The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 17 of 28 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 542
  1. #321
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    It has probably already been pointed out , but this is a completely irrational argument.
    Yes, people die using planes, cars, boats,etc -, in fact my brother in law was killed in a terrible plane accident - but the intent and sole purpose of these items is something benign - travel. That people may die as a result of using them is an accident.
    This is in direct contrast to firearms, whose sole purpose is ONLY killing.
    Guns have no other purpose.

    As for 'responsible gunowners' (a phrase repeated many times on these threads/ by the gun apologists).
    I am sure that a middleaged, middleclass, white, woman, kindergarten teacher with a large gun collection also considered herself a 'responsible gun owner' and quite possibly argued against gun control.
    At least until early Friday morning.



    What really upsets and bewilders me is that pretty well the FIRST response of the gun apologists and gun lobby to this terrible tragedy was NOT shock, horror, pity and profound sadness - but, it seems, they immediately went into defense mode -
    'Guns don't kill people' - 'blame single moms!!' -'put god back in the classroom' 'it's Obama's fault'! - and someone on this bb even said words to the effect that they would not be willing to give up even one bit of their 'freedom' to own guns - that the deaths of innocent children is a reasonable price to pay.

    What the hell??
    Why is not the first or second response, the normal human response- after the shock, pity, horror to say - how can we stop this? what is wrong with our culture? and what can we do to TRY to prevent this from happening again.
    Wrong, guns have many purposes, although many don't use guns, as you evidently don't, if you think they are without purpose.

    THAT is why we can't have a rational discourse, because some don't understand guns and are judging by what others may say, that also don't know or have other agendas.

    IF you knew what purposes guns are for, you would not say what you did.
    That was my point.

    The first response, as the news were unfolding, was from anti gun news reporters already calling for the gun debate to open again.
    Guess who was being callous here, using this as another opportunity to push their anti gun agendas?


    8 members found this post helpful.

  2. #322
    Join Date
    Oct. 20, 2007
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    2,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    IF you knew what purposes guns are for, you would not say what you did.
    That was my point.
    Please, enlighten us, Bluey. I suppose one could make the argument that a gun is nothing more than a projectile launcher which, if said projectile hits you in the right spot, just happens to kill you.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #323
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,681

    Default

    Gun Buy Back yesterday in the bay area:

    Hurtado was among hundreds of Bay Area residents who dropped off their firearms at buyback locations in Oakland and San Francisco on Saturday, collecting $200 cash for their weapon, no questions asked.

    Organizers said both locations saw crowds twice as large as expected. In East Oakland, a mile-long line of cars waited on 82nd Avenue to enter a parking lot at St. Benedict's Church, with some running out of gas while idling. In San Francisco, people stood in pouring rain outside the Omega Boys Club in the Dogpatch neighborhood to exchange their guns for cash.

    By the end of the day, organizers expected more than 600 guns to be turned in.



    If you google search gun buy back programs, it seems they have been rather successful in recent years.

    IMO. anyone convicted of a DUI, should go into a data base that guns dealers can access. They should be denied to purchase a weapon, even if just for a period of time.
    Multiple DUI's could make that permanent.

    I have seen too many drunks waving a weapon in my life time. They scare the crap out of me, even if their intention is to just shoot off a round on July 4th or New Years.
    Alcohol and weapons just don't mix.

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #324
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post

    The first response, as the news were unfolding, was from anti gun news reporters already calling for the gun debate to open again.
    Guess who was being callous here, using this as another opportunity to push their anti gun agendas?
    Well.... yeah the anti-gun folks started talking about their agenda after the Newtown CT event. That's not a non sequitur, right?
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    6 members found this post helpful.

  5. #325
    Join Date
    Oct. 20, 2007
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    2,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Guess who was being callous here, using this as another opportunity to push their anti gun agendas?
    Oh, Bluey, I'm so sorry, that as reporters imagined the carnage, that while parents were given pictures of their children to identify to spare them the horror of their child's fate, that your feelings as a gun owner were not considered.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  6. #326
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    10,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alicen View Post
    Please, enlighten us, Bluey. I suppose one could make the argument that a gun is nothing more than a projectile launcher which, if said projectile hits you in the right spot, just happens to kill you.
    Yes, bluey, please enlighten us about the many *other* uses of firearms.
    Hood ornaments perhaps?
    Penile enhancers?

    Once again, your 'argument' is a complete non sequitor, and an obfuscation of the truth.
    The truth is that people are pro gun control - not to 'further their own agenda' as you say, but OBVIOUSLY to try to take some practical steps to stem the needless deaths,
    If you want to investigate people with their own agenda, look to the powerful and influential GUN LOBBY. Or as the expression goes, "follow the money".
    For them (and you, it seems) the horrific deaths of innocent children are just 'collateral damage' and part of the price YOU are willing to pay.. for A) PROFITS and B) what you 'interpret' as your precious "freedom".

