And the shootings go on and on , and on, and on...

Yes, but Trade, where else are the "culture" and economic system so much better? Are there no people being left out and marginalized in other countries? Of course, there are many things about this country that are not perfect, but that theory is too over-generalized.

The variable is easy access to guns. That's the only variable that makes sense. Without that, the "left out and marginalized" people would not be able to enter crowded spaces and kill multiple people, and terrify hundreds of others, within a minute or two.
 

Plagues have done the job years back and more than likely they have not disappeared from the earth. If one arises today with the daily mass transportations of the world's people it may be nearly unstoppable. Nature has always had a way of fixing things.
 
fmdog44 said:
The stupid, worn out saying "Guns don't kill people, people do" should answer these questions. When the autopsies are performed do the doctors find people in the bullet wounds or bullets? Second question is during murder trials when a firearm is used is that firearm ever presented as evidence during the trials?
Click to expand...

Here, the firearm is presented as evidence during trials if the prosecution decides to do so. Usually it does.
 
rgp said:
You question me ? You look it up.........I substantiated my statement , [it was reported on the news] Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
If you are happy that's fine. But just claiming you heard it on the news is not substantiating anything.
I don't believe he shot his sister first. It has never been reported on any of the news outlets I subscribe to.
NBC,CBS,ABC, etc.,etc,
 
Camper6 said:
If you are happy that's fine. But just claiming you heard it on the news is not substantiating anything.
I don't believe he shot his sister first. It has never been reported on any of the news outlets I subscribe to.
NBC,CBS,ABC, etc.,etc,
Click to expand...


I don't care what you believe . I am not [claiming] I heard it on the news.....I heard it on the news.

This all happened about 45 miles north of me, it was all over the news here......local & national.
 
rgp said:
I don't care what you believe . I am not [claiming] I heard it on the news.....I heard it on the news.

This all happened about 45 miles north of me, it was all over the news here......local & national.
Click to expand...
If you are happy with hearing it over the news who am I to disturb you. It's obviously very important to you that he shot her first.
But this is what I get on the written word.
Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said during a Tuesday afternoon news conference it was still too early in the investigation and there was too much disagreement between those examining evidence to definitively say whether Megan Betts was an intended target of her brother, Connor Betts.
 
Camper6 said:
If you are happy with hearing it over the news who am I to disturb you. It's obviously very important to you that he shot her first.
But this is what I get on the written word.
Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said during a Tuesday afternoon news conference it was still too early in the investigation and there was too much disagreement between those examining evidence to definitively say whether Megan Betts was an intended target of her brother, Connor Betts.
Click to expand...


OK, fine but it was first reported that "she" was his first target/his first "kill" . If you look at the pictures posted, [reportedly taken just hours before] You see what appears to be a happy brother & sister. As such [if all is true] ? & { I } believe that it is........then he just went nuts in a flash? or had been harboring dark thoughts all along , or at the least for some time.
 
fmdog44 said:
The stupid, worn out saying "Guns don't kill people, people do" should answer these questions. When the autopsies are performed do the doctors find people in the bullet wounds or bullets? Second question is during murder trials when a firearm is used is that firearm ever presented as evidence during the trials?
Click to expand...
Such a question is irrelevant & lacks logic. The idea behind the quote "Guns don't kill people, people do" has to do with the fact that inanimate objects (like guns, bullets, cars, fire, bombs) are under human control & have no will of their own, therefore they can't kill unless a human makes them kill.
 
Win, what would you say about a person who somehow got hold of a vial of the smallpox virus, or some other similar killer, and pumped the contents into the air conditioning system of a crowded theater? Would you say the problem isn't the vials, which exist in research labs, but let's say they were sold to anyone who wanted them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions? And would the inane justification be something like: "Smallpox viruses don't kill people, people do. If people just handled those vials responsibly, no one would get killed. So 1000 people in that theater got infected? Well, the perp must have been mentally ill; that's the problem. But don't take away my right to buy (and use) the vials of smallpox, it's guaranteed in the Second Amendment!"
 
win231 said:
Such a question is irrelevant & lacks logic. The idea behind the quote "Guns don't kill people, people do" has to do with the fact that inanimate objects (like guns, bullets, cars, fire, bombs) are under human control & have no will of their own, therefore they can't kill unless a human makes them kill.
Click to expand...
But it is so irrelevant. Eliminating car deaths which are extremely accidents have nothing to do with gun deaths which are primarily not accidental. And vice versa. Eliminating gun deaths would not mitigate car deaths. So those are mainly lame excuses. The NRA is the author of that motto.
 
