So guns, bridges, and ropes are straight out then? I will miss them all.
1 Like
Give me a break. It isnât societyâs responsibility to nerf and bubble wrap the world so that people determined to hurt them selves canât do it. By your logic we should just lock everyone up in a padded room for safety. At least those with depression. Hell, you would have gotten rid of me for awhile if that were the case.
Also please note Japan has no guns, yet nearly 2x the suicide rate. How would you suggest we save our Japanese friends from themselves?
PS - your gif isnât snarky, itâs basically a personal attack, IMHO. Which is frowned upon.
2 Likes
I have a bridge here. I loved to watch the valley from it. But people were jumping from it occasionally. So somebody decided to install high bars with grids over the sides. And I lost the beautiful view, which got replaced with a feeling of prison.
A fitting metaphor, prison of safety.
I use these as an indicator how seriously the author/poster should be taken.
2 Likes
To be fair, Congress has a dumb hard time rolling things back that donât work.
2 Likes
Seriously - anti-arcade laws, sodomy laws, marijuana laws, stupid martial arts weapon scare laws (in CA).
4 Likes
America still hasnât fully rolled back prohibition. Many of the current oddities in liquor laws, especially the differences from state-to-state or even county-to-county, the strange rules about distributorships, etc are all side-effects from prohibition.
To be fair, Congress has a dumb hard time rolling things back that donât work.[/quote]
Seriously - anti-arcade laws, sodomy laws, marijuana laws, stupid martial arts weapon scare laws (in CA).[/quote]
Agreed. If AWB94 had not included a built-in 10-year sunset clause, does anybody honestly think the Assault Weapon Ban would have been repealed even given convincing evidence that it was ineffective? More likely it would be proclaimed as âa good first stepâ and itâs lack of any real impact used to justify even stricter regulations, or outright confiscation.
2 Likes
Require more effort, and more retrospection on the way to committing the act. Owning a gun not so much.
It would, where it could, if it gave two shits about people. You donât. Because you donât want to be inconvenienced.
To the fainting couch! Imagine if it have been a GUN!!! ZOMG!!
2 Likes
What is the minimum allowed radius of corners in your preferred world? How many layers of bubblewrap are mandatory?
Are books about weapons and poisons and other âdangerous thingsâ allowed? Knowledge is dangerous too. Are poisonous decorative plants allowed? What about pools? Pool chemicals? Drain cleaner chemicals? Where to put the cutoff for the do-gooders who want to take away everything?
Why it was common to get cyanide for metal plating just a few decades ago and now it is Horribly Dangerous Banned Chemical? Do you know how much the organic chelates suck in the task? Why should I be a potential criminal when I merely want my gold plating to work well?
[quote=âThebarton_Gamer, post:312, topic:71595, full:trueâ]
It would, where it could, if it gave two shits about people. You donât. Because you donât want to be inconvenienced.[/quote]
You canât stop people from dying. You certainly canât concoct some law that would stop them from buying something they could legally own, even if you add more restrictions, wait times etc. It wont stop someone who bought a gun 10 years ago and was now suicidal. Furthermore there is just no rationality to further restrict me because of what some other person MIGHT do.
If it was just a picture of a gun, it wouldnât have been insulting.
1 Like
FFS. Weâre talking about guns. You must get shagged from moving those goalposts so much. Perhaps you could develop a motorised assistant to help you?
How many lives is your view worth? For your precious fee-fees.
I thought we are talking about protecting people from themselves, guns being just one of the many ways.
How much must the world suck in order to become safe enough for you?
And yet you proport to want to see action against poverty and mental illness. Itâs edifying to see where your care for fellow humans stops.
Itâs when it involves guns.
Oh.
Here. Let me help you down from that cross.
I guarantee you are invovled in something that is abused or itâs daily use leads to loss of health and life of people. Drinking? Smoking? Recreational drugs? Prescription drugs? Unhealthy foods? What are you doing to stop people from using the things you like to hurt themselves and others?
You obviously use a computing device and social media. Both are used to stalk, harass, threaten, steal/con, bully, plan crimes or terrorism, steal identities, spread hate, traffic child porn, traffic revenge porn, and other illicit activities that includes up to the killing of someone. What do you support to make sure bad people donât use these things to do bad things? Government back doors? Snooping and gathering of your data? Maybe we should have browser histories sent to the NSA for anyone searching how to make a bomb or other undesirable information.
As I said before, mandatory breathalyzers to start a car would save 10K lives a year, plus many thousands more in injuries, and millions of dollars of damages. Are you beating the drum for that too? How many gun deaths start from a drunken argument? (Note, arguments are the #1 causes leading up to murders, at least in Milwaukee.)
We could go on and on with other dangers in the world, but you seem to have this irrational extra-sensitivity to this one thing.
1 Like
Thatâs interesting. Some people focus on One Highly Emotional Issue, and neglect that it is way out of the top set of problem causes, where even a relatively small amount of effort could save more lives.
I have a suspicion that it is less about guns and more about control.
There may be a dialectical difference here but I donât think Shaddack gets shagged much, as heâs freely admitted quite bitterly in the past.
4 Likes
1 Like
1 Like
The difference is, most of the stuff you mention are not dangerous to me, wealthy white guy in a decent part of town. A drunk guy in a cinema is just a drunk guy in a cinema, but an armed psycho in a cinema is a mass murderer.
Are you beating the drum for [mandatory breathalyzers] too?
Everyone agrees that automated cars cannot come fast enough. Unfortunately, weapons that fire only when handled by sane people (even easier, only by the person who actually bought it legally) are nowhere to be seen.
1 Like
So are you suggesting that Obama generates displays of emotion, on an equal level with crying, on a regular basis, in order to move policy/votes?
Given the ink that has been spilt over gun violence in America, what is Obamaâs motive (as it appears to you) in performing this way? Does he think the NRA leadership is watching him cry, which then makes them cry (because theyâre the empathetic types, you know), and then everyone is crying and they hold hands and walk into the House and Senate buildings and immediately sign legislation to provide a CareBear for each and every American child, along with banning all guns?
Mod note: Cut out the snark and personal attacks.
