A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[carpedm9587]

Pathetic.

Easy... please...

[Adrift]

You don't really view abortion as murder

Yes I do. The rest of your post was your usual goofy nonsense.

[carpedm9587]

Drat, guess not...

I may not agree with Jedidiah on....well...most things... but my sense is he is a man of honor. HIs post bears this out. We all say things we're sorry about. Check out Demi's signature for a couple I'm sorry about...

[Sparko]

Again - we don't know this. With the possible exception of the knife, the other things take more time/effort than pulling a trigger. Is it possible the additional time provides enough time to get past the "impulse?" We do not know if it would or would not. Perhaps looking at what happened to suicide rates in countries that restricted gun access would be informative?

We do know this. People use those other methods to commit suicide all the time. They jump, use poison, exhaust, razor blades, hang themselves and so on. All. the. time.

[Darth Executor]

Yes I do. The rest of your post was your usual goofy nonsense.

You demonstrably do not. You think killing unborn children is not as bad as killing adults so comparing the two is "apples and oranges". Pro-choicers have a point when they accuse pro-lifers of not really believing a fetus is a human being and you've given them more ammo to keep doing that. My post pretty much destroyed what incoherent point you were trying to make which is why you have no real argument.

[carpedm9587]

And it's your assumption that banning guns would reduce suicide rates? Or would it be like in Australia where gun crime decreased following the ban but overall rates of violent crime remained unchanged?

Where is this documented?

[Darth Executor]

You do realize that being a gun nut does not necessarily indicate that one is actually proficient with guns, right? In the military, we had tons of Soldier of Fortune types who couldn't shoot the broadside of a barn.

This one seems to have shot up a lot more than the broadside of a barn.

[carpedm9587]

Here's an article from 2015:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/...n-ban-conceit/

I am reminded that correlation is not causation. Neither the left nor the right has causative data - only correlation.

[carpedm9587]

Troll

True...

[Adrift]

You demonstrably do not. You think killing unborn children is not as bad as killing adults so comparing the two is "apples and oranges".

No one with two brain cells in their skull is going to accept that ridiculous take of my post. Troll harder.

My post pretty much destroyed what incoherent point you were trying to make which is why you have no real argument.

Woh. So my point was incoherent and I had no real argument, and you were still able to destroy it? You're a maniac.

...Again, this sort of thing sounds a lot better in your head than it does on the screen.

[Adrift]

This one seems to have shot up a lot more than the broadside of a barn.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps some of the American posters here could clarify something for me : I read somewhere that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. IOW it doesn't confer that right.

Is this correct?

There is a lot of disagreement about the Second Amendment. There is a body of evidence that suggests that the framers of the constitution were thinking about a country that would protect itself with a well-regulated militia, rather than a standing army. To that end they called for a database to track who owned what weapons where, and then began to realize that keeping this militia trained, armed, was a logistical nightmare. Within a few years, they shift to the idea of a standing army. However, by then, the 2nd Amendment (with it's incredibly ambiguous language) was already part of the Bill of Rights. For most of our nation's history, the 2nd Amendment was not really a major issue. There was limited judicial activity about it. But in the 1970s, after a major upheaval in the NRA, it became the cause-du-jour and a sentiment of "we can't trust the government" and "don't take our guns" emerged and gained strength. Today, it is arguably a larger, more central, issue than even freedom of speech. Somehow, guns - and the right to own, carry and use them - has become a dominant part of our political discourse in America.

[carpedm9587]

No, I suspect he's spinning, if not outright lying.

DE - let's please assume the best of those discussing here. That was the spirit intended for this thread.

[carpedm9587]

It's my freaking house! I am not required to secure my belongings in my own house. The burglar is not allowed to come in and take something "unsecured" and it be my fault. That's just dumb. If I leave my car outside of the garage and someone steals it and runs someone over, it is not my fault that someone stole it. Not even if I left the keys in it accidentally. I didn't give anyone permission to steal it.

But if you don't secure your swimming pool, and a child drowns, you could be liable. If you don't put smoke detectors/alarms and people die, you could be liable. We CAN (and are) held responsible for negligence - even in our own homes.

[carpedm9587]

What if someone breaks into my house and steals a knife that is later used to commit a crime, am I to be held accountable because I didn't properly secure the knife? How far do we want to push this insanity?

A knife is not a tool designed to kill - it is merely designed to cut. While it can be used to cut a person as well as a kumquat, that is not what it is designed for. A gun is designed to kill. That is its purpose. A knife can be a weapon if it is used that way. A gun is a weapon. That's the difference, IMO.