I’m glad you mentioned this, Fred:
“Dude, we had the Vice President of CBS state that these people deserved no sympathy because they listened to Country music and were probably Republicans!! Can you Believe that!!”
This is yet another example of the “people issue” I spoke of earlier. This is the same kind of mentality it takes to carry out evil hateful acts on other people. Those types of acts aren’t reserved for firearm related crimes. Right now, the divisiveness and hate running rampant in this country is a breeding ground for evil hateful acts and yet when they occur, the first thing people do is look outward for something or someone else to blame. Obviously the former VP/Lead Counsel of CBS has enough evil within her to feel no compassion or sympathy for innocent people, and they all weren’t Republicans (or Repugs as she called them) in that crowd, that were murdered and wounded. Again, that is not a “gun problem,” that’s a “people problem.”
I was listening to NPR on the way to work…I know, I know… but it is good to know thy enemy!
Anyway, Steven Innskeep was interviewing a Texas father whose daughter was actually shot at the concert. It looks as though she will recover. Innskeep tried his (**()dest to get this guy rattled and to say that we needed more gun control.
The father very eloquently said that humanity and our Godless society is the problem not inanimate firearms.
Honestly, I would have probably gotten pissed and told Innskeep to quit trying to put words in my mouth and either listen to what I have to say or this is interview is over…
“Endeavor to Persevere.
Give,Give… Never Take.”
EC
Heard the same interview. Interesting that's what you got out of it. Innskeep never tried to put words in his mouth. Innskeep asked him if he would support stricter gun laws, the guy said no, he carries, believes in 2nd amendment, thinks it's the person behind the gun. Innskeep asked him what he thought was causing these mass shootings, guy said a Godless society. Interview ended.
I think you’re biased…
“Endeavor to Persevere.
Give,Give… Never Take.”
EC
Interestingly enough, some folks only have an opinion that taking guns away won’t be the solution, but don’t offer up themselves any concrete and actionable solutions within a regulatory framework. What I hear is you can never stop it, people will get guns.
If guns don’t kill people, but people kill people, then why are we trying to stop NK and Iran from obtaining nukes? Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. The rest of the World that doesn’t have nukes will eventually find a way to create them anyway based on the don’t do anything logic…
Yes, but even the most fervent supporters of the 2nd amendment want to keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people. Kim Jung Un be crazy.
quote:Originally posted by Richard Beer Froth
Interestingly enough, some folks only have an opinion that taking guns away won’t be the solution, but don’t offer up themselves any concrete and actionable solutions within a regulatory framework. What I hear is you can never stop it, people will get guns.
If guns don’t kill people, but people kill people, then why are we trying to stop NK and Iran from obtaining nukes? Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. The rest of the World that doesn’t have nukes will eventually find a way to create them anyway based on the don’t do anything logic…
Actually RBF, I did offer my opinion of an actionable solution within a regulatory framework, regardless if you or anyone else chooses to not acknowledge it. Not one person on here said “don’t do anything” so you can quit with the over-dramatizations.
As far as going after “the people” pertinent to the nukes, there’s this thing called the Geneva Convention that might be a bit of an obstacle to your reach of an attempt to draw a parallel. Going to war with another country is hardly comparable to finding a solution to firearms issues in this country. Again, no need for the over-dramatization.
In all honesty, your post comes across like an Internet troll and nothing more. As I type this, I already regret responding.
Actually RBF, I did offer my opinion of an actionable solution within a regulatory framework, regardless if you or anyone else chooses to not acknowledge it. Not one person on here said “don’t do anything” so you can quit with the over-dramatizations.
As far as going after “the people” pertinent to the nukes, there’s this thing called the Geneva Convention that might be a bit of an obstacle to your reach of an attempt to draw a parallel. Going to war with another country is hardly comparable to finding a solution to firearms issues in this country. Again, no need for the over-dramatization.
In all honesty, your post comes across like an Internet troll and nothing more. As I type this, I already regret responding.
I agree with RBF and don’t think his argument is trolling at all. By saying evil WILL find a way and coming up with a Wile E Coyote list of ways to kill people without guns, then why not forget the gun debate completely and argue for a lawless society where everyone looks out for themselves and has as much fun as they can until their time comes? Why do we make sacrifices for the greater good in so many aspects when it comes to the laws we’re subjected to (and are ok with it), but the gun issue is the one thing over the line. What’s more effective in disciplining a child acting up in school: making them sit out of recess, or making the whole class sit out because of one kid’s actions? You can argue till you’re blue in the face about the 2nd amendment, but that was created during a time that these types of large mass killings weren’t an issue,nor could those creators conceive of the weaponry that is more or less available to your average person. Fortunately, we were given the ability to adapt from a legal standpoint and just aren’t doing it. Did things change with the race issues in our country as soon as the civil rights act was passed? No, it took several decades for a shift in mindset to get to where we are today. So much progress has been made even though that issue still isn’t resolved. We can very easily point out ongoing race issues, but nobody is arguing to repeal the civil rights act? Is racism not a form of evil that “will find a way”? Will we ever be rid of racist people in our country? Probably not, but we understand the necessity of social equality laws because they help shift the mindset for the betterment of our society.
At the end of the day I see only two main reasons a person would argue so passionately against tighter restrictions whether they be banning certain weapons, gun registry, etc. 1) Firearms are such an important part of your daily life that you couldn’t function without them, or 2) the need for personal protection, or protection against an oppressive American government is a true w
Actually RBF, I did offer my opinion of an actionable solution within a regulatory framework, regardless if you or anyone else chooses to not acknowledge it. Not one person on here said “don’t do anything” so you can quit with the over-dramatizations.
As far as going after “the people” pertinent to the nukes, there’s this thing called the Geneva Convention that might be a bit of an obstacle to your reach of an attempt to draw a parallel. Going to war with another country is hardly comparable to finding a solution to firearms issues in this country. Again, no need for the over-dramatization.
In all honesty, your post comes across like an Internet troll and nothing more. As I type this, I already regret responding.
God bless the “ignore” function.
Bang,
It wasn’t directed at you personally. Reread my post and you will see for yourself I said some folks, not all. You seem a little over sensitive to take it as directed to you.
Not really a troll as it is an exercise in comparing the inconsistent application of logic between these 2 different types of weapons. Extreme, perhaps, but they really are the same when showing how the “guns don’t kill people” argument is made. Nucs are inanimate objects as well and are also used for self defense… They are a lot more comparable than most here will ever admit…
Long story short, I get tired of hearing the old “guns don’t kill, people kill” argument continuously repeated… In the simplest form, it is a correct statement, and therefore so is my counter with the nuc argument… However, I would say we are not in a simple mess, I would say it is a gnarly one…
I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say the average person knows 100 people. Between all the folks you work with, get together with on the weekends, or see at family events over holidays, 100 may even be an underestimate. But for the sake of argument let’s say 100. That means in the span of a half hour or so last Sunday night, roughly 60,000 more people in our country can say they know someone who was the direct victim of a mass shooting. That’s not OK. At the rate we’re heading, how long until the group that doesn’t know someone directly victimized becomes the minority? Despite what you may want to say, this isn’t a knee jerk reaction. These shooting have been happening for years now and are increasing in frequency and severity. It’s my belief that more people should be willing to sacrifice some of their arms bearing rights to change this fact, even if you can’t be sure ahead of time if it will work or not.
Yes, but even the most fervent supporters of the 2nd amendment want to keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people. Kim Jung Un be crazy.
quote:Originally posted by Richard Beer Froth
Interestingly enough, some folks only have an opinion that taking guns away won’t be the solution, but don’t offer up themselves any concrete and actionable solutions within a regulatory framework. What I hear is you can never stop it, people will get guns.
If guns don’t kill people, but people kill people, then why are we trying to stop NK and Iran from obtaining nukes? Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. The rest of the World that doesn’t have nukes will eventually find a way to create them anyway based on the don’t do anything logic…
Problem is there isn’t a real time test to determine who is crazy and who isn’t. These conditions change over time… A person can become mentally ill well beyond the time they purchase a weapon… Should the pre-screening also require a current mental evaluation and periodic/repeated testing throughout someone’s lifetime? Doesn’t sound to politically tenable to me, and would be pretty costly… Unfortunately, in the US anything we do won’t have an impact until far into the future due to how many guns are already available even without manufacturing another one going forward.
quote:Originally posted by Richard Beer Froth
Unfortunately, in the US anything we do won't have an impact until far into the future due to how many guns are already available even without manufacturing another one going forward.
