Another week, another school shooting

[mrsleeve]

^

Oh come now, that is what that chart attempts to implicate though is it not????

You have not walked where I live, and I have walked from the Hotel to the office in your town a couple of times. I will take my chances driving and leaving my firearm on the night stand, I think my chances are better....

[z31maniac]

I did that and got the mother jones chart about how guns in your house kill you.....

Oh come on.

The chart was saying gun owners are more likely to be involved in a gun-related incident.

Much like if you drive a car (instead of say walking to work) you are more likely to be in an accident involving a car.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I, nor anyone in my family have ever been killed by a gun in our home. Just sayin', ya know, for science.

[mrsleeve]

ask him to justify Chicago...

I did that and got the mother jones chart about how guns in your house kill you.....

[marshallnoise]

I am seriously beginning to believe that you don't comprehend any of this.

In animate objects are the easy target here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

If you want to focus on guns as being the only problem here and not wanting to look at the bigger picture of violence and what causes people to carry out these acts...

The epidemic of gun violence in this country is not limited to just one cause. It has both a human and a machine aspect; it is about both mental health and about firearms. Just as a gun cannot go on a shooting spree without a person, a person cannot go on a shooting spree without a gun.

If you ignore half of the equation, you are guaranteed to arrive at the wrong answer.

I am seriously beginning to believe that you don't comprehend any of this.

[marshallnoise]

ask him to justify Chicago...

His excuse for Chicago is that you can still go into the burbs and get guns and their suburban freedom is undermining the liberal utopia of a gunless society.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Vedubin01]

ask him to justify Chicago...

[ParsedOut]

I'm finding your posts increasingly difficult to follow.

I can't help your lack of reading comprehension. If you want to focus on guns as being the only problem here and not wanting to look at the bigger picture of violence and what causes people to carry out these acts, then I have no further interest in participating.

[CorvallisBMW]

Why are you talking about gun homicides but ignoring the rest? Seems myopic and with agenda if you ask me.

Because that's what this thread was started for: school shootings. I'm not talking about muggings, home robberies, rape or anything else. This whole thread has been devoted to gun crime and gun homicides. Please stop trying to take it off-topic.

1) I don't keep track of all the flawed articles you like to reference nor do I have time to go back and look through your posts. It would cause my brain to explode.

OK, I'll do it for you. Here's what I said:

Really? Because we've been registering automobiles for many, many decades now. And *yep*, I just checked, mine is still parked outside and has not in fact been confiscated. Fully automatic weapons and explosives are among the most heavily regulated and registered "tools" in the country, yet there have been no such confiscation efforts on those either. Given that the 2nd amendment clearly forbids it, in what possible scenario could you envision confiscation of all privately-held firearms??

Please note that I didn't link any articles, and nothing in that paragraph is in any way inaccurate. So I'm very confused by your post.

2) They're already doing on the state level, see NJ. Total confiscation is the goal, but it won't happen in one shot, it'll be chipped away at "seems reasonable" chunks.

Really? NJ banned all guns? That's news to me. For whom is total confiscation the goal? Where did you hear that? Can you show me any evidence that this secret, back-room unconstitutional conspiracy exists? And if it does, how do you propose that they will be able to pass and enforce laws that clearly violate the constitution?

3) Because you can only enforce behaviors. You can ban the use of an inanimate object in a behavior but banning a tool in itself is foolish and I can't believe I'm even having to type this out for you. What behavior that involves the tool of a gun should be banned that aren't already illegal?

Ummm... what?

First you say "Because you can only enforce behavior" but then you point out that those behaviors are already banned, implying the laws are ineffective. So which is it? Is it effective or ineffective?

You then say, "you can ban the use of an an inanimate object" but that "banning a tool is foolish". A tool is an inanimate object, so these statement again seem contradictory.

You also say that you support universal background checks, but then say that doing so would require a national registry, which you're opposed to. So again, we're left with contradictory statements.

I'm finding your posts increasingly difficult to follow.

[anabolice30]

We should just ban school shootings. Because it is impossible to obtain contraband or break any laws.

[ParsedOut]

But we're not talking about total violent crime, we're talking about gun homicides. That was the original topic of this thread and it remains so. So please don't try to detour it.

I'm asking your personal opinion and the reasoning behind it, not to be spoon fed. You seem totally hell-bent on your opinions but can't answer even basic questions. Why? You claim to have studied these subjects at length, you should already know the answers.

1) What "debunked and false facts" did I mention in that post?
2) Given the 2nd amendment, in what possible scenario could you see the confiscation of all privately-held firearms?
2) Please explain how the laws regarding behavior are fundamentally more enforceable than those involving tools

Why are you talking about gun homicides but ignoring the rest? Seems myopic and with agenda if you ask me.

1) I don't keep track of all the flawed articles you like to reference nor do I have time to go back and look through your posts. It would cause my brain to explode.
2) They're already doing on the state level, see NJ. Total confiscation is the goal, but it won't happen in one shot, it'll be chipped away at "seems reasonable" chunks.
2) Because you can only enforce behaviors. You can ban the use of an inanimate object in a behavior but banning a tool in itself is foolish and I can't believe I'm even having to type this out for you. What behavior that involves the tool of a gun should be banned that aren't already illegal?

[CorvallisBMW]

Of course the rate of gun homicide is higher since we have more guns. It's like saying there are more cow related accidents in states with higher cow populations, it doesn't mean anything. The statistics have been posted ad nauseum in these threads, our TOTAL violent crime rate per capita is much lower than you seem to acknowledge.

But we're not talking about total violent crime, we're talking about gun homicides. That was the original topic of this thread and it remains so. So please don't try to detour it.

As for your other questions, I don't have time to spoon feed you information you'll ignore.

I'm asking your personal opinion and the reasoning behind it, not to be spoon fed. You seem totally hell-bent on your opinions but can't answer even basic questions. Why? You claim to have studied these subjects at length, you should already know the answers.

I've noticed you're very good at ignoring questions that you don't have an answer for. So please, tell me:

1) What "debunked and false facts" did I mention in that post?
2) Given the 2nd amendment, in what possible scenario could you see the confiscation of all privately-held firearms?
2) Please explain how the laws regarding behavior are fundamentally more enforceable than those involving tools

The US does not hold a monopoly on violence. We don't hold a monopoly on bad parenting. Or gangs. Or disenfranchised youth, or poverty, or mental health issues, or the mentally ill, or, or, or... What we do hold a monopoly on is guns....if guns aren't driving the gun homicide rate, what is?

[smooth]

Hey smooth, I've been wanting to ask, what are the two triangular gray ! images supposed to mean?

They used to be my sedan and cabrio but I deleted that google+ profile they were located within

[ParsedOut]

questioning someone is one thing, insulting is another.

in any case, I'm done interacting with you. Ignore and report and hopefully the mods will clean what appears to have become a cesspool.

I'm sorry that you mistook my comment as an insult, I was simply stating a fact that you were ignorant to the details of what you were trying to argue. Now if I called you an ignorant person, that's different. Just making a point here, no offense was intended and if you took it as such well then...you can grace the other members of this forum with your vast intelligence and superiority complex.