It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:44 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2841 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 ... 285  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1574
Location: Seattle, Wa
Delivery Date: 25 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0197
ztanos wrote:

Not sure if you are being facetious or not as your sarcasm comes through very thickly, but I try to read everything before responding. I know you don't have a problem with hunting rifles and if you read in the exact post that you quoted of mine, that I, also, say that I don't think all guns are necessary and that a lot of them are pointless. Would using a semi-automatic .22 make my job easier, you bet, but I'm kind of stuck as I'm not going to spend more money just for a "want". A hand-gun would just be overkill and in most cases pretty useless.

I agree that making childish statements gets nowhere from both sides. The "it's my gun leave it be" or the "Oh God, guns are awful, every single one of them" argument is kind of pointless. There has been a lot of broad stroke stereotyping on both sides in this forum.

Most guns are pointless to be honest... but I don't trust the police to save my life, but then I never resorted to guns to do that either. Police take way too long to respond the majority of the time.


Ztanos, I am not being facetious. I said "thank you for reading my post," because many people in this discussion just seem to jump from fragment to fragment. So actually none of this (last) post was sarcasm.

However (and this is no sarcasm either), I did note that many Americans seem to react negatively to sarcasm or don't seem to like or use it in discussions. In my experience this is quite different in Europe (northern Europe, at least).

In the end, this is just an exchange of text between a few people, so I am wondering what will come out of it...but you never know. I was curious about the hunting, because that seems to be a genuine American way of life. In Germany, hunting is mostly for rich old farts, because it is VERY expensive...you have to lease the land you hunt on ,specifically for the hunt. There is no way you could "feed" your family there by hunting.


Last edited by klapauzius on Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:23 pm
Posts: 405
ztanos wrote:
The gun death rate is probably higher... but the education level and the poverty rate is probably lower, also. Even doing a direct comparison with a smaller city say... downtown Canton, GA... we can look at gun death rate statistics for both cities in the US and I'll bet that if we figure for population density Oakland still has a higher death rate and Canton will have a higher level of education and lower poverty.

I'm just saying that the US has worse conditions than the majority of cities in Europe with or without guns. This plays a big part in culture. Hell, half the time when I turn on the TV, I'm embarrassed by US culture. You wouldn't see Europe allow a show like "Living with the Kardasians" or "Honey boo-boo" (don't get me started on the fact that this is from Georgia... I would like to assure everyone that we are not like that." There are cultural differences that can't be measured on a straight line statistical analysis.


Let's (just as an "experiment") go with the notion that the people in a hypotetical "Honey boo-boo"-town are pretty "primitive" (again, just as an example): would you want them armed?

Would that not be an argument for "disarming" (not hunting rifles, etc) people in this town?



The reason I want to reduce the number of guns is simply to reduce the number of deaths by accidents, people shooting their wife through a temporary "fit", guns stolen by criminals and used for killing/robbery, etc.

Many of the "pro gun people" seem to think that the "anti gun people" want to take away guns to be "mean and nasty" and all kinds of funny reasons. I'm writing here now because 26 people were killed with legal guns (or, he stole it from his mother). My goal is to reduce the number of deaths - especially children.

Whereas I agree that the US is not directly comparable to say the UK, I do not believe it is so different either. The majority of people in the US are nice, polite, honest people. Reducing the number of guns will also reduce the number of guns available to criminals. And, in any case, criminals who want to rob somebody will do so anyway - either by threatning people before they can get their gun out (or they will steal their gun), or they will shoot the gun owner dead and then rob them.

_________________
Nissan Leaf 2012 EV
VW Golf CityStromer 1995 EV
VW Golf CityStromer 1998 EV


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:31 pm
Posts: 808
Location: Canton, Ga
klapauzius wrote:
ztanos wrote:

Not sure if you are being facetious or not as your sarcasm comes through very thickly, but I try to read everything before responding. I know you don't have a problem with hunting rifles and if you read in the exact post that you quoted of mine, that I, also, say that I don't think all guns are necessary and that a lot of them are pointless. Would using a semi-automatic .22 make my job easier, you bet, but I'm kind of stuck as I'm not going to spend more money just for a "want". A hand-gun would just be overkill and in most cases pretty useless.

