Home Off Topic

Can I be sickened and outraged at the same time?

123457

Replies

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    What do you tell the relatives of somebody who was killed by a drunk driver?  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
    kellercl said:
    What do you tell the relatives of somebody who was killed by a drunk driver?  
    Drunk drivers and mass murders are not the same thing,  but I imagine you already know that.  Trying to confuse the issue with meaningless comparisons does not work. 
    Vote for the other candidate
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,533 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    What do you tell the relatives of somebody who was killed by a drunk driver?  
    Drunk drivers and mass murders are not the same thing,  but I imagine you already know that.  Trying to confuse the issue with meaningless comparisons does not work. 
    But you just said the issue was explaining the death of children? 
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
    How many times have a mass murder used a car?  A firearm?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,533 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    How many times have a mass murder used a car?  A firearm?
    You don’t think a murderer will find a way to kill people? What was that incident or two in Europe?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    edited January 2019 #188
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    What do you tell the relatives of somebody who was killed by a drunk driver?  
    Drunk drivers and mass murders are not the same thing,  but I imagine you already know that.  Trying to confuse the issue with meaningless comparisons does not work. 
    So you don't have an answer, duly noted.  But since you are focused on mass murders, how do you explain the world trade center attack?  The Boston marathon bombing?  Oklahoma city bombing?  Those are all examples of mass murder.  How do you explain said events to the relatives of the lost?

    In case you are wondering, my point is tradegy cannot be explained and justified.  That is what makes it a tradegy.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    mplspug said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    mplspug said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    Actually, white men with guns.  You know, mass murders.
    Stats Don't Lie!

    Oh wait, they kind of fall right in line with race by % of population.  Carry on. 
    Do you believe white make up 60% of the US population?
    No, whites are closer to 70% of the population which would mean 70% of mass shootings should be by whites.  The stats posted have it closer to 55%.  

    Not sure why you replied, you shot yourself in the foot, so to speak. "Actually, white men with guns.  You know, mass murders."
    White men commit 60% of the mass murders, what percent of the US are white males?
    White men are the predominate buyers of your Beloved Tesla.... so what is your point?
    Mister-Jr said:
    Does the Constitution afford any rights to the five people that were murdered? 
    Of course it does. It afforded each of those persons the right to self defense via the 2nd amendment but it was the government that, thru a local gun ban(no guns in banks), disarmed them.  I would prefer that the rest of the country avoid that mistake.
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,444 AG
    edited January 2019 #190
    Those that have quashed every study, proposal, and hearing to address the problem under the guise of a slippery slope, simply don't care about the dead, and couldn't be more disingenuous. 

    There is no other excuse for doing nothing.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
    kellercl said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    What do you tell the relatives of somebody who was killed by a drunk driver?  
    Drunk drivers and mass murders are not the same thing,  but I imagine you already know that.  Trying to confuse the issue with meaningless comparisons does not work. 
    So you don't have an answer, duly noted.  But since you are focused on mass murders, how do you explain the world trade center attack?  The Boston marathon bombing?  Oklahoma city bombing?  Those are all examples of mass murder.  How do you explain said events to the relatives of the lost?

    In case you are wondering, my point is tradegy cannot be explained and justified.  That is what makes it a tradegy.  
    I hope you are aware of all the changes that occurred in flying to try and prevent another 9/11.  I don't have specifics on Boston Marathon or Oklahoma City, but I feel confident in saying federal and local authorities have enacted measures to make sure those incidents would be harder to do today than they were then. 

    As far as mass murders committed by using a firearm.......... 
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    We did have a law making it harder for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.  The ACLU lobbied against it and thus the law was removed.  Talk to them.  We also made bump stocks illegal.

    And you didn't answer the question, what would you say to those who lost a loved One? 


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
     kellercl said:
    We did have a law making it harder for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.  The ACLU lobbied against it and thus the law was removed.  Talk to them.  We also made bump stocks illegal.

    And you didn't answer the question, what would you say to those who lost a loved One? 
    I don't have any idea unless I was put into that position.

    If you read the article I post about the control by the American Civil Unions, you have known they are positive about more regulations for gun control, in general, are think most gun control efforts do not restrict civil liberties in general, unless regulations apply to certain classes of individuals. 

     But the categories of people that federal law currently prohibits from possessing or purchasing a gun are overbroad, not reasonably related to the state’s interest in public safety, and raise significant equal protection and due process concerns. Any number of the categories, for example, require no proof of dangerousness, and they often serve to further bias. For example, the list of those barred includes: anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year, whether or not the crime has any connection to violence; people with mental disabilities and many noncitizens who have not been shown to be dangerous in any way; and those who have used substances on the federal controlled substance list, including marijuana in states in which it is legal.
    Other proposed gun regulations also raise civil liberties concerns. The proposal to ban individuals listed on the No-Fly List from purchasing weapons, for example, is constitutionally problematic, because that list lacks basic due process protections and its standards are unconstitutionally vague. 
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    They are pro regulations while being anti mentally ill specific regulation.  It is possible to be both, which they are.  And we have seen that most shooters are mentally ill.  Their stance is illogical.  Punish everybody, over those who are the problem.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • FlatsMatt96FlatsMatt96 ChuluotaPosts: 1,358 Officer
    Matt,  While you are right to question that "mass killing always involves one thing, firearms", you might want to check your facts.  There was no "mass stabbing" that led to "over 200" people dead.  There was one where 33 people died, and it is worth noting that many more would likely have been dead had the killers had guns rather than knives.   Do you disagree that guns are far more capable and deadly weapons when put in the hands of those who would use them against the innocent?  Just curious...Mike

    Why did I read that there was a mass stabbing, I will have to go back and look. Maybe I was looking at a different article. I will have to go look. They didnt have guns and that was not the point though. The point was if people want to commit mass killings it will happen with whatever tool they want. It could have been more lethal with a firearm, perhaps. However in France they arent allowed to have firearms and there was an attempted mass shooting on a train that luckily was stopped by some American soldiers who were traveling. What about the truck attacks in Britain, bombs in germany, machete and knife attacks so bad in Britain that it is now illegal to carry pocket knives. If a criminal wants to hurt people he will do so with whatever tool he so chooses. Criminals dont follow laws, so why restrict my rights on what I can purchase and what I am allowed to have based on the actions of those who are evil? It doesnt make sense. I didnt do anything wrong, dont punish me.
    If youre going to burn a bridge, dont just burn it, use C4 and make a statement. 
  • FlatsMatt96FlatsMatt96 ChuluotaPosts: 1,358 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    There are over 320 million firearms (that are known of) in the US.  With that info, just how does anyone think that they will all be banned, registered, confiscated etc ?
    To my knowledge no one in this thread has talked about banning/confiscating guns. Why do people jump to the conclusion that gun control = take away all the guns?
    Because thats how it starts, there are current politicians in office who are looking to ban/confiscate all firearms. So I am not willing to give an inch on any sort of gun control. If I give the government an inch they will take a mile. 
    If youre going to burn a bridge, dont just burn it, use C4 and make a statement. 
  • FlatsMatt96FlatsMatt96 ChuluotaPosts: 1,358 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    If youre going to burn a bridge, dont just burn it, use C4 and make a statement. 
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
    kellercl said:
    They are pro regulations while being anti mentally ill specific regulation.  It is possible to be both, which they are.  And we have seen that most shooters are mentally ill.  Their stance is illogical.  Punish everybody, over those who are the problem.
    Their philosophy is to uphold the liberties conferred on citizens by the Constitution.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    They are pro regulations while being anti mentally ill specific regulation.  It is possible to be both, which they are.  And we have seen that most shooters are mentally ill.  Their stance is illogical.  Punish everybody, over those who are the problem.
    Their philosophy is to uphold the liberties conferred on citizens by the Constitution.
    ......  That is quite the ironic post.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,533 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    They are pro regulations while being anti mentally ill specific regulation.  It is possible to be both, which they are.  And we have seen that most shooters are mentally ill.  Their stance is illogical.  Punish everybody, over those who are the problem.
    Their philosophy is to uphold the liberties conferred on citizens by the Constitution.
    Oh my.
  • bigfinn35bigfinn35 Sarasota/VenicePosts: 661 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Why is complete and total success your metric for a law's validity? I'd challenge you to find any meaningful law on the books that is never broken. Seems like a silly way to judge things. Why bother having seat belt laws since some people aren't going to use them anyways, right?

