PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 22:39

SFFP, You didn't post this?



Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724050)
Which would suggest that somewhere in the region of 2 thirds of Americans don't know anyone in their household who owns a gun............


So in fact its only about 33% of you holding the rest of the country to ransom................you guys proud of that?


Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 22:39


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724074)
In retrospect no, but who are we to decide? The decision was hers, and she may have had valid reasons. She also paid the ultimate price for her stupidity, what more do you want?


Have you actually pondered what you have just written? Are you seriously suggesting her 'valid reasons' were worth all those children's lives?


Are you seriously suggesting that a system that allows such a thing to happen is not flawed?


Should she have been allowed to keep guns at home with Adam?


None of this is difficult for an outsider to wonder about, I just wonder why you think its ok?

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 22:44


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724085)
SFFP, You didn't post this?#


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Which would suggest that somewhere in the region of 2 thirds of Americans don't know anyone in their household who owns a gun............


So in fact its only about 33% of you holding the rest of the country to ransom................you guys proud of that?




Nope what I actually posted was


Quote:
Originally Posted by BOING http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States close to one firearm for every man, woman and child.

Which would suggest that somewhere in the region of 2 thirds of Americans don't know anyone in their household who owns a gun............


So in fact its only about 33% of you holding the rest of the country to ransom................you guys proud of that?


But hey we both know you knew that eh :p

BOING 1st Nov 2014 22:56

PTT
You still do not see the point here. I am saying that the statement "more guns equals more deaths" is not true.

Second graph
"Gun Ownership (% of households)" is in no way connected with the absolute number of guns existing in a country which is the whole fallacy of " more guns equals more deaths". It does not tell us how many guns were in the household. It does not account for illegal weapons unless gang-bangers have started raising families and responding to surveys. The source is highly suspect.

Named for (Sic) named for socialist labor organizer Mary Harris "Mother" Jones, the publication has a long tradition as a rabble-rousing magazine.
And that's from a supporter.


"Guns per 100 people" is more interesting. Unfortunately it is not related to the subject which I keep stressing is the absolute number of guns in the country. To provide this information the X-axis of the graph would need to read "Number of guns in the country" not "Guns per 100 people". This would provide a graphical representation of the numbers I calculated in a previous post.

What I am saying is that the number of guns in a country bears no reliable statistical relationship the the number of gun deaths. As I pointed out earlier theoretically you could have a nation consisting of one person who owned five million guns and you would have no gun deaths.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 23:00


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724086)
Have you actually pondered what you have just written? Are you seriously suggesting her 'valid reasons' were worth all those children's lives?

I am sure she didn't say "let's teach Adam to shoot so he can kill 20 children". She probably thought that by teaching him how to shoot he would channel some of the violent behaviour onto paper targets.


Are you seriously suggesting that a system that allows such a thing to happen is not flawed?
It's unfortunate that it happened, but my or Brick's, or Ben's or GF's guns had nothing to do with it. Changing the system that would punish and inconvenience us because of her is flawed.



Should she have been allowed to keep guns at home with Adam?
CT regulations and the 2nd obviously allowed it, so yes.


None of this is difficult for an outsider to wonder about, I just wonder why you think its ok?
It's not OK, but fixing it by punishing millions of those who had nothing to do with it is also not OK.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:09


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724107)
I am sure she didn't say "let's teach Adam to shoot so he can kill 20 children". She probably thought that by teaching him how to shoot he would channel some of the violent behaviour onto paper targets.



It's unfortunate that it happened, but my or Brick's, or Ben's or GF's guns had nothing to do with it. Changing the system that would punish and inconvenience us because of her is flawed.




CT regulations and the 2nd obviously allowed it, so yes.



It's not OK, but fixing it by punishing millions of those who had nothing to do with it is also not OK.


How does telling her its not right to keep your guns at home if your child is mentally ill, its not right to teach a mentally ill child how to operate assault weapon etc punish millions????????????

BOING 1st Nov 2014 23:12

Aah, Seldom.

