What can we as individuals or a group do about gun violence? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 97 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1937
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    736
    Likes (Received)
    2316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipo View Post
    Quit the NRA, and refuse to vote for anyone who is not for sensible gun regulations. In my opinion, if you want to own a lethal device, the community at large must know you have one or more (i.e. licensing), and you must own insurance to cover any damage that your device may cause. Every state did that for cars, a lot less-lethal device.

    dee
    ;-D
    I don't see any good stats that indicate cars are a lot less lethal devices.

    Slice it any way you want.

    thousands of dead and maimed each year due to vehicles, and we won't go into air pollution and health.

    Deaths per hour of operation, use carrying a fire are as op-time. I've got no data, but I have carried firearms for hundreds of hours and no one has died. I don't have any friends who have died by gunshot wound either, I can't say that about motor vehicles.

    Vehicle enabled suicide? Makes one question single occupant wrecks.

    No, I don't feel that cars are less lethal. One truck,driven by a troubled youth recently sent seven Vets to their Maker in my region.

    The director of the MASS DMV stepped down over it, Big deal.

    I will give, auto wrecks are our societies ACCEPTED form of mortality.

  2. Likes Scottl, mhajicek liked this post
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    530
    Likes (Received)
    918

    Default

    Maybe we can think of something more divisive to discuss.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4416
    Likes (Received)
    4307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    Massachusetts is one of the safest places to live
    Our overall murder rate is lower than many rural states
    You keep arguing this BS, taking individual shootings as some kind of proof

    YOu feel unsafe,
    OK Fine

    you might feel safer in South Dakota, but you would not be
    I might also feel safer in neighboring New Hampshire, a state with much looser laws, and I would be correct.

    While Massachusetts is at the bottom of "gun related deaths" we rank about 16th to 17th in homicides by firearm per FBI statistics.

    This article explains why.

    Massachusetts Gun Control Success – A False & Dangerous Narrative - GOAL.ORG

    Demographics has a lot to do with it. Where I live is quite safe. A few miles away death by shooting is one of the leading causes of death for young men. Most of the state is relatively safe, as are the greater parts of most states.

    Most of our citizens are not inclined to murder (or rape, rob, or commit other violent acts). The presence or absence of guns has nothing to do with it. In the city neighborhoods where most of the shootings occur a small percentage of the population carry illegally obtained guns, despite our strict laws. The penalties don't deter them any more than the laws against selling illegal drugs do. That small number of young men commit the majority of the murders in the entire state as they battle other gangs for profits from drug sales.

    They are the exact people our laws were supposed to disarm yet they not only remain armed but are more heavily armed than ever and shoot more often, even at cops.

    I am not cherry-picking facts, you are. Without the effects of those neighborhoods and the drug trade our murder rate would be very low even if we abolished our gun laws and went back to where we used to be. I grew up in an era when guns were widely available and murders were rare and yes, I grew up in Massachusetts.

  5. Likes mhajicek, partsproduction liked this post
  6. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    736
    Likes (Received)
    2316

    Default

    It would be useful to pull out the crime on crime firearms related death .

    The remaining number is very small.

    Then pull out suicide.

    Then pull out long gun related incidents (the ones that get all the attention, but add little to the stats.)

    We should put our efforts where they will do the most good. Releasing gang bangers back on the streets is not good. Three strikes and you are OUT!

  7. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1701
    Likes (Received)
    5016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FredC View Post
    We are in what has been called the last days and things will be getting worse.
    This concept of "End Times" has been around for centuries, perhaps millennia. It's a different issue that speaks to a different (although sometimes co-joined) mindset than gun crime and control. I believe it's better left out of this thread.

  8. Likes mhajicek liked this post
  9. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    It would be useful to pull out the crime on crime firearms related death .

    The remaining number is very small.
    The Washington Post actually published my letter when I did exactly that. They had f**ked-up and listed the circumstances that put the lie to their own agenda right in the same newspaper.

    Massive spread of - IIRC 113 - shooting deaths in Washington DC that year. Four, IIRC, where DC Police Officers killed in line of duty.

    A few more were 'ordinary" citizen-on-citizen - domestic disputes gone bad, mostly, perhaps a suicide - not many.

    The rest were drug and other crime-on-crime & gang wars, SEVERAL Laws already broken before they ever arrived at the kill zone.

    But the Post wanted to improve safety by leverageing off that to take away the right to defensive arms from all the law ABIDING populace.

    At least the fascists running The Post have remained consistent in that insanity.

  10. Likes Rex TX, partsproduction liked this post
  11. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    736
    Likes (Received)
    2316

    Default

    Let us not lose sight of the Second A.

    The purpose is not to provide for personal self defense against challenges, An "equalizer". Nor are fire arms intrinsic to our sporting pursuit of happiness.

    No, It is the right of the people to be capable of resistance against a government goon amuck.

    And these day, world wide, political leaders seem to get that entitled feeling even when elected. Ruling not serving.

    I'm not sure how any situation would shake out. Syria, Bosnia etc may provide lessons.
    Hong Kong is getting scary..

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Dickman View Post
    last night, in LA some fuck went berserk and stabbed and killed a bunch of people. I'm afraid the problem has nothing to do with guns.
    OMG its time to ban the knives, I guess we will all become vegetarins, without knives to cut our steak with.
    And when that dosn't work the pubs will have to ban glass mugs to drink beer out of. I'm pretty sure England proposed banning the glass because they were breaking them in bar fights and hurting each other, not sure if it passed or not.

    Maybe the best thing that could happen with regards to gun control would be for the gov to declare a "war on guns"
    Look at how sucessful the "war on drugs" has been more and more states are legalizing.
    "War on terror" is creating way more "terrorists" in the countries where it is in play
    By this logic a "war on guns" would insure that most americans would end up owning them and be happy about it.

  13. Likes tdmidget, jeffm8622 liked this post
  14. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    please don't use your lack of grounding in reality as an argument for, well anything
    false flag
    Quote Originally Posted by Milland View Post
    I'm still stunned by the newest one, the "false flag" accusation used by Rob F. (and which he still hasn't supported).
    I cant imagine you guys would believe the gov would ever do anything nefarious to sway public opinion? Operation Gladio anyone?
    Operation Gladio - Hard Evidence of Government False Flag Terrorism

    Back to topic at hand and how it ties together is if the gov (or powers that be) want gun control they will need to convince the public it is a good idea.... How would they do that?

  15. Likes mhajicek liked this post
  16. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    Let us not lose sight of the Second A.

    The purpose is not to provide for personal self defense against challenges, An "equalizer". Nor are fire arms intrinsic to our sporting pursuit of happiness.

    No, It is the right of the people to be capable of resistance against a government goon amuck.
    "All of the above" and more, actually.

    I consider him at least a part-time leftist, but Judge Andrew Napolitano did a bit on Fox.

    He correctly pointed out that the right to self defense - against any and ALL threats, and by any and all means - is rooted in "natural law". Survival, IOW, is wired-into human DNA.

    And that the founders only acknowledged the nation was bound by that, had not created it.

    IOW, the Second Amendment is not a 'grant' FROM a Government. Not theirs to give OR take away. Not until DNA is re-engineered, anyway.

    As it may be. But not until there is free medicare for all to pay for it at no cost to anyone living or dead.

    2A is simply recognition of a bound placed ON a government, rather.

    Now. Hong Kong.. The USA may be rare as to having codified our 2A.

    But the natural law as to survival is in the DNA of ALL humans.

    2.25 million arses under arms of the entire People's Liberation Army is just under two percent of China's population.

    Emperor Xi's Dynasty has another problem. Cross-border families, Clans, Tribes, and DNA also involved.

    Something on the order of nine of China's most recent thirteen revolutions started in the Pearl river basin. The one presently running the country included.

    It isn't Hong Kong who control the money. Guangdong Province, overall, rather.

    "US involvement?" Spare me. No need. The Han can give lessons. Let's hope they do not have to do. Again. They tend to be rudely messy about it.

  17. Likes Scottl, LockNut liked this post
  18. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1701
    Likes (Received)
    5016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob F. View Post
    I cant imagine you guys would believe the gov would ever do anything nefarious to sway public opinion?
    Would you be willing to tell a Newtown or Parkland parent that they're lying about their child being dead? Or are you saying government agents killed their children?

  19. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Alabama
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    91

    Default

    It appears that we would save more people if we banned cars, hands, feet, and the ever present blunt object. All of those things cause more deaths than assault weapons. So says the FBI.

    copy-expanded-homicide-data-table-11.jpg

  20. Likes DrHook liked this post
  21. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4416
    Likes (Received)
    4307

    Default

    We have a problem and it goes far deeper than gun violence.

    As someone from an older generation I'm shocked at how casually many today talk about advocating violence against others. I feel sorry for the families of these mass shooters as likely they will be barraged with death threats.

    It's becoming far more common today for total strangers to threaten others, especially if they've been spotlighted in the news cycle. People have had to leave their homes and workplaces for fear of their own safety.

    Online forums are full of comments about killing, hurting and maiming others for the most trivial of reasons. Large numbers believe violence against political opponents is normal and acceptable. And if God forbid some poor soul leaves a dog in a hot car and it gets on the news an online mob will demand savage punishment, even if the animal remains alive.

    THIS is the sea those peculiar fish who commit mass murder swim in and yet we always act shocked that they do what hordes of others rail about.

