U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:05 PM
 
11,589 posts, read 17,530,612 times
Reputation: 17281

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
Haha when I express an opinion it's "ranting", when you do it's righteous?

RANT
verb
1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: The demagogue ranted for hours.

You could be forgiven if you didn't, you know, START THE THREAD. It seems many here agreed with me. My last thread above yours was very reasonable I thought and trying to help you give some focus to your debate. You are welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:06 PM
 
11,589 posts, read 17,530,612 times
Reputation: 17281
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
The end.
One can only hope.

I think it's time for you to go back to the "fashion and beauty" forum where you're words of wisdom will do more good perhaps. I think that forum perhaps suits you better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:08 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,163,054 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
One of the problems with the OP's post is you can't really figure out what her point it, besides hatred of anything associated with guns. Her debate follows no logical conclusion.
But this amendment question brings up a point - that yes we have this bill of rights as part of this huge experiment started 250 years ago called the US constitution. The basic concept is personal liberty and freedom, the basic issue is personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other, you can't lose one without the other.
Many governments do not have complete freedom of speech - perhaps the country the OP lives in. They justify it by saying the government knows best, they should not complain about some issues and, because social order is maintained, safety is maintained. Yes, my experience in Singapore was telling - an extremely clean and safe environment, no one criticizes the government, everyone follows the rules (lest they get the lash)....populated by a society of soulless robots (maybe that's a bit extreme, but only a bit). So they ban certain movies and certain books. It's difficult for people to understand why we must allow such crazies like the KKK to have a rally, even to the point of protecting them by using our law enforcement resources. I travel all over the world, I would rather live in the US, warts and all, then anywhere else in the world.
The point it, our bill of rights, the right to own guns among them, but not exclusively, is a testament to personal freedom even while it causes some social ills. We must address the social ills of course, but at minimal cost to these freedoms.
The Founders were revolutionaries and envisaged a society where the populace would be armed and capable of pulling down any unpopular government. That however has proven sufficiently unpopular that we have defacto modified the 2nd to read only on the use of a firearm as a self defense weapon.

Thus we will have to accept the deaths from guns as we do those from automobiles. The overall good is seen as sufficiently well served to look past a few hundred or thousand deaths in light of the overall good we perceive from gun ownership.

The only point I make is if we are going to do it we should do it well which suggests a general permissive concealed carry. We may even get to the point where one is not properly dressed without his or her firearm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:09 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 5,378,200 times
Reputation: 11918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
One can only hope.

I think it's time for you to go back to the "fashion and beauty" forum where you're words of wisdom will do more good perhaps.
Um....you didn't have to respond you know.

If it angers you so much and is so incredibly irrelevant why not ignore the entire thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:16 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,163,054 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
Well that's my point. LAX is proof this doesn't work in practise, ditto Fort Hood.

The trained and armed are just as vulnerable as fish in a barrel, like the rest of us.

Surprise is everything. War mongers have known that and used it as a tactic since the beginning of time.

Just think - how many borderline personality disorders do you know? Most people have come across one or six crazies masquerading as "normal people" in their time. Imagine if that crazy in the filing room had a gun in his briefcase? The psychopath in the boardroom?

Trayon Martin all over again, all over the country.

Scary.
Actually no. It really proves the opposite. If you are going to have a society where gun possession is widely accepted one needs to avoid restricting the presence of arms. If every second or third person is armed it is pretty clear that these situations would go down a little better. Might have more secondary casualties but the Fort Hood thing would have ended in seconds. If we wish to have widely available arms we need minimal restrictions to minimize the danger.

Florida has pretty conclusively demonstrated there is no big cost to permissive concealed carry so we might as well get on with it and minimize the force advantage of a single gun man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:17 PM
 
11,589 posts, read 17,530,612 times
Reputation: 17281
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The Founders were revolutionaries and envisaged a society where the populace would be armed and capable of pulling down any unpopular government. That however has proven sufficiently unpopular that we have defacto modified the 2nd to read only on the use of a firearm as a self defense weapon.

Thus we will have to accept the deaths from guns as we do those from automobiles. The overall good is seen as sufficiently well served to look past a few hundred or thousand deaths in light of the overall good we perceive from gun ownership.

The only point I make is if we are going to do it we should do it well which suggests a general permissive concealed carry. We may even get to the point where one is not properly dressed without his or her firearm.
Ivoc I wouldn't go that far because I think some regulation is neccesary, I am happy with the status quo for the most part. I have to say I am disturbed about your attitude in terms of justifying the deaths and it is not shared by any gun owner I have met. We do NOT accept deaths, we address them and solve the cause of gun violence as we do with car fatalities. Is that clear? I don't know if you are spoofing or an extremist. But no it's not part of the "overall good" and if you concluded that from my response you are dead (no pun) wrong.
I have a concealed carry permit and was happy to undergo the fingerprinting and training that was necessary to get the permit. We can address the gun violence however just like we do with automobiles - address the root cause, something politicians hesitate to do because it is not politically correct or done by some all inclusive legislation. The cause of gun violence is easy and involves the same Pareto principles that are used in business and using problem solving methodologies - it's caused by a very small subset of society. Focus on the user.

Last edited by Dd714; 11-02-2013 at 06:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:19 PM
 
11,589 posts, read 17,530,612 times
Reputation: 17281
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
Um....you didn't have to respond you know.

If it angers you so much and is so incredibly irrelevant why not ignore the entire thread?
Where do you come up with this "anger" thing? Again what are you talking about?
The thread has moved on without you...either offer coherent debate or, if you lack knowledge about the topic, kindly move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:20 PM
 
Location: USA
7,778 posts, read 9,628,957 times
Reputation: 11673
If I were the OP, I hope I would recognize the truth when someone tells me what my posts are like. There seems to be a lack of comprehension re what makes sense and what doesn't. It's weird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:28 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,163,054 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Ivoc I wouldn't go that far because I think some regulation is neccesary, I am happy with the status quo for the most part. I have to say I am a bit disturbed about your attitude and it is not shared by any gun owner I have met. I have a concealed carry permit and was happy to undergo the fingerprinting and training that was necessary to get the permit. We can address the gun violence however just like we do with automobiles - address the root cause, something politicians hesitate to do because it is not politically correct or done by some all inclusive legislation. The cause of gun violence is easy and involves the same Pareto principles that are used in business and using problem solving methodologies - it's caused by a very small subset of society. Focus on the user.
I have no particular problem with reasonable regulation. You should know how to use your weapon for instance. But other than that I would think very permissive. Yes the right of the felon and the mentally disturbed can be limited. But that is about it.

The intent is that pulling a pistol in anger or for criminal reasons should have a good chance of getting you shot and quickly.

If not widely spread it becomes a crutch to those who suffer from small member syndrome. And that is not a healthy thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:30 PM
 
11,589 posts, read 17,530,612 times
Reputation: 17281
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
I have no particular problem with reasonable regulation. You should know how to use your weapon for instance. But other than that I would think very permissive. Yes the right of the felon and the mentally disturbed can be limited. But that is about it.

The intent is that pulling a pistol in anger or for criminal reasons should have a good chance of getting you shot and quickly.

If not widely spread it becomes a crutch to those who suffer from small member syndrome. And that is not a healthy thing.
OK, I edited my post because I thought you were going way overboard after I read it a few times. A weapon for me is just a tool, nothing more or less.
I think these mass shooting are statistical outliers anyways to the real problem of gun violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top