Now France-again

DBAILEY said:
That`s a lame analogy
Click to expand...
not really. just highlights the stupidity of blaming the object rather than the person in control. This attack perfectly shows (unfortunately) that banning everything under the sun will not stop a person determined to inflict harm. I could argue this example is more dangerous as anybody can get behind the wheel of a vehicle at any time and do something like this without raising any red flags at all
 
This attack make me so angry. How much of a coward can you get! Driving a truck into a crowd of innocent people. Terrible.
 
You can`t really stop evil people from doing evil things, especially when our society seems so hell bent on making sure we don`t call out the roots for stuff like this for fear of hurting someone`s or some group`s feelings. We also, as a society, don`t seem to accept personal responsibility or value life as we should. While stuff like this sucks, it`s not really all that surprising. The problem is multi-faceted, for sure, but there are a few glaring similarities in the majority of these cowardly acts. Argue about it all day if it makes you feel PC, but look at the statistics and don`t kid yourself.
 
I`ll say it over and over, condemnation of a problem does not lead to a solution. I don`t know when any of these establishments will get this...
 
House of Wax said:
not really. just highlights the stupidity of blaming the object rather than the person in control. This attack perfectly shows (unfortunately) that banning everything under the sun will not stop a person determined to inflict harm. I could argue this example is more dangerous as anybody can get behind the wheel of a vehicle at any time and do something like this without raising any red flags at all
Click to expand...

No it is totally lame. I wouldn`t expect you to see that based in the world view you present in your posts. Everything is black and white with no gray areas.

No one is calling for a ban on trucks/cars or everything under the sun. You`re making that up in your own mind.

Obviously, practically anything could be used as a weapon if you needed it to. There are at least a dozen things sitting on my desk here at work that I could try to use as a weapon if I really needed to. But none of those things are weapons. They were made for some other practical purpose.

A gun has one basic purpose. It is a weapon. It uses a small explosive charge to hurl high speed metal projectile(s) with the intent of putting a hole in something. Whether it is to put a hole in a target (having fun practicing), animal (hunting), or another human being (self defense or military use). Hopefully just having a gun present is enough to convince that other human being to stop whatever activity they are doing that is threatening you before you have to put a hole in them.

If Walmart started selling grenades and people started using them for crimes, would you still only blame the person with the grenade or put part of the blame on the fact that someone can purchase grenades.

True weapons should be `well regulated`. You have to go through more effort to buy a car than a gun in many states. Where is the logic in that.
 
So you`re not a gun fan ??

And believe me, I`ve bought a lot of cars faster/easier than I`ve guns.......
 
yeah, i`m trying to rack my brain and remember which of my cars that i`ve bought in my life I had to get a background check for or a permit to buy
 
If you look at it this way, the largest terrorist attack on OUR soil was committed with box cutters and airplanes.

Why?

Because, carrying a gun on one`s person on an airplane is a sticky situation. So, let`s say, hypothetically - carrying a gun is banned on airplanes...

What good did it do on 9/11?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
DBAILEY said:
No it is totally lame. I wouldn`t expect you to see that based in the world view you present in your posts. Everything is black and white with no gray areas.

No one is calling for a ban on trucks/cars or everything under the sun. You`re making that up in your own mind.

Obviously, practically anything could be used as a weapon if you needed it to. There are at least a dozen things sitting on my desk here at work that I could try to use as a weapon if I really needed to. But none of those things are weapons. They were made for some other practical purpose.

A gun has one basic purpose. It is a weapon. It uses a small explosive charge to hurl high speed metal projectile(s) with the intent of putting a hole in something. Whether it is to put a hole in a target (having fun practicing), animal (hunting), or another human being (self defense or military use). Hopefully just having a gun present is enough to convince that other human being to stop whatever activity they are doing that is threatening you before you have to put a hole in them.

If Walmart started selling grenades and people started using them for crimes, would you still only blame the person with the grenade or put part of the blame on the fact that someone can purchase grenades.

True weapons should be `well regulated`. You have to go through more effort to buy a car than a gun in many states. Where is the logic in that.
Click to expand...

My issue with this line of thinking is that it lays the groundwork for relieving the personal responsibility of one`s actions. I absolutely agree that guns are a tool with one main purpose. So is a hammer and an axe, but they`ve both been used to kill people on multiple occasions. Gun, hammer, axe - all inanimate tools that are solely dependent on the choices and actions of the wielder of the tool. Do I agree that guns get into the hands of people who don`t need them? Sure. But until I see some sort of real answer to that problem (which I don`t think is something simple and one-sided) then I can`t get behind punishing the millions of law-abiding gun owners for the sake of trying to stop criminals who won`t follow the laws anyway. I don`t trust our government / elected leaders, and that seems to be all the anti-gun people`s answer - to let the government handle it. Heck, our government can`t even handle establishing a budget most fiscal periods and we`re about to vote on probably the two most un-electable, inept people in our history to be the figurehead of the government. What a mess...

All you have to do to imagine what a "gun ban" would be like is to read up on prohibition or take a look at the problems we have with narcotics and other drugs. They`re "banned" too, but thousands of people in our jails and prisons found a way to get them, use them and distribute them. What makes anyone think firearms would be any different? Is it an apples-to-apples comparison? Probably not, but I think it`s pretty close. People who want to get "a thing" are going to get that "thing" somehow.

And with the grenade analogy - you can legally purchase most, if not all, the things you`d need to make small explosives. Again, let`s stop deflecting the blame from the PERSON onto the INANIMATE OBJECT that has no ability to perform outside the actions and decisions of a person. Once we work on correcting the bigger problem, then I`d be okay with working on the other. But the course of discussion usually tries to lay the blame anywhere but the person in hopes of pushing one agenda or another.

But my personal opinion, is that with humanity, we don`t have a gun problem as much as we have a people problem. Not just here at home, but all over the world.
 
DBAILEY said:
True weapons should be `well regulated`. You have to go through more effort to buy a car than a gun in many states. Where is the logic in that.
Click to expand...


If you mean "Well Regulated" in the sense of those words being in the 2nd Amendment, consider that a) it`s not the firearms that are to be "Well Regulated", and b) "Well Regulated" doesn`t necessarily mean "tightly controlled by the Govt." when considered in Historical Context. (E.g., my [wristwatch] is "well regulated" in that it keeps good time.)

As for guns vs. cars, most guns aren`t used in public by utterly incompetent [individuals] on a daily basis the way most cars are. Most guns seldom leave the house in ready-to-use condition (and people who legally carry concealed do have to meet certain requirements that`re tougher than any US Driver`s Test; I`ll grant that Open Carry can be problematic). In the USA, statistics show that it`s far more realistic to worry about dummies in cars than about anybody with a firearm, even when in presumably hostile environments.

And yeah, I`m in favor of *extremely rigorous* performance standards for a DL. If some unskilled driver wants to have a car for use *strictly on Private Property* I couldn`t care less, but for that person to share the roads with others? Say..in a Hellcat? Uh-uh, IMO they oughta to get some skills first. Otherwise they oughta leave driving to the people with the skills (I`d say the *formal training*, complete with Satisfactory Performance Evaluation, as it is with flying airplanes) to do it competently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top