...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8338

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I did have an enjoyable time sitting next to my son and asking him if he had ever witnessed an actually act of cannibalism.

As a typical 16 year he replied "Huh?" So, I explained to him that Catholics believe that the host becomes the actual body of Christ during the Eucharist ceremony and therefore everyone that got up for communion was a cannibal.

I was proud of him earlier as he took my cue not to kneel during the indicated times during the mass. Later he asked me why and I told him, there are certain things worth kneeling for in your life and this isn't one of them.

My wife on the other hand who never ever goes to church other than baptisms and funerals of family, popped up and down as required. You can't win them all.

It's called Catholic Calisthenics, I was going to post a video that explains it all...but...after watching it, I decided to kill myself instead..........:x        

I received an invite to a Baptism recently, I called and told the person who sent the invitation that I wouldn't be attending.

My granddaughter's brainwashing is beginning, a sad day.

I used it as a teaching opportunity, my presence or absence wouldn't have changed a thing, but my passive aggressive approach sent the message I intended. My wife's family and mine are native Sicilian, 3rd grade educated tops. Superstitions of all kinds are deeply seated in their culture. My generation had a better opportunity to use their brains on the matter, but ignorance is ignorance, I suppose.
As someone who is hoping for less death in general, I'm not sure that self-inflicted gun death makes much difference than outwardly directed gun death.

I did learn something from the data however. Gun suicide is a very popular was for the 55 plus crowd to do themselves in. So your statement that 'these people will still do themselves in' implies that if we were to make it more difficult to obtain one of the most accessible and effective ways to inflict death, that 100% of these people will still find an alternate way to do it and be 100% effective at it. I'm not convinced that that would be the case. The path of least resistance is still in play and at least some men would be separated from some boys if the path were made more difficult.

So even if you put aside the 60% suicide statistic, the remaining 40% is not worth addressing? If I were to make a broad assumption that suicide by gun was equally distributed across these states, I realize that this is an assumption but it seems not to be much of a stretch. That it would equally effect the data and the percentages of gun death for other reasons would stay relatively the same. The fact that this data is normalized to 100,000 would make all the data sets go up and down together.

I was also interested at how unpopular killing by a motor vehicle is since it is such a popular refrain, as in 'Why don't we ban cars'.

When you ask what I have against the elderly, in light of the popularity of elder suicide by gun, I could ask the same of you. The crime argument is a good one, but it is not the same as the gun death argument.

So I guess I'm now wondering if the sales of guns is off the table for a gun control discussion, just what factors of liability would you be in favor of?

Required gun safes
Required firearm liability insurance
Liability if an unreported stolen gun is used in a crime
Investigation and criminal charges if a potentially lethal gun was not properly secured that resulted in its theft.

It seems to me that if the people kill people vs. guns kill people argument were to make any sense at all, these basic safeguards would be fully supported by gun holders if you acknowledge that the person with the gun is doing the damage, we should be more consistantly required to protect against something as undesirable as death from such a lethal tool.
Also, Gregg, I am a bit confused by your reference to rape statistics in England. According to this data published in the Guardian it seems that crime is down in many, many categories in England. I did see a reference in another source about the increase in rape.

So is the point that a lack of readily available guns only matters for the crime statistics that are going up but not to the numerous other categories where it is going down?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistic...

Rape

England less guns then America more rape per 100,000.

America more guns then England less rape per 100,000.

Violent crimes exist throughout the world.

Crime stats go up and down.  What woman cares if she was the first rape of the year or the last rape of the year.

Does a parent care that her child was killed in a year that stats showed homicides were declining?

The "WHY" is much more important then the resulting crime.

This country could help itself greatly by declaring the "War on Drugs" over and redirecting those resources to the "Why" of violent crimes and drug use, be proactive not reactive.

Well no. Have you given thought to the training or readiness of anyone that would be armed. One of the issues I have with anyone owning a gun is that most people, including those extreme gun "enthusiasts", is that most of them are not psychologically stable enough, nor have they received enough regular training to be able to react and return fire in a calm enough state of mind to not: shoot other civilians, damage some part of the surrounding that leads to injury or death, or injure themselves. The gun issue is primarily a social issue then a rights issue. 

@ Deavon, the only person I can think of who would be in a calm state of mind in a high stress, flight or fight situation is called a Psychopath.  I strongly suggest you give those types a wide berth.

When did you start feeling that your unalienable rights were "social issues"?  Free speech is a social issue?  Voting is a social issue?  Freedom from religion is a social issue? Or is it that you are not an American?

The first 10 Amendments are called "The Bill of Rights", reading them may help you understand the difference between our "Rights" and social issues.

I'm all for training, you will be surprised how little training most police officers get, most of them carry a loaded weapon on duty and a lot of them off duty.  You may want to check with your local City Government official regarding that.

A guy I knew joined the Police Force after high school because he "wanted to shoot somebody".

Suppose someone described as above intervened after the Newtown shooter had killed 10 got in a firefight with him and accidentally killed 2 children before downing the shooter. You seem to be maintaining that that would be a bad outcome whereas I would view it as 8 children saved at the cost of two. People who reason as you do seem to view the real goal as minimizing the damage the intervening party rather than minimizing the overall body count.

The math works for me. Your math seems to be based on making sure the intervening party has no blood on his hands rather than reducing the total body count.

What is your reasoning?

It saves the intervening party from a public hearing?

I'm reading this link and reviewing the footnote links as I do, I'm not done yet, but I click on one of the footnote links and it sent me to the article I'm reading, LOL (that was funny, it reminded me of the bible referring to itself for proof.) LOL

OK, back to reading....

RSS

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service