    The Saint Valentines murders shocked and horrified a nation in another age and most of the victims were criminals. Today we'd barely raise an eyebrow. We have largely ceased to value human life and I fear we are returning to the barbarism of older times. In the ancient world there was no such thing as noncombatants and it was not uncommon to slaughter entire villages including women and children.

    What can we do? How about trying our best to convince others of the value of human life? If society continues on its current course there will be hordes of young killers acting out in future decades.

  22. Likes thomj, mhajicek, jeffm8622, jariou, Fancuku and 2 others liked this post
  23. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Temecula, Ca
    Posts
    2,754
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1247
    Likes (Received)
    3580

    Default

    it's funny how we can run around with guns, knives, bats etc., but it's illegal to have a plastic straw.

  24. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milland View Post
    Would you be willing to tell a Newtown or Parkland parent that they're lying about their child being dead? Or are you saying government agents killed their children?
    That conversation is off topic for this thread. You believe what the government and media report (propaganda), I do not, leave it at that. I agree to disagree.

  25. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1701
    Likes (Received)
    5016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nt1953 View Post
    It appears that we would save more people if we banned cars, hands, feet, and the ever present blunt object. All of those things cause more deaths than assault weapons. So says the FBI.
    None of those except cars are capable of mass killings within a minute. And not only is a car not designed primarily to kill, but its use requires universal licensing and registration.

    This is another of the extremely tired go-tos from the NRA playbook. It is so easily rebutted that I don't understand why it's constantly trotted out.

  26. Likes Curt Brown, fusker liked this post
  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1758
    Likes (Received)
    1890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    I don't see any good stats that indicate cars are a lot less lethal devices.

    Slice it any way you want.

    thousands of dead and maimed each year due to vehicles, and we won't go into air pollution and health.

    Deaths per hour of operation, use carrying a fire are as op-time. I've got no data, but I have carried firearms for hundreds of hours and no one has died. I don't have any friends who have died by gunshot wound either, I can't say that about motor vehicles.

    Vehicle enabled suicide? Makes one question single occupant wrecks.

    No, I don't feel that cars are less lethal. One truck,driven by a troubled youth recently sent seven Vets to their Maker in my region.

    The director of the MASS DMV stepped down over it, Big deal.

    I will give, auto wrecks are our societies ACCEPTED form of mortality.
    We created a shared social network (mandatory insurance) to cover the liability and cost of accidents by cars, there is nothing for covering the social cost of guns. We let gun owners off scots free, but not car owners. How fair is that? Do not start with illegal guns and criminals, we have uninsured motorist funds in every state, paid by insured people, the same concept. There are just about as many gun deaths in this country as many traffic deaths. The reason I consider cars less lethal because there is more use of them, so I assume that the lethality of cars per use is lower than guns per use. One more thought, Per use I mean actually operating it not being in the vicinity, how many people shoot daily, vs drive daily.


    dee
    ;-D

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    60
    Likes (Received)
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milland View Post
    None of those except cars are capable of mass killings within a minute. And not only is a car not designed primarily to kill, but its use requires universal licensing and registration.

    This is another of the extremely tired go-tos from the NRA playbook. It is so easily rebutted that I don't understand why it's constantly trotted out.
    Cars only need registration if used on public roads. On private land I could buy and drive an M1 Abrams if I could afford it. Hell I like to dream and look up the prices of old T-55's/72's just for fun.

  29. Likes Kurt Learning liked this post
  30. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Geneva Illinois USA
    Posts
    6,050
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2531
    Likes (Received)
    2348

    Default

    Excuse me for barging in, instead of banning guns, ban certain types of ammunition and regulate its sale.

    Tom

  31. Likes fusker liked this post
  32. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    192
    Likes (Received)
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milland;3395624
    And not only is a car not designed primarily to kill, but its use [B
    requires[/B] universal licensing and registration.
    Either universal licensing or registration keeps someone from going to the truck stop stealing a tractor? Once you plan to break a law, might as well break a few. Like getting stolen firearm or making a machine gun. There are more prohibitions to buying a gun from an FFL than getting a drivers license. Which btw, isn't in the bill of rights. And I'd argue there are more people driving with suspended licenses than felons with firearms.

    Tell me who was more effective, the Vegas shooter(s) or the Nice truck attack? Mixing common chemicals to make an IED is an order of magnitude more effective than either of those.

    Truck: 86 killed, 458 wounded:
    2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia

    "Bump stock" attack, 58 dead, 422 wounded:
    2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

    All I need to know is that the government isn't afraid of trucks -- they want to ban the guns. -- which is all the reason you should need to own them.

  33. Likes DrHook, mhajicek, Rex TX, jeffm8622 liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •