Says the man who used a chainsaw on a ladder like Conan ... :neutral:

Therein lies the problem. Guns are NOT toys - even fake ones. Especially as dusk or the waning hours of daylight. What he did was not only "very dangerous" it was incredibly stupid. VERY LUCKY to have not been met by an overzealous neighbor or rookie cop.

They don't do a traveling dog & pony show, they're making a structured program available for local initiatives. Really the only way it can be effective is getting the parents involved. Otherwise they send their kids to one of these presentations, like they would to the Saturday matinée, and won't have a clue what the kid saw, or retained. Plenty of parents could use the training too.

You're right. Better get those handguns away from "overzealous neighbor"s. I guess they didn't have guns, or they would have shot, instead of calling the cops.:cool:

question
 

I have limited time and haven't been through the (whole) thread, so this may have been addressed already. If not...


Folks have been known to off others with all manner of things (baseball bats, razors, hammers, guns, fists, etc.).

If Joe kills one, ten, 100, with an item, the item should then be restricted or regulated for every one else?

Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun.

"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an *American with anything but a gun."

9/11: Twin Towers.

*shrug*

Not relevant to my question.









*yes, not Americans, I know, but living here, working here, etc.

Not an American. Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal.

How about the happy practice of giving the Native Americans blankets infested with small pox? :eyebrow:

"Not an American."

Yeah, I said that.

#

"Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal."

Wasn't going for 'the win', was answering your question, "Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun.” The legality of the instrument was not part of the question. However, since you bring it up: yes, explosives are illegal...fat lot of good that did for OK City... ;)

Again: all irrelevant to my question which I'll rephrase since I think it's poorly constructed.


>If Joe does something stupid, bad, or inhumane with an item, why should Jack be punished by way of restrictions on that kind of item?<

How about rephrasing the question in a less biased way.


Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual. At what point should society decide that restricting an individual's action benefits society more than not restricting the action?

You think he would have been the first? Perhaps your attitude would be different... or not.


Not the Ammonium nitrate he used. Its a common fertilizer. The rest, maybe.


from Wiki ...
" The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6 and injured more than 680 people.
The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius,
destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.
The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage."

AND NOT ONE GUN USED.

Some guns were used in this:

Constable, civilian, gunman confirmed dead after shooting near Texas A&M campus

No gun here, people still died.


Woman stabs boyfriend in neck during argument

Same here:

Bride stabs, kills fiancé hours before wedding in Philadelphia

It's true, people kill people, and they're creative in their choice of weapons.

ph45,

You really think your rephrasing is less biased that either of my versions?

My iterations are neutral; yours drips with bias.

#

"Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual."

Demonstrably not the case.

If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?

Your rephrasing trades precision and accuracy for bias.

#

"At what point should society decide that restricting an individual's action benefits society more than not restricting the action?"

I'd say you restrict the individual when the individual does something worth being restricted for...that is, when he or she commits a crime. To restrict (action, ownership, etc.) before hand, in anticipation of a crime, well, defend that position if you can.


>And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again): If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun, why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s ownership of a gun?<

It shouldn't. But when Joe, Jim, Bob, Harry, Fred, Susie, Steve, Kenny and Eric do it too I think it would be responsible to think about it at least.