100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gun Control | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
And I thought I was the only one that noticed..lol They don't look at how many assault rifles are out there and how many times this could be happening just the one time or the few times it has happened..percentage wise I think were doing pretty dang good..Not to mention the guy was nuts..that don't factor in ..it's just the fact that it was an assault weapon..uh..ok So pick your points and debate it to death..until you figure you've won or everyone grows tired and quits... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I thought I was the only one that noticed..lol They don't look at how many assault rifles are out there and how many times this could be happening just the one time or the few times it has happened..percentage wise I think were doing pretty dang good..Not to mention the guy was nuts..that don't factor in ..it's just the fact that it was an assault weapon..uh..ok So pick your points and debate it to death..until you figure you've won or everyone grows tired and quits...
why does only one point have to be 'the answer'? We are doing 'pretty good' doesn't cut it. It could be worse doesnt cut it with voter fraud, or welfare fraud, which takes no lives, but the same people suddenly use these arguments when children lose their lives. We are not doing pretty good. We could be doing MUCH better by addressing both the sickness in the cultural mindset AND the tools being placed in their hands which lead to mass deaths. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html No. I dont. Because I never make the argument that anything will STOP killing or anything else from EVER happening. But the inability to stop something from EVER happening is no excuse to just NEVER try to decrease how OFTEN it happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and yet since the first gun laws in the 60's, and every progressive step taken since then how much has it helped? nadda so why would more of the same magically fix it now? the wrong part of the equation is being addressed. as tom so eloquently showed semis have not truly been regulated, they have been nitpicked to death to appease the NRA as to be virtually non existent. There. I said it 'cause its true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the 1st gun control began in the old west when cattle hands
came into a town and had to check their firearms in with the sheriffs office, little by little more towns adopted this practice to ensure the safety of the locals... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html No. I dont. Because I never make the argument that anything will STOP killing or anything else from EVER happening. But the inability to stop something from EVER happening is no excuse to just NEVER try to decrease how OFTEN it happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. Apology accepted, thanx While I do see your point and understanding human predelictions, removing some guns from the populations acces could be beneficial at first. However, if the mindset is changed, the predeliction to aquire the guns also changes. The guns can still be available but are not obtained. Over time, the available guns decreases because they are no longer sought. If I am a drug addict or an alcoholic, you can remove the drugs and alcohol from my grasp. I will still be a drug addict or an alcoholic. However, if you chnge my thinking, I can have drugs and alcohol available to me and I still won't use them. Eventually, since I am no longer using them, their availability diminishes. But...if all mindsets do not change, the availability remains. If nobody buys beer anymore, stores will stop selling it. You could still get beer from underground sources but what if those suppliers had no customers either? You could buy or make your own brewery but with the change in mindset, the will is gone. Its this shift in thinking that makes sense to me. I didn't say it would be an easy change to make. Some solutions to problems are not easy. However, when they happen, the problem goes away...for good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 02/20/18 02:37 PM
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html No. I dont. Because I never make the argument that anything will STOP killing or anything else from EVER happening. But the inability to stop something from EVER happening is no excuse to just NEVER try to decrease how OFTEN it happens. YES. we agree, it will never be completely STOPPED, and noone is arguing it will. But does that mean NOTHING should be done to 'curb' how often it happens? No. Very few countries have gun bans, they have bans on CERTAIN TYPES of weapons only. And again, noone is suggesting taking all weapons away, just regulating what gets out there. We should 'start' with the inanimate objects that we have clearer jurisdiction to control. We should continue to assess the messages and culture that we are immersing peoples minds with as well, but the mindset of each individual is not something nearly as easy to control or something whose effects we wait around on while doing nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well let me know when you find that magic wand to wave that changes the mindset of the whole world the way you want it..aint gonna happen ..unless of course you have some magic potion that can cure all the mental illnesses of the world ..so yea all in all we're doing pretty good..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well let me know when you find that magic wand to wave that changes the mindset of the whole world the way you want it..aint gonna happen ..unless of course you have some magic potion that can cure all the mental illnesses of the world ..so yea all in all we're doing pretty good..
Id say we are 'all doing pretty good' is a philosophy that can shut down this entire board and any issue or debate people have about ANYTHING. but since this board is here, and we do pose concerns and issues, in spite of 'doing pretty good' ... we don't have to wait on 'magic' to share with others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html No. I dont. Because I never make the argument that anything will STOP killing or anything else from EVER happening. But the inability to stop something from EVER happening is no excuse to just NEVER try to decrease how OFTEN it happens. Not sure if you realize it or not but saying "It's always going to happen" is in fact giving it permission to happen. Then using examples to justify it. The first mindset change needs to be "This can't happen anymore, It must stop." It sets the mind to finding a solution, not to reduce the occurrance but to end it completely. Where it never happens again. That midset opens avenues of action that were not considered when its proclaimed that it is beyond control to stop. The deciding factor is how far are we willing to go to make it stop forever? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html No. I dont. Because I never make the argument that anything will STOP killing or anything else from EVER happening. But the inability to stop something from EVER happening is no excuse to just NEVER try to decrease how OFTEN it happens. YES. we agree, it will never be completely STOPPED, and noone is arguing it will. But does that mean NOTHING should be done to 'curb' how often it happens? No. Very few countries have gun bans, they have bans on CERTAIN TYPES of weapons only. And again, noone is suggesting taking all weapons away, just regulating what gets out there. We should 'start' with the inanimate objects that we have clearer jurisdiction to control. We should continue to assess the messages and culture that we are immersing peoples minds with as well, but the mindset of each individual is not something nearly as easy to control or something whose effects we wait around on while doing nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the philosophy that we can cure every problem 100% leaves the boards wide open..cuz it aint gonna happen.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, noone is talking about banning guns. and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice literally, cookies and bullets ... Obviously you missed my point? also, people don't use weapons to kill. "A" person uses "A" weapon to kill. Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what. Gun control debates are nothing new. For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found. When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side. The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem. Why people can't see that is a mystery to me. Lets just argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens. Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion... LOL, its pathetic. I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'. In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed. By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous. That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html No. I dont. Because I never make the argument that anything will STOP killing or anything else from EVER happening. But the inability to stop something from EVER happening is no excuse to just NEVER try to decrease how OFTEN it happens. Not sure if you realize it or not but saying "It's always going to happen" is in fact giving it permission to happen. Then using examples to justify it. The first mindset change needs to be "This can't happen anymore, It must stop." It sets the mind to finding a solution, not to reduce the occurrance but to end it completely. Where it never happens again. That midset opens avenues of action that were not considered when its proclaimed that it is beyond control to stop. The deciding factor is how far are we willing to go to make it stop forever? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Human Nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making laws against stealing doesnt STOP theft.
Making laws against assault doesnt STOP assault. Making laws against Voter fraud, doesnt STOP Frauds. rules and regulations have never had a guarantee to completely STOP anything. They are there to IMPROVE, not to make perfect. They are there as a way to have societal boundaries that can people can be held to account for. No law, means not holding anyone accountable for their actions. No courts, no jails. That is the other EXTREME for those arguing against rules and regulations. Laws are a necessary evil that makes a society a SOCIETY. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lu_rosemary
on
Tue 02/20/18 02:58 PM
|
|
Laws are a necessary evil that makes a society a SOCIETY. Often times society is messed up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't we already ban guns?
Didn't nearly everyone carry a gun during our western expansion? Wasn't there a ban that prevented people from carrying a gun in town that was adopted by more and more towns as time passed? Wasn't that over a century ago and yet we still have problems with people having guns? Isn't that proof that banning them didn't work? Sure people don't walk into bars and belly up to the bar with a six-gun in a holster but people do still go into bars carrying guns. A lot of people go into bars unarmed. Not because guns are banned, because they have no will or mindset to do so. Its that mindset that prevents them from wanting to take a life. The solution is to find a way to get all people to share that mindset. A pretty sticky wicket. It involves effective teaching of values at the personal level. The majority of society learns these values already. The quest is to find a way to make that, universal. It involves individual perceptions and how we treat others. If we treat someone like shiat, they're gunna lash out. Chances are good, if the person has mental issues, anything they perceive can garner a hostile reaction. Treat the mental issues before they lash out, allows them to see things differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't we already ban guns? Didn't nearly everyone carry a gun during our western expansion? Wasn't there a ban that prevented people from carrying a gun in town that was adopted by more and more towns as time passed? Wasn't that over a century ago and yet we still have problems with people having guns? Isn't that proof that banning them didn't work? Sure people don't walk into bars and belly up to the bar with a six-gun in a holster but people do still go into bars carrying guns. A lot of people go into bars unarmed. Not because guns are banned, because they have no will or mindset to do so. Its that mindset that prevents them from wanting to take a life. The solution is to find a way to get all people to share that mindset. A pretty sticky wicket. It involves effective teaching of values at the personal level. The majority of society learns these values already. The quest is to find a way to make that, universal. It involves individual perceptions and how we treat others. If we treat someone like shiat, they're gunna lash out. Chances are good, if the person has mental issues, anything they perceive can garner a hostile reaction. Treat the mental issues before they lash out, allows them to see things differently. |
|
|
|
|
