Subject:
|
Re: We'll just wave...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:48:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6789 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
<snippage>
| |
There are lines that can be drawn--the ones in their own little camps that
have the automatic attached to the roll bar in the jeep think there should
be no line on the firepower they can own...
|
I don’t think that the issue is automatic vs semi-auto. All of these mass
killings would be tragic whether 10 were killed or 28 were killed.
| |
(right now I’m having vague recollections of previous o-t.d)
|
Lay off the LSD, Dave!
| |
Should this kid have had legal access to the semi-auto .223 he actually had
legal access to?
I don’t think so.
Therein lies the discussion.
|
The guns belonged to his mother. He killed her to get access to them. He had
been denied ownership in the past, so, theoretically, the system worked.
|
Really?? The system worked???
I know 26 families that would beg to differ
| |
| |
Where do you draw that line?
And I really believe it’s disingenuous at this to state that ‘making guns
illegal will make only illegals have guns’
It’s a logical fallacy. The proof is that countries that have very
restrictive access to guns makes it very hard for ‘bad scary people’ to have
access to guns.
|
We are a BIG country, so the analogy breaks down, IMO. Further, there are
already a brazillion guns in this country already-- eliminating then would be
next to impossible. It would be Deja Prohibition all over again.
|
So because the cause, even though it’s just and best for your society, isn’t
worth the undertaking because it’s too difficult? Wow, you Yanks have come
along way (backwards) since the ‘60’s.
| |
| |
We can’t eliminate the issue of someone killing someone else--that’ll never
happen. However, as your president stated, knowing this, we can’t just say,
‘oh well, since we can’t eliminate it, let’s do nothing...’
|
The problem is that, just doing something can and usually is worse than
doing nothing.
|
Really? Trying to limit the carnage and death of your fellow citizens is worse
than doing nothing?
you’re beter than that.
| |
| |
That is not an option anymore.
|
Therein lies the rub: what to do.
JOHN
|
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: We'll just wave...
|
| (...) Dave: thousands of people die each year in auto accidents. We have traffic laws, but sometimes they don't work. Often, in fact. Is the solution to ban the automobile? The sad fact is that shit happens. (...) It's more of a pragmatic issue. (...) (12 years ago, 18-Dec-12, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: We'll just wave...
|
| (...) Logical fallacy alert... "We must do SOMETHING!!!!" "THIS is 'something'" ... "therefore we must do THIS" Often, the right thing to do is, "nothing", that is, don't change the system as a whole in response to a minor upset. Also, I am reminded (...) (12 years ago, 20-Dec-12, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: We'll just wave...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snippage> (...) I don't think that the issue is automatic vs semi-auto. All of these mass killings would be tragic whether 10 were killed or 28 were killed. (...) Lay off the LSD, Dave! (URL) (...) (...) (12 years ago, 18-Dec-12, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
