and it is left entirely up to the individual... imagine if driving had the same standards and all those guys I knew from college who "actually drive better when drunk" were allowed to do so at their discretion.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Insurance wouldn't help. You get in deep sh*t if you don't report a gun stolen, or "lost". It's your fault. You should store it safely.
Your gun vault should be your insurance.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
No, you don't get in deep sh#t if you don't report a gun stolen. There are places where it is illegal to even have a record of who owns guns... so how the fuk would you get in trouble for it?
YES it is YOUR fault, but OTHERS have to deal with the consequences.
"Federal law does not require individual gun owners or other lawful possessors of firearms to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement."
"Seven states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of their firearms to law enforcement. New Jersey has also adopted a relevant law, as described below."
http://smartgunlaws.org/reporting-lost-or-stolen-firearms-policy-summary/
The NRA is actively involved in stopping ANY laws that require individual gun owners to report lost of stolen guns.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Maybe some states.
In CA, if I lose my rifle or handgun,
and for some reason the ATF comes knocking, looking for them, (Yeah right)
or my gun is found on a dead gang member, or dropped at a robbery,
they can trace the serial number back to me.
Then yes, I'd be in deep sh*t.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
I must be. Explain it to me, how paying month to month insurance would help anything in the case of a mass shooting.
Go.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
If firearms owners can't get insurance, or if (much more likely) any insurer starts to require certain conditions for the insurance to be in effect (e.g., that the insured meet certain educational or competency requirements, and that the firearms be stored in a locked safe, etc.) and charge a premium commensurate with the likely financial risk, this may provide the most effective means to optimize gun ownership in the U.S.
If you are not law abiding or do not have anything someone can sue you for, you won't get insurance. This condition fails the same test gun regulation fails.
As I understand it in the UK any crime committed which involved firearms, the legal penalties are much more severe. What logical test does this fail?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!