| Author |
|
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6904
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 2:54pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Absolutely, crushingly dumbfounded that Rubio has the audacity to refer the anti-gun crowd as "zealots."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31170
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 3:10pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
“The safety of our families is not something people should hope government can provide,” Rubio told delegates to the NRA’s annual convention
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-mar co-rubio-nra-20140425,0,4739312.story#ixzz2zw1JGR4t
That's EXACTLY what we should hope the government will provide!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31170
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 3:13pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Y'know, what needs to happen ( and I really don't want anyone to die) is Rubin's wife, or someone close to him, needs to get shot. Preferably, within his immediate vicinity, so he will realize that him packing a gun really doesn't make anyone safer.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 6:20pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
There's a refusal to accept reality on both sides of the issue. Thirty years ago I lost my brother to gun violence. So I'll address Mr. Miller's claim that I would see the issue differently.
I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms, but I also don't think that every person who owns a firearm is some cowboy who believes that it's still the Old West. I had this view before my brother's death and I hold it still today.I live in Texas, and I have family in the Northeast and I can tell you that I am lot more afraid of some kid TEXTING while driving than I am of somebody who legally owns a firearm going crazy and shooting up the school where I work. And before you tell me that a gun is designed to hurt someone whereas a car has a legitimate use of getting you from point A to point B, I will simply point out that a third of automobile-related deaths involve high speeds and that your car doesn't need to be able to do 65 mph to get you from point A to point B.
Do gun control advocates have a legitimate concern that gun violence is a major public safety concern. Of course, but advocates for the other side of the argument have a legitimate point when they make the claim that enforcing the EXISTING laws would stop a lot of this nonsense. Look at the example of Naval Yard shooter, this individual had enough warning signs and red flags to suggest to any reasonable person that he shouldn't have access to a firearm and he WOULD NOT have been able to have access to a firearm or even had clearance to be on the yard if the person who filed a previous arrest report had mentioned that it had involved a firearm (in short, had someone in government done their job!). The Columbine and Sandy Hook tragedies also involved individuals with equally disturbing histories of mental dysfunction which the school system and the government failed to properly address.The argument that we need to take guns away from people who have broken no law because people who have broken laws or have a history of dangerous behavior is equally applicable to cars. You can't have a car that goes faster than 45 mph because irresponsible people will speed or exhibit road rage and end up killing themselves or others.
Edited by Tony Smith on 25 April 2014 at 6:22pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 7:36pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms, but I also don't think that every person who owns a firearm is some cowboy who believes that it's still the Old West.
-----
If you think those are the two sides of the debate, you are mistaken.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 7:51pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
The Columbine and Sandy Hook tragedies also involved individuals with equally disturbing histories of mental dysfunction which the school system and the government failed to properly address••• You honestly don't see the absurdity in your position? The government is at fault because it gives mentally unstable people access to guns? The government is at fault because it gives ANYBODY (aside from proper authorities) access to guns!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 8:53pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
There is no way to ensure that people with mental issues, whether pre-existing, new, temporarily induced, or otherwise, are not going to use their gun to do harm to others. Neither is there any way to legislate against sheer stupidity, like using a gun while drunk or high. It's absolutely unenforceable, because there is no way to accurately detect and screen for predisposition to acts of stupidity, temporary insanity, etc.
The mass killings we see on the news are just the sensationalized tip of the iceberg. They only account for a small number of the fatalities and severe injuries caused by widespread gun ownership. For example, a quick Google search netted this article which shows that on average 20 children a day are hospitalized due to gun injuries in the US, most of them accidental.
More than any other "tool" currently accessible by the average person, a gun has the potential to cause instant catastrophe, particularly on a large scale. That's what they're designed for. They have no other purpose.
The car analogy is a nonsense, as has been pointed out many times: cars are primarily designed for transport, vehicle usage is highly regulated, it is a privilege which can be readily rescinded, not a right, and technology is constantly evolving to reduce injury or fatality in the event of an accident.
More importantly, the spread of guns among the general populace leads society down a very dark, selfish hole. With every person arming themselves against every other person, it's a downward spiral back to a time of tribalism and huddling in our caves afraid of everything that was outside.
