- This topic has 295 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 30, 2014 at 10:02 PM #774603May 30, 2014 at 10:02 PM #774604
NotCranky
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]G-d we’re stupid.[/quote]
stupid? perhaps. i prefer lazy, uncaring, cold, distant, impatient, disgusted and lame.[/quote]
Yeah but we make up for all that with being selfish, greedy, materialistic and conceited.May 30, 2014 at 11:00 PM #774607CA renter
Participant[quote=Dukehorn][quote=CA renter]
Millions of crimes are thwarted every year because people use guns in self-defense. Why would we want to prevent people from protecting themselves, especially when killers, rapists, and other violent criminals will not be tamed by taking away guns?[/quote]
Millions a year?? Bullshit. Stop with the hyperbole and debate with facts.
Going to use those false analogies about cars and knives? Again, bullshit. You have arms specifically designated in the 2nd amendment, we all know it’s a defined category and gun owners have rights. Argue this appropriately.
As for the 2nd amendment, I want the lawyers here to debate it based on the actual wording. There is a clause stating the right to bear arms but it’s still modified by the “well regulated” militia language in the introduction. That means there should be some regulation (I would like registration and wait period). In fact the NRA from 50 years ago agreed with this proposition. I want any lawyers here to argue whether the 2nd amendment right is truly unfettered.
Gun control doesn’t mean banning guns. I refuse to argue with the current NRA types that use language like police state to argue that no regulation is necessary for firearms. Again, it’s bullshit.
Open carry prevents crimes? Maybe, but it also increases the likelihood of anger related killings. Like the ex-cop who shot the dad for texting in the movie theater. Or the guy who sprayed the SUV of black kids for playing their music too loud. Hard to judge the numbers since Congress won’t let any gun related violence research be conducted.
As for the police state hyperbole. Get back to me after you visit the “police states” like: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, Canada, Argentina. Then look up the definition of police state and see if it works.
Frankly this kid was in a tough spot. His mom made peanuts in the world they lived in. Dad had declared bankruptcy. He was the poor kid in a world of rich kids, which explained his fixation with money (and how winning the lottery would improve his world).[/quote]
Yes, millions a year. No bullshit. Most incidents where guns are used in self-defense are never reported (I’m one of them). Even the most conservative estimates show tens or hundreds of thousands of crimes thwarted every year by guns. Something from dailykos/Mother Jones for you, lest anyone suggest we are “cherry picking” our sources:
MJ also points out how the gun lobby claims around 2.5 million instances of ‘defensive gun use’ or self-defense using a gun. The comparison to federal crime data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in chart form, is downright ridiculous. The federal crime data from 2007-2011 tallies 338,700 uses of guns in self-defense, but if you believe the gun lobby, that number should be 12,500,000 — more than 36 times as many. Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1203254/-More-NRA-mythbusting-do-guns-prevent-crime
As a former victim of violent criminals, and also one who supports the Second Amendment because TYRANNY CAN HAPPEN HERE, I fully support the people’s right to own guns. That ownership should not be registered or tracked by the government in any way. Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; the only reason for registration is to ensure the soldiers/police know where to go to confiscate weapons if a tyrant (or tyrants) ever comes into power and they want to prevent a revolution or stop a resistance effort.
May 30, 2014 at 11:13 PM #774609Participant[quote=Jazzman]I don’t think “will” or lack of it has anything to do with mass slayings. If anything, the reserve could be argued. Hitler an Stalin spring to mind. Many simple cultures don’t exercise “will” in the cultural sense referred to, and yet don’t suffer the same cultural ills. I also don’t believe making guns too expensive would be a practical solution. You may as well just ban guns, if you are going to do that. The focus should be on an immediate solution to prevent callous killings. Gun control is as clear cut as any solution to address that problem. Apparently, 90% of Americans believe that to be the case. Yet, the legislation that was to bring about greater gun control failed. So whatever you think is the problem or likely solution, you are possibly going to be denied the means do deal with it, if your detractors are more powerful than you. I think that is a concern and needs to be addressed before philosophizing.[/quote]
Gun control, or gun bans? If they require registration for all guns, how long until they are knocking at everyone’s door because the “powers that be” decide to ban guns, altogether? I’d give it 5-10 years, at most. Nobody in established power likes the unwashed masses to be armed.
And who makes up this 90% when 60% of the population is armed? That only counts those who are willing to admit to gun ownership (I’m willing to bet the number is quite a bit higher).
May 30, 2014 at 11:15 PM #774608Participant[quote=ocrenter]
Point is accountability of the gun owners and elevating the bar of ownership. If my gun was used and accidentally killed a neighbor’s little girl, I should be at fault. And guns should be just as hard to obtain as a car. And just as every car is registered, every gun should be too.[/quote]Sure, as long as the same standards are applied regarding any medications you have, the car you own, the knives you own, items used in the manufacture of weapons, etc.