It must be indeed marvellous to be one of the Masters of the Universe charged with the glorious duty of revealing the truth to lowly mortals.
Typical liberal, I have knowledge above all others and if only they would listen I would bring their World to perfection. If only people were like me they would never make mistakes.

Mrs. Lanza (deceased) was doing what was within her mortal power, humanly available wisdom (which is very thinly spread) and as an only parent to raise a child. Did she screw up? Probably but so do the parents who let their kids do a whole range of stupid things. At least she seems to have been in some sort of contact with the child which is more than you can say for many other parents.

I fail to see how your attack on a dead woman provides you with any satisfaction. Why not attack real live people or is that too scary?

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:18


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724122)
Aah, Seldom.

It must be indeed marvellous to be one of the Masters of the Universe charged with the glorious duty of revealing the truth to lowly mortals.
Typical liberal, I have knowledge above all others and if only they would listen I would bring their World to perfection. If only people were like me they would never make mistakes.

Mrs. Lanza (deceased) was doing what was within her mortal power, humanly available wisdom (which is very thinly spread) and as an only parent to raise a child. Did she screw up? Probably but so do the parents who let their kids do a whole range of stupid things. At least she seems to have been in some sort of contact with the child which is more than you can say for many other parents.

I fail to see how your attack on a dead woman provides you with any satisfaction. Why not attack real live people or is that too scary?

.


Sorry, did I attack Mrs Lanza, I mean feel free to show me where I did, go on chap.........


Now the question I did ask was did you and others think a system that allows Mrs Lanza to act as she did is fit for purpose.

Lord Spandex Masher 1st Nov 2014 23:23


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724120)
How does telling her its not right to keep your guns at home if your child is mentally ill, its not right to teach a mentally ill child how to operate assault weapon etc punish millions????????????

Well you know, if you see a conspiracy behind every door....!

con-pilot 1st Nov 2014 23:25


How does telling her its not right to keep your guns at home if your child is mentally ill, its not right to teach a mentally ill child how to operate assault weapon etc punish millions????????????
Please define "assault weapon"?

Thank you.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 23:33

I think he uses this chart

http://imageshack.com/a/img98/5155/f...tification.jpg

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:38


Originally Posted by con-pilot (Post 8724140)
Please define "assault weapon"?

Thank you.


Ah, the old hair splitting deflection, not something you see that often in here..........


did they not post Sandy Hook start an 'assault weapon' campaign...........


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...ns_Ban_of_2013

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 23:40


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724150)
Ah, the old hair splitting deflection, not something you see that often in here..........


did they not post Sandy Hook start an 'assault weapon' campaign...........

Of course they did. The antis always do. Of course that that doesn't mean they were right, as usual. Both in sentiment and nomenclature.

But it sound scary and it looks scary so it must be "assault".

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:43


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724153)
Of course they did. The antis always do. Of course that that doesn't mean they were right, as usual. Both in sentiment and nomenclature.

But it sound scary and it looks scary so it must be "assault".


Do you notice that in your posts 'they' are never right, as in ever..........

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 23:44

Correct. They are always left or wrong.

BOING 1st Nov 2014 23:44


Do you think she was sensible in introducing him to guns?

How about the 20 children and 6 staff to not have paid that same price for her stupidity as well?

Are you seriously suggesting her 'valid reasons' were worth all those children's lives?

Should she have been allowed to keep guns at home with Adam?

Are you seriously suggesting her 'valid reasons' were worth all those children's lives?
Every one an attack posed as a question.

Any more pearls?

.

BOING 1st Nov 2014 23:46

Notice how Seldom always deflects the subject with a non-relevant question instead of providing an answer.

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:49


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724160)
Every one an attack posed as a question.

Any more pearls?

.


Feel free at any stage to offer up an answer, go I dare you............

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:49


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724162)
Notice how Seldom always deflects the subject with a non-relevant question instead of providing an answer.

.


Ask away as I have absolutely no fear of answering.............

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 23:50

I am tempted to agree with you, but that may mark you as a Tag Team Troll, so I better not.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 23:53

I gave you answers to each and every of your questions. The fact that you don't like the answers is your problem.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 23:58


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724173)
I gave you answers to each and every of your questions. The fact that you don't like the answers is your problem.


