Sorry, but you SAY the article has these things...
...and you've now wasted more time telling me how I'M supposed to go look than it would have for you to copy and paste the information yourself.
What should people surmise from that other than that you don't have the goods?
And why would anyone possibly believe that you would be anymore capable of reading it here than there. Check and mate.
Nope.
The difference is that it is YOUR job to present YOUR evidence along with the link.
:-)
After that statement, which I am sure you read, I went through your cite of second hand journalism. In the end it's all based on correlation. Which as you point out is not causation. You destroyed your own argument.
Don't know how many guns are around now compared to the 50's and 60's. But they are different guns. When I grew up then hunting rifles were nearly all bolt-action. Shotguns mostly single shot break action. Hand guns were 5-6 shot revolvers. Now it's nearly all large magazine semi-autos. Larger calibers and higher velocity ammo too. Now the shooters have more firepower. Now it's more of a "gun culture" than it was then. Guns are glorified in the movies. The NRA and gun fondlers think anybody who doesn't own a gun is a nut. It's a big industry, and caters to more disposable income. There's always been crazy people, drugs or not. In the past their ma wasn't likely to have a Glock, Sig Sauer and Bushmaster lying around the house ready for a killing spree. It's really pretty simple. Guns are for killing, and they will be used for that.
Drugs are a (poor) substitute for the institutionalization of the mentally challenged (or whatever the p.c. terminology is these days). Back in the '50s and '60s, we locked them up. Perhaps not in the most humane settings. But away from the general public.
We can't do that today. Individual rights, you know. So we will have to live with the Lanzas, Loughners and McVeighs in our midst. How do we deal with members of society with poor self control, susceptible to suggestion from ethically questionable leadership figures? I think there are similarities between each of these cases that will shed some light on the combination of factors that leads to such tragedies. Unfortunately, I think there will also be pushback from the ideological groups who rely upon a supply of followers with stunted senses of morality and poor social skills.
guns have long been "glorified" in movies - you clearly never watched john wayne or ww2 movies of that era.
no, the nra wastes members money trying to puff up fights with presidential candidates.
they should be focused on /why/ there's a fight about ownership rights, not trying to take sides and simply knee-jerking to the agenda their opposition is very successfully dictating by carefully selecting their "facts".
no, it's much more predominantly a low income sport.
no, some drugs /make/ people crazy. and in devastating ways.
dude, sam colt got his first revolver patent in 1836. that's 6 shots in rapid succession, "lying around" for the last nearly 180 years. and need i point out that when targeting unarmed kids, a psycho can reload at leisure?
i'm at my ex's mother's house one time, her purse was on the kitchen table, and a 357 magnum was sticking out of it. surprised, i asked her what the story was. her father, on his death bed, had made her promise to keep it with her at all times since he wouldn't be around to look after her. so she kept this unloaded [and frankly, terrible condition] hunk of metal in her purse for years and years. cutesy little story.
but when i asked if she'd ever used it, it turns out that she had, and in most disturbing circumstances. she was driving along in her vw hippy bus in some po-dunk semi-deserted backwater when some redneck, having seen a woman and her daughter were otherwise alone in a slow easy target bus with nobody else about, decided he'd force them off the road and make some trouble. long story short, she pulled her piece on him, and eventually he backed off and drove away. i should perhaps add that he seemed particularly motivated by the fact that she was white, and her daughter half black, and that he was yelling that "n-lovers need teaching a lesson".
bottom line, she's one tree-hugging love-and-peace hippy you'll never get her to give up her protection. and damned right too. frankly, anyone that can suggest that they should either lives in a hole in the ground, or is stunningly naive.
If allowed the government and the population at large will use it to lock up, harass, threaten, or even kill anyone who has ideas and thoughts outside the mainstream, neighbors they don't like, etc and so forth. There are many examples of such behaviors by both governments and individuals making use of the government's power.
Considering who people vote for this is a particularly large segment of the population.
it wasn't individual rights, it was ronnie raygun preaching "care in the community", i.e. cutting taxes for his handlers. it's only now that people are realizing that the cost of filling jails and repairing devastated communities is higher than maintaining the facilities that could have managed these individuals in the first place.
carry a gun.
well, now is the time for those with morality and social skills to speak up and not get bulldozed by hysteria and bullshit.
