OT: Safety is an Illusion

[dumbrenter]

[quote=squat300]a psycholgoical background test to own a gun, similar to law enforcement psych tests, would be useful, but only if you ahve to submit to the psych testevery 6 months or so, as conditions change. so the profiling should be 2x annualy, with a computerized safety check statement bi-monthly in which you are in touch with federal counselors by email to sanswers interim questions regarding mental health.

plus a 5,000 a year annual licensing fee.[/quote]

All the above + compulsory training paid all paid by you for dog training. The Feds should be in touch with both you and the dog, just in case you are abusing the dog.
And in case of 1 dog attack, all the dogs in the county should be put down, the owners fined heavily and forced by state to clean up dog poop on our trails, parks and pathways.
Our kids need to be safe from the dogs and their owners since they are percentage wise worse than gun owners.
And BTW 2nd amendment does not cover right to own dogs.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter]Let’s look at this another way…

Is there any evidence showing that gun bans reduce homicides or violent attacks?[/quote]

I can prove gun bans reduce the number of accidental and intentional gunshot wounds, brandishings, assaults and unintentional gun cleaning injuries.

[scaredyclassic]

Also i can prove former vp Cheney wouldn’t have shot his pal in the ass w a gun ban.

[CA renter]

[quote=squat300][quote=CA renter]Let’s look at this another way…

Is there any evidence showing that gun bans reduce homicides or violent attacks?[/quote]

I can prove gun bans reduce the number of accidental and intentional gunshot wounds, brandishings, assaults and unintentional gun cleaning injuries.[/quote]

Yes, that may indeed be true; banning guns might reduce the number of crimes and incidents where *guns* are used, but that doesn’t necessarily reduce the number of attacks or homicides. If we’re trying to reduce the number of homicides and violent attacks, we need some kind of evidence that gun bans will work. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that gun bans are effective at reducing violent crime.

It’s understandable that people will have an emotional reaction to any kind of mass shooting, especially one where little kids are concerned. I just think that we ought to address things that will actually make a difference as opposed to jumping on some emotional, anti-gun bandwagon.

Interesting stats on homicides. It doesn’t really address the issue of gun bans, but thought the numbers were interesting.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

[ocrenter]

[quote=dumbrenter]

All the above + compulsory training paid all paid by you for dog training. The Feds should be in touch with both you and the dog, just in case you are abusing the dog.
And in case of 1 dog attack, all the dogs in the county should be put down, the owners fined heavily and forced by state to clean up dog poop on our trails, parks and pathways.
Our kids need to be safe from the dogs and their owners since they are percentage wise worse than gun owners.
And BTW 2nd amendment does not cover right to own dogs.[/quote]

You are right, I seen a dog kill 30 people in a couple of minutes, creating up to 10 life ending bites in each of his victims.

But now the National Kennel Club is insisting the solution is MORE dogs. Mandatory mass murdering dogs on every campus so if one of these rapid biting and rapid pooping breeds show up, they can be handled appropriately.

Can’t we just be civil and responsible like the Swiss?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter]

All the above + compulsory training paid all paid by you for dog training. The Feds should be in touch with both you and the dog, just in case you are abusing the dog.
And in case of 1 dog attack, all the dogs in the county should be put down, the owners fined heavily and forced by state to clean up dog poop on our trails, parks and pathways.
Our kids need to be safe from the dogs and their owners since they are percentage wise worse than gun owners.
And BTW 2nd amendment does not cover right to own dogs.[/quote]

You are right, I seen a dog kill 30 people in a couple of minutes, creating up to 10 life ending bites in each of his victims.

But now the National Kennel Club is insisting the solution is MORE dogs. Mandatory mass murdering dogs on every campus so if one of these rapid biting and rapid pooping breeds show up, they can be handled appropriately.

Can’t we just be civil and responsible like the Swiss?[/quote]

Is it ok if a dog kills just 2 folks in under 2 mins? We are down to just talking about scale now, aren’t’ we? We should have a national discussion about the right number of people that can be killed per minute to be called a mass murder.

What if a dog kills somebody on a trail, and the owner never reports the incident, and nobody sees? Is it considered murder?

Can’t the dog owners just be civil and responsible and follow the rules?

[scaredyclassic]

Interesting on homicide rates in other nations. Still I think Americans would be too damn lazy and out of condition to kill effectively without guns.

[zk]

I’d be interested to hear the opinions that opponents of gun control have regarding the U.K.’s gun control laws.

It’s very difficult, but possible, to get a gun there. Handguns are illegal, with a mandatory 5-year sentence for possession.

Our homicide rate is 3.5 times theirs, despite a similarly violent culture.

[NotCranky]

[quote=squat300]Interesting on homicide rates in other nations. Still I think Americans would be too damn lazy and out of condition to kill effectively without guns.[/quote]
I think they would lack the creativity to come up with different ways. Hollywood would have to go to work on that.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]I’d be interested to hear the opinions that opponents of gun control have regarding the U.K.’s gun control laws.

It’s very difficult, but possible, to get a gun there. Handguns are illegal, with a mandatory 5-year sentence for possession.

Our homicide rate is 3.5 times theirs, despite a similarly violent culture.[/quote]

Every country is different. Switzerland has much higher gun ownership rates than we do yet much lower gun related crime. Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet thousands die each year in gun related crimes down there.

Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban in place. Here’s an explanation of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?hp

I understand guns might be scary. I understand that people might not want to own guns. We all understand that if you are faced with someone pointing a gun at you the only equalizing force would be to have a gun of your own. Therefore many people that are scared or don’t want to own a gun have decided that nobody should have them. It puts them at a disadvantage.

We all know that banning and confiscating all guns in this country isn’t going to happen. We also know that in order for gun control to actually be effective at preventing gun related crime you’d probably have to go down that path.

Can I accept some small gun control acts? I might if I actually believed it would help but since I don’t think it would help, I see no need to trample on people’s rights.

[KSMountain]

[quote=paramount]The issues surrounding these atrocities are difficult, I was recalling today that the gov’t used a type of tank to incinerate more than 20 children in Waco, Texas in 1993.[/quote]
“used… to incinerate”
That’s a pretty provocative way to describe the events of that day. Your words ascribe intent. Do you really think the tank driver, or scene commander (imagine if it were YOUR job to get Korich under control), or even – gasp – the evil Janet Reno (cue darth vader breathing here) said “Let’s incinerate 20 kids today! That will be fun and make me feel good about myself when I get home”? I honestly doubt it. And I bet you do too.

Don’t you find it much more likely that a messianic apocalyptic cult helped trigger its own demise when faced with the end of its control?

[KSMountain]

[quote=no_such_reality]It’s a very slippery slope to base what the general population can or cannot do on what an obviously mentally deranged person did do.[/quote]
+1

[zk]

[quote=livinincali][quote=zk]I’d be interested to hear the opinions that opponents of gun control have regarding the U.K.’s gun control laws.

It’s very difficult, but possible, to get a gun there. Handguns are illegal, with a mandatory 5-year sentence for possession.

Our homicide rate is 3.5 times theirs, despite a similarly violent culture.[/quote]

Every country is different. Switzerland has much higher gun ownership rates than we do yet much lower gun related crime. Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet thousands die each year in gun related crimes down there.

Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban in place. Here’s an explanation of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?hp

I understand guns might be scary. I understand that people might not want to own guns. We all understand that if you are faced with someone pointing a gun at you the only equalizing force would be to have a gun of your own. Therefore many people that are scared or don’t want to own a gun have decided that nobody should have them. It puts them at a disadvantage.

We all know that banning and confiscating all guns in this country isn’t going to happen. We also know that in order for gun control to actually be effective at preventing gun related crime you’d probably have to go down that path.

Can I accept some small gun control acts? I might if I actually believed it would help but since I don’t think it would help, I see no need to trample on people’s rights.[/quote]

Since you quoted me, I anticipated that your post would be related to mine. It wasn’t.

[KIBU]

Today’s shooting: 2 firefighters dead + 1 more ir”responsible” gun user killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The NRA’s next smart ass advise: Arm All Firefighters in America.

If you got a burning house, don’t blame the firefighter if they are going to be a little slower to save your house. They simply don’t know if you are a “responsible” gun user or an ir”responsible” one.

[paramount]

We live in a sick society.

[Author]

Posts