Gun ownership poll

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by G1911

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by Leon

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kyle, to one of your points, last year in my hometown the police shot and killed a man who refused to put down his weapon and was behaving in a very threatening way. The officers were exonerated, but what struck me was the finding that the man was on an unbelievable cocktail of about 10 psychoactive meds. My thought was that his doctor was the one who should have been investigated.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

I feel it's ok to have this discussion in the wake of a huge tragedy. It might be more disrespectful in a different venue (such as in Uvalde proper) as it might be seen as too soon. There have been tens of millions of discussions just like this one since this last tragedy.

I politely disagree with "all shootings involve mental issues" . Maybe most mass shootings do but not ALL shootings in general. That said I am only guessing.

I think this debate does, as you and your wife are doing, spur debate concerning school safety, home schooling and much more. That is a good thing.
.

[vintagetoppsguy]

How many remember the Cokeville Elementary School Bombing? It happened in Cokeville, WY on May 16, 1986. A crazed loon and his wife took 154 hostages (mostly children) in a classroom and threatened to designate a bomb if his demands weren't met (I think he wanted $2 million per child, but I don't remember exactly). Anyway, the idiot's wife accidentally designated the bomb and fortunately only her and her husband were killed. However, a lot more were seriously injured. My point is this: you don’t need guns to kill a lot of people. These two idiots tried to do it with a bomb. Sure, you can argue that they were unsuccessful and only killed themselves in the end, but the point is that the bomb was powerful enough that it could have killed everyone in that classroom. Just remember 9/11 - a few bad guys with boxcutters killed nearly 3000 people and there were no guns involved. We didn’t have discussions about banning boxcutters or making them less accessible. No, we locked and reinforced cockpit doors. Why don’t we lock schools (where were can) and individual classrooms?

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Just remember 9/11 - a few bad guys with boxcutters killed nearly 3000 people and there were no guns involved. We didn’t have discussions about banning boxcutters or making them less accessible. No, we locked and reinforced cockpit doors. Why don’t we lock schools (where were can) and individual classrooms?

This seems to be a common saying/meme going around in the past few days due to a certain person who typically doesn't know what she's talking about.

The response to 9/11 wasn't just reinforcing cockpit doors and, yes, boxcutters and other sharp objects were made to be less accessible. Even today, only some sharp items are allowed in carry on bags or on your person while others need to be stowed away in checked baggage. The response to aviation threats has only added more security measures.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-...objects?page=0

Along with that, the government actually responded to the issue pretty quickly instead of today's world where there is initial outrage, followed by talks of "compromise" to work together and come to a solution, and then followed by everybody moving on to the next shiny object to cause outrage and forgetting about the previous issue until it happens again.

Within three months of 9/11, DHS and TSA were created. Screening was handed over to the government instead of private companies. The Patriot Act was passed. Someone tried to detonate his shoe a few months later so now we all have to take our shoes off for screening. All baggage is now screened for explosives and other prohibited items. There was then a threat involving liquids so all liquids, gels, and aerosols were banned from carry on bags (later updated to no more than 3.4 ounces in a clear plastic bag). There is also now 100% pre-screening for all domestic, outbound, and inbound flights to the US.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

The OP is as entitled to give his opinion as anyone else.

I don't disagree with your view, I too wish people who stop pretending it's a tool if the tool used has political capital (there's never a left-wing outrage over a hammer murder or a knife murder) and would address the actual issue: the person who used the tool. But everyone is entitled to their opinion in a debate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

All of the "pro-x" terms being discussed are imperfect and leave out some truth.

As to whether America has "a parenting problem" or "a mental health problem" or a "profits above human lives problem" the answer, in my view, is yes to all of these.

For some perspective on whether or not America has "a gun problem", I recommend speaking with literally anyone outside of our country.

[Deertick]

I remember when we just measured pee-pees. Now it's the number of, capacity of, and firing rate of our firearms.
I find it very interesting that seemingly sane "collectors' and "sportsman" fall into a Rambo-esque wet dream when posed with the fictional scenario of "them coming for my guns". I wonder who they think will be coming? Will the unwavering support for our military and law enforcement be shrugged off as they lay a spray across their front lawn?

The rhetoric is insane. Both sides know there is common ground. As in any issue, allowing the loudest on each side to dominate the "discussion" is rarely the solution.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I remember when we just measured pee-pees. Now it's the number of, capacity of, and firing rate of our firearms.
I find it very interesting that seemingly sane "collectors' and "sportsman" fall into a Rambo-esque wet dream when posed with the fictional scenario of "them coming for my guns". I wonder who they think will be coming? Will the unwavering support for our military and law enforcement be shrugged off as they lay a spray across their front lawn?

The rhetoric is insane. Both sides know there is common ground. As in any issue, allowing the loudest on each side to dominate the "discussion" is rarely the solution.

+1 agree. Most level-headed and rational post in this thread yet.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

Whether or not to have an abortion IS a choice, usually decided by either one or two (the father if he's around) people. It's not a "feelgood" phrase, it's simply a phrase that best describes the one side of the issue - that a woman should be able to choose whether she has an abortion or not. Whether to have an abortion or not is an agonizing choice women must make after very careful consideration. It doesn't mean they are pro-abortion, it means that at that moment, choosing to have an abortion is best for them.

The whole issue regarding abortion comes down to one question - when does life begin? If a person believes life begins at conception, then they should be against abortions and should choose not to have one. But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice). Women who choose to have an abortion most likely do not. Many other people do not believe life begins at conception. By not allowing a pregnant woman to abort the unborn fetus if that is her choice, a person who believes life begins at conception is imposing their BELIEF on that woman. She's being denied her choice. Earlier you were talking about extreme views - my belief is that believing life begins at conception is the extreme view. Many extreme responses are required to fully implement that view.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice).

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science wasn't around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science was around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

Please show me a where a preponderance of scientific papers claim life begins at conception. I'll wait .....

I don't have a clear cut moment at when I think life begins. It's definitely not before there is a heartbeat. I would put it somewhere along the line of when the fetus can survive on its own.

But, since YOU believe life begins at conception, where's your moral outrage at all of the fertilized eggs (i.e., conception) that are naturally aborted?

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education...issed%20menses.

"In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses."

Why aren't you and people like you demanding that women who lose a fertilized egg be charged with a crime at the loss of life ... charge them with involuntary manslaughter or something. Why aren't you demanding that every time they have a bloody discharge, the discharge needs to be sent in to be checked for fertilized eggs (a now dead life)? That way you can punish them for ending that life.

Why aren't workers at fertility clinics where they plant multiple fertilized eggs in a woman charged with murder if every egg isn't born?

Why? Because most people do not actually believe that life begins at conception. Either that or they're not really concerned about the staggering loss of life.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science wasn't around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

Interesting, the selectivity with which humans often choose to rely on "proven science" in their beliefs and decisions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's an interesting piece on that "extreme" view of life.

https://abort73.com/abortion/abortio...pocratic_oath/

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's an interesting piece on that "extreme" view of life.

https://abort73.com/abortion/abortio...pocratic_oath/

Okay, so let me ask you. At fertility clinics, they fertilize eggs to implant in a woman. Not every fertilized egg is born. So, since every fertilized egg is a human life, who is responsible for the deaths of the fertilized eggs that aren't born? Who gets charged with the crime of murder?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Okay, so let me ask you. At fertility clinics, they fertilize eggs to implant in a woman. Not every fertilized egg is born. So, since every fertilized egg is a human life, who is responsible for the deaths of the fertilized eggs that aren't born? Who gets charged with the crime of murder?

In her dissent from the commerce clause majority view in the Obamacare case, Justice Ginsburg quoted something Robert Bork once said or wrote to the effect that just because you can hypothesize a slippery slope, doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Almost any belief in this world could be challenged by the Socratic method, but that doesn't invalidate them all.