Guess I must have missed it so I will ask it again


Now the question I did ask was did you and others think a system that allows Mrs Lanza to act as she did is fit for purpose.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 00:11


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724180)
Guess I must have missed it so I will ask it again


Now the question I did ask was did you and others think a system that allows Mrs Lanza to act as she did is fit for purpose.

That wasn't the exact question you asked but I replied at the top of the hour. This is what you asked:


Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that a system that allows such a thing to happen is not flawed?
And I answered:


It's unfortunate that it happened, but my or Brick's, or Ben's or GF's guns had nothing to do with it. Changing the system that would punish and inconvenience us because of her is flawed.

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 00:20


Now the question I did ask was did you and others think a system that allows Mrs Lanza to act as she did is fit for purpose.
The first question this raises is what the heck are you talking about?
"to act as she did is fit for purpose".

Are you talking about meeting the purposes of the Skygod who needed more sacrifices?

Are you talking about her need to find some interest for her son?

What system, there is no system designed to help mentally effected children who may decide to kill someone. There is not even a system in place to help these kids learn to tie their shoelaces.

Do you mean the legal system? Don't bother. The legal system was prevented from intervening in mental health cases years ago under pressure from the "touchy feelies". You need a full-blown court order now.

Who is going to decide in advance if her actions were wise? Perhaps if she had been on this forum you could have provided all the answers.

She did the best she could with her problems, her ability and her options. And you, Sir, are a pompous rat for second guessing her best intentions although in retrospect they may have had tragic consequences.

Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade, Arnhem, the stupidity of George III, all judgmental disasters approved by hordes of planners and supposedly great leaders and you question the errors made by one, single parent, mother with a difficult child.





.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 00:20


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724191)
That wasn't the exact question you asked but I replied at the top of the hour. This is what you asked:


It was read post #728

And I answered:


What about this one


How does telling her its not right to keep your guns at home if your child is mentally ill, its not right to teach a mentally ill child how to operate assault weapon etc punish millions????????????

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 00:22


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724196)
"to act as she did is fit for purpose".


As in do you think the 2nd was written with Mrs Lanza in mind?

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 00:30

That's the beauty of it. It wasn't yet it applied.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 00:32


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724197)
What about this one


How does telling her its not right to keep your guns at home if your child is mentally ill, its not right to teach a mentally ill child how to operate assault weapon etc punish millions????????????

This gibberish makes absolutely no sense. Are you with Caco?

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 00:33


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724204)
That's the beauty of it. It wasn't yet it applied.


And the outcome was?

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 00:34


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724207)
This gibberish makes absolutely no sense. Are you with Caco?


Nope, the very simple question I ask is should Mrs Lanza have been allowed to own guns?

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 00:40

"the right of the people (including Mrs. Lanza) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So you see, she cannot "be allowed", she has that right already. The government is not allowed to prevent her, unless she broke the law, which she hadn't at the time.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 00:43


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724213)
"the right of the people (including Mrs. Lanza) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So you see, she cannot "be allowed", she has that right already. The government is not allowed to prevent her, unless she broke the law, which she hadn't at the time.


Hence Sandy Hook is a reasonable price to pay?

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 00:44

Now I am going to give you a break Seldom. Some may even call it a promotion of sorts although that is a matter of opinion. I am going to provide you with a substantial seat in Congress as a member of the Democratic Party.

Please feel free to explain to the audience, who I am sure will be waiting with bated breath, how you are going to change American law to secure your version of sensible gun regulations and laws.

Please bear in mind that there will soon be mid-term elections in the US and regular elections in two years. Republicans, who may be said to support the 2ND Amend. are presently in control of the House, Democrats, who are more likely to favor gun control are presently in control of the Senate. This situation could change in the election. Several Democratic senators from pro-gun states are facing re-election. If they lose their re-election bids control of the Senate may go to the Republicans who will then control both houses.

