Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ladypanther

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

Recommended Posts

So, do you blame the airplane as well as the hijackers when they flew it into the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11?

Do y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Would you say we have a nationwide epidemic of planes crashing into towers and trucks being used as bombs?

Trying to use singular events to absolve blame from an instrument of death that is being used to kill people daily is like comparing apples to rhinoceros sh!t.

When 10,000 people start dying every year from kamikaze airplanes and truck explosions like they do gun violence we can have the conversation about whether planes and trucks are the issue.

I am more interested in resolving issues that actually exist.

My arguement is the apples....yours is the rhinoceros sh!t.

You ban guns and the only people who will have them are the criminals....and that is a fact.

I have one gun for protection of my family and home. I am properly trained on it and it will only come out when it is needed. And believe me, I will use it if needed.

Someone breaks into my home, they are there for one reason....to harm me and my family. If they do, it will be the last decision and mistake they make.

Again, if you want to lobby for more consistent policies and regulations to purchase and own guns....training course, regristration, background checks, etc...then I can buy into that.

If you think you should ban them....no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do you blame the airplane as well as the hijackers when they flew it into the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11?

so do you credit stricter regulations/laws on the fact they haven't used a plane successfully since?

"Oh it's a hassle but they aren't flying planes into a buildings anymore so I guess it evens out"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suicide surpassed automobile deaths last year to take over the #1 spot on that list. So it goes back to the issue of mental illness vs gun control.

So do you restrict guns and infringe on 2nd amendment rights to protect the public? Or do you restrict those with a deemed significant mental illness and infringe on their 14th amendment rights (and perhaps their 1st)?

There is no simple solution to the issue of gun violence in our society. Realistically we will not stop the most determined criminals if they want to kill. These realities are not good excuses for failing to try to reduce gun violence and innocent deaths. When it comes to suicide the majority of attempts are conducted with firearms and two thirds of all successful suicides are accomplished with firearms. There are lessons we can learn from other countries and their attempts to limit gun violence and suicides.

EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.

JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

http://www.washingto...toting-utopias/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you say we have a nationwide epidemic of planes crashing into towers and trucks being used as bombs?

Trying to use singular events to absolve blame from an instrument of death that is being used to kill people daily is like comparing apples to rhinoceros sh!t.

When 10,000 people start dying every year from kamikaze airplanes and truck explosions like they do gun violence we can have the conversation about whether planes and trucks are the issue.

I am more interested in resolving issues that actually exist.

This goes back to my earlier posts about Alcohol and involved deaths, specifically children deaths. Its legal to consume, but there are always people who will abuse the privilege and put others at risk. Ban alcohol? I think someone tried that and it failed. Same with guns. Some people are just gonna do stupid things, fact of life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no simple solution to the issue of gun violence in our society. Realistically we will not stop the most determined criminals if they want to kill. These realities are not good excuses for failing to try to reduce gun violence and innocent deaths. When it comes to suicide the majority of attempts are conducted with firearms and two thirds of all successful suicides are accomplished with firearms. There are lessons we can learn from other countries and their attempts to limit gun violence and suicides.

EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.

JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

http://www.washingto...toting-utopias/

Based on the transitory nature of suicidal tendencies, there is an excellent chance neither the Oregon Mall or the Sandy Hook shootings would have occurred if the legal owners of the weapons had properly secured them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This goes back to my earlier posts about Alcohol and involved deaths, specifically children deaths. Its legal to consume, but there are always people who will abuse the privilege and put others at risk. Ban alcohol? I think someone tried that and it failed. Same with guns. Some people are just gonna do stupid things, fact of life

so guns are addictive like a drug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samuel Jackson gets it.

http://www.belfastte...m-16251501.html

Samuel L. Jackson doesn't believe liberal gun regulations can be wholly blamed for violence in America.

My response to SLJ is, who does?

Better crafted gun regulations can be part of a broader overall effort to reduce violence and gun deaths in our society.

Read more: http://www.belfastte...l#ixzz2FYhL7Hoj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to google another Hollywood actor

“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

Damn liberal Hollywood elites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms to help prevent a tyrannical government from taking control of the people (i.e. Revolutionary War). It is not solely for the purpose of defending oneself from the potential of an attack. We don't like nukes, but the threat of nukes prevent others from using them themselves to attack the U.S. If other countries would get rid of their nuke supply then we could, but they wont, same principle applies to citizens as criminally insane people won't get rid of their weapons so neither can we. Imagine a situation where there is multiple attackers with assault rifles, and a short range low ammo pistol just can't get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you say we have a nationwide epidemic of planes crashing into towers and trucks being used as bombs?

Trying to use singular events to absolve blame from an instrument of death that is being used to kill people daily is like comparing apples to rhinoceros sh!t.

When 10,000 people start dying every year from kamikaze airplanes and truck explosions like they do gun violence we can have the conversation about whether planes and trucks are the issue.

I am more interested in resolving issues that actually exist.

In 2010 10,228 people died from alcohol-related car accidents. Applying this logic should we ban alcohol and car accidents too? I'm all for more thorough background checks and longer waiting periods unless authorized by a judge in unusual circumstances, but we should not ban a weapon. There are no numbers that tell how many lives are saved by them, only the numbers of those that aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,291
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    biggie01
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      140,398
    • Total Posts
      4,468,129
×