The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 61 - 80 of total 6484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:23pm PT
Okay, I'm sure they do too. But like Shack said, you dont know how someone will react until they are in the situation. I, for one, do not care to be part of their learning curve,

And btw, I dont think the socio-ethnic cleansing of gang members that you implied is the answer either
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:25pm PT
Maybe the solution is for Americans to wear flak jackets in public just like the Israelis being issued Gas Masks by their government...?
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Reno, Nuh VAAAA duh
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:29pm PT
NOW the fundamental issue is .....Americans themselves! but we can't exactly outlaw being an American, eh? America has 22x more gun homicides then the other 10 wealthiest Western countries. So what's the deal? my guess is subtle genetic mutations or variations that immigrants coming to America all had in common. Increased testosterone may be one of them. Think about it...long ago in Europe or Asia, the guy who wanted to immigrate to America was likely an ornery ass-hole type guy, stronger and angrier and somewhat less intelligent than his neighbors; anti-social and possibly generally combative...he wanted to leave his humble village and go stake his claim in the American wilderness or the dank, tough alleys of NYC or Boston; he hated his fuking neighbors to begin with! soooooo, what happens? this ornery, anti-social strain of homo sapiens comes to America and has babies who are anti-social ass-holes! and they have babies who are ass-holes, on and on! next thing you know, you have an entire country of gun-happy whackos who don't trust their neighbors, are anti-social, and are generally fukin NUTS

Fine writing!
toadgas

Trad climber
los angeles
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:30pm PT
-

in good faith, with due respect...



still waiting around for people to list GUN CONTROL measures that will prevent the next massacre



...waiting




........waiting


-
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:31pm PT
1: I clearly have some interest as I have commented several times already on this thread. Please read the whole thread before posting. ;-)

2: This thread was forked from another where some felt the gun debate was a bit tired and insensitive.

3: I'm not sure where you pulled your definition of trolling from but I am guessing this doesn't fit it. How does going off topic and attacking the thread author about saying he might be disinterested in his own thread sound for a definition of "trolling" though?


Simply doesn't fit with your original post.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:36pm PT
Well Jaybro, considering the amount of violence DAILY in the US let alone the border area,by gangs/cartels, they make the theatre shooting look like amature hour. As per the comment about "neighbors" and "paranoia" i thinks i shalt not touch that one LMAO!
Josh Higgins

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
A couple of things I've heard on NPR over the past couple of days:

1. There are roughly two dozen shootings annually in the US where 4 or more people are killed.

2. One man interviewed reported conducting research into such shootings and found that gun control did reduce the number of shootings. It would be interesting to see if that was peer-reviewed scientific research, but it sounded like it probably was.

If gun control does reduce such shootings, I view that as a good thing. I don't think that elimination of guns is realistic, or a even a goal to strive for at all, but some sort of screening or delay in receiving a purchased firearm would be great if proven scientifically to reduce violence and murder rates.

A question for those who oppose gun control, would some gun control be acceptable if research showed that it would reduce violence?

Josh
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
That's cause its a Trick question toad, neither gun control or arming the population from
Montessori on can eliminate this threat. (Life is like that) And you know that. Gotta set your rhetorical traps better than that.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:38pm PT
I think trolling is more along the lines of saying you chose climbing as the ideal activity for a bunch of developmentally disabled children you're working with because of all the sports, climbing is the one that requires the least intelligence to do.

That one was a classic, and a good definition of the term.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:39pm PT
You have a super bright scientist in training who decided to use guns to kill people in a theater. Seems to me the key issue is mental health--not guns. You think this guy was not smart enough to figure out another way? Look at his apartment. The scary thing to me is that this person was very capable of bioterrorism. It's a waste of time talking about guns. How does someone like Holmes get this way?

Let's say there was ideal gun control (i.e., the impossible: good guys have guns, bad/unstable guys don't). One of these nut jobs is going to use a car, or a bomb (oh, yeah, that already happened) or much worse. The only hopeful thing about this case is that we might learn something about how the alleged killer thinks.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:39pm PT
Josh the "study" was pure BS man.. Chicago home of some of the stictest gun control,, has set a record for homicides. That was just recently in the news.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
Pina Bausch and Wim Wenders: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh49es_pina-3d-bande-annonce_shortfilms

Les novices de Pina Bausch : rencontre avec Jo-Ann Endicott: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfllmf_les-novices-de-pina-bausch-rencontre-avec-jo-ann-endicott_shortfilms
Josh Higgins

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:56pm PT
Fascinating:

"The findings of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that use state data."

