|
|
|

12-15-2012, 01:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Venice, Italy
Posts: 2,399
|
|
I was wrong then. You are all insane...
|

12-15-2012, 01:11 PM
|
Lariat Emeritus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fargo ND, USA
Posts: 13,816
|
|
|

12-15-2012, 01:14 PM
|
Lariat Emeritus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fargo ND, USA
Posts: 13,816
|
|
John, if you move to North Dakota, you are so fine a poet that between Chucky and Tim, you will be well protected.
|

12-15-2012, 01:14 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Posts: 4,057
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Dowling
I was wrong then. You are all insane...
|
Gregory,
Of course you're right. And there's a rather odd irony to be gained by thinking of Americans' reactions when they go to Europe. At least, back in the days of Action Direct and the Brigate Rosse, I can remember many of my compatriots getting freaked out by seeing gendarmes carrying what looked like submachine guns. They never thought to themselves 'Back home, I'm surrounded by far more assault weapons than I am here.'
I even knew one guy who wigged out after a few months. He said he didn't feel safe. So he went back home. To Arizona. For safety...
Rationality clearly isn't our strong suit...
Peace,
Bill
|

12-15-2012, 01:20 PM
|
Lariat Emeritus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fargo ND, USA
Posts: 13,816
|
|
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I am one man in that militia. If we can force youngsters to buy overpriced health insurance, we should surely force all able bodied men to keep and bear arms. Switzerland does.
Last edited by Tim Murphy; 12-15-2012 at 01:23 PM.
|

12-15-2012, 01:40 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halcott, New York
Posts: 9,994
|
|
I shall unsubscribe from this thread now.
Nemo
|

12-15-2012, 01:49 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Boston, Mass
Posts: 1,028
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell
A man with a bomb belt can massacre scores. A man with a rocket launcher can massacre hundreds. A man with a warhead can massacre thousands. A man with a nuke can massacre millions.
These are orders of magnitude, but the lowest common denominator of all of them is the intent to kill people. Do you truly think that all, or even many of the massacres, slaughters, genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history would not have happened in the absence of guns? Again, I agree that the easy accessibility of a firearm in the U.S. more easily enables such atrocities, but it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it.
|
I find it difficult to find a line of reason in what you say, but I'll try. In the absence of guns, bombs, rockets, nuclear weapons [I leave out warheads, since they are the explosive in various weapons, not weapons themselves] far fewer people die. I don't understand why you dismiss orders of magnitude, but since you conflate other things, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. A person with a rock can't kill nearly as many as one with a knife and so on. Why isn't it important to factor that into your thinking?
You'll see that I did not all at dismiss intention, but neither do I think think your simple-minded insistence on it takes into account what it means to have a weapon ready instead of time to think and feel -- not everyone in a rage or long simmering resentment or delusion stays stuck with the intention -- , or a weapon that does less harm. And, all the weapons you so easily think have no part in harming others have done so by accident, too.
Quote:
it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it
|
Just like you can be anything you want to be, just cross your fingers and make a wish.
Marcia
|

12-15-2012, 01:58 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Posts: 4,057
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill
I shall unsubscribe from this thread now.
|
Nemo,
As usual, your wisdom excels mine. But perhaps I can share in yours a little bit, by joining you in this action.
Best,
Bill
|

12-15-2012, 02:01 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Breaux Bridge, LA, USA
Posts: 3,510
|
|
When Arthur and I started thinking that we'd feel safer if we had a gun in the house, we decided it was time to leave New Orleans.
We did frighten a burglar half to death once (evidenced by drawer pulled out and contents all over the floor) by keeping a skeleton hand in a dresser drawer. I believe he thought we put the hoodoo on him.
|

12-15-2012, 02:15 PM
|
Honorary Poet Lariat
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,008
|
|
Some useful statistics
No, it's not true that gun-right states have lower rates of gun violence than those with more gun-control legislation. Here's a very informative website I suggest everyone check out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...n-deaths/69354
Janice, you are going to need a much bigger horse, with a very sturdy saddle, as I am joining you.
Thanks to those of you who have posted, not passionate opinions, but numbers to support rational arguments. Anybody who really believes that a knife is the equivalent of an automatic or semi-automatic weapon must be dreaming. As for the intent of an act of violence being what "really matters," ask the bereaved parents in Newton if they agree.
And no, it's not "evil" that brings about tragedies like this one or the long, long string of others before it. It's ideology, which places the perceived right to be armed, as heavily and quickly as desired, and in every environment, ahead of the right of the general population to be protected from the temporarily deranged, the psychopath, and the simply criminal.
Of course it's obvious--except to those who don't want to see it--that we are dangerously gun-happy in this country, and that too many among us care more about the second amendment than any other. I think it's obscene that in some parts of this country, it takes less time to buy a gun and all the ammunition you want that it does to vote in, say, Florida. There seems to be much more fear of the voter who gets to vote without a rigorous examination first that of the casual stranger who gets to arm himself like a soldier at the battlefront. Anybody who doesn't see the profit motive as a huge part of that lop-sided difference is too naive for words.
Fortunately Alfred, my husband, who is known to some of you as a world War II veteran and a rifle-bearing infantryman, has come up with the perfect solution. He says the second amendment must not be violated, and everyone who wants to arm himself should be permitted to do so, provided that the weapon he purchases is a flintlock from the Revolutionary War era, which is the weapon the Founding Fathers had in mind. That should satisfy everyone, right?
Quincy, you are even sillier than I remember.
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Member Login
Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,509
Total Threads: 22,622
Total Posts: 279,039
There are 2953 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum Sponsor:
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|