It also undermines law enforcement, making it much more difficult. For example, cops being called out to a standard domestic incident now don't know if they're up against an irate husband or wife armed with a gun.
As has been argued many times before, if you want to defend your family, keep a baseball bat under the bed, buy a taser or some mace, and/or take self-defense lessons. These are all much easier to use in most common crime scenarios, and less likely to harm innocent people, especially on a large scale. Of course none of these methods gives the owner quite the sense of power and coolness that a gun does.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 8:55pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
With respects Mr. Byrne you are grossly mischaracterizing my position (to the point of attacking a straw man). I did not say that "government is at fault because it gives mentally unstable people access to guns". What I actually said was that government is at fault when it does not do enough to keep people who have demonstrated that they are mentally unstable from gaining access or keeping access to their guns.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5680
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 9:04pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Comparing gun deaths to automotive deaths is silly. I know a lot about deaths on the American highways because I teach Driver's Ed. Highway deaths in the USA are at the lowest number since they started counting (back in the 50's). There could be many reasons for this, but in large I believe it is because a) cars are safer and easier to use now than ever and b) driving is one of the MOST regulated and restricted things you can do. Hell, driving isn't a right at all, it's a privilege.
It stands to reason that the more regulations we have on guns, the safer we will all be. I can't really think of anything that has proven more dangerous after regulation.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 9:33pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
With respects Mr. Byrne you are grossly mischaracterizing my position (to the point of attacking a straw man). I did not say that "government is at fault because it gives mentally unstable people access to guns". What I actually said was that government is at fault when it does not do enough to keep people who have demonstrated that they are mentally unstable from gaining access or keeping access to their guns.••• Yes, and that is what I addressed -- that you are swinging at your own straw men, rather than facing the reality of gun violence in this country.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 9:36pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The cars/guns analogy will always fail. Cars, when used for the purpose for which they were designed, are a safe form of transportation. Guns, when used in a like manner, kill.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 9:38pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"There is no way to ensure that people with mental issues, whether pre-existing, new, temporarily induced, or otherwise, are not going to use their gun to do harm to others."
To the point that you can't 100% guarantee that, that's true. But you can reduce the chances of such a person doing harm to others by confiscating their existing weapons and making it impossible to legally purchase new ones.
"The car analogy is a nonsense, as has been pointed out many times: cars are primarily designed for transport, vehicle usage is highly regulated, it is a privilege which can be readily rescinded, not a right, and technology is constantly evolving to reduce injury or fatality in the event of an accident."
You might want to check in to actually how hard it is to take away an older person's right to drive. Also taking away a person's LEGAL access to drive a vehicle in no way actually stops a person who has had their license suspended or even taken away from climbing behind a wheel and continuing to drive. In fact, a big chunk of people with suspended driver's licenses continue to drive.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/guidelines/bkgrnd .htm
"As has been argued many times before, if you want to defend your family, keep a baseball bat under the bed, buy a taser or some mace, and/or take self-defense lessons. These are all much easier to use in most common crime scenarios, and less likely to harm innocent people, especially on a large scale. Of course none of these methods gives the owner quite the sense of power and coolness that a gun does."
I actually don't own a gun. Never wanted one. Never needed one. I also support strict gun control laws. What I don't do is subscribe to the insanity that a person who is responsibly trained and licensed to operate a firearm is a danger to society anymore than a person operating a motor vehicle.
As for domestic violence calls - they are ALWAYS dangerous. Your non-gun carrying wife or husband might use a knife, that baseball you advocate he use to defend his family, or even a pot of hot coffee. When I volunteered in an emergency room, we had a police officer in who had been injured on a domestic call - when the officers attempted to intervene and arrest the husband, the wife (who had called them) took off her high heel shoe and started hitting one of the officers with it. He had some pretty deep gashes on his face before they managed to get her and him under control.
"Power and coolness" has nothing to do with it. A 110lb young woman - even armed with a bat - is NOT going to stop an intruder. Does access to a gun and proper training in its safe use guarantee that she will be safe - no, but her chances are a lot better than if she had nothing but the baseball bat.
Again, I don't need a gun. I don't begrudge someone the right to legally own one if they have been properly trained in its responsible use and they have no history that suggests that they are a danger to themselves and others.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
