Agrees! prohibition, like a ban on narcotics, alcohol, nuclear weapons, ICBM's all shift away from personal responsibility... but... the whole point of such prohibitions, laws and rules etc is because individuals have consistently refused to take responsibility such as demonstrated in their irresponsible behavior. Imagine if the USA gun owners demonstrated responsibility. Imagine what would happen to the stats on gun related violence. Utopia perhaps? Not going to happen yes? Then why be irresponsible in preventing adequate nation wide regulations to be put in place to compensate for human failing?
You know, there are some things one should never admit in public. One being how many times one might scratch one's backside on a day to day basis and the other admitting that the utter tripe you posted was not a joke. As I said previously. Your argument is on par with someone saying they make arrows because they do not want to waste feathers they find on the ground. The reason people use targets is to enable them to improve how they shoot. Police aren't using targets and practicing shooting people in the body or head because it's fun. They do it to ensure that if the need arises, they will take that shot. You do get this, yes? When people take the guns they keep in the house or on their person for "self defense" and they are practicing on targets shaped like human beings, they aren't doing it because their intent is not to kill if the need arises. I mean, I get the trolling to be obtuse, but this is frankly ridiculous. Yep, you are also known for your orange master in the White House, the willingness to invade other countries on trumped up charges (still no WMD's?), your militarisation of your police forces, your shooting of unarmed black people, you are also known for your history of slavery, discrimination and bigotry, your current leaders who are happy to turn the other way as white men and women march screaming about blacks and Jews and Muslims, you are also known for you incredibly bad health care system that refuses to cater to the poor, the conservative movement in your country has spread it's filth around the world, demanding their right over women's bodies, just as much as you are known for your landmarks, sightseeing, hotdogs, bagels, basketball and what seems to be a bizarre obsession with kneeling during the national anthem. Yeah, your country is known for much more than mass shootings. Alas, as per this discussion, we are discussing issues surrounding the use of guns used by civilians in your country to murder large amounts of other people who are going about their day, either in shopping malls, universities, places of employment and schools, from grade schools to high schools, to walking down the street or being in their homes. I am sure that most people can make the distinction. Why can't you? It actually is pretty simple Mr 'the gun is designed to deliver a bullet and not designed to kill'... You are the one complicating it to ridiculous proportions. And ignoring the "tool" that allows one to go on rampages killing up to dozens of people within a few minutes for the sake of fear based on an emotional response that people could break into your house or FEMA is building a camp in a Walmart carpark shows absolutely no reason whatsoever. What fears or bias? I live in a country where I can send my kids off to school and can be fairly 100% certain that someone with full access to firearms is not going to burst into their school and shoot my kids, their teachers or classmates. Can your kids say the same thing? In a clip that has gone viral in the aftermath of this morning’s shooting, a student put that feeling plainly. When asked by a reporter if she was surprised that there was a shooting at Santa Fe, she replied: “It’s been happening everywhere. I've always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here, too.” No, they cannot. Or how about the fear you seem to have that requires you to have a gun? We have Dr Toad ranting about how he can shoot his enemies for his life, which prompted me to believe he lived in a war zone.. And you want to talk about my supposed fear? Surely you jest? There have been more shootings in the US then there have been mass killings by hammering, fists, clubs, (*sighing at the stupidity*) cars or poison. 918 people died in Jonestown, the majority of whom were poisoned after happily consuming Kool Aid laced with poison. People were horrified as to how it could have been allowed to get to that point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, are you sure you want to compare poisoning with gun violence in the US? Because I can assure you, it won't go well for you. How about mass hammering? Mass use of fists that resulted in many dead? No? Yes? Or do you want to spin the NRA talking points some more? Point being, how much more are you willing to humiliate yourself? I'm surprised you have not gone the full hog and told us how a lack of god in schools, abortion, Ritalin and doors are to blame. And back to NRA talking points while missing the obvious. I have to ask one thing, however. Why is it that you only crawl out of the woodwork when there has been a mass shooting to post in these threads? Well of course you don't. That would require you to have the capacity for introspection.
May I troll a bit? And what country was that Maybe not. The closest I've come to being killed was by my actions, not on the ranch. The closest I've come to being killed by stock, a good-sized Brahma bull, was due to another "human's actions. Nothing special there, but one of the best things I've done was to walk away from what was going to be a gunfight. With all the weapons, And nobody got hurt. Good night.
That misphrased truism was a response to a post of mine, for some reason not visible. (Choose "acceptable social behavior" or "right" throughout - they do not substitute). You answer your own question, with your examples: the laws regarding alcohol, narcotics, etc, have been disasters of either failure or oppression. There are many reasons to tread warily when bringing in central government coercion to "compensate" for human failings.
My post was to state yet another obvious fact. If people were responsible and behaved responsibly with the interests of both the collective and the individual good at heart then we would all be living in a utopian state which requires no Governmental prohibition in the form or regulation or laws. There would be no need for enforceable speed limits on roads or even limits on blood alcohol levels whilst driving for example. Only recommendations and guidance would be in place. It is all very well to state that people SHOULD be responsible for their gun ownership, drink driving, narcotics etc but as the stats are suggesting not all are. Hence the needs for degrees of prohibition until they do become responsible.
The disaster that was Prohibition, and currently rolls along with the narcotics laws in the US, is nothing anyone wants to imitate with guns.
1969. When the postal workers went on strike for better pay the Supremes decided the pay scale should apply to all federal works and we got a boost, to around $600/month, before deductions. That was nearly half a century ago, so I don't guarantee the figures, but the range is close.
1969 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart Enlisted pay for less than 2 to over 6 years of service. Pay GradeYears of Service Under 2 Over 2 Over 3Over 4Over 6 E-7342.30410.10425.40440.40455.40 E-6294.90358.20372.90388.20403.20 E-5254.70313.80328.80343.20365.70 E-4214.20268.50283.50305.70321.00 E-3155.10216.30231.30246.30246.30 E-2127.80179.10179.10179.10179.10 E-1123.30163.80163.80163.80163.80 charts seem to never line up correctly------- '69 I got e-5 and went over 2
A Rabbi, a Priest and a pedophile are riding a Harley sportster..." ... (and one of them wants to hit all the bumps?)
I live in a rural foothill community in southern California. We raised sheep and goats for milk and as pets. We let them roam neighboring open fields for a decade. We have no shortage of coyotes in the area, and have occasional sightings of lions. The only losses we had of our stock were from dogs that made their way into wire fenced pens. I’ve owned dogs that have bitten children, had a rutting ram attack myself, friends and family, and fortunately the injuries that did occur were not serious, but they could have been. A couple of years ago I was attacked by a pair of pit bulls while out for a nightly walk, and the only thing that limited my injury to a bloody mangled hand was a small container of pepper spray that fortunately functioned as advertised. I’ve had numerous encounters with coyotes with never a hint of a threat, and a single encounter with a lion that resulted in a mutual retreat. Like the example you mentioned, a lot of the danger inherent with animal encounters is due to an element of human failure. People need to practice responsible management of pets an livestock. They need education of the actual threatening nature animals wild and domestic. And non-lethal deterrents like pepper spray should be advocated at home and in the wild to deal with all animal threats.
Yeh, the darned thing got even crazier after posting oops here's the link https://www.navycs.com/charts/1969-military-pay-chart.html
actually, it is not relevant to the conversation in context. it was used as a pejorative to elicit emotional responses the predominant reason of the perception of mass killings being more prominant in the US is the media circus that follows any mass killing at all here. From what I can tell, the US is ranked 11th or 12th, so that would make countries with considerably tighter laws and restrictions ranked above the US. given the facts, you could say that the US is known for it's weiner schnitzel as well, but it would fall far behind other nations and it would be a personal argument from a subjective and intentionally selective bias I find it fascinating that you would ignore the legalisms. Why? It is a central issue of gun control. Not only do you have to actually know the law to argue a point, but you have to be able to comprehend WTF that law says along with why it is or isn't applicible. Moreover, you, yourself, and other control advocates are pushing for new laws and regulations without comprehending the situation. That is no different than the electric universe trying to teach their version of plasma physics to an astrophysicist. it is absolutely vital to be knowledgable in the laws and descriptions if you want to make any kind of argument for effective change in this area - otherwise you end up advocating for the creation of laws that already exist because of ignorance
nope the user defines the intent you can't claim the manufacturer's or designers intent pushed you to commit a crime, therefore their intent is irrelevant to the issue you know... considering the volume of weapons owned and number of users in the US compared to the crime rate, I would say we're doing quite well all things considered. It's not perfect, and there are definitely issues that need to be worked on, but you're making an argument that because we have guns we're not responsible and that is demonstrably false as the sheer volume of owners and weapons do not commit crimes and are responsible. it's like saying that you want to ban cars in Oz because of your neighbours drunk driving and revocation of license while the rest of the neighbours and town are safe drivers and without accident. nonsensical. see above more to the point: I am not preventing adequate nationwide regulations. We have adequate nationwide regulations that are effective when enforced. I know some changes may well be in order, but I also know that those changes should reflect effective adequate measures. one of your biggest problems is that you're ignorant of the US laws. You're entire point boils down to your cultural training and beliefs versus your perception of why we should abide by those beliefs and culture. this is your "emotional tripe" based upon your personal bias and perspective the legal definition proves you're wrong therefore you have to argue that I'm presenting emotional tripe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...illed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm Sorry for the raw links, I'm posting from a gurney in the VA ER.
and I don't need to explain further as that is directly proven false by the post you selected your quote from as well as the additional posts afterwards who are you trying to convince? surely if you repeat this again someone will believe it and as I explained: there is a whole segment of shooters who only target practice for the purpose of improving accuracy. There is no intent or purpose to do harm as the police or military train to do. There is no intent or purpose to be capable of doing harm to another as a psychopath may intend. There is no intent or purpose to kill as a hunter may do. The only intent or purpose is to be disciplined or effective with said weapon for personal pleasure and the ability to create a public or private image that is founded upon their accuracy, discipline and abilities. and they're not sport target shooters their purpose or intent is different than sport target shooters That is even explained the quote you selected... to use your own words as a reply: "I mean, I get the trolling to be obtuse, but this is frankly ridiculous." not even going to address this overly emotional rant as it's completely irrelevant and explained already yet another rant and attempt to denigrate I am trying to be as precise as possible while attempting to get people like you to see that you are completely ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of entire facets of the situation. Again, just because you believe it to be true, and you can find evidence to support your belief on the internet, doesn't mean it's true you are the one ignoring the core problem to focus on a tool you fear (and possibly hate) yes, I can and my grandchildren can also say the same thing now to address this: the fear and bias that allows you to selectively choose opinion from articles that support your beliefs also, the fear and bias that allows you to ignore the overall facts and statistics to focus on the shootings alone and make claims like "There have been more shootings in the US then there have been mass killings by hammering, fists, clubs, (*sighing at the stupidity*) cars or poison" intentionally misrepresenting the situation with your appeal to an emotional label. Overall, in violence and killing, regardless of the "mass" qualifier you choose to focus on, the published data demonstrate that more deaths and violence happen due to the aforementioned tools/weapons, as originally stated. You are choosing to ignore published data to focus your argument on the qualifier "Mass" because it's an emotional appeal and anyone who disagrees can then be labelled. "mass" shootings are rare, regardless of the recent increase promoted by the media what is the statistical probability of a school shooting happening? It's not like you can't drag up those statistics and read them I would also say that you are "complicating it to ridiculous proportions" trying to focus on a rare event while seemingly ignoring the overall violence also note: in my area, we have actually taken steps (and continue to take steps) to secure the school and make it safe because of people like me with a vested interest in protecting the children working with local, state and federal LEO's and organizations. We have done this since Columbine. Our school is nationally ranked and it is also rural and, quite literally, surrounded by a sh*tload of gun owners, none of whom have taken steps to wipe out the children or provide weapons to their kids to enact said spree. to be continued
