L.A. Airport Shooting

[Bondo]

Grift, once again you ignore my offered compromise, maybe you just can't find a reason for it to be bad and are shying away from looking silly .

Killing people is also a use of guns, not an abuse really.  Guns were invented to kill people, alcohol and drugs weren't (outside of cyanide and the like).

[Mr. Lothario]

? ? Guns were invented to kill people. That's true. The original purpose of guns was to kill people, and the main purpose is still to kill people, since militaries are the biggest "consumers" of guns. However, the mor?s of American society and most other societies say that it's a Bad Thing? to shoot someone else intentionally. That convention is fully understood by all people who are not insane. That means that using a gun to kill someone is indeed an abuse of that gun, and should be punished as such.

? ? The need to punish abusers of guns does not imply a need to punish users of guns. There is a direct analogy to alcohol. The vast majority of alcohol drinkers do so responsibly. The tiny minority who are not responsible, who end up injuring or killing other people by driving drunk or otherwise while under the influence of alcohol, those people are punished. The right to own alcohol is not taken away, nor even discussed with a straight face. Alcohol serves no useful purpose, not even as much as guns do. Thus, alcohol is wholly destructive. Nothing good comes from it, yet people are killed and injured every day as a direct result of alcohol. Despite the inherent danger and destructiveness of alcohol, any red-blooded American who's breathing and over 21 can purchase some Jack Daniels, by God! And without even a license or background check!

? ? Punish the minority who have shown that they need to be punished. Don't punish everyone because of that minority.

[Grifter]

Grift, once again you ignore my offered compromise, maybe you just can't find a reason for it to be bad and are shying away from looking silly

Or, you could just look at the post immediately before yours, and you'd see it.  Yes, I know that you were already making your post when I posted mine, I looked at the times.

Killing people is also a use of guns, not an abuse really. ?Guns were invented to kill people, alcohol and drugs weren't (outside of cyanide and the like).

Both have the same effect really.  BTW, Tobacco is a drug as well.

Like Lothario said... the use of alcohol and drugs is dangerous to the user and to others.  You aren't for protecting them.... ?  How come?  How can you be both for the liberty of people to chose their own paths (even when that leads to dangers to themselves and others) in the case of drugs and alcohol... and be against that liberty for gun owners??  

Be truely liberal... give peole LIBERTY!  Let them have the responsibility to take care of themselves.

Here's another one for those who think of themselves as liberal or conservative...

The typical liberal is against the death penalty, but pro abortion.

The typical conservative is against abortion, but pro death penalty.

My question is, how does that fucking work?  They both think it's ok to end a life, but it's a matter of WHEN.  I love idiots that actually try to justify some logic there.  People try to make things more complicated then they are... try not to just work back to the simple facts and truths.

The simple facts on gun control are:
1)people have been killing each other long before guns came around.
2)guns are the great equalizer... a big guy with a knife won't be raping and murdering the woman that has a glock in her handbag.  
3)even if illegal, the bad guys will still have guns.


Ok, I'll go back to basics.... what's the fucking problem that's trying to be solved??

If it's kids getting dad's gun and blowing sister's head off... well, there are lots of technologies out there to help that sort of thing from happening.  Ther are bracelets and watches that have to be worn for the gun to fire (those are real... 20/20 even did a special on them over a year ago).

If it's crooks using guns to rob, rape and murder people... enforce the laws that are there.... make the punishments tougher.  

If it's the guy that pulls out his gun and kills his wife in an argument.... put him in jail with the rest of the crooks.  If he was going to kill her, he would have done it with whatever tools were at hand (even his bear hands).

If it's the guy that blows his head off, why?  Liberals are for assisted suiside .  Seriously... if they are going to do it, they are going to do it.  With or without the gun.  It's just the tool.

Punish the guilty, protect the liberties of the innocent!

[Bondo]

Second, That's what they did in England.. now, two of my English friends come to America to hunt... because they can't even have the gun at the gun club anymore. ?It was tried there... and they went down that slippery slope... to the point where they lost their shotguns almost completely.

You use this argument as if it is a bad thing.  So they lost their shotguns almost completely...good.  Politically Europe is better than the US, so why doubt them on the issue of guns.  They have been outlawed or heavily restricted through much of Europe and it has been a positive thing overall.