Now, I am sure that a man of your intelligence, lucidity and verbal skills can sway the American population to your ideas. After all, only 65% of them support gun ownership.

OK, give us your plan. No dodging, no smokescreens, no pointless questions, no arguing about spelling mistakes. Just explain to us the method by which the Constitution of the United States can be accommodated with the need to increase firearm safety under the present realities. Shouln't take you more than 30 minutes since you know so much about the subject.

Starting now, 4.44pm Pacific Time.

Good luck.

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 00:52


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724215)
After all, only 65% of them support gun ownership.


Shall we start by asking those 65% of folk if they think that allowing Mrs Lanza to own guns, train Adam in the use of guns and subsequently allow Adam access to her guns to go on to slaughter kids at Sandy Hook is something they support?


Then we could ask those 65% if they think a rule that precluded Mrs Lanza from doing as she did would be that bad an idea.


Then we could put it to the masses and say what do you think....


And then you and Brick and Dushan would all say 'from my cold dead hands


And then this week at some school in America some completely innocent kids will get shot to death............


My solution is tell Mrs Lanza you cant have any guns unless you commit Adam..................but how do you reckon that's going to play?

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 00:58


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724221)
My solution is tell Mrs Lanza you cant have any guns unless you commit Adam..................but how do you reckon that's going to play?

Now you're getting it sunshine. The leftie granola crunchers will be up in arms defending Adam"s right not to be committed until the last strap on their sandals becomes lose.

That's how it will play, and he would not be committed.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:04


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724226)
Now you're getting it sunshine. The leftie granola crunchers will be up in arms defending Adam"s right not to be committed until the last strap on their sandals becomes lose.

That's how it will play, and he would not be committed.


But you righties will defend Mrs Lanza's right to own guns, train Adam and allow Sandy Hook to happen..................


Not very [email protected]@@ed up at all is it ................

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:05

Seldom.

Bong, bong - loud bell and lost points for obfuscation.

Answer the question you were asked. Get on with the job that you were elected for, representing your constituents.

This has nothing to do with cold dead hands. You are about to change the lives of 320 million people. Those masses you refer to wouldn't know who Mrs. Lanza was if you asked them and then after you reminded them their response would be a puzzled look.

By the way, your Democratic party associates are going to be very PO'ed if you rock the boat in their pro-gun constituencies with your efforts and Harry Reid is going to feed you to the sharks.

Man up.

.

PTT 2nd Nov 2014 01:07

BOING

I am saying that the statement "more guns equals more deaths" is not true.
The manner in which you mean it (now you have clarified) is not a statement which anyone is actually claiming. It's a strawman argument. In the context in which it is always stated there is invariably an assumption of a good-sized population within which the guns will be - not necessarily evenly distributed, but certainly a population of millions as opposed to the one you mentioned.

My comment about the 20 children and 6 teachers was not an attack, it was an answer to Dushan's statement of "what more do you want" when he blithely dismissed the killing of the mother as "the price of her stupidity" without acknowledging that it was not the only price. Not by a long shot.

Those masses you refer to wouldn't know who Mrs. Lanza was if you asked them and then after you reminded them their response would be a puzzled look.
That's a sad indictment.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:15


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724230)
Seldom.

Bong, bong - loud bell and lost points for obfuscation.

Answer the question you were asked. Get on with the job that you were elected for, representing your constituents.

This has nothing to do with cold dead hands. You are about to change the lives of 320 million people. Those masses you refer to wouldn't know who Mrs. Lanza was if you asked them and then after you reminded them their response would be a puzzled look.


Really, I suspect if you asked most folk over here about Dunblane they would remember the slaughter of a class of school kids. Perhaps where you are that is so normal an event no one cares any more but over here thing are a bit different,

By the way, your Democratic party associates are going to be very PO'ed if you rock the boat in their pro-gun constituencies with your efforts and Harry Reid is going to feed you to the sharks.

Man up.

.


Mrs Lanza you are not permitted to own a gun, unless you commit Adam........

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 01:19

So you are going to pass this as a royal edict, George?


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:14.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.