Connecticut School Shooting

[Frank Reynolds]

1. I never mentioned banning guns. I simply said that the constitution was literally designed so that it could be amended because the people that created our government were smart enough to realize that a bunch of rules written on a piece of paper in 1787 may not properly reflect how society has changed 200 years later. Those rules weren't written as absolutes. They were written as a by-product of the time they were written, and the system was set up so that they could later be changed.

2. I do agree that, if they did ban guns, not every citizen would turn them in. That's not really an argument for not banning guns, though. That's like saying murder might as well be legal because not everyone is going to obey the law and not commit it.

3. Hunters can hunt with a bow and arrow. The human species made do for thousands of years that way. Hell, I'd argue that it's a lot more honorable to kill an animal with a weapon that requires a lot of skill and stealth than it is to plug it with a rifle from half a mile away.

4. And honestly, how many people in this country hunt as a primary source of food? Literally everyone I know or have known that hunts does it either as a hobby or an excuse to go drink beer with some friends in the woods. If they end up with a month's supply of deer jerky as a result, bonus.

Fair enough Jack, but I'm just telling you it's honestly never going to happen. Your ideas are noble and honorable, but they are simply not practical so I don't know why we even discuss it.

The argument for keeping guns is that citizens deserve the right to protect themselves and take action to protect their life and the lives of their loved ones.

If you are comfortable waiting for the police to arrive while an armed robber invades your house, possibly rapes your wife, or kidnaps your children.... good luck to you, I hope the cops aren't stuck in line waiting for that hot batch of Krispy Kremes to come out of the glaze. I wouldn't trust my life safety waiting on someone else to save you.

You will simply never take away law abiding citizens RIGHT to own firearms and protect themselves, their family and their property.

If they amended our constitution and took away guns, there would be more of a uprising than if women and minorities were suddenly denied their rights to vote.

 

[Zog]

I didn't see this posted yet, apologies if it has been:

MORGAN FREEMAN ON THE SHOOTINGS YESTERDAY:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations*, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem."

http://www.dailypaul.com/266479/sur...n-freeman-he-blames-the-media-for-ct-shooting

 

[Jack Brickman]

The argument for keeping guns is that citizens deserve the right to protect themselves and take action to protect their life and the lives of their loved ones.

See, that right there is a legitimate argument for keeping guns. The problem I have is when people argue that it's some god-given right. It's not. It was a right detailed in a document that was written over 200 years ago by a bunch of white dudes when society was entirely different than it is today. Lots of laws that were acceptable in that period of time have been changed today, and I see no reason to argue that others couldn't be changed as well.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

MORGAN FREEMAN ON THE SHOOTINGS YESTERDAY:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.


Absolutely congruent with my line of thinking. The media are filthy fucking pigs.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

See, that right there is a legitimate argument for keeping guns. The problem I have is when people argue that it's some god-given right. It's not. It was a right detailed in a document that was written over 200 years ago by a bunch of white dudes when society was entirely different than it is today. Lots of laws that were acceptable in that period of time have been changed today, and I see no reason to argue that others couldn't be changed as well.

But the issue of protecting your home, and being the first man to take action, should someone invade your property and jeopardize the lives of your wife, children..... Has not changed at all. Even today, 200 years later, these same freedoms and rights should be guaranteed to our law abiding citizens because these scenarios have been happening since the dawn of man.

Even when there were silly men with powdered wigs, people still robbed, raped and stole from good men.

Our forefathers saw the value of a self policing society where a derelict would think twice about intruding on another man's home or his family.

By un-arming everyone, you are making it so much easier for the criminals to say yes to an attempted invasion, kidnapping, theft, rape etc etc.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

By making it solely the police responsibility, you are buying the criminals precious time to get away, and increasing their margin of error in an attempted crime.

 

[JSS2306]

See, that right there is a legitimate argument for keeping guns. The problem I have is when people argue that it's some god-given right. It's not. It was a right detailed in a document that was written over 200 years ago by a bunch of white dudes when society was entirely different than it is today. Lots of laws that were acceptable in that period of time have been changed today, and I see no reason to argue that others couldn't be changed as well.

You're way off. The 2nd amendment is first and foremost a protective measure for the people against tyranny. It's one of the reasons we are the freest country on this earth. This can never become outdated. It IS a fundamental right that we have made for ourselves I don't care what political affiliation you come from. The fact that we need guns to protect ourselves from each other is sad, but also necessary.

The only idea which is outdated is your stance on banning guns in a world where the population is the largest ever, continuously growing, and thinking you can prevent events like these from happening.

 

[Jack Brickman]

You're way off. The 2nd amendment is first and foremost a protective measure for the people against tyranny. It's one of the reasons we are the freest country on this earth. This can never become outdated. It IS a fundamental right that we have made for ourselves I don't care what political affiliation you come from. The fact that we need guns to protect ourselves from each other is sad, but also necessary.

The only idea which is outdated is your stance on banning guns in a world where the population is the largest ever, continuously growing, and thinking you can prevent events like these from happening.

We're not the freest country on Earth.

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-d...conomic-freedom-by-country.html#axzz2FAFagm00
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Perhaps you should do some research rather than make claims that haven't been valid for decades.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

And so we go again de-railing the thread. I'm out guys. Jack please respond to me. Really, I'm not going to get involved in this one. Generally I don't think American's are very free. We're all slaves to our fake fiat currency, our crippling debt, the Patriot act, our fucking moronic foreign policy and drug war.

America has a lot of problems. I'm not going to get into quantifying how free we are.


Please respond to my last post tho Jack.

 

[Jack Brickman]

But the issue of protecting your home, and being the first man to take action, should someone invade your property and jeopardize the lives of your wife, children..... Has not changed at all. Even today, 200 years later, these same freedoms and rights should be guaranteed to our law abiding citizens because these scenarios have been happening since the dawn of man.

Even when there were silly men with powdered wigs, people still robbed, raped and stole from good men.

Our forefathers saw the value of a self policing society where a derelict would think twice about intruding on another man's home or his family.

By un-arming everyone, you are making it so much easier for the criminals to say yes to an attempted invasion, kidnapping, theft, rape etc etc.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

By making it solely the police responsibility, you are buying the criminals precious time to get away, and increasing their margin of error in an attempted crime.

The real issue is how many families actually need a gun to protect them. I don't own a gun, and it has nothing to do with my ideals. I just don't feel I need one. I don't live in constant fear of having my apartment broken into. I don't live in constant fear of being mugged when I walk around outside. And it's not that I live in some idyllic small town paradise with no crime. I live just outside of downtown Charlotte in a relatively urban neighborhood.

You want to protect yourself from home invasions? A big dog is a much better deterrent than a gun because potential burglars can see the threat of the dog and will probably opt to break into a different residence. You want safety when you're taking a walk at night? You're much less likely to get mugged walking a German Shepherd than you are carrying a concealed weapon that the mugger(s) can't see.

 

[DDJ7777]

You want to protect yourself from home invasions? A big dog is a much better deterrent than a gun because potential burglars can see the threat of the dog and will probably opt to break into a different residence. You want safety when you're taking a walk at night? You're much less likely to get mugged walking a German Shepherd than you are carrying a concealed weapon that the mugger(s) can't see.

Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year. In the past several years, there have been 30 to 35 fatal dog attacks in the USA annually. Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive some form of medical attention. Based on data collected in the USA between 2001 and 2003, the CDC concluded that there were 4.5 million dog bite victims per year, but that figure appears to be rising.

Despite the number of victims, only 15,000 to 16,000 of them per year receive money from homeowners insurance companies and renters insurance companies. This equals one-third of one percent of the victims at most - just 3 to 4 out of every 1,000. Although these insurers pay over $350 million to all victims, the average insurance payment for a dog bite case is only $21,875.

Ban dogs.

Oh, and check out: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

 

[Jack Brickman]

Ban dogs.

Oh, and check out: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

I'd say 30-35 is quite a bit better than over 8000. Then again, I was never terribly good at math.

 

[AZ_]

People really want to compare dog attacks to gun violence.

Really?

 

[Jack Brickman]

People really want to compare dog attacks to gun violence.

Really?

It's actually kind of ironic. The same people who shouldn't be allowed to own dogs because they mistreat and abuse them and indirectly lead to most of those bites are the same people that shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

And for the record, I do think restrictions should be placed on the people who own dogs. Dogs are living creatures and can potentially be dangerous. People who aren't responsible enough or stable enough to own them shouldn't.

 

[Otsego Mar]

It's actually kind of ironic. The same people who shouldn't be allowed to own dogs because they mistreat and abuse them and indirectly lead to most of those bites are the same people that shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

And for the record, I do think restrictions should be placed on the people who own dogs. Dogs are living creatures and can potentially be dangerous. People who aren't responsible enough or stable enough to own them shouldn't.

Possibly.....or possibly not. What exactly is your point?

So...just because some asshole abuses his dogs....that means I don't get to own one?

So...just because some asshole kills someone with a handgun...that means I don't get to own one?

 

[Jack Brickman]

Possibly.....or possibly not. What exactly is your point?

That both guns and dogs should have better restrictions over who can own them because both are potentially dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. This is especially true with guns because they are literally designed to kill. They serve no other purpose, whereas dogs are used for many, many other purposes than simply causing harm.