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.
Who are you looking to blame/punish for this horrible event? I am not trying to insult you and this is a serious question.
Are you looking to blame the person who shot your friends son?
Are you looking to blame Smith & Wesson or Glock?
Or are you looking to blame your fellow citizens for the 2nd amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Thank you.
Other than the disgusting loser who deserves to rot in prison for what he did, I'm not looking to blame anyone specific. Agree 100% with this statement.
But gun proliferation is a problem in our country - and we should recognize it. Compared to rest of the developed world, we are an outlier.
A gun may make things easier for someone to commit a crime against another person, but it also is a great equalizer. It would allow a person who is say in a wheelchair or a person who is 110 pounds to be able to handle a person that is well over 200 pounds.
The biggest problem sadly that we have is the willingness by a smaller group of people to inflict harm on their fellow humans.
But the places with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun homicides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem
In other words, only "gun deaths" count.
Fools focus on tools, rather than the "violence problem."
You both are not understanding. The more guns there are the more gun deaths there are. It is quite simple. The places with the restrictive gun law have fewer gun deaths because there are less guns to kill. Simple logic.
As for "only gun deaths" counting. Umm, that is the topic of this discussion so not sure what your point is exactly. Cheers.
You both are not understanding. The more guns there are the more gun deaths there are. It is quite simple. The places with the restrictive gun law have fewer gun deaths because there are less guns to kill. Simple logic.
As for "only gun deaths" counting. Umm, that is the topic of this discussion so not sure what your point is exactly. Cheers.
Well, theres more cars on the road now, than ever before, car companies keep cranking new ones out...look at how many die in auto related accidents...are these peoples lives really worth the benefit and gain that cars provide in return?
I had a good friend and his wife killed by some idiot drunk driver last year, they left behind 3 young kids at home who will never see their parents again, there were 1000s of other people who died in car accidents as well, all over the country...but Ive never heard a single person seriously calling for cars to be more regulated, the implications are, these lives are bsically expendable, the benefit from cars is equal to or greater than the value of their lives.
Well, theres more cars on the road now, than ever before, car companies keep cranking new ones out...look at how many die in auto related accidents...are these peoples lives really worth the benefit and gain that cars provide in return?
I had a good friend and his wife killed by some idiot drunk driver last year, they left behind 3 young kids at home who will never see their parents again, there were 1000s of other people who died in car accidents as well, all over the country...but Ive never heard a single person seriously calling for cars to be more regulated, the implications are, these lives are bsically expendable, the benefit from cars is equal to or greater than the value of their lives.
That is because cars are already highly regulated. You clearly agree with me since you are not disagreeing with what I wrote. Your argument boils down to, "other things kill too so guns are OK." I'm sorry to hear of your friend's tragedy. That is awful but it does not negate the horror of gun deaths.
That is because cars are already highly regulated. You clearly agree with me since you are not disagreeing with what I wrote. Your argument boils down to, "other things kill too so guns are OK." I'm sorry to hear of your friend's tragedy. That is awful but it does not negate the horror of gun deaths.
Well, people still continue to die in car accidents, so they are definitely not regulated to the point where it impacts access, (like the goal is with guns)..
This is basically saying all those people that have died in car accidents, their lives were not equal to the benefit that cars provide, therefore no tougher regulations are being called for with cars.
Its the exact same argument against guns, but with guns, they seek to restrict or regulate access to them, I guess that means they believe those folks lives are worth more than any benefits guns provide in return.
Oh sure.
Let the teachers have guns in school, then when they actually have to use them the cops show up and shoot the teachers right?
If youre a teacher better make sure the cops dont see that gun anywhere near you or you will get shot trying to defend the school.
Even while youre trying to hold the guy down. Throw it out the window before the cops show up. Otherwise the gun nuts will say you didnt comply fast enough and you deserved to die.
3 cases recently of cops killing the good guy with a gun.
If I'm responsible for protecting your child at school then that is a chance I will take.
I know it's a possibility every time I walk out the door armed and my wife and I have even discussed it. If we are out with our young nieces and nephews when bullets start flying, her job is to get the kids to concealment or cover and I get between them and the threat.
We have discussed a lot of different scenarios and the proper response. There's nothing worse the getting into a life or death situation and freezing.
Well, people still continue to die in car accidents, so they are definitely not regulated to the point where it impacts access, (like the goal is with guns)..
Well, people still continue to die in car accidents, so they are definitely not regulated to the point where it impacts access, (like the goal is with guns)..
This is basically saying all those people that have died in car accidents, their lives were not equal to the benefit that cars provide, therefore no tougher regulations are being called for with cars.
Its the exact same argument against guns, but with guns, they seek to restrict or regulate access to them, I guess that means they believe those folks lives are worth more than any benefits guns provide in return.
At this point I do not understand your point. Cars are highly regulated, have safety standards, limit access to those with a license and a minimum age, must be registered, etc. Also, cars have nothing to do with guns and have entirely different purposes.
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.
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.