Go ahead and speak up if you think you're qualified, and quit going in circles. Guns are for killing, and they'll be used for that. You want to stop mass shootings, you have to eliminate guns. It's as simple as that, and there's no way around it. Just get used to it.
So let me know when you have disarmed those institutions of people responsible for untold millions of deaths in the last century or so.
What are you babbling about? I never said I wanted to disarm anybody. Just pointed out that guns are made to kill. Mass murder shootings come with the territory. Always have, at least since guns have been capable of rapid fire. It puzzles me why people don't understand that. All this talk about "regulating" guns and sanity is pure bullshit. Only way to stop mass murder shootings is to eliminate guns. Unless society is willing to do that, complaining is just spitting in the wind.
eliminating guns is disarming people.
And so it is spitting into the wind so long as your institutions that would be doing this elimination of firearms retains them for itself.
Gene: "Read this instead, you supercilious, pretentious, mouth- breathing, knuckle dragger:
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
#1. The country and the constitution were built around the rights of its ci tizens to bear/own arms. Kind of tough to undo that sorta plumbing!
#2. The U.S. is simply too large and too diverse: both in population and in disparate points of view. I have been trying to encourage talk of dividi ng the country up into at least two parts(starting perhaps with Texas), so that people who hold certain beliefs could live with others of like mind - but so far no takers.
#3. Weapons & Ammo, like Cigarettes & alcohol, are huge business, without which America would become a third-tier economy. I don't like that anymore than you do, but those are the facts.
Nothing new legislation-wise will come of Newtown. Mass shootings, and shoo tings in general, will take place from time to time. We just all have to b e very careful about crowded places and about how much time we spend in the m.
Thinking anticipatively will help out in public, as in "What should I do th e instant I see a shooter or hear shots fired?" Should I drop to the groun d? Is there an object(a car, a wall, even a wastebasket), that I can get on the other side of to shield myself?
You have to think in terms of "A shooter cannot harm me if he cannot spot m e".
Welcome To America...
Are you dense? I never said I wanted to eliminate guns. You're still babbling. Is that a "libertarian" paranoia deal? If I say you can use a five dollar bill to pay for a happy meal am I to blame for the creation of the Federal Reserve? Your jerking knees would probably say "Yes!"
"My" institutions? You posting from Somalia?
It's not what you "want" it is the argument you are presenting. I don't care what you "want", you have presented the argument: "You want to stop mass shootings, you have to eliminate guns." And that is what I am responding to. What you want is irrelevant.
Again, I don't care what you "want", I am dealing with the argument you presented.
All too typical. You don't want to deal with the obvious flaw of your argument.
I assumed they were yours given the argument you presented. Your argument requires some way of carrying it out, otherwise it is as you say, "pure bullshit".
No, you're babbling. I presented no "argument." Just stark facts. It's you who is trying to "argue." Because you can't dispute the facts, and apparently don't like the facts. That last is only supposition, but it's the only reason I can think would lead you to get your panties in a wad about facts. You're not alone - all the pols, the talking heads, the gun lovers and gun haters are in denial about the facts too.
Any "argument" in only in your head. Facts don't have "flaws.". You're welcome to disprove any facts I've presented. I have no issue with you conjuring up an alternative universe.
I mentioned no "institutions." That was you. You can find somebody else to engage in a debate about "politics." Won't be me. That's another fact you'll just have to get used to.
You cannot just 'eliminate firearms' there is no magic wand to eliminate them or prevent creation of new ones. In stopping shootings it's as big of a fantasy as regulation. Thus you don't have a fact. And since you say it's not an argument, then it's just bullshit. And since it's just bullshit, there's no need to go any further.
but not, fortunately, a ban on axes.
we should seriously examine, and consider banning, psycho-active drugs that can have serious psychotic side-effects. the media, doubtless at the prompting of political pressure because of the HUGE drug industry lobbying money that finds its way onto the streets of washington, never joins the dots on these young psychotic males and their drug regimen histories. well, now is the time to stop hiding it, drag all that filth out into the open and rake through it. whatever the heck it is we're doing to cause these kids to go nuts, we need to stop. even if it means banning their "absinthe" and letting our poor starving drug industry tighten their belts a little tiny bit.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.