The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=28422)

Adak 12-28-2012 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 845569)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Moore has probably received considerably more death threats in a single year than the average American is ever going to receive in their entire life.

Perhaps if your country was not awash with firearms, public figures with controversial views would not need to take such extreme precautions to defend themselves.

I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:

Like:
* car jackers
* burglars
* robbers
* kidnappers
* home invasion attacks
* wacko's on drugs, with weapons
* road ragers with tire irons/bats/etc.

Since the gov't can't get the booze removed during prohibition, and they can't get the drugs removed during the 40? year "War on Drugs", etc.

How are they ever going to get the guns away from criminals?

Because that kind of thinking (removing legal firearms), has not worked at all well, in Western cultures. It just makes the law abiding citizens into sheeple - perfect sheep-like targets for the wolves to take great advantage of.

That doesn't even address the concerns about wiping out the 2nd article in the Bill of Rights - which are many. Once they have the guns removed from all the legal citizens, what's to stop a future government from removing any other parts of the Bill of Rights, as they please.

Who's going to fight back, besides a few martyrs?

Ibby 12-29-2012 01:38 AM

Even your strawmen lack brains, Adak.
Rule number one of pathetic, twisted strawmen of your opponents' arguments; pick a strawman that remotely resembles an actual argument being made by those you disagree with. then you might actually have a point or two.

DanaC 12-29-2012 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 845634)
I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:

Yeah...'cause that's just what I said right? I distinctly remember typing the words 'Michael Moore has had threats to his life and nobody else ever has'. I remember typing those exact words....oh, no....wait....

sexobon 12-29-2012 04:58 AM

I was impressed with how you typed it while out on a limb. Tarzan's Jane for the 21st century. :biggrinlo:

DanaC 12-29-2012 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 845643)
I was impressed with how you typed it while out on a limb. Tarzan's Jane for the 21st century. :biggrinlo:

Hahahah. I am laughing so much right now.

Trilby 12-29-2012 10:16 AM

the real problem of violence in this country is OJ.

Drink milk, coz OJ will kill ya.

richlevy 12-29-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 845634)
I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:

Like:
* car jackers
* burglars
* robbers
* kidnappers
* home invasion attacks
* wacko's on drugs, with weapons
* road ragers with tire irons/bats/etc.

You are so much smarter than that, Adak. There is a difference between a random threat and a targeted threat. There may be a 1 in a million chance that I will be carjacked sometime in my life. But if I received a dozen or more notes from different people stating "I will carjack you", then I would definitely hire a security guard if I could afford it.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive, because that would make you safer? I personally don't care if you wear a helmet, because that does not affect me. Letting you and a few million more carry guns to feel safer does affect me up until the point where someone invents a bullet that self destructs after traveling 5 feet.

Adak 12-30-2012 01:23 PM

Probably, you or I, couldn't afford a full time security guard. They run about $40-$60/hr, armed, with some experience in personal protection (as opposed to guarding a facility, which is a much different job).

Thinking it through, you'd need at least 3 guards, because you know they'd want to come after you when you had no bodyguard. That's a lot of $$$$. :eek:

Random threat? It's more probable for some crimes, than you would guess. Let's say you have a wife and two kids. Now go to the website that lists sexual predators, living within 20 miles of you.

If your county is like most, the damn map looks like a sea of red push pins, for crying out loud! If you haven't seen one for your area, take a peek - then tell me you're not worried for your family's safety.

And that map doesn't include lots of other felons who have been convicted of other crimes against persons (as opposed to property crimes). Nor does it count the one's who haven't been caught yet.

It isn't just the probability of being a victim of a serious crime, it's not even the likelihood that the victim (could be you, or a family member or friend), will be seriously hurt of killed. It's also the life-changing anguish it puts people close to the victim through, as well.

I clearly remember Polly Klass's Dad, after Polly was taken from her bedroom at night, raped and strangled. I lived fairly close to the Van Damme girl (Danielle), who was also kidnapped, raped and killed. It didn't just hurt those parents - it tore them to pieces. It tore a hole you could drive a truck through, in the local community, as well. There were many tears shed over these two girls' fate, I can promise you.

And that's the point that the liberals don't get - just how deep these crimes cut you, and how often they are prevented by someone having a firearm. What's the old saying "a liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged yet"? Something like that.

There is more than a little truth in that.

I did find a video of a liberal lion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGDKC7OKFlQ

Beautiful cat, just preoccupied and clueless.

DanaC 12-30-2012 02:23 PM

Right. Clearly then, if you don't agree with an unregulated free for all on weaponry you have no understanding of the impact of serious crime.

glatt 12-30-2012 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 845634)
Since the gov't can't get the booze removed during prohibition, and they can't get the drugs removed during the 40? year "War on Drugs", etc.

How are they ever going to get the guns away from criminals?

This is a poor argument. I can make booze in my own kitchen. I can grow pot in my back yard. I have a much better than average workshop in my basement, and a better than average knowledge on making stuff, and it would be virtually impossible for me to manufacture a gun.

If guns are restricted, there will be grandfathered guns out there for a while. They can be stolen and sold by "law abiding" citizens on the black market, but over time they will break and wear out and no new guns will replace them.

Local gun restrictions have not worked because you could just cross the border to the next state, but national gun restrictions will work because the national borders are much more secure. Smuggling guns into the country will be very difficult in any substantial quantities.

Before you argue against my points, you'll need to explain why so many people are lining up at gun shows to buy stuff before it may be banned. They prove my point. National gun restrictions do work. If they didn't, you wouldn't bother arguing against them.

tw 12-30-2012 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 845730)
I clearly remember Polly Klass's Dad, after Polly was taken from her bedroom at night, raped and strangled.

Which proves we all should own 50 caliber rifles with 50 round clips. After all, Polly Klass would still be alive if everyone was heavily armed.

Reality. Violence was just as common 50 years ago. But back then, people survived and crimes were stoppable because knives and six shooters did not massacre herds of people.

Spexxvet 12-31-2012 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 845565)
Perhaps not so easy. There's an age old saying in law enforcement that the fastest reload is a second gun.

The answer isn't to ban all guns, nor is it to allow things to continue the way they are - it's not working.

richlevy 12-31-2012 04:05 PM

This is interesting. I'm not sure what the company's policy is for employees who are robbed - are they docked for the money that is stolen? I'm assuming the no weapons policy is on the theory that not resisting a robbery is safer. I wonder what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place for a policy.

Quote:

Life can be dangerous for pizza delivery drivers, who are often carrying cash and food and rarely have anyone to protect them. Now a Pizza Hut employee in Maryland says he’s been pulled off deliveries because he used a tent pole to defend himself against a group of attackers.
Quote:

The alleged attackers fled without the driver’s cash or the pizza and three of the suspects (all juveniles) were arrested, but the Pizza Hut employee says that his use of the tent pole apparently violated company policy against drivers carrying weapons.
Quote:

“I’m not saying we should arm all delivery drivers,” explains the employee, “but I’m saying that punishing delivery drivers for defending themselves as they’re being attacked is unjust.”

tw 12-31-2012 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 845882)
I'm assuming the no weapons policy is on the theory that not resisting a robbery is safer. I wonder what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place for a policy.

Does the President of Pizza Hut go out and work in his stores as a delivery man? Everyone here should learn from a TV show (I believe) called "Undercover Boss". How many bosses know how the work gets done? How many, instead, act like a business school graduate?

So these bosses create rules but do not even work as an employee? The question "what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place" is a major and critically important question. Along with, "Do they periodically go work as an employee? Or simply make rules from ignorance as any business school graduate would do?"

Meanwhile, the NRA now says pizza delivery men should be escorted by armed guards. Only armed guards and bigger guns create safety. Even an executive who is a business school graduate can see how stupid that NRA reasoning is.

A Pizza Hut president probably has no idea what his employees do. Last time I was in Pizza Hut, they told me my Pan Pizza would take more than 10 minutes. Because the guy who makes pizzas was cleaning toilets. Guess why so many Pizza Huts have closed. Everyone near me has closed. In most cases, even the building was destroyed. A classic symptom of executives trained in business schools. Who have no idea what happens in their stores or when delivering pizzas.

DanaC 01-01-2013 05:04 AM

Undercover Boss is an awesome show.

Adak 01-01-2013 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 845740)
This is a poor argument. I can make booze in my own kitchen. I can grow pot in my back yard. I have a much better than average workshop in my basement, and a better than average knowledge on making stuff, and it would be virtually impossible for me to manufacture a gun.

Here's the rub for your assertion: facts.

Zip guns were made in basements and garages and bedrooms, and even in prisons, by the inmates.

Guns are out of the bag - we can't put them back into the bag, and act like they never existed.

The reason people are lining up at Gun Shows, is because they want NICE guns, not zip guns, and they want them BEFORE the feds or the states want your thumb print, blood sample, and DNA, "just for their records".

Quote:

If guns are restricted, there will be grandfathered guns out there for a while. They can be stolen and sold by "law abiding" citizens on the black market, but over time they will break and wear out and no new guns will replace them.

No new guns will replace them?

< ROFL! >

What world do you live in? ;)

Quote:

Local gun restrictions have not worked because you could just cross the border to the next state, but national gun restrictions will work because the national borders are much more secure. Smuggling guns into the country will be very difficult in any substantial quantities.
Which will make them more expensive - which will motivate more people to make them, in their garage or basement, to bring in some money.

There ARE people who won't do this, of course, but there ARE lots of people who WILL do this.

And guns that aren't fired don't typically "wear out", as fast as you seem to believe.

Quote:

Before you argue against my points, you'll need to explain why so many people are lining up at gun shows to buy stuff before it may be banned. They prove my point. National gun restrictions do work. If they didn't, you wouldn't bother arguing against them.
Done.

The facts, and human nature argue against your assertions. I don't need to do much at all.

glatt 01-01-2013 11:17 AM

I'd love to go back to the days of single shot zip guns being a "problem." I'm talking about 30 round semi-automatics. Virtually nobody will manufacture those in their basements. They are the problem.

The only flaw in my argument is the one that you didn't mention. And that is the improvements that are being made in 3D printing. Right now, you can make parts for a gun, but can't make a reliable fully functioning gun beyond a basic zip gun.

tw 01-01-2013 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 845978)
The facts, and human nature argue against your assertions. I don't need to do much at all.

Somehow you know human nature when you also know prisoners are making 30 round clips and automatic rifles in the machine shop. There is reality. And then there is fiction that justifies wacko extremist rhetoric.

Name one prisioner who has manufactured automatic weapons in prison. Name one hollow point bullet that has saved human life.

Little hint. That bullet's name is Jasmine. Facts are easily invented when you need one. And somehow you also know human nature. I don't think you even know yourself.

Ibby 01-01-2013 03:08 PM

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...png?1356976150

Spexxvet 01-02-2013 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 845952)
Undercover Boss is an awesome show.

Was an awesome show.

DanaC 01-02-2013 04:44 PM

I didn't know it had finished.

Spexxvet 01-02-2013 05:29 PM

I think it's still on. I just think it stopped being awesome. In the beginning, it really was about the eye-opening experience that the CEO got from doing the front-line job. Then it seemed to morph into this "I'm going to be a hero and give a gift to one of my deserving minions" like Extreme Makeover Home Edition. I didn't like it after that, and maybe it's changed again. My feeling is that if you do right for your employees, you're a hero everyday. Pay them enough to be able to afford their daughter's day care, health care, whatever, and you won't have to swoop in and provide a "gift" to them. Then, you're singling out one employee and the rest just stay fucked.
:rant:

Lamplighter 03-09-2013 08:32 AM

Quote:

The 2012 Colorado elections resulted in a change in majority party status
for the House (37 Democrats; 29 Republicans) and the Democrats retained their majority
in the Senate (20 Democrats; 15 Republicans).
NY Times
By JACK HEALY
March 8, 2013
Colorado Takes Up Gun Limits in Senate

Quote:

DENVER — After months of emotional debate, an effort to tighten gun laws
in a state haunted by two mass shootings moved toward an uncertain climax on Friday
as Colorado’s State Senate began a marathon session on a range of new firearms restrictions.

On Friday, the full Senate gave preliminary approval to bills that would
create universal background checks,
require gun buyers to pay for background checks and
keep guns away from domestic abusers.
A debate over limiting*the size of*ammunition magazines loomed as one of the most divisive issues.

The most significant bills up for debate have cleared the Democrat-controlled
Colorado House and are supported by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat.
<snip>
The measure on gun possession and domestic violence won initial approval on Friday afternoon.
Also approved was a bill that would require in-person training, rather than online-only classes,
for Coloradans who want a concealed-weapons permit.
Among the 7 new bills, grounds in Colorado's background check
include a history of domestic violence (legal conviction, restraining order, etc.)



Last night PBS reported as follows:
Quote:

Four of the bills have already passed the Democratic-controlled House.
Those bills would extend background checks to personal sales,
force gun buyers to pay the background check fee,
limit ammunition magazine size and
ban concealed weapons from being carried on college campuses.

Three additional bills being considered in the Senate would restrict firearm possession
for people who have committed domestic violence,
hold manufacturers liable for assault weapons deaths
and mandate concealed weapons permit applicants to take some in-person gun safety training.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.