[Grifter]

You use this argument as if it is a bad thing. ?So they lost their shotguns almost completely...good. ?Politically Europe is better than the US, so why doubt them on the issue of guns. ?They have been outlawed or heavily restricted through much of Europe and it has been a positive thing overall.

You say that like it's a fact and not just your opinion.  Spoken like someone that has never really been there.

Is there no crime in Europe anymore??  Did I miss that on the news right after the story about the armed robbery at Euro Disney??

And, sorry, but if Europe is so damned good... why did so many (and so many still), come to the USA to live and work??  

Seems to me that not everyone (many of them in Europe) happen to agree with you.

Also, I see that you are ignoring the points of Lothorio and myself in regards to why not just punish the guilty and leave the rest of us our liberty???

[Bondo]

Because the owning of guns is a stupid liberty to have.  I agree with the argument that on drug use, that any abusive use that endangers or ingures others should be punished severely, as I do with all other violations of others rights.  But I don't agree with either of you that guns are a liberty that should be had in the first place.

[Mr. Lothario]

    I'm not surprised that Europe's restrictions on guns turned out well. Despite that, there are many ways to deal with a problem this complex.

    I'm more or less ambivalent about gun ownership. Shooting appeals to me, and I will almost certainly take it up as a hobby one of these days, but honestly, if guns were banned in America, it really wouldn't have a huge effect on my life one way or the other.
    With that said, I'm against the banning of guns in America. Not because it's a "right," which is a word that is infused with far too much vitriol and burdened by far too many connotations to use safely or precisely in this context. Rather, I'm against the banning of guns because it is a freedom.
    Responsible adults should be free to do anything they damn well please, as long as it's not hurting someone else. As soon as they hurt someone else, then you can go ahead and saw out their liver using a spork from Taco Bell. But up to that point, they should be free from any and all government-created restrictions on their activities.

[Grifter]

Bondo,

drug, alcohol and tobacco use are stupid liberties as well.... but you argue for them... why do you want it both ways?  People that use drugs are stupid.  But that should be their right (or freedom, for Loth).  I don't have a problem with people being free to live their lives the way they want... don't infringe our freedoms... that includes guns.  

Once you start infringing... why do you get to say where it stops?  That's just as wrong as the laws now saying that weed, etc are out.  It's you forcing your morality on me.  What next... forcing your "faith" upon me??

And well said Loth, well said.

[Bondo]

Odd, I didn't realize the ownership of guns was a moral issue.  Honestly I'd be fine with them if they did the licensed storage places such as gun clubs and hunting areas, that keeps the guns where they should be.  And it doesn't limit the ability to use guns properly, only to limit their improper use.

[Grifter]

So you are still defining "proper" use of a gun...

Infringe upon our liberties some more.... infringe upon our use of alcohol or automobiles!!  Tell us that we can only drink alcohol in establishments where children can't get in.... and we can't get out until we've proven we are sober...

[Bondo]

Premise #1: America has a problem with Gun violence
Premise#2: Strong punishment has failed largely to deter said violence
Premise#3: If violence can't be prevented reactively, it must be prevented proactively.
Conclusion#1: America must act proactively to reduce Gun violence
Premise #4: The best way to proactively reduce gun violence is to restrict access to them.
Conclusion #2: America must reduce access to guns.

[Brain]

DAMN YOU GRIFTER, YOU SHEEP SHAGGING BASTARD
you locked my pledge thread, you bastard, you didnt even let me have the last word in my own thread!  could you be any more inconsiderate?

damn you gifter, danm you to hell, where there will be no sheep, only fugly snowcows!

[Bondo]

Brain, he couldn't risk it, it was two within tying Loud's thread for most posts.

[Brain]

i defer to my final argument in my thread

why shouldn it be alowed to surpass that thread?

if i was to go into baseball and get close to breaking the home run record my rookie year, should the bud selig say  that any home runs i hit after i get with in 2 homers, dont count towards the record, simply because i'm new or he doesnt like how i got to that point?

i think that the obvious answer in that situation is no. why should this situation be any different?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Sorry Bondo, that excuse is bs. I think everyone remembers the grand daddy of all threads on this forum: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=GR&action=display&num=1011011013&start=180

Has 193 posts in it.

