- Status
guavasauce
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2010
- 24
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]Tomtompiper[/nom]They need to ban Facebook, if it did not exist this guy would still be alive. (This pile of crap is sponsored by the NRA, remember guns never killed anybody.)[/citation]
should i make you a list of all the other things that kill people, so you can get angsty about them too?
should i make you a list of all the other things that kill people, so you can get angsty about them too?
[citation][nom]guavasauce[/nom]should i make you a list of all the other things that kill people, so you can get angsty about them too?[/citation]
Yes. Please do. And make sure you rank them in order of lethality in careless and conflict situations. (you do know that a firearm and Facebook would be at opposite ends of the list, don't you?)
Yes. Please do. And make sure you rank them in order of lethality in careless and conflict situations. (you do know that a firearm and Facebook would be at opposite ends of the list, don't you?)
catswold
Distinguished
- Jul 9, 2009
- 32
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]jbemanuel[/nom]Why is it that the belligerent asshole gun nuts always and I mean always use this kind of tragedy to "educate" people about guns? Has that helped? Have gun-related deaths declined because somebody went on the internet and explained that you shouldn't put your finger on the trigger of a loaded gun unless you want to shoot it? No. We have a lot of gun-related deaths in the USA because we have a lot of guns. And a lot of gun nuts, come to think of it. These kinds of incidents happen at NRA-sponsored events, like the Connecticut gun show where the child shot himself with a machine gun.[/citation]
Why is it that all the anti-gun freaks jump on each of these occurrences and attempt to take political advantage of tragedies and impose their will on those who don't believe as they believe? We have a lot of ladder related deaths in the USA because we have a lot of ladders (more die from falling off ladders than from firearms). We have a lot of automobile related deaths in the USA because we have a lot of automobiles (about 4 times as many die from automobiles than guns).
You can't protect stupid people from themselves and, unless you want to lock up all stupid people, you can't protect other people from the actions of stupid people. You are delusional if you believe that further restrictions on firearms will reduce violent deaths due to firearms in America--it is a cultural problem, not a problem with law abiding citizens enjoying their CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, inherent right to own a firearm.
When will you people realize that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws and that stupid people are always going to do stupid things?
Why is it that all the anti-gun freaks jump on each of these occurrences and attempt to take political advantage of tragedies and impose their will on those who don't believe as they believe? We have a lot of ladder related deaths in the USA because we have a lot of ladders (more die from falling off ladders than from firearms). We have a lot of automobile related deaths in the USA because we have a lot of automobiles (about 4 times as many die from automobiles than guns).
You can't protect stupid people from themselves and, unless you want to lock up all stupid people, you can't protect other people from the actions of stupid people. You are delusional if you believe that further restrictions on firearms will reduce violent deaths due to firearms in America--it is a cultural problem, not a problem with law abiding citizens enjoying their CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, inherent right to own a firearm.
When will you people realize that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws and that stupid people are always going to do stupid things?
[citation][nom]catswold[/nom]Why is it that all the anti-gun freaks jump on each of these occurrences and attempt to take political advantage of tragedies and impose their will on those who don't believe as they believe?[/citation]
Thank for exactly proving the point of the person you responded to. It's not about belief or disbelief, it's about having a hole blown in you by a bullet. It is difficult to tell if your very tired old substitution example ('ladder' in your case) is more missaplied or simply point-blank stupid. You know as well as anyone, a ladder is not a easily transportable and concealable weapon. You do know that a firearm is much more lethal by it's very nature, and you do know that the lethality of a weapon directly correlates to the fatality rate of a conflict. These are facts. No attitude or level of self-centered stupidity changes them. All sensible people are able to determine the difference between sensible gun control (no all-caps needed) and an outright ban on private firearms (which no one is seeking). So get a life, begin thinking, and stop being a crazed fanatic. There is no question whatsoever that a general redution in firearms will reduce the rate of firearm deaths. Current policies are too loose, and have too many loopholes. Sensible controls will help, leaving a greater ratio of firearms in the hands of trained law abiding citizens. You're not Rambo. You, in an armed conflict, would crap your pants and spray a couple of shots, hopefully, at the ceiling, if not at an innocent bystander. Why do we universally see combat veterans as the most vocal against carry and especially concealed carry promotion? They've been there and they know how average Joe-target-plunker would do in a real conflict. They'd rather not get their kid or wife or mom shot.
Thank for exactly proving the point of the person you responded to. It's not about belief or disbelief, it's about having a hole blown in you by a bullet. It is difficult to tell if your very tired old substitution example ('ladder' in your case) is more missaplied or simply point-blank stupid. You know as well as anyone, a ladder is not a easily transportable and concealable weapon. You do know that a firearm is much more lethal by it's very nature, and you do know that the lethality of a weapon directly correlates to the fatality rate of a conflict. These are facts. No attitude or level of self-centered stupidity changes them. All sensible people are able to determine the difference between sensible gun control (no all-caps needed) and an outright ban on private firearms (which no one is seeking). So get a life, begin thinking, and stop being a crazed fanatic. There is no question whatsoever that a general redution in firearms will reduce the rate of firearm deaths. Current policies are too loose, and have too many loopholes. Sensible controls will help, leaving a greater ratio of firearms in the hands of trained law abiding citizens. You're not Rambo. You, in an armed conflict, would crap your pants and spray a couple of shots, hopefully, at the ceiling, if not at an innocent bystander. Why do we universally see combat veterans as the most vocal against carry and especially concealed carry promotion? They've been there and they know how average Joe-target-plunker would do in a real conflict. They'd rather not get their kid or wife or mom shot.
Another stupid person doing stupid things gets someone killed, this isn't news. It certainly doesn't belong on a tech site. The real tragedy here is she killed her brother instead of herself.
Until we outlaw stupid, or at least value education over stupidity, these tragic events will continue to happen.
Until we outlaw stupid, or at least value education over stupidity, these tragic events will continue to happen.
guavasauce
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2010
- 24
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Thank for exactly proving the point of the person you responded to. It's not about belief or disbelief, it's about having a hole blown in you by a bullet. It is difficult to tell if your very tired old substitution example ('ladder' in your case) is more missaplied or simply point-blank stupid. You know as well as anyone, a ladder is not a easily transportable and concealable weapon. You do know that a firearm is much more lethal by it's very nature, and you do know that the lethality of a weapon directly correlates to the fatality rate of a conflict. These are facts. No attitude or level of self-centered stupidity changes them. All sensible people are able to determine the difference between sensible gun control (no all-caps needed) and an outright ban on private firearms (which no one is seeking). So get a life, begin thinking, and stop being a crazed fanatic. There is no question whatsoever that a general redution in firearms will reduce the rate of firearm deaths. Current policies are too loose, and have too many loopholes. Sensible controls will help, leaving a greater ratio of firearms in the hands of trained law abiding citizens. You're not Rambo. You, in an armed conflict, would crap your pants and spray a couple of shots, hopefully, at the ceiling, if not at an innocent bystander. Why do we universally see combat veterans as the most vocal against carry and especially concealed carry promotion? They've been there and they know how average Joe-target-plunker would do in a real conflict. They'd rather not get their kid or wife or mom shot.[/citation]
dont speak for all verterans, as we dont (in fact, no one i serve/served with) want anything to do with gun control.
remember, criminals dont follow laws.
dont speak for all verterans, as we dont (in fact, no one i serve/served with) want anything to do with gun control.
remember, criminals dont follow laws.
guavasauce
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2010
- 24
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Yes. Please do. And make sure you rank them in order of lethality in careless and conflict situations. (you do know that a firearm and Facebook would be at opposite ends of the list, don't you?)[/citation]
1. Diseases of the heart 28.5
2. Malignant tumors 22.8
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4
11. Suicide 1.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7
Source: CDC/NHS, National Vital Statistics System
get angsty.
1. Diseases of the heart 28.5
2. Malignant tumors 22.8
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4
11. Suicide 1.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7
Source: CDC/NHS, National Vital Statistics System
get angsty.
[citation][nom]guavasauce[/nom]dont speak for all verterans, as we dont (in fact, no one i serve/served with) want anything to do with gun control. remember, criminals dont follow laws.[/citation]
I exaggerated. Not all, but the vast majority of combat veterans comment that they fear an armed general population more than they fear criminals. The overwhelming number of firearm fatalities come from non-criminal accidents or criminal commandeering of a firearm. It's a misguided, false sense of security which results in the exact opposite of the (no pun intended) aim.
I exaggerated. Not all, but the vast majority of combat veterans comment that they fear an armed general population more than they fear criminals. The overwhelming number of firearm fatalities come from non-criminal accidents or criminal commandeering of a firearm. It's a misguided, false sense of security which results in the exact opposite of the (no pun intended) aim.
wiyosaya
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 396
- 0
- 18,930
My $0.02:
Funny how articles like this always evolve into discussions about the constitutionality of guns in the US - which, IMHO, really translates into "how the US Supreme Court" has interpreted the second amendment to the US constitution over the years.
Personally, I see "in the absence of a well-armed militia" as meaning that if the US had no well-armed militia - as it was in the days when the second amendment was written - that citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms. However, I think this is rather outdated at this point as the US does have many "well-armed" militias ranging from local police forces to the US military. If no one was armed in the days the second amendment was written, perhaps the US would not exist as a country and would have been taken over by some other country. This is what I see the second amendment enabling - protection of the US in general in the absence of a "well-armed" militia.
Anyone out there that thinks that the right of US citizens to bear arms means that the citizens could rise up in armed rebellion against the government is fooling themselves, IMHO. No average US citizen or group of average US citizens that own guns could remotely stand up against any of the government's armed groups in any meaningful manner.
Statistically, if guns were eliminated or reduced, people would still kill other people with other arms. It might, however, be much more difficult for accidental deaths like this to occur as there is little that is as lethal as a gun.
What I don't want to see is the US going back to the days like the wild west. That, IMHO, is lack of gun control to an extreme.
This type of incident, that is, an accidental gun death, could happen to anyone no matter how well trained as even "experienced" gun owners do find their way into the news from time to time after having a gun accident. If you are an experienced gun owner thinking "no way dude, who the he!! are you," think again.
As I see it, guns are power symbols to some people, and I think it most unfortunate that society sets up the conditions where people who feel powerless feel that must seek out means of empowering themselves in ways that are egregiously overblown.
IMHO, power is an illusion that has derived from the separatism that modern society cultivates. Parts of the modern world have lost the ability to act cooperatively toward the greater good of humanity, and as a result, CYOA is the norm because no one else will. I think its ignominious.
Funny how articles like this always evolve into discussions about the constitutionality of guns in the US - which, IMHO, really translates into "how the US Supreme Court" has interpreted the second amendment to the US constitution over the years.
Personally, I see "in the absence of a well-armed militia" as meaning that if the US had no well-armed militia - as it was in the days when the second amendment was written - that citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms. However, I think this is rather outdated at this point as the US does have many "well-armed" militias ranging from local police forces to the US military. If no one was armed in the days the second amendment was written, perhaps the US would not exist as a country and would have been taken over by some other country. This is what I see the second amendment enabling - protection of the US in general in the absence of a "well-armed" militia.
Anyone out there that thinks that the right of US citizens to bear arms means that the citizens could rise up in armed rebellion against the government is fooling themselves, IMHO. No average US citizen or group of average US citizens that own guns could remotely stand up against any of the government's armed groups in any meaningful manner.
Statistically, if guns were eliminated or reduced, people would still kill other people with other arms. It might, however, be much more difficult for accidental deaths like this to occur as there is little that is as lethal as a gun.
What I don't want to see is the US going back to the days like the wild west. That, IMHO, is lack of gun control to an extreme.
This type of incident, that is, an accidental gun death, could happen to anyone no matter how well trained as even "experienced" gun owners do find their way into the news from time to time after having a gun accident. If you are an experienced gun owner thinking "no way dude, who the he!! are you," think again.
As I see it, guns are power symbols to some people, and I think it most unfortunate that society sets up the conditions where people who feel powerless feel that must seek out means of empowering themselves in ways that are egregiously overblown.
IMHO, power is an illusion that has derived from the separatism that modern society cultivates. Parts of the modern world have lost the ability to act cooperatively toward the greater good of humanity, and as a result, CYOA is the norm because no one else will. I think its ignominious.
guavasauce
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2010
- 24
- 0
- 18,560
also, the title says "teen" but the person is in fact 19, as stated by the article. i know that number has teen in it, however, in my country (USA), that age is a legal adult.
guavasauce
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2010
- 24
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]My $0.02:Funny how articles like this always evolve into discussions about the constitutionality of guns in the US - which, IMHO, really translates into "how the US Supreme Court" has interpreted the second amendment to the US constitution over the years.Personally, I see "in the absence of a well-armed militia" as meaning that if the US had no well-armed militia - as it was in the days when the second amendment was written - that citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms. However, I think this is rather outdated at this point as the US does have many "well-armed" militias ranging from local police forces to the US military. If no one was armed in the days the second amendment was written, perhaps the US would not exist as a country and would have been taken over by some other country. This is what I see the second amendment enabling - protection of the US in general in the absence of a "well-armed" militia.Anyone out there that thinks that the right of US citizens to bear arms means that the citizens could rise up in armed rebellion against the government is fooling themselves, IMHO. No average US citizen or group of average US citizens that own guns could remotely stand up against any of the government's armed groups in any meaningful manner.Statistically, if guns were eliminated or reduced, people would still kill other people with other arms. It might, however, be much more difficult for accidental deaths like this to occur as there is little that is as lethal as a gun.What I don't want to see is the US going back to the days like the wild west. That, IMHO, is lack of gun control to an extreme.This type of incident, that is, an accidental gun death, could happen to anyone no matter how well trained as even "experienced" gun owners do find their way into the news from time to time after having a gun accident. If you are an experienced gun owner thinking "no way dude, who the he!! are you," think again.As I see it, guns are power symbols to some people, and I think it most unfortunate that society sets up the conditions where people who feel powerless feel that must seek out means of empowering themselves in ways that are egregiously overblown.IMHO, power is an illusion that has derived from the separatism that modern society cultivates. Parts of the modern world have lost the ability to act cooperatively toward the greater good of humanity, and as a result, CYOA is the norm because no one else will. I think its ignominious.[/citation]
but as it stands, we dont have a standing malitia. the agencies you mentioned are state and federal government, not civilian. and sure, a malitia probably couldnt fend off or conduct full scale operations, but that doesnt mean they should lay down if the case ever arose.
but as it stands, we dont have a standing malitia. the agencies you mentioned are state and federal government, not civilian. and sure, a malitia probably couldnt fend off or conduct full scale operations, but that doesnt mean they should lay down if the case ever arose.
@ lamorpa
There's a lot of misguiding with what you're saying but there's logic to a degree in what you say. Food for thought: people die by gunshots (let's not even start on guns kill people - because they don't) and a gun is intended for (one of many purposes), to kill. A car, is not intended to kill, but it does according to what you're saying. Do you see the problem here? Things happen because of human action. Would you blame a person that was drinking and driving, texting, talking on a cell phone, or fiddling with the radio and caused an accident and killed someone in the process? If you answer yes, then you disprove all you say. Never mind the fact that this is accepted as manslaughter and the person driving is held accountable by the court systems and not the automobile manufactures or vehicles. One and the same: don't blame guns or the manufacturers because of some idiot (or in some cases, a killer), was in the "driver seat" and what happened, happened.
You're wrong on people not trying to ban private firearms, follow news from California or especially Illinois lately? You talk a lot of sensibility being a factor in situations where people just don't exercise it. So then, how do accidents to any degree happen in the first place if all we need to do is have more common sense? It sounds like you've never had an accident or a slip in judgement in your life and I commend you for it. All it takes is one time to change one's life completely, correct?
As for my own life "Rambo" story, I carry, and I've stopped my wife's car from being stolen twice, stopped someone that broke-in to my house while I was watching my son at home (toddler), ran off some aggressive trespassers that changed their tune after I brandished a firearm, but I've never fired a shot at somebody. Just the presence of a gun (and no, it's not superiority complex) was enough to disarm the situations with no gunfire involved. Alternate realities aren't something I care to think of if I didn't arm myself that one time and wasn't able to give myself or others around me a chance.
There's a lot of misguiding with what you're saying but there's logic to a degree in what you say. Food for thought: people die by gunshots (let's not even start on guns kill people - because they don't) and a gun is intended for (one of many purposes), to kill. A car, is not intended to kill, but it does according to what you're saying. Do you see the problem here? Things happen because of human action. Would you blame a person that was drinking and driving, texting, talking on a cell phone, or fiddling with the radio and caused an accident and killed someone in the process? If you answer yes, then you disprove all you say. Never mind the fact that this is accepted as manslaughter and the person driving is held accountable by the court systems and not the automobile manufactures or vehicles. One and the same: don't blame guns or the manufacturers because of some idiot (or in some cases, a killer), was in the "driver seat" and what happened, happened.
You're wrong on people not trying to ban private firearms, follow news from California or especially Illinois lately? You talk a lot of sensibility being a factor in situations where people just don't exercise it. So then, how do accidents to any degree happen in the first place if all we need to do is have more common sense? It sounds like you've never had an accident or a slip in judgement in your life and I commend you for it. All it takes is one time to change one's life completely, correct?
As for my own life "Rambo" story, I carry, and I've stopped my wife's car from being stolen twice, stopped someone that broke-in to my house while I was watching my son at home (toddler), ran off some aggressive trespassers that changed their tune after I brandished a firearm, but I've never fired a shot at somebody. Just the presence of a gun (and no, it's not superiority complex) was enough to disarm the situations with no gunfire involved. Alternate realities aren't something I care to think of if I didn't arm myself that one time and wasn't able to give myself or others around me a chance.
unoriginal1
Honorable
- Apr 11, 2012
- 155
- 0
- 10,660
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom] Not all, but the vast majority of combat veterans comment that they fear an armed general population more than they fear criminals. [/citation]
Not pickin a fight... But i'd like to see this study of the vast majority of combat vets.
@Matt B I agree 100% with you. I as well own and carry my own gun. My purpose is the same as yours and thankfully (hopefully never) have never had to even show to ward off anyone. My main purpose for owning firearms is sport and hunting. Shooting is fun, I find it very relaxing.
Not pickin a fight... But i'd like to see this study of the vast majority of combat vets.
@Matt B I agree 100% with you. I as well own and carry my own gun. My purpose is the same as yours and thankfully (hopefully never) have never had to even show to ward off anyone. My main purpose for owning firearms is sport and hunting. Shooting is fun, I find it very relaxing.
merikafyeah
Honorable
- Jun 20, 2012
- 39
- 1
- 10,580
[citation][nom]ajrm[/nom]Sad to read this ... but why is this on Tom's?[/citation]
Because Facebook is mentioned, therefore more traffic hits the site, = more $$$
More people commenting on why this is on Toms equals more comments overall, means still more hits = even more $$$
Because Facebook is mentioned, therefore more traffic hits the site, = more $$$
More people commenting on why this is on Toms equals more comments overall, means still more hits = even more $$$
"This would not have happened if the Ortiz home would've been armed with armed guards to prevent the shooting. Having the government pay for armed guards at every household in America is the only solution to preventing stupid Facebook tragedies like these." - The NRA
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]*sigh*....ok...So, lets go over the mistakes...1. The gun did not have a gun lock on it(She could have posed with the gun and just hidden the trigger lock with her hand or fingers but I'm guessing the owner didn't even have a trigger lock.)2. The gun was loaded(If you are gonna let someone pose or "play with" a gun TAKE THE BULLETS OUT!! That includes any that might already be in the chamber [depending on the type of gun].)3. The safety was off(You can't even pull the trigger if the safety is on.)4. The gun was pointed at a person(Loaded or unloaded a gun should NEVER be pointed at a person. A complete unloaded gun should always be treated like it is loaded and the safety is off and ready to fire.)This is all stuff I learned in a gun safety class. I'm guessing these idiots know nothing of the subject. I'm not surprised either, I took my gun safety class when I was a teen for hunting reasons. Judging by the picture I'd guess these are inner city kids that think guns are cool. Why else would you pose with a gun on facebook?[/citation]
Never taken a gun safety course and still knew these things about guns (maybe it's the TV teaching me) they all seem like things you should do normally, but I'm not as dumb as the people in the article so who knows.
Never taken a gun safety course and still knew these things about guns (maybe it's the TV teaching me) they all seem like things you should do normally, but I'm not as dumb as the people in the article so who knows.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 640
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]No, they would be playing with knives, or bats, or steel chairs, or a car basically someone was gonna get hurt cause they are not smart people.[/citation]
We need to ban cars post-haste. Proper use of a car requires education, and we don't believe in education, safety, and proper use - we just blame the inaminate object and try to get it banned! No sir, let's not let a little common sense get in the way of a good ban.
Oh and don't even get me started on chainsaws, flammable liquids, and pointy metal forks...
We need to ban cars post-haste. Proper use of a car requires education, and we don't believe in education, safety, and proper use - we just blame the inaminate object and try to get it banned! No sir, let's not let a little common sense get in the way of a good ban.
Oh and don't even get me started on chainsaws, flammable liquids, and pointy metal forks...
threehosts
Honorable
- Feb 15, 2012
- 9
- 0
- 10,510
[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]*sigh*....ok...So, lets go over the mistakes...1. The gun did not have a gun lock on it(She could have posed with the gun and just hidden the trigger lock with her hand or fingers but I'm guessing the owner didn't even have a trigger lock.)2. The gun was loaded(If you are gonna let someone pose or "play with" a gun TAKE THE BULLETS OUT!! That includes any that might already be in the chamber [depending on the type of gun].)3. The safety was off(You can't even pull the trigger if the safety is on.)4. The gun was pointed at a person(Loaded or unloaded a gun should NEVER be pointed at a person. A complete unloaded gun should always be treated like it is loaded and the safety is off and ready to fire.)This is all stuff I learned in a gun safety class. I'm guessing these idiots know nothing of the subject. I'm not surprised either, I took my gun safety class when I was a teen for hunting reasons. Judging by the picture I'd guess these are inner city kids that think guns are cool. Why else would you pose with a gun on facebook?[/citation]
How come I never took a gun safety class and yet know these things?
How come I never took a gun safety class and yet know these things?
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Why are windows laptop cameras so bad compared to other's?
- Started by bakriwa5
- Replies: 2
-
Discussion What new phone technology trends should we keep an eye on?- Started by Vandna Jadhav
- Replies: 2
-
Question Best laptops for a student going to high school
- Started by joninte2
- Replies: 2
-
Question What if the EU forced laptop makers to allow upgradeable ram and storage?
- Started by kionbo2
- Replies: 2
-
-
Facebook
Twitter