• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

Autolite said:
Non-gun owners have the option to call on someone with a gun for help when the threat is immediate and the chips are down. Sounds more like something that the French might be inclined to do...
Click to expand...

I'm not a gun owner and I agree. If I need help in a situation that calls for a gun, I call the police.
 
Autolite said:
I suppose what I've been trying to say is that the trend seems to be to focus laws on the gun (the implement used in the crime) rather than on the criminal, or criminal behavior.

Gun control laws are restrictions, rules, controls, prohibitions and regulations that law abiding gun owners will abide by, whereas those with criminal intent will simply ignore.

This is akin to a law requiring a muzzle to be worn on a dog with no teeth. People aren't aware that the dog hasn't any teeth, so seeing that dog muzzled only creates the illusion of safety.

Perhaps the laws should focus on the behavior of those bad dogs, who still have all their teeth, but refuse to wear the muzzle...
Click to expand...

The laws can be used to limit the number of guns in the public AND deal with the bad dogs as well.
 
scarlettinlondon said:
I really hope you are joking when you said this. if not, it's an unpleasant dig at the occupation that the French endured which is in very poor taste.
Click to expand...

Poor taste, perhaps.

The gist of the comment was that many who abhor guns and the violence that they might imply seem to have no problem calling on someone with a gun, willing to offer violent response on their behalf, when needed.

It's a morally questionable attitude...
 
Autolite said:
Poor taste, perhaps.

The gist of the comment was that many who abhor guns and the violence that they might imply seem to have no problem calling on someone with a gun, willing to offer violent response on their behalf, when needed.

It's a morally questionable attitude...
Click to expand...

Calling the police is morally questionable ?!
 
We should absolve all gun control. That will ensure peace because everyone will be afraid to use a gun knowing others will shot them down immediately. It works in Somolia , after all.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The laws can be used to limit the number of guns in the public AND deal with the bad dogs as well.
Click to expand...

Yet in practice gun control laws by design seem to limit, control and restrict firearm access primarily to the law abiding only. People without criminal intent to begin with.

For those with criminal intent, gun control is evidently a minor bother that is easily circumvented. It might be more productive to refocus laws on the criminal. Bring about effective deterrents to discourage the bad people from acting on their criminal inclinations...
 
Last edited:
StankApe said:
(but we shouldn't forget about how important this border with Mexico is when it comes to comparing nations like the UK and Australia to the USA)
Click to expand...

Have you considered the differences between Canada and the US?

Canada has a border with the USA which by all accounts has a large number of gun toting criminals in it.

Canada has lots of guns (though not as many as the US) it has significantly less gun crime than the US does.

Yes the border with Mexico is a big issue and one thing that complicates gun control in the US. It's not unique in it's geography though.
 
gumboot said:
Firstly, what perentage of these 36 children were deliberately murdered while playing high school football?
Click to expand...

I'm not singling you out, but this is the most recent post to float this dichotomy and I think it needs to be either dispelled or addressed as part of the discussion in a more well defined way.

I don't think any parent has ever reacted to the news of their child's accidental death with "Oh thank goodness that it wasn't at the hands of a spree killer". Or, conversely, there has never been the wish that a murdered child had died instead from an accidental drowning. I wonder then, why is it important to address childhood deaths only from a moralistic "murder vs. misadventure" dichotomy? Other than the emotional context it seems that murder brings into the discussion what purpose will it serve?

Everyone agrees that this is a horrific crime. What people seem to disagree on is what should be done to prevent it. And frankly, the ONLY reason we want to prevent it is because no one wants children to be killed, whether it be by accident or homicide.
 
Last edited:
joesixpack said:
I'm not singling you out, but this is the most recent post to float this dichotomy and I think it needs to be either dispelled or addressed as part of the discussion in a more well defined way.

I don't think any parent has ever reacted to the news of their child's accidental death with "Oh thank goodness that it wasn't at the hands of a spree killer". Or, conversely, there has never been the wish that a murdered child had died instead from an accidental drowning. I wonder then, why is it important to address childhood deaths only from a moralistic "murder vs. misadventure" dichotomy? Other than the emotional context it seems that murder brings into the discussion what purpose will it serve?

Everyone agrees that this is a horrific crime. What people seem to disagree on is what should be done to prevent it. And frankly, the ONLY reason we want to prevent it is because no one wants children to be killed, whether it be by accident or homicide.
Click to expand...
Once again, that is a self serving interpretation of the beliefs and motives of those with whom you disagree.

It's a classic straw man fallacy and has no business in this forum. It's your straw man that must be dispelled.
 
Autolite said:
Poor taste, perhaps.

The gist of the comment was that many who abhor guns and the violence that they might imply seem to have no problem calling on someone with a gun, willing to offer violent response on their behalf, when needed.

It's a morally questionable attitude...
Click to expand...

No, unless I am mistaken, your post was a dig at the French during the second World War. If I am mistaken, and you only meant to suggest that the French have the attitude that if they are at risk they call the police, so that the police can do their job, then I am in error.

If however, you meant to snidely jab at the French and the occupation then yes, your remark was in very poor taste. Do let me know which it was so that I can profoundly apologise if I was incorrect in my reading of your post and you just brought the French in as a random example of responsible citizenry and for no other reason at all.....
 
thaiboxerken said:
Calling the police is morally questionable ?!
Click to expand...

Some might consider it to be ethically questionable if one is the type who counts on the police for help when needed but will vilify those willing to be proactive about their own personal security. But we're not just talking about the police. Some act with disdain at the concept of having a gun in the house, yet will not hesitate to phone their nearest neighbour who does have one when there's trouble...
 
Last edited:
scarlettinlondon said:
No, unless I am mistaken, your post was a dig at the French during the second World War. If I am mistaken, and you only meant to suggest that the French have the attitude that if they are at risk they call the police, so that the police can do their job, then I am in error.

If however, you meant to snidely jab at the French and the occupation then yes, your remark was in very poor taste. Do let me know which it was so that I can profoundly apologise if I was incorrect in my reading of your post and you just brought the French in as a random example of responsible citizenry and for no other reason at all.....
Click to expand...

I've explained the comment in my reply to your comment. I'm sincerely not sure how I could have been any clearer...
 
Autolite said:
I've explained the comment in my reply to your comment. I'm sincerely not sure how I could have been any clearer...
Click to expand...

If you are sincere in your wish to explain to me, then explain the bit that I want explaining, not the bit you want to explain. I was asking if you were having a dig at the French and the second world was occupation.

Hint it's about the French. Therefore the word, France, or French should appear in your explanation.

If you need further help you can cut and paste one of these two options.

1. Yes, I was having a dig at the French needing our help in the Second World War


or


2. No, I was referring to the French as public spirited citizens who call the police when threatened like responsible bods and who do not take the law into their own hands by blasting away willy nilly as they choose.
 
Society has decided that swimming and playing football are socially acceptable. Rules are developed to limit the dangers inherit within each. At some point should the risk of danger become unacceptable, society may decide such activities are unacceptable.

Society has decided that someone killing someone else is socially acceptable. Rules are developed to, as much as possible, eliminate that activity.

Do you understand the concept?

Our society has determined that some activities are okay and some are not. Why do you insist on conflating activities which have been clearly determined to be different?
 
Autolite said:
Yet in practice gun control laws by design seem to limit, control and restrict firearm access primarily to the law abiding only. People without criminal intent to begin with.

For those with criminal intent, gun control is evidently a minor bother that is easily circumvented. It might be more productive to refocus laws on the criminal. Bring about effective deterrents to discourage the bad people from acting on their criminal inclinations...
Click to expand...

The background checks implemented by the Brady Act did focus on those with criminal history. Excluding private sales from that requirement just made it easy for criminals to buy firearms without background checks. It also made being a straw buyer for a criminal a lot safer by eliminating the paper trail.
 
Multivac said:
Thankyou for your condescension. I was simply pointing out that, as someone who lives in country where people do not generally own guns, I do not understand the emotional attachment that many Americans have for their guns.
Click to expand...

And what does this lack of understanding mean in the context of this debate? Usually when I don't understand something I like to ask a question or two in the hopes of fixing that. You seem to be of the mindset that your lack of understanding is ipso facto a condemnation of the character of Americans with guns. I'm certain you'll argue that you said no such thing, but the judgmental tone of all of your posts says otherwise. In reality, your lack of understanding is a reflection of your own lack of understanding and nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom