Do you find it odd that you yourself have pointed out that successful revolutions used guns? Or are you really suggesting throughout history there has never been an uprising that was crushed that may have not been had the people had guns?
Show an example then.
I don't know why you don't understand the difference between guns and fertilizer.After the WTC bombing we chose to allow fertilizer to continue to be on the shelf too.
Do you find it odd that you yourself have pointed out that successful revolutions used guns? Or are you really suggesting throughout history there has never been an uprising that was crushed that may have not been had the people had guns?
Amazing how difficult it is to get the gun worshippers to agree on such a simple point, no?and we're willing to sacrifice those 112 people's 'right' to other's 'freedoms' that aren't even 'rights'. Just another example of some people's rights (or even freedoms in this case) are more important than other people's 'right'...so be it.
I don't know why you don't understand the difference between guns and fertilizer.
Also, you happen to read those 450 odd pages in the SGs report about efforts to curb tobacco use? Since you continue to claim no one cares about smoking, just thought you might reconsider faced with evidence that there has been a significant fight and many victories in that realm.
Amazing how difficult it is to get the gun worshippers to agree on such a simple point, no?
It isn't a binary situation.
The difference is meaningless in a terrorist attack. They're both conduits to an evil end.
No, I haven't read it and don't need to. No politician is hammering tobacco, but there are plenty that would love to see the 2A reduced or gone. No voters take that into serious consideration. Tobacco kills more, but anti-gunners care significantly less about it than they do guns while claiming to be about saving lives. They're all emotion and no substance.
Then 99.99999%+ of gun owners will have gone to bed tonight using their gun wrong by your standards...
I get what you're saying, but tell the family burying their child from that act, a drunk driver, whatever, tell them how intent makes a huge difference. I'm not saying its meaningless, but at the end of the day both can make someone just as dead if the intent behind its use is evil.
Oh, more wilful ignorance. So your definition of "anti tobacco" is only fulfilled by a politician's stump speech? Odd. Especially when there is a 450 page document endorsed by the government detailing how we have systemically gone anti tobacco over the last 80 years. Do you have any factual data for anti gunners care significantly less about tobacco? Or just more of the "I don't see rallies" shtick?It isn't a binary situation.
The difference is meaningless in a terrorist attack. They're both conduits to an evil end.
No, I haven't read it and don't need to. No politician is hammering tobacco, but there are plenty that would love to see the 2A reduced or gone. No voters take that into serious consideration. Tobacco kills more, but anti-gunners care significantly less about it than they do guns while claiming to be about saving lives. They're all emotion and no substance.
Tobacco has been hammered for decades and use and deaths have declined significantly.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm
And yet every year, we have more shootings from police officers on unarmed citizens. Police forces don't need armored troop carriers, *period*. There's never been an instance in US history where an event handled by local police forces necessitated an armored vehicle.
Make the person who sells the gun criminally responsible for the actions of the shooter. Make the manufacturer of the gun criminally responsible as well. This would of course involve jail time, fines simply will not do.
Of guns? Only in the places where it seems to be working pretty well.
But hey, that Status Quo needs its full-throated defenders, too. Carry on.
Very sad event indeed. All those families would have had their regular day today if there were some sensible gun control.
There is no reason for people to own/have automatic weapons except military.
I'd say that's that much more of an argument about how safe guns are. There are 35 million smokers, responsible for some 500,000 deaths a year. There are 100,000,000 gun owners, 15 million concealed carry license holders (many more that require no license that can't really be tracked), and guns kill CONSIDERABLY less than smokers. Is your argument that there hasn't been gun / 2A restriction (right or wrong) like there have been smoking restrictions? That's laughable. Tell me, again, what politician ran on an anti-smoking platform? How many discussed guns however? No one cares about smoking, it isn't a hot button political issue, yet, no matter how it is spun on this board, smoking causes considerable more death. And no one is talking about ti on the level they discuss guns. You guys need to put things into perspective.
When did you do that? I asked that you do that in the other thread and you still have done nothing to discuss the societal benefit aside from some sort of fantasy about "when the government comes for us!" Fairly weak argument, unless you have anything to support this being anything other than a beyond remote possibility? Which do you think is more likely, government takeover, or 500 more mass shootings? By what degree?Do you consider me a gun worshiper? Because if so I pointed out that rights are a balance between safty to society and freedom to the individual. Whether it be free speech, freedom to own a dog, knives, guns, or something like not being able to own an atomic bomb as we deem the risk to society as far too great to allow for that individual freedom. And as long as guns are killing us significantly less than other things you and your type aren't on near of a religious crusade against, I'll continue to see your stance as weak and lacking in logic.
That's a silly argument. Smokers choose to harm themselves, shooters choose to harm others.
Ok, again, which politician is running on an anti-tobacco platform? Which ones are arguing about it in the debates? Which voters are taking that into consideration? Tobacco kills much more, but I just don't see near the hubbub about it. Yea, there have been restrictions and huge steps forward in education. But at the end of the day, it still is a far bigger killer and gets next to no attention today in comparison to guns. That is very surprising if the goal is really to save lives and not just a partisan anti-2A movement.
For what it's worth, IMO that was a national guard (or US Military) responsibility, not a cop one. Local PD never should have been involved in that event as they were woefully ill equipped for it.Perhaps not, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(San_Diego_Tank_Rampage)
When did you do that? I asked that you do that in the other thread and you still have done nothing to discuss the societal benefit aside from some sort of fantasy about "when the government comes for us!" Fairly weak argument, unless you have anything to support this being anything other than a beyond remote possibility? Which do you think is more likely, government takeover, or 500 more mass shootings? By what degree?
Again, as Engineer has said in addition, this is the tithe you're more than willing to pay. Just say it.
After the WTC bombing we chose to allow fertilizer to continue to be on the shelf too.
More details coming out. Fully automatics confirmed, bomb ingredients in the car
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21843/vegas-shooter-passed-all-federal-background-checks-ben-shapiro
As incomprehensible as this is, it's horrifying how much worse this could have been
I think this is somewhat debateable. There are very few philosophers I can think of who write extensively about the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense involves all sort of other rights (particularly ownership rights to space, property, person and body) which in and of themselves are pretty tough to establish as being intrinsic human rights. I'm not saying I'm against self-defense, but rather that the argument it's somehow an intrinsic portion of being a human being is something I think is unfounded other than being in our constitution. There are other freer and more ethically just societies that don't really think that specific right is a big issue. In example, the point of a government is to establish and define who has a monopoly on socially justified force. People don't have a right of self-defense against say the police if the police are justified in being in a certain place and doing a certain job. Nor does a prisoner have the right to final self-defense as he is being executed despite this being some sort of intrinsic dignified human right.
Actually, he is not far off. Unalienable rights were mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers were well read in John Locke, Francis Hutchinson, Hegel and even Martin Luther. These unalienable rights are inherent in our Constitution and the principles behind it. That is, we, the people gain our rights not by Government bestowing them upon us but rather they are inherent - natural - to us. The Bill of Rights are mentioned in several court cases and referred to as unalienable rights.Dude. You're way past the koolaid. You can't even debate that because it's beyond absurd. Are you currently doing acid? That's it isn't it? Because you man you are way out there.
Not sure how those rights are not given to you by the government. You have them because they are in the Constitution. The constitution was written by, and is protected by your countries political machinery.Actually, he is not far off. Unalienable rights were mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers were well read in John Locke, Francis Hutchinson, Hegel and even Martin Luther. These unalienable rights are inherent in our Constitution and the principles behind it. That is, we, the people gain our rights not by Government bestowing them upon us but rather they are inherent - natural - to us. The Bill of Rights are mentioned in several court cases and referred to as unalienable rights.
So before you go off the deep end again, perhaps a bit of fundamental College 101 American History would be good for you. And Natural Philosophy too.
Absolutely not. You and people like you are exactly why today's NRA is the way the it is. Take a bow.