    The point is that said laws cut down on the illegal activities. There are far, FAR fewer instances of murder using explosives in the US than there are with guns.
    Paddle faster, I hear banjo music.
  • FlatsMatt96FlatsMatt96 ChuluotaPosts: 1,358 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Why is complete and total success your metric for a law's validity? I'd challenge you to find any meaningful law on the books that is never broken. Seems like a silly way to judge things. Why bother having seat belt laws since some people aren't going to use them anyways, right?

    The point is that said laws cut down on the illegal activities. There are far, FAR fewer instances of murder using explosives in the US than there are with guns.
    Yeah there is far fewer because #1 its complicated to make a bomb. #2 its hard to make an explosion go unnoticed. Also explosions are generally used to make or cause a scene. Baseball bats and other blunt objects are pretty common to use in murders so why dont we have control for them. Look the point is we should look at the people who committing these atrocities rather then pointing fingers at guns. Because look at me I have quite a few firearms yet never committed a crime with them. So again I ask, why should my rights be restricted?
    If youre going to burn a bridge, dont just burn it, use C4 and make a statement. 
  • bigfinn35bigfinn35 Sarasota/VenicePosts: 661 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Why is complete and total success your metric for a law's validity? I'd challenge you to find any meaningful law on the books that is never broken. Seems like a silly way to judge things. Why bother having seat belt laws since some people aren't going to use them anyways, right?

    The point is that said laws cut down on the illegal activities. There are far, FAR fewer instances of murder using explosives in the US than there are with guns.
    Yeah there is far fewer because #1 its complicated to make a bomb. #2 its hard to make an explosion go unnoticed. Also explosions are generally used to make or cause a scene. Baseball bats and other blunt objects are pretty common to use in murders so why dont we have control for them. Look the point is we should look at the people who committing these atrocities rather then pointing fingers at guns. Because look at me I have quite a few firearms yet never committed a crime with them. So again I ask, why should my rights be restricted?
    They shouldn't be, nor would they be with tighter background checks, mental health exams before first-time purchases, and regulation of private sales. Which is all I've been advocating for on this entire thread. Going on the assumption that you're responsible and stable, your ability to buy a firearm would be unaffected.

    Yeah, explosives are way more loud and obvious that guns. But can you honestly say that there wouldn't be an increase in explosive-related murders if people had the same access to Semtex and hand grenades as they do to guns at the moment?
    Paddle faster, I hear banjo music.
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,508 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    What do you tell the relatives of somebody who was killed by a drunk driver?  
    Drunk drivers and mass murders are not the same thing,  but I imagine you already know that.  Trying to confuse the issue with meaningless comparisons does not work. 
    So you don't have an answer, duly noted.  But since you are focused on mass murders, how do you explain the world trade center attack?  The Boston marathon bombing?  Oklahoma city bombing?  Those are all examples of mass murder.  How do you explain said events to the relatives of the lost?

    In case you are wondering, my point is tradegy cannot be explained and justified.  That is what makes it a tradegy.  
    I hope you are aware of all the changes that occurred in flying to try and prevent another 9/11.  I don't have specifics on Boston Marathon or Oklahoma City, but I feel confident in saying federal and local authorities have enacted measures to make sure those incidents would be harder to do today than they were then. 

    As far as mass murders committed by using a firearm.......... 
    We can still fly and nothing has been modified with the planes.  We can still use pressure cookers.  We can still use fertilizer. 

    In other words the answer is not to take away things, but put things in place to protect people.  Duly noted.  

    Captain Todd Approves

  • FlatsMatt96FlatsMatt96 ChuluotaPosts: 1,358 Officer
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Why is complete and total success your metric for a law's validity? I'd challenge you to find any meaningful law on the books that is never broken. Seems like a silly way to judge things. Why bother having seat belt laws since some people aren't going to use them anyways, right?

    The point is that said laws cut down on the illegal activities. There are far, FAR fewer instances of murder using explosives in the US than there are with guns.
    Yeah there is far fewer because #1 its complicated to make a bomb. #2 its hard to make an explosion go unnoticed. Also explosions are generally used to make or cause a scene. Baseball bats and other blunt objects are pretty common to use in murders so why dont we have control for them. Look the point is we should look at the people who committing these atrocities rather then pointing fingers at guns. Because look at me I have quite a few firearms yet never committed a crime with them. So again I ask, why should my rights be restricted?
    They shouldn't be, nor would they be with tighter background checks, mental health exams before first-time purchases, and regulation of private sales. Which is all I've been advocating for on this entire thread. Going on the assumption that you're responsible and stable, your ability to buy a firearm would be unaffected.

