Paducah Home Theater Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) People be like, "but reloading is so slooowowwwwww"... Edited June 13, 2016 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill?What are you referring to? Deaths by auto accident vs gunfire? Auto deaths have dropped dramatically while gun deaths have stayed high. It's probably because there isn't an organization like the NRA fighting public health measures to reduce auto mayhem. If that's what you're referring to. I was referring to the link posted earlier regarding that topic, yes. I think the issue is worth exploring, don't you? Aside from your reference to the NRA (which is inaccurate, I think), the fact remains that more people are killed/maimed/injured by a tool designed for transportation than via a tool designed to do exactly those things. Yet, society accepts the rates of the former and focuses on the rates of the latter. Why? Is it because everyone likes cars but not everybody likes guns? Isn't that a product of programming? I can't flip the channel without seeing a car ad. Never have I seen a commercial for a Colt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsoncookie Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I'm just as nervous about most of you "law abiding citizens" as I am about the potential of a criminal attack. What in the world does that mean??????????? Lars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? If it is miss-use (drunk driving, driving recklessly, etc) then we acknowledge the tool isn't being used properly. And our laws punish the abuser. We blame the operator and not the tool. Yet, when a gun is miss-used, we blame the tool. Programming. Edited June 13, 2016 by Bella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? If it is miss-use (drunk driving, driving recklessly, etc) then we acknowledge the tool isn't being used properly. And our laws punish the abuser. We blame the operator and not the tool. Yet, when a gun is miss-used, we blame the tool. Programming. Who's we? When a person kills an innocent with a vehicle or a gun, I blame the person. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? If it is miss-use (drunk driving, driving recklessly, etc) then we acknowledge the tool isn't being used properly. And our laws punish the abuser. We blame the operator and not the tool. Yet, when a gun is miss-used, we blame the tool. Programming. Who's we? When a person kills an innocent with a vehicle or a gun, I blame the person. 'we' is society. I don't know you personally. Certainly you are aware of the social view on guns and that the tool is always blamed and the person abusing it and their circumstances is usually secondary? Even today the President reiterated his position that we need more gun control. Could you ever imagine a political entity stating that we need vehicles in fewer hands because of the number of tragedies resulting from their use? Me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? Your "point" does not remain, as your argument is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Pretty much shooting fish in a barrel no? With people piled into a nightclub with few or no windows and doors to escape it seems to me very simple for someone to hit this type of "Soft target". I will have to disagree with some of you though. This ideology is not something you can curb or change. It is a religious belief by radical Islamists that will stop at nothing to destroy the west and the way we live. I do not feel sorry for the Muslims living in the US as previously stated by another poster, out of 1.7 Billion Muslims I can count on one hand how many speak out against this violence. Understand full well that if they condone it publicly, they will become targets for betraying their faith. I have studied plenty on what is going on right now in the world and this is not something that is going to fade anytime soon. Our president and other world leaders failing to call it what it is strengthens the views of these nut jobs. Being a Muslim himself and sympathizing with their beliefs only endangers the US people further. I am not trying to make this political just stating facts. If he were not a Muslim and he took a Muslim name he would have been killed by them. Look at Mohammed Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and others, they changed their names once they assumed their new Muslim name and took on their beliefs....not before. Very few people know who Barry Soetoro even is. Your either ignorant or an idiot. Nothing personal. Whatever efforts you have made to study the issue have been made in vain. You might what to consider a reliable source for facts rather than email blasts or whatever else you are using to "study". Yep, I checked. Neither and idiot or ignorant. You can disagree with me, it is after all a free, or sort of free country that we live in. You can look up everything I posted online and fact check them if you like. Of course nobody inside is going to tell you the facts if it undermines those in power. Mark my words, in a few years after Obama leaves office he will boast of being a Muslim and how he helped to change the world and bring people together. Yes, he is that arrogant. Just like his mentor in the WH. She is an Iranian born woman that has felt the plight of Muslims her entire life. Do you really believe that the president is unaware of the challenges that ISIS/ISIL present to us in the west? He has downplayed all of their actions at every chance. He lies every time he opens his mouth. Once again, if you disagree with me, it's okay as I am not offended. You can believe whatever you like. I do not hate Muslims for what they believe, in fact they are steadfast in their beliefs, as wrong as they might seem. Very few Christians or others of faith stand true to their beliefs like the Muslims do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Pretty much shooting fish in a barrel no? With people piled into a nightclub with few or no windows and doors to escape it seems to me very simple for someone to hit this type of "Soft target". I will have to disagree with some of you though. This ideology is not something you can curb or change. It is a religious belief by radical Islamists that will stop at nothing to destroy the west and the way we live. I do not feel sorry for the Muslims living in the US as previously stated by another poster, out of 1.7 Billion Muslims I can count on one hand how many speak out against this violence. Understand full well that if they condone it publicly, they will become targets for betraying their faith. I have studied plenty on what is going on right now in the world and this is not something that is going to fade anytime soon. Our president and other world leaders failing to call it what it is strengthens the views of these nut jobs. Being a Muslim himself and sympathizing with their beliefs only endangers the US people further. I am not trying to make this political just stating facts. If he were not a Muslim and he took a Muslim name he would have been killed by them. Look at Mohammed Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and others, they changed their names once they assumed their new Muslim name and took on their beliefs....not before. Very few people know who Barry Soetoro even is. Your either ignorant or an idiot. Nothing personal. Whatever efforts you have made to study the issue have been made in vain. You might what to consider a reliable source for facts rather than email blasts or whatever else you are using to "study". Yep, I checked. Neither and idiot or ignorant. Mark my words, in a few years after Obama leaves office he will boast of being a Muslim and how he helped to change the world and bring people together. Marked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? Your "point" does not remain, as your argument is nonsensical. Not from my point of view. Your rebuttal lies in a statistical equivalency (more cars being used so more tragedies). I'm not arguing numbers, necessarily. I'm arguing design. We do not design tools to kill... unless we design them to kill. Yet when someone abuses such a tool to do harm indiscriminately to innocent people, we blame the tool. That is ludicrous and anybody that would argue for it isn't grounded properly. Yet, when a tool designed for transportation is used to harm either on purpose or accidentally, that tool is never blamed. Instead we blame the abuser of the tool. Rightfully so! Since the tool is being misused. If that continues to be nonsensical to you, you are welcome to move onto a different subject. Edited June 13, 2016 by Bella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 remove all automobiles from the hands of citizens Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? Your "point" does not remain, as your argument is nonsensical. Not from my point of view. Your rebuttal lies in a statistical equivalency (more cars being used so more tragedies). I'm not arguing numbers, necessarily. I'm arguing design. We do not design tools to kill... unless we design them to kill. Yet when someone abuses such a tool to do harm indiscriminately to innocent people, we blame the tool. That is ludicrous and anybody that would argue for it isn't grounded properly. Yet, when a tool designed for transportation is used to harm either on purpose or accidentally, that tool is never blamed. Instead we blame the abuser of the tool. If that continues to be nonsensical to you, you are welcome to move onto a different subject. It's humorous to suggest that we're not arguing numbers. And, equally humorous to suggest that we're arguing comparable numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) I will say one more thing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. This whole thread has been left open (wow) and I must say for the most part there has been a lot of back an forth discussion. In fact there has probably been more discussion in this thread in relation to religion, gun control, mental illness and intention than I have seen in a long time. If only the world leaders, nation leaders, people of faith and other influential people could discuss and have back and forths without stomping away from the table this world would be a lot better off. Outside of the intentional remarks berating people that post, 99% of the rest of this should be talked about. It helps people see both sides of the equations. I enjoy these forums and I encourage people to prompt civil discussions. Whether it is about your choice of speakers, amps, guns, cars or whatever else. You can always agree to disagree but when you are shut down immediately there can be no discussion at all. Tim Just to add, this country is not alone in it's problems. My homeland Canada just passed a law allowing a new examination of the meaning of "beastiality". The Supreme court of Canada has come to the conclusion that only penetration will from this point forward count as beastiality. If you have oral sex with an animal it is now okay to do so. This conclusion was reached after a stepfather allowed his animals to lick peanut butter off of his stepdaughters genitals while filming it. I may be a bit off with the exact facts but I read this after the verdict was reached a few days back and I am not going to search out the link right now. This entire world has gone mad...have a wonderful night everyone. To a better tomorrow for all of us. RIP to the victims in Orlando and thanks for the intervention by police from preventing a second bloodbath in Los Angeles earlier today. Edited June 13, 2016 by teaman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason str Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 All Islamic terrorists should be chained inside a remote controlled dump truck filled with explosives and sent back where they came from for a kick *** fireworks show to be posted live on Youtube. Your opinion may vary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 All Islamic terrorists should be chained inside a remote controlled dump truck filled with explosives and sent back where they came from for a kick *** fireworks show to be posted live on Youtube. Your opinion may vary. Remove the word "Islamic" and more people would agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 All Islamic terrorists should be chained inside a remote controlled dump truck filled with explosives and sent back where they came from for a kick *** fireworks show to be posted live on Youtube. Your opinion may vary. Remove the word "Islamic" and more people would agree... I agree with you that all terrorists should be dealt with that way, however as Jason alludes to radical Islam is the lure to these people where they think they are doing this in the name of their God. Religious ideologues are probably the hardest minds to change as they are being taught that they will make their God happy by doing evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Radical Religion is the lure to these people where they think they are doing this in the name of their God. Religious ideologues are probably the hardest minds to change as they are being taught that they will make their God happy by doing evil. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Pretty much shooting fish in a barrel no? With people piled into a nightclub with few or no windows and doors to escape it seems to me very simple for someone to hit this type of "Soft target". I will have to disagree with some of you though. This ideology is not something you can curb or change. It is a religious belief by radical Islamists that will stop at nothing to destroy the west and the way we live. I do not feel sorry for the Muslims living in the US as previously stated by another poster, out of 1.7 Billion Muslims I can count on one hand how many speak out against this violence. Understand full well that if they condone it publicly, they will become targets for betraying their faith. I have studied plenty on what is going on right now in the world and this is not something that is going to fade anytime soon. Our president and other world leaders failing to call it what it is strengthens the views of these nut jobs. Being a Muslim himself and sympathizing with their beliefs only endangers the US people further. I am not trying to make this political just stating facts. If he were not a Muslim and he took a Muslim name he would have been killed by them. Look at Mohammed Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and others, they changed their names once they assumed their new Muslim name and took on their beliefs....not before. Very few people know who Barry Soetoro even is. Your either ignorant or an idiot. Nothing personal. Whatever efforts you have made to study the issue have been made in vain. You might what to consider a reliable source for facts rather than email blasts or whatever else you are using to "study". Yep, I checked. Neither and idiot or ignorant. You can disagree with me, it is after all a free, or sort of free country that we live in. You can look up everything I posted online and fact check them if you like. Of course nobody inside is going to tell you the facts if it undermines those in power. Mark my words, in a few years after Obama leaves office he will boast of being a Muslim and how he helped to change the world and bring people together. Yes, he is that arrogant. Just like his mentor in the WH. She is an Iranian born woman that has felt the plight of Muslims her entire life. Do you really believe that the president is unaware of the challenges that ISIS/ISIL present to us in the west? He has downplayed all of their actions at every chance. He lies every time he opens his mouth. Once again, if you disagree with me, it's okay as I am not offended. You can believe whatever you like. I do not hate Muslims for what they believe, in fact they are steadfast in their beliefs, as wrong as they might seem. Very few Christians or others of faith stand true to their beliefs like the Muslims do. I believe the lawyer was right. Your problem is that you are unable to grasp fact (nuance). The world is not fighting a religion. The fact that terrorists associate themselves with a religion does not mean that their actions represent the religion, no more than a professed Christian bombing a PP center makes the bombing an action of Christianity. Globble GW's thoughts on the matter. The Iranian you spoke of was born there of American parents. Read up on that. Basically you are ignorant of what you have posted as fact here. Keith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted June 13, 2016 Moderators Share Posted June 13, 2016 More people are killed with hammers and other blunt objects that rifles Killers usually pick soft targets. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I think you are overstating that data. I think the Other-Type of Gun Not Stated catagory is too large a number to draw that inference. The FBI statistics, which rely on reporting from local and state jurisdictions are limited in that regard. There is also significant under-reporting. There is specific data on "mass" killings and shootings in the US. I'm pretty sure hammer or blunt force object isn't going to be listed. Just a wild guess would tell me that most are going to involve a semi-auto rifle, with either "high capacity" or multiple magazines. "Killers usually pick soft targets." I think killers always pick soft targets, but having a gun within your reach doesn't transform you out of the soft target catagory either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I like Captain Kirk's position on gun control: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts