- This topic has 136 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM #757236January 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM #757238
scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=CONCHO][quote=squat300]Ran into some guntards in a local open area. We were Rick climbing. Some were shooting relatively responsible toward other rock.
But then these guntards were just wandering around shooting in no particular fucking pattern. We had to crawl over contact their buddy and get them to fucking knock it off do we could get out
Fucking tards!!!! I truly hope they shot each other or selves….
They perceived themselves as responsible as they weren’t shooting at us, but only in our general direction. I really do hope they have a gun cleaning accident. I’m still pissed.[/quote]
I ran into some cartards on the freeway. I was commuting. Some of the cartards were being relatively responsible and driving only a few miles over the limit.
But then these cartards just started swerving their 4000lb SUVs at 85mph between responsible drivers in no particular fucking pattern! I had to brake several times to avoid them.
Fucking cartards! I truly hope they run themselves off the road and die…
They percieved themselves as responsible as they weren’t driving directly at me, but only in my general direction. I really do hope they have a fatal driving accident. I’m still pissed.[/quote]
on the other hand, the driving analogy may be apt in the sense that aging drivers present similar risks as aging gun toters. there is a process to yank drivers licenses but not gun rights….http://www.theonion.com/articles/8yearold-accidentally-exercises-second-amendment-r,725/
January 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM #757249CA renter
Participant[quote=squat300]if cocaine was available over the counter, coke use would be way higher. marijuana use would be higher. heroin use would be higher. hmmm.. meth use would be higher. LSD use would probably be a bit higher. I cannot think of a drug which would decrease in use from legalization.
I think alcohol use might decrease very slightly if all other drugs were legalized[/quote]
Okay, let’s assume the drug use would be higher.* Would that be because it was legal, or because there would be less social stigma attached to using drugs? Personally, I’ve never met anyone who said they wanted to use drugs but were refraining from doing so because drugs were illegal. Most people who want to do drugs will do them, irrespective of any laws; just like they did during the prohibition of alcohol.
*Would it seem that more people would use drugs if they were legal simply because more people would be willing to admit to to it? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been shocked by who uses drugs. We’re talking about very wealthy, put-together, upright people who privately use all kinds of drugs. I’m sure none of these people would publicly admit to using drugs, both because it’s illegal, and because of the social stigma. That still doesn’t keep them from using drugs, though.
January 5, 2013 at 6:05 PM #757251ParticipantAlcohol was widely available during prohibition and easy to connect with.
As a non drug user it’s very difficult to just go out and score.
January 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM #757255KIBU
ParticipantWe live in a society that is based on the rule of law.
Laws certainly do not eliminate absolutely a problem. In absolute terms, it never could or even intended to do so in an absolute way. It has the ability to guide society toward doing the things that serve the common goods. It is one very fundamental and helpful tool we have.
People keep misleading themselves with the il-logic that because laws can’t change things completely, hence there should be no law.
Some here are not only skeptical of the US government, they seem to be skeptical of the foundations of the rule of laws as well.
January 5, 2013 at 10:00 PM #757261ParticipantNobody is trying to make the point that laws don’t have any affect at all. The truth is that we don’t have any evidence to show that these laws make any kind of discernible difference with respect to criminal use of guns or homicide rates. We must be very careful about telling people to surrender their arms (a very important right in the minds of many Americans) if there is no evidence that doing so would result in a better, safer society.
While some might discount the importance of weapons — whether for sport, hunting, self-defense, or protection against tyranny — that is simply their personal opinion. Those who support gun ownership and the ability of citizens to protect themselves, either from common criminals or a tyrannical government, would probably feel very differently about it.
January 6, 2013 at 12:24 AM #757263outtamojo
Participant[quote=squat300]driving has some social utility.
shooting a fucking gun in an open area has zero social utility.
therefore, the term guntard more aptly applies.
well, i suppose shooting int he open area does have some social utility if those were actually maneuvers designed to attack federal agents in the event that there is some sort of oppressive move to enslave the US population with drones.
I am being sarcastic.
those particularly guntards messed up my day.
somehow i think the NRA would say I was being a big baby.
when driving on the freeway, we also accept that there is risk, and that there will be a range of driving skills, and we can take some measures to protect ourselves from flaming assholes on the freeway, say by staying to the right, being observant, alert, allowing people to pass.
there is no social agreement that while out having an adventure on some rocks in open space that i am going to be subject to a gaggle of nitwits with weaponry shooting in unspecified directions in our general direction.
