Roland Deschain wrote:
I'd check seat belt laws for starters and you are still talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Seat belt laws?? Seriously? WTH does that have to do with anything? You want to discuss guns and gun laws or something else? If seat belt laws are controversial, start a thread and I'll decide whether it's interesting enough to participate.
How is it contradictory to say if your lack of compliance with standard and well-known safety precautions results in injury you should be held accountable no matter what the item causing the injury is?
Seat belt required for occupancy in a moving vehicle....child in back of moving truck unrestrained (dog crate don't count). Still thinking they don't have anything to do with your example?
Your contradiction is in your point that the NRA is a large gun lobby but is responsible for local criminal law.
Roland Deschain wrote:
Seat belt required for occupancy in a moving vehicle....child in back of moving truck unrestrained (dog crate don't count). Still thinking they don't have anything to do with your example?
Your contradiction is in your point that the NRA is a large gun lobby but is responsible for local criminal law.
You're right - except that isn't what they charged them with. If they had charged them with a seat belt violation, I wouldn't have used that as an example. I used it as an example because they charged them with child endangerment, yet the child wasn't likely in as much actual danger as she would have been with a loose loaded gun lying around.
Look, I'm not going to argue picky semantics. But I didn't say the NRA is "responsible" for local criminal law. I said and continue to say that they have a national effect, inclusive of locals, on how guns are seen vs. other potentially dangerous items. But if you don't want to give the NRA credit for what they claim they do, fine. Let's nevermind how it got there, let's just try to change the mindset that treats gun incidents differently from other incidents in which people are injured.
Roland Deschain wrote:
Seat belt required for occupancy in a moving vehicle....child in back of moving truck unrestrained (dog crate don't count). Still thinking they don't have anything to do with your example?
Your contradiction is in your point that the NRA is a large gun lobby but is responsible for local criminal law.
You're right - except that isn't what they charged them with. If they had charged them with a seat belt violation, I wouldn't have used that as an example. I used it as an example because they charged them with child endangerment, yet the child wasn't likely in as much actual danger as she would have been with a loose loaded gun lying around.
I disagree...that loose loaded gun lying around is going to do just that, lay around. However, an unrestrained child in the back of a moving pickup truck is subject to the actions of the driver of the truck and all the other drivers on the road. The gun is simply going to continue to lay there.
Vrede wrote: Until a child picks it up and shoots self or others. You've lost track.
But of course that never has happened and never will.
That is not what you said.....you said a child was in more danger from a loaded gun lying around than riding in the back of a moving pickup truck unrestrained. That is an untrue statement unless you can prove that the gun will somehow move and operate under it's own power. Just "lying around" a gun is no more dangerous than a paper clip.
Vrede wrote: Until a child picks it up and shoots self or others. You've lost track.
But of course that never has happened and never will.
That is not what you said.....you said a child was in more danger from a loaded gun lying around than riding in the back of a moving pickup truck unrestrained. That is an untrue statement unless you can prove that the gun will somehow move and operate under it's own power. Just "lying around" a gun is no more dangerous than a paper clip.
That might be an acceptable comment from some mush-brain pavlov dog that believes any piece of propaganda coming down the pike. But you clearly have a better than average understanding of firearms, and undoubtedly have some degree of training in firearm safety. While it's true that a gun never picked up is pretty harmless, it obviously presents a hazard. Every firearm expert you find - and including those who teach NRA-based courses will say keep firearms protected from unsupervised child access. A swimming pool is harmless too, unless some kid falls in because the gate was open. There is no point or reason to that line of thinking.
Vrede wrote: Until a child picks it up and shoots self or others. You've lost track.
But of course that never has happened and never will.
That is not what you said.....you said a child was in more danger from a loaded gun lying around than riding in the back of a moving pickup truck unrestrained. That is an untrue statement unless you can prove that the gun will somehow move and operate under it's own power. Just "lying around" a gun is no more dangerous than a paper clip.
That has got to be just about the dumbest statement I've ever heard.
Vrede wrote: Until a child picks it up and shoots self or others. You've lost track.
But of course that never has happened and never will.
That is not what you said.....you said a child was in more danger from a loaded gun lying around than riding in the back of a moving pickup truck unrestrained. That is an untrue statement unless you can prove that the gun will somehow move and operate under it's own power. Just "lying around" a gun is no more dangerous than a paper clip.
Just as the child in the pickup bed is fine unless some unfortunate external force comes into play - your own example.
My apologies for before, you're way, way dumber than Mad American. Leaving aside the content of your views, you really should go play on CPF for your own good. They aren't as adept at seeing the utter illogic of an argument.
Y'know, we'd live in a much safer world if we followed that line of thought. Land mines, for example, as long as they're just lying around and nobody steps or rolls over them, are perfectly safe. A badass pit bull is no more dangerous than a golden pup as long as he's just lying there and nobody gets close to him. Heck, even lightning is safe as long as nobody goes outside. So if the gun lying on the bed is no more dangerous than a paper clip, but the kid shoots himself or someone else with it, can we at least blame the parents for not keeping their kid from turning the safe gun into a dangerous weapon, since we obviously can't blame them for leaving the safe gun around?
Vrede wrote: Until a child picks it up and shoots self or others. You've lost track.
But of course that never has happened and never will.
That is not what you said.....you said a child was in more danger from a loaded gun lying around than riding in the back of a moving pickup truck unrestrained. That is an untrue statement unless you can prove that the gun will somehow move and operate under it's own power. Just "lying around" a gun is no more dangerous than a paper clip.
Just as the child in the pickup bed is fine unless some unfortunate external force comes into play - your own example.
My apologies for before, you're way, way dumber than Mad American. Leaving aside the content of your views, you really should go play on CPF for your own good. They aren't as adept at seeing the utter illogic of an argument.
Fortunately there are 317 other people that could use his "terminal" at any time who will be along to defend him after "Roland" runs off. And I bet every one of them is as obsessed with guns as he and Mad American are.
So the guy shoots his wife (twice) leaving her to die for their kids to find. His mother says he's a "wonderful husband and father" who has issues - bi-polar and PSD. Okay, let's say that's correct. He's also got a history of a bad temper. Mental illness, previous domestic instances....yet he had an (apparently) legal gun. Why is that? Oh yeah, NRA protects people like him.
Yeah, but before any of the SC yayhoos start thinking NYC needs less gun control, they might consider that in 2011 (last full year of data) NYC had a violent crime rate of 336.8, while lil' ol' gun-friendly Spartanburg was at 851.1.
Hmmm...New York...You mean the state with some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation?...that New York? So show are them there new laws working for ya?
Ombudsman wrote:Living in a bubble, how's that working out for you Mad Roland?
Once again when faced with fact ohbutboy whips out more insults. Tell us ohbutboy, got anything of substance to offer to any conversation going on, or do you simply lack the intelligence to carry on a conversation like an adult???
Hmmm...New York...You mean the state with some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation?...that New York? So show are them there new laws working for ya?
Did I call it, or what? I should rent a fortune telling booth at the carnival.
Hmmm...New York...You mean the state with some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation?...that New York? So show are them there new laws working for ya?
Did I call it, or what? I should rent a fortune telling booth at the carnival.
While you are busy patting yourself on the back for your ESP, you might want to look up the parameters of "violent crime" your study used. Violent crime can include many crimes where a firearm is not used. Once you post some accurate numbers regarding gun crime we'll talk until then, you are nothing more than another liberal cherry picking numbers to fit your argument.
Vrede wrote:NY is better than gunhugger-friendly Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana for "Firearms murders rate", better than the national average for "Firearms robberies rate", and far better (#9) than the national average for "Firearms assaults rate".
What kind of idiot issues such an easily researched challenge proving him wrong? Oh, Roland Deschain.
Plus, as is widely known, NYC attributes its continuing gun problem to the easy purchases in other states. You never did explain why you oppose making it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to get guns from other sellers before they use them.
Run away, Roland Deschain, run away.
Great you proved you can use google again......now find the data regrading the actual topic....New York City vs Spartanburg...try to keep up!
Ombudsman wrote:Living in a bubble, how's that working out for you Mad Roland?
Once again when faced with fact ohbutboy whips out more insults. Tell us ohbutboy, got anything of substance to offer to any conversation going on, or do you simply lack the intelligence to carry on a conversation like an adult???
Does hypocrisy pay well or do you gain some other benefit from engaging in it?
Seven year old informartion is not worth spit. Get some current facts before coming back. The sad thing is you idiots spout about "saving lives" yet when 25 people get shot in a 48 hour period in one of the most stringent gun regulation areas you ignore the fact and create comparisons to deflect from the fact that increased gun regulation does not work.
Btw way last time I checked New York city was in New York state. At least learn geography, it might help your 'sister bertha better than you' image stick, if you stopped making inaccurate posts.
Last edited by Roland Deschain on Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Until a child picks it up and shoots self or others. You've lost track.