RBF
Exactly, probably not in the lifetime of many people who would be opposed. Leading people to refuse to look past their own self interests and fall back on low hanging fruit arguments.
RBF, I didn’t take your comment as being directed at me or anyone in particular. That doesn’t change my summation of your comment though.
You can get tired of hearing that argument all you want but that makes it no less relevant or accurate. People don’t like or “get tired” of that excuse because there’s no realistic rebuttal or realistic counter to it. No, I don’t consider comparing nukes and/or going to war with another country to disarm them a realistic comparison to the “gun control” debate in this country. If you want to get downright technical, nukes aren’t inanimate objects. Ask anyone that has ever worked at a nuclear facility and had radiation sickness. A nuke doesn’t have to be detonated to be dangerous or lethal. They require constant maintenance and conditioning. A nuke can be deadly either through simple exposure to it’s contaminants or if the nuke isn’t properly maintained. A firearm can harm absolutely nobody and nothing in the world if left alone. It doesn’t require constant conditioning and maintenance to keep it from being a hazard. Ever seen a redwood forest on a submarine? Ever seen a nuclear weapon’s storage facility? I assure you they don’t simply lay inanimately, stacked like cord wood waiting to be deployed. Nukes have all sorts of “gadgetry” to monitor their internal systems and their readiness. Also RBF, nukes are as much for “self defense” as a butter knife is. Both can be “used for self defense” but neither were made for it. Nukes have one purpose…to obliterate its target.
For me, it’s not just a matter of “don’t touch my guns.” Sure, that’s part of it but hardly the entirety or it. Like I said, history has shown us that making gun laws more restrictive hasn’t and doesn’t work. To prove we’re not insane, let’s not continue doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. For a change, let’s enforce and give some real teeth to the laws we already have on the books. Take a “zero tolerance” approach on violators. So many people want to blame the NRA and its
RBF, I didn’t take your comment as being directed at me or anyone in particular. That doesn’t change my summation of your comment though.
You can get tired of hearing that argument all you want but that makes it no less relevant or accurate. People don’t like or “get tired” of that excuse because there’s no realistic rebuttal or realistic counter to it. No, I don’t consider comparing nukes and/or going to war with another country to disarm them a realistic comparison to the “gun control” debate in this country. If you want to get downright technical, nukes aren’t inanimate objects. Ask anyone that has ever worked at a nuclear facility and had radiation sickness. A nuke doesn’t have to be detonated to be dangerous or lethal. They require constant maintenance and conditioning. A nuke can be deadly either through simple exposure to it’s contaminants or if the nuke isn’t properly maintained. A firearm can harm absolutely nobody and nothing in the world if left alone. It doesn’t require constant conditioning and maintenance to keep it from being a hazard. Ever seen a redwood forest on a submarine? Ever seen a nuclear weapon’s storage facility? I assure you they don’t simply lay inanimately, stacked like cord wood waiting to be deployed. Nukes have all sorts of “gadgetry” to monitor their internal systems and their readiness. Also RBF, nukes are as much for “self defense” as a butter knife is. Both can be “used for self defense” but neither were made for it. Nukes have one purpose…to obliterate its target.
For me, it’s not just a matter of “don’t touch my guns.” Sure, that’s part of it but hardly the entirety or it. Like I said, history has shown us that making gun laws more restrictive hasn’t and doesn’t work. To prove we’re not insane, let’s not continue doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. For a change, let’s
Chemical weapons can kill by simple exposure without being deployed as a “weapon.” Unlike a firearm, they are deadly simply “sitting around.” There was a building at Ft. Detrick in ■■■■■■■■■, MD that was sealed up and quarantined for years (30 years or more if memory serves me correct) because of anthrax. The building wasn’t bombed, the anthrax wasn’t mailed in a letter. It was not deployed as a “weapon.” There was a mechanical breach of containment and people died. Inanimate objects don’t require containment to prevent them from being dangerous. Chemical weapons, just like nukes, don’t have to be “in the hands” of any one to be dangerous and/or deadly. The same cannot be said for firearms.
I’d rather get technical and specific as opposed to vague and general. Sound decisions require specific thought and application. Too many “proposed” (and thankfully failed) firearm restrictions were too vague and general and too open to interpretation. Proving yet again those looking to place any restrictions will welcome the chance to place more restrictions. Otherwise they wouldn’t need to “interpret” anything.
Chemical weapons can kill by simple exposure without being deployed as a “weapon.” Unlike a firearm, they are deadly simply “sitting around.” There was a building at Ft. Detrick in ■■■■■■■■■, MD that was sealed up and quarantined for years (30 years or more if memory serves me correct) because of anthrax. The building wasn’t bombed, the anthrax wasn’t mailed in a letter. It was not deployed as a “weapon.” There was a mechanical breach of containment and people died. Inanimate objects don’t require containment to prevent them from being dangerous. Chemical weapons, just like nukes, don’t have to be “in the hands” of any one to be dangerous and/or deadly. The same cannot be said for firearms.
I’d rather get technical and specific as opposed to vague and general. Sound decisions require specific thought and application. Too many “proposed” (and thankfully failed) firearm restrictions were too vague and general and too open to interpretation. Proving yet again those looking to place any restrictions will welcome the chance to place more restrictions. Otherwise they wouldn’t need to “interpret” anything.
God bless the “ignore” function.
If you really want to get technical, then explain why nukes are animate objects? Animate objects are living organisms by technical definition. Here is the technical definition for inanimate:
You are confusing involuntary motion/radiation and toxicity with animation…
There is your technical and specific vs general and vague… Are you willing to concede you are wrong about the technical definition of an animated object, or will you dig further to save face?
“As a former senior finance executive for Siemens energy”. <<<This is copy paste from RBF.
Well then, been wondering.
Off topic, but why did you leave? None of my business but, figured id ask.
Also, don’t agree with your politics but, good for you on a successful career.
NN
I resigned for a different opportunity. There were several reasons: overall decline in the energy generation industry, (especially for Siemens), I wasn’t German which impacted future opportunity, and an opportunity to join an organization in the healthcare industry presented itself. I had previously been in manufacturing, bottling (Coke), defense (Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems), and engineering & construction industries. I made a lateral move to a completely different industry which doesn’t present itself often, so I took it…
Thank you for the compliment, politics aside…
Don’t worry about not agreeing with my politics, many times i don’t agree with them either… Typically, I am simply presenting opposing views and aren’t wedded to them… Just mental gymnastics…
Trout would you be willing to give up your cell phone if the country gave up there guns? Would you be willing to ban alcohol?
They account for over 45 deaths a day. Non gang related deaths. 6 a day. You are correct. These things are getting way to frequent. But down that beer and cell phone NOW!
Trout would you be willing to give up your cell phone if the country gave up there guns? Would you be willing to ban alcohol?
They account for over 45 deaths a day. Non gang related deaths. 6 a day. You are correct. These things are getting way to frequent. But down that beer and cell phone NOW!
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
Geronimo - bangstick tried using the same argument the other day mentioning how the medical and car industries account for far more deaths per year than guns. Hardly a comparison. Those industries, including cell phone technology, have largely been accepted as being beneficial and even necessary for a modern society and are constantly becoming safer. Also, I accept risk when I get into my car every day or understand complications occur with surgeries. Are you arguing that when I step outside to go to a concert or downtown to the farmers market people should just start accepting that their day may end by being shot and be ok with that?
To answer your questions directly though, I’ve been trying to lose weight and don’t drink much anymore. I also tend to get more frustrated than enjoyment out of my cell phone lately. So yes, I’d be fine with that.
And Bang - my bank is FDIC insured, so I’d be fine in the event of a robbery. I assure you my savings doesn’t pass the 250k mark. What kind of interest rates could you offer though?