[Bondo]

Bah (wishes he was moderator still and could do some trimming of the inferior Top players thread).  Fine then, Grifter has the honors, still no need to allow the pledge one (which had stopped being on any real topic towards the end) from passing the terrorism one.

[Grifter]

Ok, I'm going to take those one at a time Bondo...

Premise #1: America has a problem with Gun violence

Correction: America has a problem with VIOLENCE.  Violence is the action, guns are just a tool.

Premise#2: Strong punishment has failed largely to deter said violence

I disagree.  Our court systems haven't been punishing effectivly (plea bargins to save $$$).  Also, the laws about violent crimes, especially those comitted with weapons, need to REQUIRE much stronger punishments.  That would be the first logical step.  (when it's 5 years for robbery, 6 if you use a gun in Michigan... that isn't much of a threat).

Premise#3: If violence can't be prevented reactively, it must be prevented proactively.

First, that's a premise with a conclusion, not a premise.  Second, I disagree with it under principle.  You can not prevent ANYTHING reactively... you can only deter.  

Conclusion#1: America must act proactively to reduce Gun violence

Correction: America must act to reduce violence.

(on a side note, everywhere that has adopted a liberal CCW policy, violent crimes were reduced.. see previous post for one such study)

Premise #4: The best way to proactively reduce gun violence is to restrict access to them.

That's an opinion.  A different opinion has it that if guns are much more accessable, then violent crime is reduced.

Conclusion #2: America must reduce access to guns.

Sure, your conclusion fits the false premises.

OK, now that that is over, I see the basic flaw in your logic Bondo.  You want to reduce GUN VIOLENCE.... not VIOLENT CRIME.  You want to do this by making owning a gun a CRIME.  

I'm all for reducing VIOLENT CRIME...  but rape and murder will still happen, with or without guns... and some studies show that with more guns those crimes are reduced.

Here's another one for you....

Premise 1: Alcohol use impares judgement and coordination.
Premise 2: Automobiles accidents are the number one cause of unnatural death in America (2:1 over guns)
Premise 3: Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is responsible for as many deaths in America as guns. (roughly estimated everywhere I looked that half of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol or drugs... can't find hard numbers...)
Premise 4: We all want to reduce the number of unnatural deaths in America.
Conclusion 1: A complete ban on alcohol and drugs will result in saving roughly 30,000 American lives each year (see earlier posts for where that number came from).


Man, that is so wrong in so many ways.  Taking away a liberty to prevent people that abuse that liberty from doing so.  The fact that banning it's biggest effect is on the people that wouldn't abuse it in the first place.... those that abuse it (drunk drivers and criminals with guns) will be the ones to still find a way (just like they always have... remember prohabition?)

Too many holes in your logic Bondo... too many holes.

And you still refuse to tell me why we shouldn't all be treated as responsible adults in regards to guns, alcohol, tobacco, drugs and prostitutes??  Is it because there is no good anwer

[Bondo]

I disagree. ?Our court systems haven't been punishing effectivly (plea bargins to save $$$). ?Also, the laws about violent crimes, especially those comitted with weapons, need to REQUIRE much stronger punishments. ?That would be the first logical step. ?(when it's 5 years for robbery, 6 if you use a gun in Michigan... that isn't much of a threat).



I base this premise on the heavy proof that the death penalty does not act as a successful deterent and in general stronger punishments don't deter criminals.


Sure, your conclusion fits the false premises.

Here's another one for you....

Premise 1: Alcohol use impares judgement and coordination.



Too many holes in your logic Bondo... too many holes.

And you still refuse to tell me why we shouldn't all be treated as responsible adults in regards to guns, alcohol, tobacco, drugs and prostitutes?? ?Is it because there is no good anwer

My argument was valid and logical, you may argue that it was unsound but it was valid.  I would argue with the soundness of yours as well, your first premise says that alcohol use impairs judgement and coordination which it doesn't...abusive alcohol use does but alcohol use doesn't.

And you want an answer to your question, adults aren't reasonable.  I don't accept your argument that guns as a liberty are no different than alcohol, drugs or prostitution either.

[Mr. Lothario]

    I would tend to think that the death penalty and stronger punishments do not act as a deterrent because of the gaping flaws in the American justice system.

