Background Checks...

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: RomeByFire
You're right.

We should do nothing.

That's alright, America's number 1 in mass shootings in the world! America! America!

Can you please explain to me how the method of murder/death is at all relevant?

I think the point is that, for instance, one cannot kill 60 people at a concert below from the 32 floor of a hotel with say, a knife, or a sword, or a shotgun, or...

 

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for the ban of anything.

But in Nice France you can mow down 85 people with a box truck. In NYC you can kill 3000 by hijacking a plane. In fact, in the latter....the resulting laws have not made life any safer for us. They have only eroded liberty, with the majority of folks regretting allowing it to happen in the first place.

At the end of it all, the biggest victim of a bullet are veterans. And the perpetrators are veterans. Their suicides make up 43% of our gun related deaths. Its easy to see how to reduce "gun deaths" in the US. Problem is, admitting it only shines a light on the dirty underbelly of the VA again. Its obvious to see why its not discussed....but it is the low hanging fruit.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But in Nice France you can mow down 85 people with a box truck. In NYC you can kill 3000 by hijacking a plane. In fact, in the latter....the resulting laws have not made life any safer for us. They have only eroded liberty, with the majority of folks regretting allowing it to happen in the first place.

I know. I was simply pointing out the other side of the argument, of which I know you are well aware. And yes, the resulting laws have eroded liberty, and I didn't agree with them. As I said, I'm not advocating banning anything.

At the end of it all, the biggest victim of a bullet are veterans. And the perpetrators are veterans. Their suicides make up 43% of our gun related deaths.

That's the elephant, and has been for many, many years.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: angeldoll

Ask them what? How theyd rather see their loved ones die? Theyre dead. What does methodology matter?

What does it matter? What does it matter?

Ignore the fact that scores of others died with them. I know you don't think this is okay. But you are making yourself sound like you think it's okay.

So you can say, with some degree of certainty, that if Paddock had not had access to these weapons he would have driven a truck through this crowd?

Also, why do you suppose they never have mass shootings in Canada?

Oh well, I'm sure Paddock has mucho gratitude for all of you, defending his right to the 2nd for him.
From hell.

a reply to: Liquesence

They want their lives to have some greater meaning and they want to be remembered for something great (and terrible) instead of fading obscurely into history, so they do something horrific.

Sadly I also think some of it is attention-seeking. It's a shame he didn't get any "attention" when he was collecting that deadly arsenal. It should have been illegal to do so.

Anybody can see that.

Oh wait!

"ther comin' fer r guns". Right.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
They have only eroded liberty, with the majority of folks regretting allowing it to happen in the first place.

Do you have a source for this?

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
They have only eroded liberty, with the majority of folks regretting allowing it to happen in the first place.

Do you have a source for this?

www.newsweek.com...

More than 80 percent of respondents are “concerned” that the government is “collecting and storing Americans’ personal information,” while 18 percent are not. A similar percentage said they were “concerned” by “the government accessing personal communications, information or records without a judge’s permission” and “using that information for things other than stopping terrorist attacks.”

“The poll results tell us that in order to be more reflective of the public’s views on surveillance and the Patriot Act, members of Congress should more fully support reforms,” says Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel at the ACLU. “That’s consistent with whether they are trying to appeal to Democrats, Republicans or Independent voters.”

originally posted by: angeldoll

What does it matter? What does it matter?

Ignore the fact that scores of others died with them. I know you don't think this is okay. But you are making yourself sound like you think it's okay.

Dead is dead. If i have my choices, I know I'd rather die quickly from a gunshot, than a bludgeoning. But in the end im dead, and the method to kill me has little impact on that fact. Dead is dead.

So again I ask...what does the method matter? Does it change anything?

[qupte]
So you can say, with some degree of certainty, that if Paddock had not had access to these weapons he would have driven a truck through this crowd?

I can say with some degree of certainty that if he wanted to kill a sizable portion of that crowd, given his wealth, he was going to kill a sizable portion of that crowd. A truck, a truck full of fertilizer, a flame thrower, a monster truck...he had money and could pick a method that fit his liking. He chose this one, but if it were not available do you think that would have kept him from doing something horrible?

Also, why do you suppose they never have mass shootings in Canada?

Dunno...what are your theories?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: angeldoll

What does it matter? What does it matter?

Ignore the fact that scores of others died with them. I know you don't think this is okay. But you are making yourself sound like you think it's okay.

Dead is dead. If i have my choices, I know I'd rather die quickly from a gunshot, than a bludgeoning. But in the end im dead, and the method to kill me has little impact on that fact. Dead is dead.

So again I ask...what does the method matter? Does it change anything?

[qupte]
So you can say, with some degree of certainty, that if Paddock had not had access to these weapons he would have driven a truck through this crowd?

I can say with some degree of certainty that if he wanted to kill a sizable portion of that crowd, given his wealth, he was going to kill a sizable portion of that crowd. A truck, a truck full of fertilizer, a flame thrower, a monster truck...he had money and could pick a method that fit his liking. He chose this one, but if it were not available do you think that would have kept him from doing something horrible?

Also, why do you suppose they never have mass shootings in Canada?

Dunno...what are your theories?

__________________________________

So this is your response to my questions? He might have gotten a flame thrower if he didn't have his guns? A monster truck? He would not have had the protection of his hotel room and would have died much sooner for starters. Anyway, he didn't use a flame thrower or a monster truck, did he?

Dead is dead, the manner of dying makes no difference? Seriously?

You don't know why Canadians don't have mass murders?

All you have is an unwillingness to be honest about this subject.

originally posted by: angeldoll

So this is your response to my questions? He might have gotten a flame thrower if he didn't have his guns? A monster truck? He would not have had the protection of his hotel room and would have died much sooner for starters. Anyway, he didn't use a flame thrower or a monster truck, did he?

Dead is dead, the manner of dying makes no difference? Seriously?

You don't know why Canadians don't have mass murders?

All you have is an unwillingness to be honest about this subject.

Im sorry, but you asking me to look into a crystal ball and tell you what could have, or what might have, was pretty silly. I was hoping my answer portrayed that same sillyness.

What I do know is that if he chose to drive a box truck into the crowd, it could have been 85 dead like in Nice. Had there been a bomb on board, it could have been in the thousands. A lunatic with means, motive, and opportunity can do all sorts of deranged things.

Yes, dead is dead. If the manner of dying makes no difference, please put me in the "shoot me" category instead of "beat me to death" or "hack me to bits" category. I mean, im not the one who is singling out gun deaths as if it was relevant....im just trying to address how dumb of a metric it is. Because dead is dead. If someone strangles me vs someone shooting me, i face no less terror, and die no more or fewer times.

Im not a Canadian. If you feel me expressing my ignorance over things Canadian is dishonest, im sorry. But you have been given a chance to illuminate. So there is that.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don 't think you are even being honest with yourself about this, much less on this board with me.

So never mind. Any fool can see what's going on. It's only a matter of letting the scales fall from one's eyes.
In due time. In due time.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don 't think you are even being honest with yourself about this, much less on this board with me.

So never mind. Any fool can see what's going on. It's only a matter of letting the scales fall from one's eyes.
In due time. In due time.

If you can't convince someone otherwise, accuse them of lying to themselves?



Im cool with that.