Bitsy Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 This is patently false and obviously untrue given the history of world-wide "mass shootings" going back to 1962. It's not even close to being true. This article say it is true.. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 This article say it is true.. http://newsfeed.time...-past-50-years/ It's not true because the term "mass shootings" has been selectively applied, excluding many other mass killing events involving firearms from civil unrest, para-military actions, so called ethnic cleansing, and drug wars around the world. It is ludicrous to even compare domestic U.S. shootings to such horrific events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Hard to say, the majority of UK police don't carry them. In reality, there are so many guns loose in the US that the answer would be no. I guess this all goes back to the culture within the USA regarding guns. But banning all the guns don't eliminate the violence tendencies within some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 It's not true because the term "mass shootings" has been selectively applied, excluding many other mass killing events involving firearms from civil unrest, para-military actions, so called ethnic cleansing, and drug wars around the world. It is ludicrous to even compare domestic U.S. shootings to such horrific events. No, what is ludicrous is your comparison of deaths related to government uprisings or drug wars to the deaths contributed to individual killers. You seem to see these killings as the price we must pay for the freedoms given us by our constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 No, what is ludicrous is your comparison of deaths related to government uprisings or drug wars to the deaths contributed to individual killers. You seem to see these killings as the price we must pay for the freedoms given us by our constitution. No, that's just your emotional kneejerk reaction that is typical of such events. In Chicago, hundreds of children have been shot to death each year but not a peep out of you. Thousands of Mexicans have been killed in "mass shootings" but they don't count either. The US Constitution did not kill those victims. A mentally ill person did, but not a word out of you for improved mental health care or institutionalization. Typical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 In Chicago, hundreds of children have been shot to death each year This doesn't help your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 This doesn't help your case. It's not my case....and it certainly isn't yours. Take it up with George Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 No, what is ludicrous is your comparison of deaths related to government uprisings or drug wars to the deaths contributed to individual killers. You seem to see these killings as the price we must pay for the freedoms given us by our constitution. What about all the kids killed by drunk drivers? Are their lost lives "the price we must pay" for the freedom to drink? - or are you in favor of prohibition? After all, people certainly don't need to drink more than they need to own guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 What about all the kids killed by drunk drivers? Are their lost lives "the price we must pay" for the freedom to drink? - or are you in favor of prohibition? After all, people certainly don't need to drink more than they need to own guns. No one ever argues that they have the right to get hammered and drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 No one ever argues that they have the right to get hammered and drive. No one ever argues that someone has the right to go on a shooting spree, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 No one ever argues that someone has the right to go on a shooting spree, either. Only that they be allowed to continue to possess the means to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Only that they be allowed to continue to possess the means to do so. As they are allowed the means to drink, and then drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 As they are allowed the means to drink, and then drive. Indeed. And when drinking and driving became a recognized social ill, government's took steps to address the problem. Since the NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52%. But when it comes to guns, people like you won't even acknowledge there is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Indeed. And when drinking and driving became a recognized social ill, government's took steps to address the problem. Since the NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52%. You think gun laws haven't changed over the course of the years? 1927 — Congress passed the Mailing of Firearms Act, also known as the Miller Act, which banned mailing concealable firearms. 1938 — The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 regulated interstate commerce in firearms and banned criminals from receiving or sending firearms in interstate or foreign commerce. 1968 — The Gun Control Act of 1968, passed after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, regulated gun ownership, defined who wasn't allowed to own gun (including felons), and barred anyone under 21 years old from buying a handgun. 1986 — The Armed Career Criminal Act increased penalties for felons in possession of firearms. 1993 — The Brady Act imposed a waiting period of up to five days when buying a handgun and forced purchasers to undergo a background check. But when it comes to guns, people like you won't even acknowledge there is a problem. Of course there's a problem - just as there's a problem with alcohol. Edited December 18, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 ...Of course there's a problem - just as there's a problem with alcohol. I like your drunk driving analogy here, and the death count is much higher. How do we balance the rights of adults to consume a legal product and yet limit their ability to drive a two tonne motor vehicle on public streets ? Only recently has social stigma and stepped up law enforcement made a dent in such behaviour. However, it is not "banned". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 You think gun laws haven't changed over the course of the years? No. Of course there's a problem - just as there's a problem with alcohol. Well it only took two threads about 60 pages, but you got there eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 No. Well it only took two threads about 60 pages, but you got there eventually. I've always "been there." Good Lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I like your drunk driving analogy here, and the death count is much higher. Not true. About three times as many people die by gun than drunk driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I like your drunk driving analogy here, and the death count is much higher. How do we balance the rights of adults to consume a legal product and yet limit their ability to drive a two tonne motor vehicle on public streets ? Only recently has social stigma and stepped up law enforcement made a dent in such behaviour. However, it is not "banned". And nobody is proposing banning guns, neither in your country or mine. Restricting them, just as restricting what you can do with your automobile, is not banning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I've always "been there." Good Lord. Sure. Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 And nobody is proposing banning guns, neither in your country or mine. Restricting them, just as restricting what you can do with your automobile, is not banning. There are many existing "restrictions" on gun ownership in the United States. I don't care what you do in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I like your drunk driving analogy here, and the death count is much higher. How do we balance the rights of adults to consume a legal product and yet limit their ability to drive a two tonne motor vehicle on public streets ? Only recently has social stigma and stepped up law enforcement made a dent in such behaviour. However, it is not "banned". No, it's not banned. It's quite legal to drink in spite of the problems it can create; and in Canada they can drink at a younger age than they can in the U.S. - even though studies show that lives are saved by raising the drinking age to 21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Not true. About three times as many people die by gun than drunk driver. Ummm. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Ummm. No. Ummm. You're right. It's more like there are seven times as many gun deaths per day (over 200) compared to deaths as a result of drinking and driving (about 30). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Ummm. No. Ummm. Yes. 2010: 10,228 drunk driving deaths, 31,513 deaths from firearm. Source: CDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.