     How many criminals who are convicted of violent crimes actually go to prison for the full length of their sentence? How many do not go to prison at all? The criminals who do wind up in prison are not being punished very harshly. Prison isn't pleasant, but it's far from the worst place you could ever be, and while you're there, you get to study law to try to reduce your time in prison while making contacts and learning how to be a better criminal when you get out.

    The death penalty is an excellent idea. If a person has shown by deed that they are unfit to live among society, then they must be removed from society. People who are sentenced to one or more life sentences with no possibility of parole should not repeat not go to prison. Keeping them fat and happy in prison costs taxpayer money. A lot of taxpayer money. The justice system decided that these people needed to be removed from society permanently, but then shied away from killing them to solve the problem. A corollary to this is that the length of time a person sits on death row needs to be drastically reduced. If a person has been sentenced to die, don't make the taxpayers pay to keep them breathing for twenty years. Using the death penalty in cases where it's warranted and then actually following through and killing the person would make the possibility of death as the cost of crime a real threat, which may then serve as a real deterrent.

    The other benefit of killing the people who have proven that they cannot live in society would be to sharply reduce prison overcrowding. The number of prisons in the United States has risen sharply in the past fifty years or so, and that is one reason the prison system is so ineffective. When there's no place to put a criminal, they don't go to prison. It's no wonder that prison isn't much of a deterrent... it's hardly a threat!

    For less severe crimes, especially nonviolent crimes, I think public flogging (as mentioned in a previous post) would work rather well. Humiliation is a strong deterrent. Prison should be far harsher than it is currently, and it should be left for the people who need to be punished over a long term rather than being crowded beyond capacity both with criminals who should simply be dead and with people who shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Grifter]

My argument was valid and logical, you may argue that it was unsound but it was valid. ?I would argue with the soundness of yours as well, your first premise says that alcohol use impairs judgement and coordination which it doesn't...abusive alcohol use does but alcohol use doesn't.

First... Wrong.  Alcohol use impairs judgement and coordination from it's immediate use.  You are always diminished, even if you don't notice it.  The diminishment just increases with the amount of alohol.  You don't have to abuse alcohol to have your judgement or coordination effected.  You just have to use it.

As for the death penalty... that just goes to show how stupid that is as a punishment.  First, it takes way too many years to actually execute someone to be effective... but that has to be because it's even worse to execute an innocent person.  It's a stupid punishment... there are much better.

But still... your logic is flawed.  You have false premises, which can't produce true conclusions.

What you keep giving is your opinioins... but your logic isn't backing them up.  

And you want an answer to your question, adults aren't reasonable. ?I don't accept your argument that guns as a liberty are no different than alcohol, drugs or prostitution either.

You say you don't accept it, but you can't refute it either it seems.  

First, I said responsible adults... and if people shouldn't be treated like responsible adults... then why should they have any of those other liberties that you say they should have?  The guy that visits the prostitue and gives his wife AIDS obviously isn't responsible enough to wear a condom... let alone honor his vows... drinking and driving... depression... cancer.... the list can go on and on...

You have to either let people live and be responsible for their own actions or not.  The biggest problem in our society is that people all want don't take this responsibility.  They want the freedoms that are important to them... and not the FREEDOM for all.  I don't do drugs... I don't visit prostitutes... I don't even drink anymore.  But I'm all for these being lawful.  Because I do equate freedom and responsibility with how we should all be treated and accounted for.  That includes the things I'm for and not for.  I hate what the Nazi's stood for, but I'm for letting them in the Thanksgiving Day parade.  Why, because freedom has to be for everybody, or it's not really freedom.  Just because I loath their message doesn't mean that as Americans, they don't have the right to shout it from the tallest building if thats what they choose.  

That's the issue I'm defending here Bondo...

There are still plenty of others.... protection from invasion.. the fact that you can't really controll something like guns from the criminals... the fact that places with more LIBERAL gun controll laws (ie, more citizens carry them) have less violent crimes... the fact that you do have the right to protect yourself (and an 80 pound woman needs something powerful if she's being attacked by a 300 pound gorilla with a knife)...  

But just the basic freedom to choose right and wrong, that's what part of it is all about.  What makes this any different from any other liberty...?