    Yeah, explosives are way more loud and obvious that guns. But can you honestly say that there wouldn't be an increase in explosive-related murders if people had the same access to Semtex and hand grenades as they do to guns at the moment?
    In regards to your comment about explosives, I dont think there would be more murders with explosives as long as they went through the same process as gun buying. I really think people would accidentally start committing suicide because they buy a grenade and have no idea what they are doing. 

    Just so you are aware mental health checks with firearms is already a thing. I sell firearms with a large company and if you answer yes to certain questions, its an immediate denial. My other problem with enhanced checks is whats to stop them from saying that learning disabilities are mental health issues because with government over reach, I could see that becoming an issue. And as someone with three different learning disabilities, that might affect me directly. Yet I have a clear cut and very strict learning of firearm safety and responsibility. I would never commit any sort of unintended harm with a firearm. So thats my concern which is a legitmate one. I am 22 with 8 guns yet never had an issue and some people like me might run into the issue of "oh no hes got dyslexia, he cant own a gun" if there is enhanced mental health screenings. 
    If youre going to burn a bridge, dont just burn it, use C4 and make a statement. 
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
    mplspug said:
     
    We can still fly and nothing has been modified with the planes.  We can still use pressure cookers.  We can still use fertilizer. 

    In other words the answer is not to take away things, but put things in place to protect people.  Duly noted.  
    Next time you fly, when you hit 30,000 feet, go into the cockpit and say hi to the captain. Have your wife take photos.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    Why would anybody need in the cockpit?  Having the cockpit open was always stupid.  Having the door closed doesn't change the flight experience in any shape, way or form. 


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,508 AG
    edited January 2019 #208
    Mister-Jr said:
    mplspug said:
     
    We can still fly and nothing has been modified with the planes.  We can still use pressure cookers.  We can still use fertilizer. 

    In other words the answer is not to take away things, but put things in place to protect people.  Duly noted.  
    Next time you fly, when you hit 30,000 feet, go into the cockpit and say hi to the captain. Have your wife take photos.


    SWING AND A MISS

    Captain Todd Approves

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
    edited January 2019 #209
    bigfinn35 said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    kellercl said:
    Which is irrelevant to the point.  Parkland, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook and the recent  bank shooter...  they all showed signs, and we did nothing.  That is the point.  
    Sure we did, we let them have guns.  Mass killing always involves one thing, a firearm.
    Not true. There was a mass stabbing where two guys ran throughout a place in china and stabbed muliple people killing over 200 and wounding even more. So sorry that it doesnt fit your gun banning agenda but not all mass killings involve guns. Also what about explosions? Are those not capable of mass killings?
    Explosions are absolutely capable of mass killings. And as such, explosives are either illegal to make at home or impossible for the average person to buy. 
    And they still happen, so how well have those laws worked out? I can go down to the local academy and buy tannerite which is highly explosive. So clearly explosive control hasnt worked out all that well. 
    Respectfully, there's a reason why you can't buy more than two pounds of tannerite, and it is precisely because of these types of explosive controls working out quite well that you don't hear bombs being made out of it.  Well, that and it's not really that explosive in the first place.

    There's also a reason why taggants are a requirement for many explosives, and their use has led to more than a few bombs being detected before being used.  So your dismissal of laws as ineffective fails to account for these very real instances of when they did.

    Bottom Line:  Nobody is suggesting the laws around explosives are perfect, but if perfection is your measure there's not a single law that would pass that test.


  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,747 AG
    kellercl said:
    Why would anybody need in the cockpit?  Having the cockpit open was always stupid.  Having the door closed doesn't change the flight experience in any shape, way or form. 
    Why didn't you speak up before 9/11?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,341 Admiral
    edited January 2019 #211
    I flew many, many times before 9/11. Can't say I ever popped in the cockpit area.  This change was common sense and has zero implications in the travel process.  So forgive me for not understanding your point.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
Sign In or Register to comment.