I agree that making childish statements gets nowhere from both sides. The "it's my gun leave it be" or the "Oh God, guns are awful, every single one of them" argument is kind of pointless. There has been a lot of broad stroke stereotyping on both sides in this forum.

Most guns are pointless to be honest... but I don't trust the police to save my life, but then I never resorted to guns to do that either. Police take way too long to respond the majority of the time.


Ztanos, I am not being facetious. I said "thank you for reading my post," because many people in this discussion just seem to jump from fragment to fragment. So actually none of this (last) post was sarcasm.

However (and this is no sarcasm either), I did note that many Americans seem to react negatively to sarcasm or don't seem to like or use it in discussions. In my experience this is quite different in Europe (northern Europe, at least).

In the end, this is just an exchange of text between a few people, so I am wondering what will come out of it...but you never know. I was curious about the hunting, because that seems to be a genuine American way of life. In Germany, hunting is mostly for rich old farts, because it is VERY expensive...you have to lease the land you hunt on ,specifically for the hunt. There is no way you could "feed" your family there by hunting.


I understand sarcasm, I use it very often. Love it actually. :P Just hard to tell through text. Hunting makes it easy. You know where all your food is coming from and you know there aren't any additives or steroids.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:31 pm
Posts: 808
Location: Canton, Ga
Norway wrote:
Let's (just as an "experiment") go with the notion that the people in a hypotetical "Honey boo-boo"-town are pretty "primitive" (again, just as an example): would you want them armed?
Would that not be an argument for "disarming" (not hunting rifles, etc) people in this town?

But statistics and my comments both said that the "honey boo-boo" town had less gun violence, even though there are probably more carriers per citizen (don't know the exact numbers, just a guess based on my town)... at least legally. So having them armed isn't that big of a deal to me. They generally don't carry around anything other than pistols or hunting rifles anyhow.
Quote:
The reason I want to reduce the number of guns is simply to reduce the number of deaths by accidents, people shooting their wife through a temporary "fit", guns stolen by criminals and used for killing/robbery, etc.

The temporary "fits" will still happen, but you are right, it will cause less deaths. Won't cut them out all together, because a baseball bat to a surprised victim will still do some damage.
Quote:
Many of the "pro gun people" seem to think that the "anti gun people" want to take away guns to be "mean and nasty" and all kinds of funny reasons. I'm writing here now because 26 people were killed with legal guns (or, he stole it from his mother). My goal is to reduce the number of deaths - especially children.

It's good to have a cause, but sometimes you have to look at the situation and see if the actions will do any good immediately or if they will only create a good situation 10-20 years down the road. Some places I would imagine it will actually hurt the problem as criminals that do have guns will "KNOW" that legal citizens won't have them and be more cocky... at lest initially. Mentality is huge when facing cowards. As I mentioned before, when interviewed after the shooting, the Aurora, Colorado shooter professed that he chose the theater because he knew there would be no chance of being shot at. That's why the cops found him hiding behind some cars with his guns already on the ground.
Quote:
Whereas I agree that the US is not directly comparable to say the UK, I do not believe it is so different either. The majority of people in the US are nice, polite, honest people. Reducing the number of guns will also reduce the number of guns available to criminals. And, in any case, criminals who want to rob somebody will do so anyway - either by threatening people before they can get their gun out (or they will steal their gun), or they will shoot the gun owner dead and then rob them.

The majority of people in the US are well educated, but there are more people of the lower education levels here than in Europe. The inner cities here just don't seem to care about their citizens. (Not a fact, just a feeling that is represented through experience with school boards of both outer and inner city school systems.)
I can see some benefits to the "lets have everyone carry a gun" argument, but in a one on one situation, you are screwed anyways. Whereas if you are in a crowded bank and two robbers come in with a gun, the entire bank can pull out. That will stop a robber every time, even if there are one or two people in the crowd that are terrified to the point of paralysis. But I agree that there is no ideal situation where everyone should own guns other than this. People are lazy and careless... get this around billions of people and you are bound to have more problems than you are trying to prevent.