Sunny said:
Win, what would you say about a person who somehow got hold of a vial of the smallpox virus, or some other similar killer, and pumped the contents into the air conditioning system of a crowded theater? Would you say the problem isn't the vials, which exist in research labs, but let's say they were sold to anyone who wanted them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions? And would the inane justification be something like: "Smallpox viruses don't kill people, people do. If people just handled those vials responsibly, no one would get killed. So 1000 people in that theater got infected? Well, the perp must have been mentally ill; that's the problem. But don't take away my right to buy (and use) the vials of smallpox, it's guaranteed in the Second Amendment!"
Click to expand...

This is an example of carrying an argument to an absurdity. The right to possess vials of a deadly virus is NOT guaranteed in the constitution! And having vials of a deadly virus has no value to the average person, as opposed to firearms, which are used for hunting and self-defense, target shooting, etc.

It's like saying what if everyone had the right to have nuclear weapons . . . . But, we are NOT guaranteed the right to have nuclear weapons, or bazookas or flame throwers or mortars or guided missiles etc.
 
Butterfly said:
This is an example of carrying an argument to an absurdity. The right to possess vials of a deadly virus is NOT guaranteed in the constitution! And having vials of a deadly virus has no value to the average person, as opposed to firearms, which are used for hunting and self-defense, target shooting, etc.

It's like saying what if everyone had the right to have nuclear weapons . . . . But, we are NOT guaranteed the right to have nuclear weapons, or bazookas or flame throwers or mortars or guided missiles etc.
Click to expand...
The Constitution says Arms which is everything available.
 
Sunny said:
Win, what would you say about a person who somehow got hold of a vial of the smallpox virus, or some other similar killer, and pumped the contents into the air conditioning system of a crowded theater? Would you say the problem isn't the vials, which exist in research labs, but let's say they were sold to anyone who wanted them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions? And would the inane justification be something like: "Smallpox viruses don't kill people, people do. If people just handled those vials responsibly, no one would get killed. So 1000 people in that theater got infected? Well, the perp must have been mentally ill; that's the problem. But don't take away my right to buy (and use) the vials of smallpox, it's guaranteed in the Second Amendment!"
Click to expand...
Sunny, you are living in fantasy land.
On the planet earth, guns are not legally "sold to anyone who wants them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions."
I'm in CA. I undergo a detailed background check by the Dept. of Justice & Police Dept. for each gun I purchase. And I pay for each background check; it's added to the price of the gun. I have to pass a written exam & obtain a FSC (Firearms Safety Card) before the purchase. I also don't take possession of any gun until a 10-day wait to complete the background check. If any felonies or violent misdemeanors are found, the gun is not released to me. A domestic violence conviction or being the object of a restraining order - again, the gun is not released.
Some states have a quick computerized check for criminal records or other issues, so they don't have a 10-day wait. Those regulations also apply to gun show purchases, at least in CA. And they also apply to private sales - the buyer & seller appear at a licensed dealer, the dealer stores the gun for 10 days & the same detailed background check is completed on the new owner before the gun is released.

That is the procedure for a LEGAL sale. Of course, as with illegal drugs or any contraband, illegal sales happen on street corners; what do you suggest we do about that?
 
OK, being serious;
With technology moving at light speed, why can't we (the US) spend some tax dollars toward the development of a non-obtrusive scanner patrons will naturally pass thru when entering a mall or Walmart?
 
Butterfly said:
Here, the firearm is presented as evidence during trials if the prosecution decides to do so. Usually it does.
Click to expand...

I have never known the murder weapon NOT to be presented during trial here in Pennsylvania at the trails I have attended, if it is located. Sometimes the murder weapon is either destroyed or tossed into a body of water or garbage. The murder weapon represents the "manner of death," but not the "cause of death."
 
Camper6 said:
The Constitution says Arms which is everything available.
Click to expand...

This is arguable. However, even if true, ATF regulations regarding "destructive devices" regulate these items and tax them as to manufacture, sale, possession and storage; the regulation is quite onerous and expensive and hence nearly impossible to find a place to buy them, even if you could get approved to own them. Perhaps your "everything available" might be true in the sense that such items are not "available" to private citizens.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top