Alright man, I apologize for attacking (holding you accountable for) your personal beliefs. I was only trying to understand where your motivations came from/what they are. No deception involved, I promise, I just personally do not consider it attacking. But hey, that's just my opinion.Sorry man, but that was a personal attack, it's not that I "feel" as though I'm being attacked. You attacked me by going after my motivations, rather than addressing my argument. By making it about how I "want to control people", you're making the discussion about me as a person, rather than addressing the argument presented. It's not a matter of perspective; objectively, you made a statement that attacks my character. Either you did it consciously, or it was a mistake, but please don't try to play with sophistry to try and make it out like it didn't happen.
The argument isn't about whether or not I want to control people, the argument is about the effect of gun regulations on deaths.
My motivation is straightforward. I want less people to die because of guns. I don't know why you keep bothering with the non-apologies. You didn't attack my personal beliefs, you made it about my personal motivations, just like you continue to do, and said that I want to control people, which is an attack on me as a person. Either stronger gun regulations will save lives, or they won't, and that's independent of whether I'm a megalomaniac or not. Even if I was a baby-killing Nazi who wants to see the world bow before him, it would have zero effect on whether I'm right or wrong.Alright man, I apologize for attacking (holding you accountable for) your personal beliefs. I was only trying to understand where your motivations came from/what they are. No deception involved, I promise, I just personally do not consider it attacking. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Right on man, I respect your intentions, also your ability to debate. I choose to "play devil's advocate" (for lack of a better term in 2019). I would like to see a world with no violent crime at all, where folks have the ability to decide right and wrong for themselves, ultimately choosing right, under their own accord. I believe we (you and I, please don't take this as an attack in my calculated assumption of your personal belief/motivation) have the same end goal, just a difference in means.My motivation is straightforward. I want less people to die because of guns. I don't know why you keep bothering with the non-apologies. You didn't attack my personal beliefs, you made it about my personal motivations, just like you continue to do, and said that I want to control people, which is an attack on me as a person. Either stronger gun regulations will save lives, or they won't, and that's independent of whether I'm a megalomaniac or not. Even if I was a baby-killing Nazi who wants to see the world bow before him, it would have zero effect on whether I'm right or wrong.
^ This here is what it comes down to, to get to the point of it all.. Its about people knowing right from wrong, and choosing to do right or good. To add to your comment.I would like to see a world with no violent crime at all, where folks have the ability to decide right and wrong for themselves, ultimately choosing right, under their own accord.
All the knife deaths across London so far this yearI live in England - over here guns are difficult to get hold of legal or illegal - we also have very few spree killers shooting up schools / malls etc - I can think of 2 in the last 30 years....
I've never been to the States but I get the impression that guns are everywhere, legal and illegal - you also seem to have people shooting up schools / malls on the regular..
so am I being too simplistic when I say surely it's the widespread availability of guns that leads to these shootings ? you can tinker with the law all you like but with that much firepower lying around these killings seem inevitable - a psycho can find weapons quickly and easily...
I know that many Americans hold the 'Right to Bear Arms' as sacred but over here we have very few guns and get on just fine without them....
your characterizations are solely comprised of opinionsIf you have concerns about the legitimacy of any sources anybody's brought up here, you should feel free to bring up those specific concerns and evidence of them. Otherwise, you're not contributing in any meaningful way, just giving some vague mutterings about how they can't be trusted.
These were the second highest monthly totals recorded since April 2010 and saw London’s murder rate overtake that of New York.
|STAT||United Kingdom||United States|
|Intentional homicide rate||1.17|
Ranked 7th. 4 times more than United Kingdom
Ranked 9th. 18 times more than United Kingdom
|Murder rate per million people||11.68|
Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom
Yeah we watched a video. It was about handling an active shooter situation, when I worked at Union Pacific. It's all too real, considering there was an employee who shot his boss to death in Klamath Falls a few years back.Me too!
Did ya have to watch that silly video?!?
Did you have to watch the one about not giving somebody tea if they dont want any tea?
Where do you think they get their guns? Illegal guns start out as legal guns. It takes time, but they lose their guns too as they get seized and sources dry up.What happens with all the guns and gangs who don't care about the law?
Even if this were true (and it probably is, to some extent), mass shootings are literally the smallest problem with guns being relatively uncontrolled. There's gun violence in general, suicides, and accidents. I should note, though, that countries with strict gun control don't generally have mass shootings like we have, which suggests that our lack of regulation does have some impact.I personally feel that mass shootings are a symptom of the environment we live in.
Gee, if only we had to register our cars and have them regularly inspected, and required a license to possess and operate one after going through educational courses and being tested on our ability to safely operate it. If only somebody regularly oversaw our use of cars and could take away our right to operate one if we were found to be operating it unsafely, or unable to properly operate it. If only we were legally required to have our cars insured so that if we injured somebody else or their property we'd be able to compensate them. If only makers of cars were highly regulated and inspected for their safety.Sure guns are dangerous but so are cars, alcohol, cigarettes, RIDING TRAINS, etc.
That's kind of ridiculous. When people brew up a batch of beer, they're not going "yeah, gonna kill some people today." When you hate somebody and want them to die, you don't attack them with a pack of cigarettes. Those are products which were created for certain purposes which can have negative side effects, not weapons created with the exclusive purpose of killing.,Alcohol & cigs are weapons designed to kill & processed food. Seems there is a pattern of these shooters tend to be on psychiatric meds ..which the allopathic medical field is just as dangerous
All one big script
Either way why worry
If it kills you over time, and time is an illusion, then it doesn't kill you. You're talking in circles. The problem was never the duration before death, the problem is the intent in creation. If you want to classify literally anything that can kill you as a weapon, then literally everything is a weapon because literally everything can kill you. At that point, the word "weapon" becomes completely useless in the English language because you've removed all meaning from it.It kills you over time. time is an illusion .
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|First post; guns y/n||Weapons & Tools||11|
|T||11,000 folks killed by guns,42,000 killed in auto accedents,should we ban cars?||General Banter||3|
|stun guns||General Banter||9|
|Featured Guns, Car Fires, and Chocolate Martinis||Travel Stories||0|
|L||Smash the state: sell your guns and buy a computer||Politics & Anarchism||24|