• 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!

DavidJames said:
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.
Click to expand...


Oh, let me try! Society has decided that target shooting and hunting are socially acceptable. Rules are developed to limit the dangers inherit within each. The risk of either compares favorably to many other activities. At some point should the risk of danger become unacceptable, society may decide such activities are unacceptable.

Society has decided that someone drowning in a boating accident or killing someone as a result of choosing to use a cell phone while driving is socially unacceptable. Rules are developed to, as much as possible, eliminate that activity. But those deaths still occur in numbers greater than mass shootings or killing sprees.

How'd I do? :rolleyes:

Do you understand the concept?
Click to expand...


Very much so. You're comparing peeling apples with using oranges to make your underwear drawer smell sweet, and you've arrived at the conclusion guns = bad.

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?
Click to expand...


So, some would say 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?
 
GeeMack said:
Oh, let me try! Society has decided that target shooting and hunting are socially acceptable. Rules are developed to limit the dangers inherit within each. The risk of either compares favorably to many other activities. At some point should the risk of danger become unacceptable, society may decide such activities are unacceptable.

Society has decided that someone drowning in a boating accident or killing someone as a result of choosing to use a cell phone while driving is socially unacceptable. Rules are developed to, as much as possible, eliminate that activity. But those deaths still occur in numbers greater than mass shootings or killing sprees.

How'd I do? :rolleyes:




Very much so. You're comparing peeling apples with using oranges to make your underwear drawer smell sweet, and you've arrived at the conclusion guns = bad.




So, some would say 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?
Click to expand...
Other then showing you understand how a 6 year old might mock something they don't understand, your comments don't address my point. Now put on your big boy pants and address my point, if you can.

Death from drowning in your swimming pool is different from getting murdered by another person. (here's a hint, one activity is legal, the other isn't)
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Other then showing you understand how a 6 year old might mock something they don't understand, your comments don't address my point. Now put on your big boy pants and address my point, if you can.
Click to expand...


I addressed your point. You made a silly, and I might add not even rational comparison to try to support your position. You attempted to make that point by conflating activities which have been clearly determined to be different. You failed in the ridiculousness of your comparison, and you iced the cake by implying that other people might be making silly comparisons, while in nearly the same breath you were trotting yours out as if it was meaningful.
 
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...
Then perhaps the gun control laws you have seen put in place have been ineffective. That doesn't mean that gun control laws are therefore always ineffective. Have a look at gun crime statistics here or in Australia.
 
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, under Canadian law, it is the responsibility of the private seller to ensure that the buyer has a valid and current firearms license (with the applicable classification endorsement) to purchase the gun. It was and still is a criminal offense on both the buyer's and the seller's part to attempt or complete an unlicensed transfer.

Handgun transfers are monitored by the government via the restricted and prohibited firearms registry programs.

Your concerns reference the transfer of hunting rifles and sporting long guns were addressed here in Canada with the implication of the "Long Gun Registry Act" progressively coming into force in the mid to late nineties.

However, the "Ending the Long Gun Registry Act" act has recently came into force here in Canada. It effectively killed the the Long Gun Registry because it had been studied and determined that 'straw-man' transfers before the implementation of the Long Gun Registry had been so rare and infrequent that it did not justify the expenditure of resources required to maintain the Long Gun Registry database.

The Canadians found that straw-man firearm transfers were a non-issue. Are there reasons to suspect the case to be different in the States? Doesn't America have firearm possession license requirements similar to Canada?

In any case, with most firearm related crimes here are being carried out by unlicensed individuals, it seems the criminal types are simply ignoring the whole legal acquisition processes anyway...
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
I addressed your point. You made a silly, and I might add not even rational comparison to try to support your position. You attempted to make that point by conflating activities which have been clearly determined to be different. You failed in the ridiculousness of your comparison, and you iced the cake by implying that other people might be making silly comparisons, while in nearly the same breath you were trotting yours out as if it was meaningful.
Click to expand...
You got me, now enjoy your nap. Have a nice day.

Should you choose to actually respond to my point, I'll be watching.
 
Rat said:
Then perhaps the gun control laws you have seen put in place have been ineffective. That doesn't mean that gun control laws are therefore always ineffective. Have a look at gun crime statistics here or in Australia.
Click to expand...

In some cases the laws are ineffective by design. The federal requirement for background checks doesn't apply to private sales. As a result, 40% of all firearms sales are done without a background check. The same private sale exemption applies to registration, with the same results. An NRA sponsored clause prohibits the government from using computers to keep track of firearms registrations, so instead of a simple database query, tracing a gun found at a crime scene requires traveling to firearms dealers and examining paper records by hand. The private sales exemption from registration assures that many of these traces will reach dead ends.

Concealed carry permits in my state are not allowed to be entered into the database used for drivers licenses and state IDs. The validity of a concealed carry permit can't be easily checked by law enforcement, courts or firearms dealers.
 
Autolite said:
Mais, je parle en Francais aussi. Je suis bilingue.

Feel better???
Click to expand...

No. Just because you speak french does not mean that you weren't insulting the French. In fact, you could even insult the French in french.

Seeing as you won't reply yourself, I will clarify.

I think you were saying that it's pathetic for a non gun owning USAian to call on an armed response unit or their neighbour to defend them when they won't carry a gun themselves.

Then I think you went on to say that this smacks of the French during WW11 when they required the USA's help in the War.

This is incredibly insulting. It's a comparison that is only designed to offend the French on a very deep level and offers nothing to the argument. It's a childish joke specifically aimed at being as offensive as you possibly can to a nation that suffered dreadfully during the German Occupation. It is irrelevent to this discussion and drags the debate down to the level of playground insults that can only be based on the most unbelievable ignorance of the occupation and WW11.

Then you are slippery enough to avoid the apology that your comment merits and you weasel out of clarifying and defending your comment. I can only hope that this is because you realise that it is beyond defense.

It was a revolting, childish offensive comment that is out of place on this board.
 
Rat said:
Then perhaps the gun control laws you have seen put in place have been ineffective. That doesn't mean that gun control laws are therefore always ineffective. Have a look at gun crime statistics here or in Australia.
Click to expand...

I think it can be agreed upon the reason for the variances in firearm related crimes go far deeper than just gun control. The comparison to Mexico has been cited ad nauseum.

OTOH, I would be interested to learn why some feel that the same gun control initiatives that have failed in Canada might work in the States. The American government is now seriously considering restrictions that the Canadians already know have been ineffective...
 
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's the idea.

But there are ways to make the act unpalatable to even people who would normally break the law. Traffic lights with cameras are an example, whether you agree with their existence or not.
 
Rat said:
Then perhaps the gun control laws you have seen put in place have been ineffective. That doesn't mean that gun control laws are therefore always ineffective. Have a look at gun crime statistics here or in Australia.
Click to expand...

But is it a result of the laws being put in place, or are the laws a reflection of long-standing Australian culture and opinions with respect to guns ?
 
Autolite said:
The Canadians found that straw-man firearm transfers were a non-issue. Are there reasons to suspect the case to be different in the States? Doesn't America have firearm possession license requirements similar to Canada?

In any case, with most firearm related crimes here are being carried out by unlicensed individuals, it seems the criminal types are simply ignoring the wholes legal acquisition processes anyway...
Click to expand...

There are no US federal laws requiring a licence before purchasing or possessing a firearm. Nor are there any federal requirements for training. I believe that some states require a license for some kinds of firearms, but mine does not. Most states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Most firearms crimes in the US are committed with handguns, a type of weapon that is seldom present in Canadian households.

Straw purchases are a problem in the US. ATF cracked down on part of the problem by requiring dealers to report sales of multiple handguns to the same person. We had one local prosecution of a lady who was purchasing handguns by the case that then found there way to street gangs in California. The prohibition on entering registration records in a computer makes it difficult to detect a straw buyer that buys only one weapon from each dealer.

Some years ago, a retired janitor in Illinois was buying one cheap Bryco pistol a week from a local gun dealer, then selling them via a newspaper ad for about $100 more than his cost. He was caught when one of these guns was used in a Chicago killing spree.

That no registration or paperwork is required makes life really safe for straw buyers acquiring firearms from private sales. This may be the predominant method of diverting firearms from the legal market to prohibited persons.
 
Ambrosia said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the flow of illegal firearms is from the US to Mexico
 
Belz... said:
I think that's the idea.
Click to expand...

Well, it could be argued that the 'idea', at least here in Canada, was to placate the masses by fabricating the facade of increased public security.

The laws brought into force would only be complied with by people not inclined toward criminal behavior. I previously mentioned that it's like forcing a dog with no teeth to wear a muzzle. Ineffective laws are a political ruse.

I'm starting to get the impression that the American government might be heading down the same track...
 
Autolite said:
Get over yourself. Even the French aren't that thin skinned...
Click to expand...

Charming and erudite.

Demonstrates the level of your debating skills and your understanding of WW11 perfectly.

This is my last comment on the matter as it's a derail from the subject, although I would be willing to debate with you further on a separate thread.

I found your comment offensive. I am sure I am not alone in this.
I find it amusing that you cannot defend your comment.
I find it more amusing that you descend to insulting me as you cannot defend your comment.
I find it even more amusing that you assume you can speak for an entire nation whom you are sure would all support you because after all, the occupation was just a bit of a jape and no hard feelings all round.

I find you horrifying because of your ignorance. If you would like to find out more and lessen your ignorance, I suggest you read this extremely interesting bit of real history.

http://www.oradour.info/

This website describes the history, background and events leading up to the Nazi attack upon the martyr village of Oradour-sur-Glane in the Haute-Vienne Department of Vichy France during WWII. This atrocity was carried out on Saturday 10th June 1944 by soldiers of the Der Führer Regiment of the 2nd Waffen-SS Panzer Division, Das Reich. On that day they killed a total of 642 men, women and children and destroyed the entire village without giving any reason for their action to the inhabitants and to this day there is no universally accepted explanation for the massacre.

If you choose, you can educate yourself and learn that there are real people living there in the village today that remember this day extremely clearly, when entire families were slaughtered. Then you can visit Orodour yourself and see for yourself.

Then you can decide if it's a bright move to make jokes about it.
 
Belz... said:
But is it a result of the laws being put in place, or are the laws a reflection of long-standing Australian culture and opinions with respect to guns ?
Click to expand...
Well, what I meant was that I understand that gun crime plummetted after the introduction of gun control laws, but I'd have to look it up again to be sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom