| Author | Message | ||
     notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2134 Registered: 5-2001  |
You never did answer my question about treating the symptoms when you can't treat the core problem. You don't have a good answer, do you? And the attitude expressed in "he should walk free though cause we all know it was the guns fault, not his." is getting stale. Again, nobody here is saying that it is the fault of guns. You are simply trying to ascribe a position to others that is easier for you to refute. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 48 Registered: 2-2005  |
Notehead, Truer words have never been posted. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 568 Registered: 3-2004  |
Again, nobody here is saying that it is the fault of guns. You are simply trying to ascribe a position to others that is easier for you to refute. i disagree. that is exactly the position that has been taken here. no one has addressed the point i made regarding the idea that the gun is not to blame but perhaps the society is to blame. that you have all focused on the gun so as to not have to look at the society you live in that creates so many people willing to pivk up a gunand kill with it. this idea has been ignored and ignored some more and you bitch cause i didnt get to your question? tough titty. you have found it much easier to rail against the person with an opposing idea rather than rationally discuss the idea itself. as to S O Refugee's posts, i have put him in the Straw category, nothing useful to add, just peurile pot shots while standing behind the lines. face it, the society that you live in and are a part of is enabler for an inordinate amount of killers. until you stop blaming the means and are willing to address the source then your arguments are absurd. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2944 Registered: 12-2001  |
Notehead, Some of the same people who reject the idea of treating the means to deadly violence (i.e. banning guns) with respect to gun violence embrace this idea fully in other areas and do not believe that Iran and N. Korea, to name two, should have nuclear weapons. I don't understand this. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people.... | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1093 Registered: 8-2003  |
Guns don't kill people, Living Church of God members do. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 50 Registered: 2-2005 |
Libby, I can see the usefulness of your post - Toast Cats and the like... Alot of the diatribe you spew is pure theory and, therefore, by believers such as yourself, unscrutinizable. Name one society that have successfully existed under libertarian ideals. The countries with the lowest statistics for crime, better education, better health care, etc. are all those that lean towards the socialist viewpoint. Go figure. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 580 Registered: 3-2004 |
So many new ideas are at first strange and horrible, though ultimately valuable that a very heavy responsibility rests upon those who would prevent their dissemination. John Haldane (1892 - 1964) | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7896 Registered: 5-2001 |
And four year olds kill their two year old brothers with Mom's piece. This was just on cable news. Texas, where else? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 584 Registered: 3-2004 |
is the gun responsible or the mom for leaving a gun unattended? | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 56 Registered: 2-2005 |
Libby has a point. Although this is tragic, the mother does bear some responsibility for keeping a loaded weapon within access of a child. Her penalty should be having to do PSAs on gun safety. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2137 Registered: 5-2001 |
Libertarian, your self-righteousness smells, and your insistence on telling other people what they think makes you look pretty weak. Where has anyone on this thread asserted that a gun, itself, has responsibility, morality, or human virtues or of any kind? You evade my question because it clearly points out how weak your position is. Americans need to stop shooting each other. While we're working on the profoundly complex conundrums of why so many of us decide to use a gun against a fellow human being, the benefits of reducing the number of guns are obvious. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 595 Registered: 3-2004 |
Where has anyone on this thread asserted that a gun, itself, has responsibility, morality, or human virtues or of any kind? by tryig to ban the gun rather than trying to change the behavior of the society that fosters the growth of so many people willing to kill with a gun then you are placing the blame on the gun. You evade my question because it clearly points out how weak your position is. Americans need to stop shooting each other. While we're working on the profoundly complex conundrums of why so many of us decide to use a gun against a fellow human being, the benefits of reducing the number of guns are obvious. i have evaded nothing. i have answered your question. as to the benefits being obvious, i would like to see your proof. there is none. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2138 Registered: 5-2001 |
You are confused. Nobody is blaming the gun. Every who blames guns, please raise your hands. Anyone?... Banning the gun is a practical measure not to reduce the existence of guns, but to reduce the usage of guns. Until you accept this, you are preaching in an empty room. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 597 Registered: 3-2004 |
but the logic is flawed. | ||
| mjc Citizen Username: Mjc Post Number: 370 Registered: 10-2004 |
How many church members could the guy in Wisconsin have killed with his bare hands, or even a knife? Obviously, a gun is a tool, and the person wielding it is responsible; but guns make killing so easy you just have to imagine that having them around drives up the numbers, both for homicide and for accidental death. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7912 Registered: 5-2001 |
Forgetting constitutional issues for a minute, do any of you honestly think that we can get rid of the 50 to 100 million handguns in the United States. Say the government tried to buy them back. Do you think the criminals would turn them in? Do you think the red staters would turn them in? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2141 Registered: 5-2001 |
Good question. It certainly couldn't be done overnight. It would require a prolonged effort. The sooner it is begun, the sooner we will see a reduction in gun-related fatalities. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 599 Registered: 3-2004 |
The sooner it is begun, the sooner we will see a reduction in gun-related fatalities. where is the data that leads you to this conclusion? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2144 Registered: 5-2001 |
You might as well ask, "Where is the data that proves 1 - 1 = 0 ?" Fewer guns = fewer gun incidents. Common sense is an important ability. | ||
| ashear Supporter Username: Ashear Post Number: 1715 Registered: 5-2001 |
Where do we draw the line. Is it wrong to ban civilian ownership of rocket launchers and hand grenades? If not then its not really a question of principle, its just a question of where you draw the line and decide something is to dangerous to be readily availible. |