Moorehouse, J.C., Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or does Crime Increase Gun Control? Cato Journal 26(1) pg 103-124.

A little bit of poking around shows that the Cato Institute is libertarian and possibly political. I'm not 100% sure this journal article is 100% reliable, but interesting to skim...

Anyone know if the Cato Institute's data is reliable and impartial? Or do they have a strong enough agenda that it may not be trustworthy?

Josh
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:58pm PT
agendas be as common as the air you breath..;)
QITNL

climber
Jul 21, 2012 - 04:03pm PT
I have the solution. It's simple: the Internet.

We need more gun forums. Firearm mobile apps. Something like Facebook, but called Gunbook. Give dudes a plethora of options where they could whip out their weapons, compare them with each other and spray all about.

Get people online 24x7 talking about guns. No need for ski masks, their anonymity will be protected. Far more rewarding than going out and shooting them, no doubt.

If you don't have guns or know anything about them, no problem, you're totally included, 100% welcome. A vital part of the community, in fact. We encourage you to jump in, use your imagination and start making things up.

Don't tell me it won't work. This model has already been tested and proven. Rock climbers were used as the first test group. The conversion rate far exceeded expectations.

You're looking at it.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 21, 2012 - 04:11pm PT
Beef you ask:

I have to ask the gun control crowd though: if you found yourself in that situation- would you rather there be a chance of someone else having a firearm or would you rather know, without a doubt, that no one else in the room had a gun aside from the crazy fuk shooting everyone? Think about it, because when you preach gun control, especially concealed carry, that is what you're potentially creating.


Beef, the only thing I'd find worse that being in a target-rich environment as one of the targets, is to be in a CROSS-FIRE between two people firing. Or how about 10 people firing, in poor visibility?

How would I like to have one of those guns?

When the SWAT team comes in and sees people firing guns, they have been converted into targets....as almost happened to a gun carrying person at the Giffords shooting.
toadgas

Trad climber
los angeles
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:05pm PT
^^^^^^^^^


Problem is that SWAT arrives way, way too LATE

Big, big lag time at Columbine, situ mismanaged there


Ya either eradicate all guns, or install Israeli style security in public places, schools, etc....with trained tactical guards ever present


.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:07pm PT
Why do non gun owners think no one could have helped by returning fire?
They have no tactical knowledge yet say things like "the chance that it would have made any difference was small."
How do you know?
Is that based on any actual knowledge or experience?
Shooting a pistol is not rocket science.
I could teach anyone here in an afternoon to hit what they aim at....no problem.

BTW..a "bullet proof" vest or "body armor" does not keep the bullets that hit you from causing severe internal injuries, broken bones, knocking the wind out of you, knocking you down, causing extreme pain and the feeling that you have been shot...nor does it protect your head, arms, or legs.
All they do is keep bullets from penetrating the body cavity (usually).
Being hit by multiple rounds even with a vest on is gonna f*ck you up, period.

beef supreme

climber
the west
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:19pm PT
Ken M: I agree with what you're suggesting about being in crossfire. I'm only saying that the situation is obviously f*#ked from the get go, could it have been worse if people were shooting back at the guy? Sure. Could it have turned out better if someone had gotten a shot off? Sure could.
Point is, we don't know, never will know, and it's all speculation by the likes of us on the peanut gallery. I'm saying that I'd rather someone had the chance to help instead of not.
beef supreme

climber
the west
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:21pm PT
and Mighty Hiker:
why do you phrase pro-gun/ violence people the way that you did? Do you really think that pro-gun people are people of violence? I wouldn't be so general in your a*#umptions. People of violence may absolutely use a gun (or their fists or a club or knife, etc)
I wouldn't equate a person that claims to be pro-gun to be a person of violence.

Edit: but I would concede the point that perhaps people who are armed don't help out much in these types of situations statistically. I really don't know what the numbers are and like other people have made point of, you really don't hear about many of those stories. At least I don't. Hopefully they don't happen that often really.
I would, personally, rather have a chance to defend myself/ others or have another person acting to that end.
Messages 61 - 80 of total 6484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews