(12-20-2014, 08:59 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014, 03:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]do you believe that adults should be responsible and required to safely store their guns and/or be prosecuted for negligence when small children are afforded access to firearms, Cutz?
Yes.
Me too; I think those additional gun control measures should be made mandatory nationwide.
How about my other question to you -- what's your opinion (if you don't mind sharing it)?
Since you're comparing vehicles to firearms, would you then agree that a gun qualifications license (and possibly insurance) -- quickly and easily verified in a database by any law enforcement officer -- should also be required for all firearms owners across the country, Cutz?
(12-20-2014, 10:29 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Jesus, F.U.
The discussion was right above my comment in response to it.
Let me save you some time. Here ya go:
(12-19-2014, 07:43 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cop who killed the 12 year old should be charged. The reasons have already been discussed ad nauseam. However, I think most LE are doing their best to keep us safe. Yes, i know, he shouldn't have been playing with a real looking gun, etc...he should still be alive to learn from his mistake....didn't deserve to die.
(12-20-2014, 09:05 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... people that ride motorcycles without a helmet should be alive to learn from their mistakes, kids that play on train tracks should be alive to learn from their mistakes, and kids that OD on drugs should be alive to learn from their mistakes. That doesn't mean I blame motorcycles, trains, or drugs for their death.
You pull that one short part of BBH's post out and expect me to think it was a discussion about cops killing people? I see that post as more of a we need more gun laws post.
(12-20-2014, 10:22 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014, 10:00 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]What about a abortion? That is a straight up case of murder, but no one seams to care about that. No or very little restrictions there. I guess we get to pick and choose when we worry about a life.
Ineffective deflection and unoriginal, inapplicable, rhetoric which is not even worthy of serious comment by critical thinkers IMO, F.U.
Asked and answered many times before.
Maybe someone else will play.
Call it what you want but it is still a valid question. When and how is it acceptable to kill a child ?
Now, I just got home from the bar and the girls want my attention. Have a great night all , I will be back tomorrow night when I am sober enough to read and type . LOL
(12-21-2014, 02:06 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014, 10:22 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014, 10:00 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]What about a abortion? That is a straight up case of murder, but no one seams to care about that. No or very little restrictions there. I guess we get to pick and choose when we worry about a life.
Ineffective deflection and unoriginal, inapplicable, rhetoric which is not even worthy of serious comment by critical thinkers IMO, F.U.
Asked and answered many times before.
Maybe someone else will play.
Call it what you want but it is still a valid question. When and how is it acceptable to kill a child ?
I'll bite for a second but there's already an abortion post around here somewhere.
I guess it depends on when you think a bunch of cells or a fetus becomes a child. IMO, it definitely occurs when the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb. I don't agree with abortions mid to late term although if a child might be born with horrible defects and suffer or die soon after birth because of them, I think that's a decision for their parents, with input from the doctors and a lot of prayer if they have spiritual beliefs.
Just like gun control, I wouldn't abolish all abortions but I wouldn't oppose restrictions that prohibit an abortion after a certain time period has passed. Except like I stated above.
I don't think it's logical to compare guns to abortions yet it's the same moldy argument that always gets pulled out. Abortions, cars, kitchen utensils, etc. C'mon!
(12-20-2014, 10:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]How about my other question to you -- what's your opinion (if you don't mind sharing it)?
Since you're comparing vehicles to firearms, would you then agree that a gun qualifications license (and possibly insurance) -- quickly and easily verified in a database by any law enforcement officer -- should also be required for all firearms owners across the country, Cutz?
You can own a car without a license or insurance. You're just not allowed to take it out in public. Similar to how you need a license to carry to take a gun out in public.
But personally I think car insurance is a complete racket.
That's some blatant deflection you've got going on there, Cutz.
I take it you don't wanna just answer the question because you don't know enough about the subject matter to have an opinion -- which is fine. Or, possibly you've reconsidered the validity of comparing vehicles to firearms? That comparison fails unless you're willing/able to discuss comparable control measures for what you contend are the two comparable "tools".
Anyway, FYI only:
-You don't need a license to take a gun outside in most states, let alone nationwide.
-You do need a license to drive a vehicle on your own property in the US.
P.s. "Firing a gun" and "driving a vehicle" is the only comparison of any remote relevance. When you deflect with answers about "owning" the tools instead of "using" the tools, you might as well pull out that toaster you mentioned to MS upthread.
GOOOOOOOOOOD MORNING MOCK. I hope everyone is feeling as chipper as I am this morning !
I think I am seeing part of the issue here. The pro gun side asks what the anti side calls, the same old moldy questions because we keep getting the same old hum drum answers. I feel this is a question about deaths and when it is OK to cause one.
No a auto is not intended as a killing tool and no the rules are not the same for them as they are for firearms, but the fact still remains that they cause more deaths every year than a firearm ever thought of. So why are we not looking harder at auto safety than we are firearm safety?
I guess where the big difference between the sides is that the pro gun side is looking at the number of deaths every year caused by any given object and the anti side is looking at the cause of death and overlooking the number.
I hope I am not being sleep deprived here and that makes sense.
(12-21-2014, 03:35 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 02:06 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014, 10:22 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2014, 10:00 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]What about a abortion? That is a straight up case of murder, but no one seams to care about that. No or very little restrictions there. I guess we get to pick and choose when we worry about a life.
Ineffective deflection and unoriginal, inapplicable, rhetoric which is not even worthy of serious comment by critical thinkers IMO, F.U.
Asked and answered many times before.
Maybe someone else will play.
Call it what you want but it is still a valid question. When and how is it acceptable to kill a child ?
I'll bite for a second but there's already an abortion post around here somewhere.
I guess it depends on when you think a bunch of cells or a fetus becomes a child. IMO, it definitely occurs when the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb. I don't agree with abortions mid to late term although if a child might be born with horrible defects and suffer or die soon after birth because of them, I think that's a decision for their parents, with input from the doctors and a lot of prayer if they have spiritual beliefs.
Just like gun control, I wouldn't abolish all abortions but I wouldn't oppose restrictions that prohibit an abortion after a certain time period has passed. Except like I stated above.
Thanks for biting user. That is one of the better answers that I have ben given to the question. However that raises another question, Who decides the cut off point and when is that cut off point? Some say life begins at conception. Others say it is when the cells become self sufficient. Other say it is at the time of birth. I guess that is a subject for another thread though.
(12-21-2014, 02:06 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Call it what you want but it is still a valid question. When and how is it acceptable to kill a child ?
It's an irrelevant deflecting question in the context of a gun control discussion, no matter which side of the fence you're sitting on or if you're straddling the fence.
This was the question that prompted you to reply with the brilliant highly-original "what about abortion?" deflection, along with the context (in case you forgot or couldn't find it).
F.U.:
People have to use better judgment when dealing with mechanical objects. We cant blame the object, just the person and their stupidity is to blame.
As a child you were told, Don't run with scissors. But if you did and got hurt with them it was your stupidity, not the floor or the scissors fault.
HOTD response:
Are you comparing a child's judgment and decision-making skills to a trained police officer's, F.U.? That's what we were talking about.
If you've veered from the police-officer analogy and on to the general public: Are you really so programmed as to continue to suggest that a 4-year-old is responsible for a fatality caused when he/she gets a hold of a loaded firearm; that the death is a result of the child's stupidity, rather than the adult gun-owner's negligence?
Is there some reason you wanna change topics to abortion rather than answer the very direct and relevant question (highlighted in red, for your convenience) that I asked you during our gun control exchange, F.U.?
P.s. If you'd like to resurrect one of the birth control or abortion threads, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about the opinions I've posted on those topics.
Actually there was no question that made me ask that but, I now see you ask, Are you really so programmed as to continue to suggest that a 4-year-old is responsible for a fatality caused when he/she gets a hold of a loaded firearm; that the death is a result of the child's stupidity, rather than the adult gun-owner's negligence?
No I am not blaming the child of 4, the parent should have had better sense than leaving the firearm unattended.
Now, it may seam like I am pulling up old questions from old or different threads, but that is because I am not hear enough to see most of them. I only catch bits and pieces of some threads. If I ever tried to catch up on all the posts I miss it would take me weeks. hahaha. So forgive me if I ask what you feel are old deflection questions.
(12-21-2014, 10:03 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]GOOOOOOOOOOD MORNING MOCK. I hope everyone is feeling as chipper as I am this morning !
I think I am seeing part of the issue here. The pro gun side asks what the anti side calls, the same old moldy questions because we keep getting the same old hum drum answers. I feel this is a question about deaths and when it is OK to cause one.
No a auto is not intended as a killing tool and no the rules are not the same for them as they are for firearms, but the fact still remains that they cause more deaths every year than a firearm ever thought of. So why are we not looking harder at auto safety than we are firearm safety?
I guess where the big difference between the sides is that the pro gun side is looking at the number of deaths every year caused by any given object and the anti side is looking at the cause of death and overlooking the number.
I hope I am not being sleep deprived here and that makes sense.
No, I think the problem (your word, I don't really see a problem -- only a discussion/debate) is that you see this as "pro" gun vs. "anti" gun. That's what you posted above and it's clear in all of your posts on the subject.
I, on the other hand, am "pro" people. I want people to be able to do whatever the hell they want (with guns or anything else), so long as they are not harming or posing harm/death to other people.
So, I'm not "anti" or "pro" gun. I don't think you're able to process that reality as you always seem to take the "you're with me or against me!" stance if someone is open-minded on the subject of gun control and then try to tell them where they stand. You're wrong nearly every time you do that with me, F.U. But, you're certainly free to keep doing it and keep being wrong.
Your "pro" gun agenda and mentality, IMO, is what prompts you to respond to any original discussion with the same oft-repeated rhetoric and deflection.
But, you're a nice enough guy and friendly too. So, on with the show...
(12-21-2014, 10:17 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it may seam like I am pulling up old questions from old or different threads, but that is because I am not hear enough to see most of them. I only catch bits and pieces of some threads. If I ever tried to catch up on all the posts I miss it would take me weeks. hahaha. So forgive me if I ask what you feel are old deflection questions.
I was only referring to posts made by you here in the past.
I haven't discussed this with you before and am interested in your (personal) stance:
You've now confirmed your belief that the gun-owning parents are responsible for injury/death caused by the stupid disobedient toddlers who get a hold of their firearms.
So, are you in favor of secured firearms storage requirements for homes with children? Do you support charging adults with child endangerment or neglect in all in cases where a toddler gets a hold of a firearm and shoots himself or another?
You are correct on that part HotD. I do feel it is a case of you [ I am not talking about you personally] are either with me or against me on this subject. I understand the concern for human life [ even though it may not sound like it ] but I am not willing to instate additional regulations on firearms. Firearm owners already jump through enough hoops to own them.
I feel there should be more attention put towards the laws we already have on the books and not enforced.
(12-21-2014, 10:45 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 10:17 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it may seam like I am pulling up old questions from old or different threads, but that is because I am not hear enough to see most of them. I only catch bits and pieces of some threads. If I ever tried to catch up on all the posts I miss it would take me weeks. hahaha. So forgive me if I ask what you feel are old deflection questions.
I was only referring to posts made by you here in the past.
I haven't discussed this with you before and am interested in your (personal) stance:
You've now confirmed your belief that the gun-owning parents are responsible for injury/death caused by the stupid disobedient toddlers who get a hold of their firearms. So, are you in favor of secured firearms storage requirements for homes with children? Do you support charging adults with child endangerment or neglect in all in cases where a toddler gets a hold of a firearm and shoots himself or another?
No I am not in favor of making laws/rules forcing people to secure their firearms.
Yes I do feel the parent/guardian should get charged if the child gets ahold of their firearm due to their neglect and causes a death .
Edited to add . . . I would have answered this question first had I seen it. However I did not see your edited post until after I made the above post.
(12-21-2014, 09:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]That's some blatant deflection you've got going on there, Cutz.
Ok. I'll spell it out for you. Sure, people that want to carry and operate guns could go through a licensing procedure. I have no problem with that. Gun ownership, however, should not require said measures. To keep a gun at your house should not be controlled by the government of the U.S. in any way. If an unlicensed person shoots someone entering their home, cool, they can get the same "operating a vehicle without a license" punishment as a car.
But if the populace needs to revolt... they won't care about the licensing laws of an oppressive government. I don't even own a gun personally. I've fired them, but I don't feel the need to have one. I do believe in the principle for the right to bear arms.
(12-21-2014, 11:03 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I feel there should be more attention put towards the laws we already have on the books and not enforced.
Join the club.
That doesn't mean that the existing laws/regulations are comprehensive enough and new laws/regulations aren't worthy of consideration. Also, it's worth considering whether some of the loose existing laws/regulations should be scrapped and replaced with tighter, more enforceable ones, IMO.
Backing up to your post upthread in regards to why more effort isn't being put into vehicle safety/laws -- I don't understand where you're coming from with that statement. There is a lot of ongoing focus on driving safety associated with BALs, speed limits, car design, et... Breathalizers are now a requirement in some areas for DUI offenders (and MADD is pushing to get them in all vehicles with a zero BAL tolerance as their long term goal), etc...
Anyway, if you truly feel there isn't enough ongoing focus and change in regards to driver/vehicle safety somehow, I would be open to considering ideas for new control measures on that front.
There's no reason that I or anyone else has to choose between vehicle safety/control and gun safety/control.
(12-21-2014, 11:14 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 09:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]That's some blatant deflection you've got going on there, Cutz.
Ok. I'll spell it out for you. Sure, people that want to carry and operate guns could go through a licensing procedure. I have no problem with that. Gun ownership, however, should not require said measures. To keep a gun at your house should not be controlled by the government of the U.S. in any way. If an unlicensed person shoots someone entering their home, cool, they can get the same "operating a vehicle without a license" punishment as a car.
But if the populace needs to revolt... they won't care about the licensing laws of an oppressive government. I don't even own a gun personally. I've fired them, but I don't feel the need to have one. I do believe in the principle for the right to bear arms.
Thank you for answering the question.
I happen to share the same opinion on all counts, FWIW.
(12-21-2014, 11:14 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:03 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I feel there should be more attention put towards the laws we already have on the books and not enforced.
Join the club.
That doesn't mean that the existing laws/regulations are comprehensive enough and new regulations or laws aren't worthy of consideration. Also, it's worth considering whether some of the loose existing laws/regulations should be scrapped and replaced with tighter, more enforceable ones, IMO.
Backing up to your post upthread in regards to why more effort isn't being put into vehicle safety/laws -- I don't understand where you're coming from with that statement. There is a lot of ongoing focus on driving safety associated with BALs, speed limits, car design, et... Breathalizers are now a requirement in some areas for DUI offenders (and MADD is pushing to get them in all vehicles with a zero BAL tolerance as their long term goal).
Anyway, if you truly feel there isn't enough ongoing focus and change in regards to driver/vehicle safety somehow, I would be open to considering ideas for new control measures.
There's no reason that I or anyone else has to choose between vehicle safety/control and gun safety/control.
Actually that post was more of a sarcastic post, pointing out how everyone seams to point the finger at firearms and over look other items such as auto deaths.
Now as a side note, since you brought up a breathalyzer in a motor vehicle. Iowa has done this for years. You get a D.U.I. you have to have one installed in what ever you drive. You drive a pickup, it goes in that, drive a car it goes in that, a Motorcycle, it goes on that. Do you see a problem with that? I see a few.
One is the fact that they will put a PBT on a bike. How dangerous is that [especially when you hear how, when and where they work]?
Second is it goes into one vehicle and while you are told you can only drive that one vehicle no one follows that rule. They simply park it and drive something else until their time is up.
Thirdly if you have ever seen one of those contraptions you would realize just how dangerous these are. They are a box about the size of two packs of cigarettes, that is attached to a hose. That contraption randomly tells you when you must blow into it, as you are going down the road. You must put this contraption in front of your face and blow for 3-5 seconds.
I feel in a attempt to make people safer they are actually making things worse. But , I guess that is subject matter for another thread.