A side story about gun safety. A friend of mine, who I consider the safest person I have ever met around a gun and will actually go too far to qualify for safety in every situation, confessed to me the other day that he was looking at one of his brothers guns. He opened the chamber to check for and see if it was empty. Saw no round in and de-cocked. Apparently, when his brother had been shooting last the gun had a misfire and the round stayed half way in the chamber. When he dropped the gun into the padded case it dislodged the round and shot through the closet and up through the stairwell. Nobody hurt, luckily, but yes people aren't infallible and make mistakes. I get what you are saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1574
Location: Seattle, Wa
Delivery Date: 25 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0197
ztanos wrote:
It's good to have a cause, but sometimes you have to look at the situation and see if the actions will do any good immediately or if they will only create a good situation 10-20 years down the road. Some places I would imagine it will actually hurt the problem as criminals that do have guns will "KNOW" that legal citizens won't have them and be more cocky... at lest initially.


I agree, it will take time. And yes, sometimes the immediate results seem to be contrary to the goal or painful. These kind of solutions are the hardest to sell...But I think long term improvements are most of the time worth the short-term costs, because the pay-off will also be very long lasting.

The other problem is that events,, which get widespread attention, like mass shootings are rare (even in the US). It is very hard to measure, if some rare random event is actually affected by current measures. So you have to wait a long time to see any benefits there.
However, for the large number of deaths (both intended and accidental) you should see effects pretty quickly . Still don't expect the media to report it ...

If the total annual death-rate from currently ~ 30k goes down to say 25k , that would not be newsworthy, yet it would mean 5000 people would live instead of die, each year.
It always helps to picture all these people in one place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:38 am
Posts: 1340
Location: Southeast Michigan
Leaf Number: 19628
Norway wrote:
Many of the "pro gun people" seem to think that the "anti gun people" want to take away guns to be "mean and nasty" and all kinds of funny reasons.


While I think there are a few (mostly politicians) that want to exploit the emotions of the public, I think most anti-gun people are good people that want to do the right thing, but unfortunately do not fully understand how important liberty is to other folks.

_________________
2012 Nissan LEAF SV
Cayenne Red
6/14: 56.70AHr, 86%, 30,000 miles
7/14: 56.36AHr, 85%, 30,800 miles
8/14: 55.59AHr, 84%, 31,400 miles
9/14: 55.43AHr, 84%, 32,300 miles
10/14: 54.83AHr, 83%, 33,200 miles
Oil sober since May 17, 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:00 pm 
Offline
Forum Supporter

Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:08 pm
Posts: 4826
Location: Phoenix Area
Delivery Date: 08 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 1855
Norway wrote:
ztanos wrote:
The gun death rate is probably higher... but the education level and the poverty rate is probably lower, also. Even doing a direct comparison with a smaller city say... downtown Canton, GA... we can look at gun death rate statistics for both cities in the US and I'll bet that if we figure for population density Oakland still has a higher death rate and Canton will have a higher level of education and lower poverty.

I'm just saying that the US has worse conditions than the majority of cities in Europe with or without guns. This plays a big part in culture. Hell, half the time when I turn on the TV, I'm embarrassed by US culture. You wouldn't see Europe allow a show like "Living with the Kardasians" or "Honey boo-boo" (don't get me started on the fact that this is from Georgia... I would like to assure everyone that we are not like that." There are cultural differences that can't be measured on a straight line statistical analysis.


Let's (just as an "experiment") go with the notion that the people in a hypotetical "Honey boo-boo"-town are pretty "primitive" (again, just as an example): would you want them armed?

Would that not be an argument for "disarming" (not hunting rifles, etc) people in this town?



The reason I want to reduce the number of guns is simply to reduce the number of deaths by accidents, people shooting their wife through a temporary "fit", guns stolen by criminals and used for killing/robbery, etc.

Many of the "pro gun people" seem to think that the "anti gun people" want to take away guns to be "mean and nasty" and all kinds of funny reasons. I'm writing here now because 26 people were killed with legal guns (or, he stole it from his mother). My goal is to reduce the number of deaths - especially children.