Someone borrowed your car, had a drink with the wife, and got into an accident? You’re on the hook for manslaughter charges. Your kid (or a neighbor’s kid) took some of your meds and gave them to a friend who died? You’re on the hook for that, as well. You have gasoline stored in your garage that someone used to light someone else or a building on fire? You’re responsible. Someone borrowed a knife from your drawer and they, or another person, used it to kill someone? You’re responsible. Would you agree to that?
May 31, 2014 at 5:48 AM #774610ocrenter
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]I don’t think “will” or lack of it has anything to do with mass slayings. If anything, the reserve could be argued. Hitler an Stalin spring to mind. Many simple cultures don’t exercise “will” in the cultural sense referred to, and yet don’t suffer the same cultural ills. I also don’t believe making guns too expensive would be a practical solution. You may as well just ban guns, if you are going to do that. The focus should be on an immediate solution to prevent callous killings. Gun control is as clear cut as any solution to address that problem. Apparently, 90% of Americans believe that to be the case. Yet, the legislation that was to bring about greater gun control failed. So whatever you think is the problem or likely solution, you are possibly going to be denied the means do deal with it, if your detractors are more powerful than you. I think that is a concern and needs to be addressed before philosophizing.[/quote]
Gun control, or gun bans? If they require registration for all guns, how long until they are knocking at everyone’s door because the “powers that be” decide to ban guns, altogether? I’d give it 5-10 years, at most. Nobody in established power likes the unwashed masses to be armed.
And who makes up this 90% when 60% of the population is armed? That only counts those who are willing to admit to gun ownership (I’m willing to bet the number is quite a bit higher).
Can you imagine the massive undertaking it would take to force, like you said, 60% of the country to give up their guns?
You just essentially gave the reason why the “powers.to be” would not dare removing and banning guns.
You also just provided the underlying Psyche as to why there is such resistance to any gun regulation, because there is a huge and unrealistic fear about the formation of a police state.
Again, if the narrative is this:
That ALL gun control equal LOSS of liberty.
Then the sporadic but continued loss of innocent lives IS justified as the price to pay for that liberty.It is almost like the Aztec sacrifice of young virgins to please their Gods. It was justified as the price to pay inin order for the sun to return the next day.
May 31, 2014 at 6:10 AM #774611Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter]
Point is accountability of the gun owners and elevating the bar of ownership. If my gun was used and accidentally killed a neighbor’s little girl, I should be at fault. And guns should be just as hard to obtain as a car. And just as every car is registered, every gun should be too.[/quote]Sure, as long as the same standards are applied regarding any medications you have, the car you own, the knives you own, items used in the manufacture of weapons, etc.
Someone borrowed your car, had a drink with the wife, and got into an accident? You’re on the hook for manslaughter charges. Your kid (or a neighbor’s kid) took some of your meds and gave them to a friend who died? You’re on the hook for that, as well. You have gasoline stored in your garage that someone used to light someone else or a building on fire? You’re responsible. Someone borrowed a knife from your drawer and they, or another person, used it to kill someone? You’re responsible. Would you agree to that?[/quote]
If you allowed an unlicensed driver to borrow your car and that person gets into an accident, of course you will be responsible. Not necessarily manslaughter but you will have to bear some responsibility. Even the owner of a pit bull that was not properly caged would be responsible if it mulls down a passerby. Guns are weapons, if the weapon is not stored safely and was accessed by a teen in a shooting or in an accident involving kids, why shouldn’t we blame the gun owner?
May 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM #774612Participant[quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.
Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?
The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
The guy had Risperdal prescribed, there was some psychosis diagnosed. He didn’t take the med, never even started. Like I said before. These type of people have extremely poor insight about their disease. It is nearly impossible for them to seek care. And when they do get forced to seek care, they are completely noncompliant.
I am very critical of big pharma, just like I am very critical of the food industry and the NRA, but the comments about big pharma are quite off base here.
May 31, 2014 at 6:34 AM #774613SK in CV
Participant[quote=CA renter]Yes, millions a year. No bullshit. Most incidents where guns are used in self-defense are never reported (I’m one of them). Even the most conservative estimates show tens or hundreds of thousands of crimes thwarted every year by guns. Something from dailykos/Mother Jones for you, lest anyone suggest we are “cherry picking” our sources:
MJ also points out how the gun lobby claims around 2.5 million instances of ‘defensive gun use’ or self-defense using a gun. The comparison to federal crime data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in chart form, is downright ridiculous. The federal crime data from 2007-2011 tallies 338,700 uses of guns in self-defense, but if you believe the gun lobby, that number should be 12,500,000 — more than 36 times as many. Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1203254/-More-NRA-mythbusting-do-guns-prevent-crime
As a former victim of violent criminals, and also one who supports the Second Amendment because TYRANNY CAN HAPPEN HERE, I fully support the people’s right to own guns. That ownership should not be registered or tracked by the government in any way. Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; the only reason for registration is to ensure the soldiers/police know where to go to confiscate weapons if a tyrant (or tyrants) ever comes into power and they want to prevent a revolution or stop a resistance effort.[/quote]
I think maybe that article you linked to doesn’t say what you think it says. Or at very least, it doesn’t support your “millions a year”. The part you bolded indicates, on average, over a 5 year period, it was fewer than 70,000 defensive gun uses per year.
And nowhere near 60% of the population owns guns. The percentage of homes with guns has very recently risen a little bit (with the very small increase possibly being statistically insignificant), after falling for the last 4 decades. Depending on which survey, it’s somewhere between 34 and 39% of households that have guns. Not individual ownership, but households with at least 1 gun. Note that the falling ownership rate correlates with the falling murder rate over that same time period. Fewer households with guns, fewer murders.
May 31, 2014 at 8:01 AM #774615Hobie
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]pepper spray and a knife, frankly seem better for reality.
consider this: an unarmed dirtbag is closing toward you rapidly. you’re armed. you could fumble to get your gun out and maybe get it out before he gets to you, maybe not. then what? you shoot an unarmed dude?
he gets to you before you get armed, of course he’s sneaky and fast, and slams your face into the car, instantly disorienting you. fight may be over.
alternatively, you quickly draw your belt pepper spray, have a shivworks clinchpick at the ready for stabbing, you spray the motherfucker, froma distance, not too much of a judgment call required, no potential murder charges witha dselfdefense claims.
knives by the belt and pepper spray and hyper alertness beat a gun in a holster on your leg. any day of the week.[/quote]
+1 Great practical legal advice.
I’d rather this than every crazy, pms, loon, walking around with a gun. It takes lots of practice and training to 1. know when to pull trigger 2. how to hit intended target. Avg schmo just ain’t good enough.
Look how much ongoing training cops do.
Oh, just as an aside, this admin really is the best gun salesman of all.
May 31, 2014 at 8:02 AM #774616Participant.dup
May 31, 2014 at 8:26 AM #774619UCGal
Participant[quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.
Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?
The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
I struggled with the medication issue for my son. All the “experts” were saying it was the right thing to do. I researched like crazy and was very uncomfortable with using drugs that effect brain chemistry on an undeveloped brain. I’m really glad I listened to my instincts.
It’s very hard for parents to know what the right thing to do is. Every authority was telling me one thing and my instincts were screaming the opposite. I understand why parents do it – they are told by experts its the right thing to do. They may not have the resources, intellect, etc to educate themselves and they might not have the personality to stand up to authority/medical personnel.
As mentioned before – my son did have a brain chemistry issue. But now that I know it was due to an enzyme problem – I also know that the meds would have been ineffective. That’s one of the issues with this MTHFR mutation – SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs are much less effective.
But – you have to cut parents some slack. The vast majority of parents are doing their very best to do right – and it’s very hard to figure out what “right” is.
May 31, 2014 at 8:54 AM #774621Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.
Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?
The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
I struggled with the medication issue for my son. All the “experts” were saying it was the right thing to do. I researched like crazy and was very uncomfortable with using drugs that effect brain chemistry on an undeveloped brain. I’m really glad I listened to my instincts.
It’s very hard for parents to know what the right thing to do is. Every authority was telling me one thing and my instincts were screaming the opposite. I understand why parents do it – they are told by experts its the right thing to do. They may not have the resources, intellect, etc to educate themselves and they might not have the personality to stand up to authority/medical personnel.
As mentioned before – my son did have a brain chemistry issue. But now that I know it was due to an enzyme problem – I also know that the meds would have been ineffective. That’s one of the issues with this MTHFR mutation – SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs are much less effective.
But – you have to cut parents some slack. The vast majority of parents are doing their very best to do right – and it’s very hard to figure out what “right” is.[/quote]
I am really glad it is working out for your kid and your family, UCGAL, Good job.
I could cut some individual parents some slack, you have no support in going after them anyway, even when the schools or doctors know the family is a complete disaster , which is often the case, not much can be done and instead the often dysfunction is used as leverage to get the kids into the pharma system if anything. …the systematic use of this crap the way I see it applied, no way. It’s parasitical and the hosts are the kids. It’s child abuse and or help perpetuate child abuse.
May 31, 2014 at 9:34 AM #774622FlyerInHi
GuestIt’s funny how with everything in this society, people try to come up with solutions that did not exist preciously. New drugs for every condition.
But when it comes to guns…. Oh well, we just have to accept there will be shootings.
Those same people think that restricting access to abortions solves a problem, but they don’t think gun restrictions work.
May 31, 2014 at 9:59 AM #774623ParticipantThe fact that dysfuctional people are going to self medicate anyway is no excuse for what is happening. Capitalist medication of people struggling is much worse.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.