VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: AZ Congresswoman and over a dozen others shot Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-02-2011 12:02 PM
Pariah
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

designed. alfred nobel designed TNT to help in construction projects and felt a tremendous guilt over how it was used.


Pedantic alert: Nobel invented dynamite, not TNT. They're not the same thing, no matter what Bugs Bunny said.
02-02-2011 10:00 AM
Red
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

-- unless you think that any heightened security concerning who can board an airplane after 9/11 was hyperbolic, of course.

For the most part - yes. But that's for a different thread.
02-02-2011 02:33 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

the kind of causal role jet airplanes have in flying into towers. well then

Yes, such a causal role exists too. And it's worth taking account of -- unless you think that any heightened security concerning who can board an airplane after 9/11 was hyperbolic, of course.
02-02-2011 02:30 AM
otomik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

You think pointing out the causal role guns often play in causing harm is hyperbolic? Why, do you think they exist outside the physical universe and its laws or something?

the kind of causal role jet airplanes have in flying into towers. well then
02-02-2011 02:19 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

no. i just think you're getting hyperbolic.

You think pointing out the causal role guns often play in causing harm is hyperbolic? Why, do you think they exist outside the physical universe and its laws or something?
02-02-2011 02:12 AM
otomik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

No?

EDIT: Did you think I said casual perhaps?

no. i just think you're getting hyperbolic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

I've never heard of anyone being accidentally killed by having anything pointed at them.

yes, as if there's anything particularly causal about possessing a glock 19.
02-02-2011 01:17 AM
Red
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsnip View Post

I've never heard of anyone accidentally killing someone by pointing a rock at them.

I've never heard of anyone being accidentally killed by having anything pointed at them.
02-01-2011 11:43 PM
Parsnip I've never heard of anyone accidentally killing someone by pointing a rock at them.
02-01-2011 11:35 PM
havocjohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Knives and planes aren't designed just to kill people, and rocks aren't designed at all. Sure, they can be used for that though.

though knives are not primarly used anymore to kill people that is what they were designed to do, dating back to the when early man used flint to make a point object to jab things with. Planes found their first use in society during WW1 first as recon platforms on the battle field and then to drop bombs (hand grenades) on enemy troops. so yeah the plane was developed as a means to kill people first, and later developed into a passenger and freight delivery system. rocks can be shaped, and designed, haven't you seen the pyrimids?
02-01-2011 11:26 PM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

so are knives, and in the past rocks were used very efficiently to kill people. It was shown a little over ten yrs ago that planes are very efficient people killers too.

Knives and planes aren't designed just to kill people, and rocks aren't designed at all. Sure, they can be used for that though.
02-01-2011 11:25 PM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

perhaps you misspoke?

No?

EDIT: Did you think I said casual perhaps?
02-01-2011 11:23 PM
otomik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

the causal role they play.

perhaps you misspoke?

designed. alfred nobel designed TNT to help in construction projects and felt a tremendous guilt over how it was used.
02-01-2011 11:22 PM
havocjohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Nope, I'm not in favour of banning planes or guns. My reply was in agreement with Sevenseas about how it's silly to blame an inanimate object for something but that isn't the same as pointing out the causal role they play. Guns are designed to kill people as efficiently as possible.

so are knives, and in the past rocks were used very efficiently to kill people. It was shown a little over ten yrs ago that planes are very efficient people killers too.
02-01-2011 11:18 PM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

sure, and like in other nations where guns are banned, such as Russia, we would see the use of more bombs.

the simple fact of the matter there will always be crazy people bent on doing harm to others, if it wasn't a firearm it would be something else, after all on 9/11/01 a firearm was not involved yet, terrorists determined to kill managed to kill 3,000 people and destroy the twin towers.

Should we ban planes because of the ease in which so many can be killed with them?

Nope, I'm not in favour of banning planes or guns. My reply was in agreement with Sevenseas about how it's silly to blame an inanimate object for something but that isn't the same as pointing out the causal role they play. Guns are designed to kill people as efficiently as possible.
02-01-2011 10:29 PM
havocjohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Indeed. Guns are inanimate objects but they are objects designed specifically to kill people efficiently, the outcome would have been a little different if the guy had shown up with a spork instead of a glock.

sure, and like in other nations where guns are banned, such as Russia, we would see the use of more bombs.

the simple fact of the matter there will always be crazy people bent on doing harm to others, if it wasn't a firearm it would be something else, after all on 9/11/01 a firearm was not involved yet, terrorists determined to kill managed to kill 3,000 people and destroy the twin towers.

Should we ban planes because of the ease in which so many can be killed with them?
01-24-2011 12:15 AM
otomik
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky View Post

I'm not a gun guy but evidently before the Federal ban was repealed the limit was 10 rounds in most cases.

limit in ohio is 30, new jersey has it at 15.
01-23-2011 03:08 PM
sosoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I don't see anything wrong with requiring a super majority. What I have been criticizing, again, has been the manner of argumentation that doesn't evaluate political principles on their own merits (such as how they respond to current societal needs) but on how well they correspond to what the Daddies intended. As to "threat of violence against an oppressive government", anyone making that argument should provide some examples of how people owning guns could prevent excessive surveillance, or, say, curtailing free speech by criminalizing anti-government talk radio, or especially invasive profiling and especially extensive arresting of Muslim Americans. (Those seem to me more likely examples of the government stepping over its boundaries, than an open armed conflict. It will take quite a lot of stepping over boundaries before you get to the latter.)

Just came across this specific example:
Quote:
An example of this type of force needed that made substantial change in the Deep South took place in early 1965. Black students picketing the local high school were confronted by hostile police and fire trucks with hoses. A car of four Deacons emerged and in view of the police calmly loaded their shotguns. The police ordered the fire truck to withdraw. This was the first time in the twentieth century, as Lance Hill observes, an armed black organization had successfully used weapons go defend a lawful protest against an attack by law enforcement.

Deacons for Defense and Justice

but in general, I don't see guns as being useful against the government in anything but extreme circumstances - the police and government won't stand for it. I am surprised those black men survived the encounter. If something like that happened today, they'd all be dead with dozens of bullets in them, along with all dogs in the area.
01-23-2011 06:56 AM
das_nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Also true. Personally I would have chosen the spork.



Looks like a poor weapon for me, but stabbing seems to be a popular idea.

Can't find anyone injured by one though.

Forks, on the other hand...
01-22-2011 11:20 PM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

It would also be different if he showed up with a moving fan full of fertilizer and gasoline, as a previous attack on federal officials has shown.

Also true. Personally I would have chosen the spork.
01-22-2011 11:05 PM
das_nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Indeed. Guns are inanimate objects but they are objects designed specifically to kill people efficiently, the outcome would have been a little different if the guy had shown up with a spork instead of a glock.

It would also be different if he showed up with a moving fan full of fertilizer and gasoline, as a previous attack on federal officials has shown.
01-21-2011 11:00 PM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

'Blame' has a connotation of moral connotation, so yes, it doesn't make sense to blame inanimate objects. Pointing out the causal role they play, however, is different.

Indeed. Guns are inanimate objects but they are objects designed specifically to kill people efficiently, the outcome would have been a little different if the guy had shown up with a spork instead of a glock.
01-21-2011 10:52 PM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx View Post

If you gave me the same gun I'd probably use it to shoot tin cans off a wooden fence. You can not, should not and will not in honesty and sound conscience blame the deaths of human beings on an inanimate object.

'Blame' has a connotation of moral condemnation, so yes, it doesn't make sense to blame inanimate objects. Pointing out the causal role they play, however, is different.
01-21-2011 09:30 PM
das_nut What bothers me is the whole "10" thing.

Why 10? Because it was limited to 10 rounds before.

It's tradition.

I'd rather not have my congresscritters pass laws based on tradition.
01-21-2011 07:09 PM
Josh James xVx If you gave me the same gun I'd probably use it to shoot tin cans off a wooden fence. You can not, should not and will not in honesty and sound conscience blame the deaths of human beings on an inanimate object.
01-21-2011 02:23 PM
GhostUser Perhaps.
01-21-2011 02:22 PM
das_nut Perhaps we should limit the mentally ill to 10 poisonous snakes.
01-21-2011 02:18 PM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

He may argue that, but is he right?

The shooter may have just decided to practice fast reloading instead (as other posters have shown, putting in a fresh clip is pretty fast), or perhaps he would have chosen a different technique, such as sniping people from a distance or hidden cover, such as the beltway snipers did, killing 10 people over the course of three weeks.

Yea, or he might have brought a thousand poisonous snakes and unleashed them on the crowd. Or maybe he would have brought an army of anguished nuns with rulers studded with rusty nails to pound upon the knuckles of those in attendance until they bled to death in the Tucson sun. We'll never know.
01-21-2011 02:04 PM
das_nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky View Post

I believe he was arguing the point that had the shooter only had a 10 round clip as the Federal law stipulated before the repeal, fewer people would have been injured or killed.

He may argue that, but is he right?

The shooter may have just decided to practice fast reloading instead (as other posters have shown, putting in a fresh clip is pretty fast), or perhaps he would have chosen a different technique, such as sniping people from a distance or hidden cover, such as the beltway snipers did, killing 10 people over the course of three weeks.
01-21-2011 11:11 AM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy View Post

Right, but to state the issue yet another way, wouldn't he, if the ban was still in effect, be saying "I blame the shooter for the first 5 bullets. I blame the law for the next 5."? Or does he really think that 10 rounds is in some way appropriate?

I believe he was arguing the point that had the shooter only had a 10 round clip as the Federal law stipulated before the repeal, fewer people would have been injured or killed.

Really nothing more than that. Nothing about crazy people or an appropriate number of bullets with which to kill people or 0 or 1 or 5 or some other made up number of rounds.
01-21-2011 11:03 AM
sosoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky View Post

I don't think you've been following the story. I'm not a gun guy but evidently before the Federal ban was repealed the limit was 10 rounds in most cases.

Right, but to state the issue yet another way, wouldn't he, if the ban was still in effect, be saying "I blame the shooter for the first 5 bullets. I blame the law for the next 5."? Or does he really think that 10 rounds is in some way appropriate?
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off