Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 25, 2012 at 10:15pm

RobertPiano says;

"...If rights are deemed to cause too much harm, they can be taken away..."

Incorrect, inalienable rights can only be suspended under certain circumstances not "taken away".

Lincoln suspended the right to "habeas corpus" during the civil war, it was not "taken away".

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on December 26, 2012 at 1:00am

OK..so for thousands of year people had rights !!!

I wish they knew...

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 26, 2012 at 3:43am

Huh??? America 1776.

We only been around for a couple of hundred years.

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 25, 2012 at 6:37pm

It most certainly is a motivation. But if we are applying reason here, how many of those security blanket guns get stolen and end up in the wrong hands with the end result being innocent dead people?

I hardly find the illusion of safety felt by one person after their head has been filled with fear driving their decisions, which has to account for a large number of casual gun owners, as sufficient enough justification for the resulting deaths that hundreds if not thousands of those misplaced, lost, or stolen guns have caused.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 25, 2012 at 8:38pm

It most certainly is a motivation. But if we are applying reason here, how many of those security blanket guns get stolen and end up in the wrong hands with the end result being innocent dead people?

I hardly find the illusion of safety felt by one person after their head has been filled with fear driving their decisions, which has to account for a large number of casual gun owners, as sufficient enough justification for the resulting deaths that hundreds if not thousands of those misplaced, lost, or stolen guns have caused.

And while you're at it, make it illegal to keep any other valuables, because who knows how much of that booty, stolen by burglars, muggers. guys who break into cars, etc., ends up paying for illegal guns.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 25, 2012 at 10:01pm

@ RobertPiano

Why did you feel the need to skew your numbers?

You first number compares deaths per 1,000,000 and then you compare total deaths per nation state (ie. America to Australia) without accounting for the different population size (ie. 311 million to 22 million)

If Australia had the same population as America

the total deaths for Australia would be: 3237.

America total death:  12,996

Australia total death:  3,237

There you go.

I'm here to help. :)

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on December 26, 2012 at 12:52am

So I'm just an engineer, Thanks for your help, but I can do a bit of math....So Just for grins...let us look at this:

Population of Australia =22,620,600. Gun deaths = 229

so..22,620,600/100,000=226.206 rate per 100K

229/226 = 1.01 = 1.0 as stated  vs  4.2 per 100K US...

ahhhh.. what seems to be the problem here?

Looks like 4.2 times as many Americans are killed by guns as Australians.....geez what a surprise !!!

Dude..it's not rocket science !

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 26, 2012 at 3:35am

"So I'm just an engineer..."

WOW, and make a population density mistake like that, oh well at least it's not rocket science.

Uh you haven't engineered anything that could hurt people when it breaks have you?

:) Just kidding, I'm sure they just have you designing door knobs right now while you finish your training and move up to locks. :)

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 25, 2012 at 10:05pm

@ RobertPiano

BTW for the sake of clarity ALL homicides are considered "justified" by the survivor.

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on December 26, 2012 at 12:53am

Justified by LAW...yeah, a murderer never lies...we all know that !

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 25, 2012 at 12:18am

Really?

Hysteria just won't help us solve problems.

Permalink Reply by Ed on December 25, 2012 at 12:12pm

The societal problem of mass killings is not easily corrected. The city of Chicago faces about 300 murders of inner city children each year. It doesn't grab the headlines like killing en mass. Too many people, myself included, are unwilling to relinquish possession of our firearms. And to actually round up the hundreds of millions of weapons floating about is not a practical undertaking. The concern for me is that we have as a society exhibited fundamental problems that people are not willing to confront: parents who allow their children to become obese and contract diabetes; throwing First Person Shooter games at them to get them out of their hair for awhile; the non-stop barrage of Hollywood 'kill or be killed' action thrillers; the use of drugs because every other kid is somehow ADD. We've become totally desensitized to humans dying tragically. It is an aspect of American society that we are reluctantly resigned to accept. If you have to 'pack heat' to intermix in your community and feel safe and secure while doing so what does that say about our American way of life? 

  If we are not willing to give up our ability to purchase and own any and all classifications of weaponry and ammunition does that mean we consider these incidents of mass killings as mere collateral damage in upholding our inalienable 2nd amendment rights? Does the average Joe citizen really have a need to own and use a weapon designed solely to kill quickly, and in mass, other humans as in a military environment? Where do we draw the line as to what constitutes unreasonable expectation of ownership? Grenade launchers, heat seeking missiles, tanks?  

  My willingness to place restrictions on the ability to procure military oriented weaponry does not prevent me from enjoying the freedoms of our 2nd amendment. The previous 10 year ban on assault weapons did not result or escalate into further erosion of my rights as a gun owner. My gun cabinet remained just as full as before the legislation was enacted. If we're unwilling to make even the smallest concessions in this regard then we all, collectively, seem to have some innocent blood on our hands. Banning assault style weaponry would remove 1.7% of the available plethora of firearms from store shelves. One point seven percent. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 42
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• …
• 73
• Next ›
• Page