FUCKING GUNTARDS! that’s what id liek to ehar some pro-gun, NRA type say….that this is so unacceptable those tards should lose their privilege to ever touch a gun again.
from my perspective, admittedly biased, your equating the risk borne by driving with the risk of these guntards shooting irresponsible toward our vicinity is an example of…well…sorry, but guntardedness…[/quote]
I wonder what would have happened if YOU had a gun that day…would you casually shoot back in their general direction? I’m pretty sure I would have
but I dunno, that’s why I don’t own a gun.January 6, 2013 at 12:49 AM #757264ParticipantGreat, I am glad there is some agreements that laws do have effects and not as useless as some try to portray, so as to discount the role of gun control (old and future) laws altogether.
We can certainly debate on which law (together with other programs) can be more effective to “result in a better, safer society”.
We need to step up and find solutions to not let these children’s deaths and the 10,000 other Americans dying annually by guns to die in vain. We can do much better than the current status quo.
By the way, regarding “protection against tyranny”, my opinion is that the better weapon against tyranny is the rule of law, not one’s R-15.
January 10, 2013 at 11:05 PM #757514ParticipantAnother kids shooting
http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-calif-teen-planned-attack-classmates-015729786.html
January 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM #757517equalizer
ParticipantFBI reports that Violent Crime is at 40 year low. Number of guns is much higher than 40 years ago.
There were about 800 drowing deaths for kids under 15 in 2009.
There were less than 400 firearm deaths for kids under 15 including accidents, suicide and homicide.
DUI deaths caused by DUI drivers were under 2000 in 2009(not including people in same car as drunk).
About 181 kids under 14 killed by DUI in 2009.The takeaway is that foremost we need more (bullet proof) life jackets. The majority of the firearm homicides occur in gang situations. Only big public outcry for random homicides, and they are limited.
In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%).
Just love reading CDC journals in the middle of night.
January 11, 2013 at 2:22 AM #757519ParticipantJust to make sure: “Violent Crime is at 40 year low” because “Number of guns is much higher than 40 years ago” ?
There are many ways to death and one can choose to talk about ALL of them. But we are focusing on the way to death via mass killings on our children at schools by guns, that should be and must be prevented.
On other matter, suicide deaths are deaths that should be and could be preventable as well. Perhaps by decreasing accessibility to the most efficient deadly weapon, the gun, many lives could be spared, no matter whose hands killed.
I don’t know about you but for me, the need for wearing a life jacket to feel safe and be safe in America means that a piece of my life and freedom has been taken away. Pro-gun people should pay attention to these when they want to encourage people to have guns at home or walk with guns or saving gun at work (school) to be safe. We feel if we have to have guns, life jackets, armor car, go through detectors…..those actually limit our freedom and also our rights to have a normal life away from a war like zone in America. And all that cost must be paid for the liberty of the gun owners.
January 11, 2013 at 7:25 AM #757522ParticipantOne mans freedom is another mans cage.
January 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM #757545no_such_reality
Participant
January 11, 2013 at 4:46 PM #757566ParticipantIt’s difficult to strangle or beat someone to death. Try it. You have to get really revved up.
Shooting someone is almost as easy as picking your nose.
January 11, 2013 at 9:37 PM #757579Participant[quote=KIBU]Just to make sure: “Violent Crime is at 40 year low” because “Number of guns is much higher than 40 years ago” ?
There are many ways to death and one can choose to talk about ALL of them. But we are focusing on the way to death via mass killings on our children at schools by guns, that should be and must be prevented.
On other matter, suicide deaths are deaths that should be and could be preventable as well. Perhaps by decreasing accessibility to the most efficient deadly weapon, the gun, many lives could be spared, no matter whose hands killed.
I don’t know about you but for me, the need for wearing a life jacket to feel safe and be safe in America means that a piece of my life and freedom has been taken away. Pro-gun people should pay attention to these when they want to encourage people to have guns at home or walk with guns or saving gun at work (school) to be safe. We feel if we have to have guns, life jackets, armor car, go through detectors…..those actually limit our freedom and also our rights to have a normal life away from a war like zone in America. And all that cost must be paid for the liberty of the gun owners.[/quote]
My point was that there is no causation between two. Life jacket/preserver recommendation was for swimming only since that is bigger problem than weapons for 14/under.In order to reduce the random shootings there would have to be dramatic changes that majority of public just doesn’t want to accept such as massive taxes on weapons, artillery, guns safe reqts, big liability insurance, random inspections, etc. Minimum mandatory prison sentences for drug possession but none for illegal weapons possession for ex-cons,etc? BTW, even Utah has annual auto safety inspections.
It’s freedom man! The man has gutted the fourth amendment and has a million drones but these collectors don’t care, they gonna chase the boogeyman and stop the tyranny.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.