A hypothetical question for gun folk...
- Thread starter Hawki97
- Start date
I'm aware. Just wondering what kind of gymnastics he will try to perform.
Per Google's dictionary: Vehicle - a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something.
Look the left isn't interested in ending gun violence. It is all posturing and political on their part. Guns are not going to be confiscated, 2nd amendment rights are not going to be restricted. They ignore all of the data that shows that there are fewer households that have guns than there were 50 years ago. AR-15s' have been around and popular since 1962. So instead of addressing root cause and trying to fix the problem they just keep spouting half-truths and slogans that actually helps elect more Republicans in most of America. But they do want to defund the police and put up more of those "Gun Free Zone" stickers.
Last edited:
Lol - even better than I expected. So your content could be termed as:
What, in your mind, is the gun "expressing", "embodying" or "fulfilling" in the case of a school shooting? Or in any case?
This is going to get good.
No one said it wasnt. I said its not an automobile. Replace it with whatever you want: medium, means, mechanism, instrument, etc.
Evil, hate, mental illness - pick any/all you want.
You're an odd sort of troll, huh?
You're so disingenuous. The 1st Google definition is, as follows:
1.
a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
"the vehicle was sent skidding across the road"
Ehhh...Mothers Against Drunk Drivers focused their efforts on the behavior of driving while drunk...not necessarily improved auto safety. Certainly, auto safety continues to be improved, but check their name, it says it all. They aren't Mothers Against Unsafe Autos after all.
Why doesn't every vehicle have a breathalyzer in it these days? Because our society doesn't want to deal with the cost/hassle of EVERYONE having to pay for and use such a device, so as to block the some that still do drive while impaired.
A person with a murderous heart is going to find a way to exact their mayhem one way or the other. Yes, guns can greatly increase their "effectiveness" and as such, deserve special consideration as to how to prevent similar horrors in the future.
But the PRIMARY issue isn't guns, at least IMO. There have been, and unfortunately will likely be in the future, plenty of scenarios where an out of control person rage kills others, via one method or the other.
The point is this can be addressed on multiple fronts. Cars were too dangerous so it was legislated to make them safer. Just as it was to keep drink drivers of the road. And it has worked despite not eliminating car deaths or drink driving. Why not for the gun violence were seeing?
Are you under the impression words only have 1 definition? If so, English is not the language for you.
Of course not, the gun is the vehicle for "those things" - hence my entire point and position.
(are you paying attention, or just responding to things you wish I was saying? You're being particularly obtuse today - and in this case, I would be using the first definition of 'obtuse' per Google)
I do. Do you know most car accidents aren't accidents, but are caused by imbeciles like you and the moron in TX no one seems to want to blame?
Which is why I pointed out that you failed to reveal the 1st definition. And then asked a question because who knows what you're thinking.Are you under the impression words only have 1 definition? If so, English is not the language for you.
Of course not, the gun is the vehicle for "those things" - hence my entire point and position.
(are you paying attention, or just responding to things you wish I was saying? You're being particularly obtuse today - and in this case, I would be using the first definition of 'obtuse' per Google)
The scrambling you're doing is fun to watch.
Do you think there should be efforts to make us safer from guns AND address the root causes of these types of massacres at the same time?
I apologize that my post was not clear. They were supposed to be separate ideas.
The first idea: Most mothers weren't going out of their way to go on a crusade against drunk driving.... until it happened to them. It's the idea that an event hitting close to home, can have an impact on how they view the world. Similar to the idea that someone who hasn't been impacted by gun violence may not really be bothered with guns... until it happens to them. Or the idea that a war happening in a far away place isn't such a bother, until they see the carnage with their own eyes. I think that's what the OP was trying to ask here.
The second separate idea is that that logic wouldn't apply to cars because they are just tools. It turns out we have tried to improve the safety of cars despite them just being tools, we try to make them safer tools, and take measures to make sure that the users of those tools are qualified.
I certainly agree that guns are very effective killing tools, it is one of their main purposes. Manufacturers of guns have - like car manufacturers - also made improvements to make them even more effective at doing their job.
I wonder what our Iran, North Korea and even more recently Russia policy would look like if we adopted the "it is what is, it'll happen regardless" outlook of your last two paragraphs, nuclear weapons are after all just a tool:
A regime with a murderous heart is going to find a way to exact their mayhem one way or the other. Yes, nuclear weapons can greatly increase their "effectiveness" and as such, deserve special consideration as to how to prevent similar horrors in the future.
But the PRIMARY issue isn't nuclear weapons, at least IMO. There have been, and unfortunately will likely be in the future, plenty of scenarios where an out of control regime rage kills others, via one method or the other.
I assume you're talking about drunk drivers. Has drunk driving incidents gone up or down with regulation?
Do you need me to alert you of every word that has multiple definitions? Are you incapable of comprehending context?
As to your last question; identifying and addressing the root causes is what will decrease homicides.
Both my Mom & Dad were killed in a car accident in 1986. I skim through the forum to stay updated and one thing I have noticed is you are the one who thinks he's so smart. You didn't answer any of my questions ......not sure why but all I was getting at is we have wackos out there that will use anything to accomplish the killings. I do believe we need to do a better job with the situations we are in as a country about these shootings. But you and your Tom Paris smart mouth think you are a lot smarter than you really are.
Nah he's probably referring to reckless drivers - too fast, distracted, poorly maintained autos, etc. Drunks are one component, but hardly the only or main.
No, there are plenty of traffic deaths due to idiots being idiots while sober. Down negligibly. Do those regulations impede law-abiding citizens minding their own business at home, from drinking alcohol until they piss from their ears should they so choose?
Last edited:
State and national background checks on all gun sales, even private. Close that loophole.
National mental health database. If you see a provider or on certain meds you are in it. I heard the Michigan FBI wants or is monitoring social media looking for manifestos on violence and tracking these people. They would talk to friends, family, girlfriends, etc. Not against that either.
And tax dollars for school security.
Tax dollars for a national gun buy back program.
Of course the ACLU will fight this to the end.
National mental health database. If you see a provider or on certain meds you are in it. I heard the Michigan FBI wants or is monitoring social media looking for manifestos on violence and tracking these people. They would talk to friends, family, girlfriends, etc. Not against that either.
And tax dollars for school security.
Tax dollars for a national gun buy back program.
Of course the ACLU will fight this to the end.
I went and worked out and came back to a shit show of a thread thanks to the usual suspects. Well done, HORT! Never change.
To those that tried, thanks and see you in another thread.
To those that tried, thanks and see you in another thread.
Out of curiosity, do you anticipate felons (whom are already barred from buying and selling guns legally) to follow a hypothetical background check requirement? They aren't now, what would make them in your example? Would you incentivize private citizens to run their own sting operation? Its one of those options that everyone defaults to, but in practice, how do you make it work (and for now, we'll table the de facto registry this would create)
We have a national database - the problem is the admins are not good at updating/maintaining it. The NICS system is lacking a lot of information. So what you want already exists - how do you make those people who's job it is to submit the info do it? Because if you have a solution, please share as that's something that can be and should be done presently.
Last edited:
Just because I am genuinely curious...in detail, what would "state and national background checks" consist of and how would that work in your view?
I ask because I am understanding that the Uvalde gunman bought his guns recently and did so legally...which I am fairly certain would have subjected him to a background check. (Perhaps things are different in TX, I really am not sure, but here in Iowa, when I buy a gun I have to do a background check, so I think he probably had to as well??)
IF he did complete a background check...then that seriously suggests that whatever goes on with background checks doesn't really accomplish much. Again, I am supposing some things here, so bear that in mind.
I'm sorry you lost your parents.
This discussion has been had repeatedly and almost every time someone brings up cars and compares them to guns. They are so not the same thing. If someone talks about car accidents I doubt I or anyone else will bring up guns. Again, sorry for your loss. Same people posting the same narrative for years.
I already said one - incentivize (or punish for not doing) those who's job it is update and maintain NICS.
As to the rest, why would I ask the questions if I had the solution?
Because it reads as if you lean towards more of what we are doing now. Like a little bit defensive of gun rights.
Every cop sees Ben Crump hiding in the bushes ready and willing to ruin his and his family’s life if the cop shots first and the perp turns out to be a minority. I’m surprised any cop shots first nowadays…
Lol - nope. When the context is clear it's easy to comprehend. When the context is, at best, garbled - not so much. But it's fun watching you spin things based on technicalities.
That's not an answer. That's avoidance, again. But I'll try to interpret based on your "context" and say that you don't think there is anything that can be done with gun control to reduce homicides. That the ONLY thing that will work is to solve the "root cause". Correct me if needed.
That bring the case, what measures do you propose to solve the "root cause"?
Very eager to see your dance steps.
Im extremely protective of gun rights.
Here's another one - prosecute and punish gun crimes fully. We have plenty of laws on the books to deter gun violence, but they are much too often thrown out, plea bargained down, deferred, commuted, etc.
Last edited:
If you can't comprehend context, thats a 'you' issue.
Correct - identify and address root causes and enforce laws already on the books.
Don’t engage with him. He’s “never wrong” if you know what I mean. Just drives conversations nowhere.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