Whereas I agree that the US is not directly comparable to say the UK, I do not believe it is so different either. The majority of people in the US are nice, polite, honest people. Reducing the number of guns will also reduce the number of guns available to criminals. And, in any case, criminals who want to rob somebody will do so anyway - either by threatning people before they can get their gun out (or they will steal their gun), or they will shoot the gun owner dead and then rob them.


Norway, that was 28 people killed, 20 children and 8 adults.

_________________
2013 LEAF SV Del. 2/28/13
2013 LEAF World Record for Most Miles Driven On One Charge-188 miles/8.8 m/kW h
4.8 kW DC PV ($ .91/W fully installed)/ Dec., 2010


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:49 pm
Posts: 125
Delivery Date: 07 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5637
As an alternative to banning guns we could just make gun owners bear the societal costs of gun ownership.

1. Require every gun to be registered and carry $20M in liability insurance that also pays into victim's compensation fund.

2. Payments continue for 5 years in the event the gun is lost or stolen.

3. Let insurance companies decide the cost of each type of weapon.

I believe that if costs are properly applied, then the problem will be greatly reduced.
Maybe by a factor of three in just a few years...

Let's have all the owners of assault weapons collectively pay for the Newtown disaster!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:47 pm
Posts: 319
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Delivery Date: 29 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 1262
kubel wrote:
I think most anti-gun people are good people that want to do the right thing, but unfortunately do not fully understand how important liberty is to other folks.

The notion that owning a gun is equivalent to "liberty" (at least in the contemporary First World) in so many minds is flabbergasting to me.

As a serious question, not a rhetorical one, someone please explain to me this linkage. I simply don't get it. Guns are all but irrelevant to my life and liberty, and nearly all imaginable iterations of them, other than the highly improbable - but statistically possible - circumstance of becoming a victim of a nightmarish headliner massacre or similar incident.

The likelihood that carrying a firearm is likely to improve my or any member of my family's chances in such an incident seems very remote to me. The notion that a firearm-bearing patriot is likely to present any serious resistance to a government bent on "taking his liberty away" (whatever that means) is laughable.

In my world, personal liberty is determined by thousands of choices more relevant than my possession of a firearm. My voting choices, for one. How few owners the FCC allows the power of media outlets to be concentrated in, for another. The amount of money that individuals (like Sheldon Adelson) are permitted to flood the political system with, through PACs and similar subterfuges. The amount of money corporations are allowed to poison the system with, through lobbying activities. The money special-interest groups like the NRA are allowed to spread among congressional representatives to corrupt and debase their integrity as true representatives of the people. The vast invasion of personal privacies commercialized, commoditized and monetized by FaceBook and its ilk. The erosion of independent bookstores by a behemoth like Amazon, and the subsequent withering of local, independent community options. Those, and many, many more, are the venues where liberty lives in my life - and where it dies.

If liberty fails to flourish at these levels - politically, economically, intellectually, socially - then it is saving the trees at the expense of the forest to cling to quaint, trivial notions of personal liberty that depend on guns to defend them. If the noblest, profoundest expressions of liberty are not honored, defended and preserved, then the diminished lives in the wake of that loss are picayune, and hardly worth the powder to defend them.

_________________
TH


Last edited by timhebb on Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:17 pm
Posts: 34
Delivery Date: 20 Mar 2012
I rarely hear about incidents where guns actually protect citizens. So I did some searching around and was very surprised how often it happens.

http://gunssavelives.net/

707+
self defense stories reported since 8/30/11
MOST RECENT STORIES in the last week:

[Video] Las Vegas Resident Shoots and Kills 1 of 4 Armed Home Invaders as Infant Child Slept on Christmas eve

TX Woman Shoots and Kills Violent Ex-Boyfriend Who Broke Into Her Home & Assaulted Her

[Video] Texas Resident Shoots and Kills Suspected Burglar

_________________
2012 SL+QC Glacier Pearl
No gasoline, oil changes, timing chains/belts, O2 sensors, mufflers, catalytic converters, or serpentine belts to replace!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2841 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 ... 285  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Advertise on the forum | Upgrade your account


© My Nissan Leaf Forum - part of the MyElectricCarForums.com Group