    Maybe read this:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/op...this.html?_r=0
    A FINE ROMANCE - JC Reg Thoroughbred - GOLD Premium CSHA - ISR/OLDNA Approved
    CSHA Brickenden Stallion Award Winner - for Performance offspring.
    Please visit A Fine Romance on FB!


    5 members found this post helpful.

  7. #327
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,672

    Default

    Here, I can help.
    Guns are for collecting (both antiques and current models), for target sports (even a local church has a "ladies pistol shoot",and NO ONE gets hurt!!!), for hunting and for self defense.

    I hope we can keep this as helpful discussion as it has been. Sure, people here obviously disagree about gun issues, but gun owner or not, I think everyone was devastated by what happened Friday. I hope this is the tone future discussions take, rather than bashing others- I am so tired of those.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  8. #328
    Join Date
    Jul. 11, 2004
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    The truth is that people are pro gun control - not to 'further their own agenda' as you say, but OBVIOUSLY to try to take some practical steps to stem the needless deaths,
    HMMMMMM, you mean like people who are anti-abortion because they see these aborted children as worthy of saving.
    "Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #329
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    Give it up Trakhener. Forcing people to have children that you will not pay healthcare, education or social services for their lives is a whole different issue.

    Seriously? You HAVE to have guns that shoot multiple rounds per second? WHY? WHY would ANYONE need this? How can anyone defend this?

    And as for the many other uses, why not use a bebe gun to target shoot? The only purpose for guns is killing. I'm not arguing about hunting, whether I like it or not. A rifle or handgun for possible self-defense, though I still haven't seen any actual cases, OK. It's probably more useful to put down an animal as needed. But there is NO need for guns that shoot multiple rounds per second. I don;t know the correct terminology, so that's what I call it.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #330
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    How do you reconcile that with the fact that everyone on the trigger side of the gun gets to decide what counts as justifiable shooting?
    Trevon Martin
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #331
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    10,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trakehner View Post
    Just because you don't like a fact doesn't make it untrue. It's not racist to say Blacks commit the majority of gun attacks/murders...it's racist to refuse to hold them accountable due to their colour.
    I'm wondering if anyone considers themselves 'racist' or their thoughts and attitudes racism?
    What about Hitler? He certainly had plenty of 'facts' and 'scientific data' to back up his actions.
    What about those men who dragged the black man behind their pickup truck?
    The lynch mobs?
    Those people who burned those little girls to death in a church?
    Or the people who stood screaming, their faces frozen in hatred - and in the photographs - as brave children clutched their books to their chests and walked into schools?

    I would imagine that none of them considered themselves racist, and they could all justify their thoughts and actions, somehow.




    I apologise for taking this slightly off topic, but 'trakehner's' comment once again raised the question in my mind.
    A FINE ROMANCE - JC Reg Thoroughbred - GOLD Premium CSHA - ISR/OLDNA Approved
    CSHA Brickenden Stallion Award Winner - for Performance offspring.
    Please visit A Fine Romance on FB!


    3 members found this post helpful.

  12. #332
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,873

    Default

    We all know that commercial aircraft are specifically and intentionally designed to be killing machines. Just like guns.

    So, my original question (which has largely gone unanswered on this thread) where I asked about collateral damage...for you it's fine if 20 kids die because it doesn't happen all that often? It's just a freak thing?

    Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that my question went unanswered by gun rights advocates. I didn't really expect that anyone would answer it. Pretty hard to come out and admit that, "hey, if a few innocent kids and adults have to die each year so I can keep my semi-automatic, well, what the hell. Too bad for them."
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #333
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    We all know that commercial aircraft are specifically and intentionally designed to be killing machines. Just like guns.

    So, my original question (which has largely gone unanswered on this thread) where I asked about collateral damage...for you it's fine if 20 kids die because it doesn't happen all that often? It's just a freak thing?

    Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that my question went unanswered by gun rights advocates. I didn't really expect that anyone would answer it. Pretty hard to come out and admit that, "hey, if a few innocent kids and adults have to die each year so I can keep my semi-automatic, well, what the hell. Too bad for them."
    That is false logic.
    Those kids didn't die because a gun was being shot in itself, but because a crazy fellow was shooting them.

    You already admit we drive cars every day and everyone knows some people are killed every second in a wreck.

    No, nothing makes it right that kids were killed, but the blame is in the shooter, not the guns.
    He would have burned the school down, bombed it, whatever else he would have invented, the guns incidental.
    See the man in China, it is the crazy fellows that kill others when that is what their craziness demands they do.

    Your question has been answered time and again here, but not in the way you want.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  14. #334
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    10,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    We all know that commercial aircraft are specifically and intentionally designed to be killing machines. Just like guns.

    So, my original question (which has largely gone unanswered on this thread) where I asked about collateral damage...for you it's fine if 20 kids die because it doesn't happen all that often? It's just a freak thing?

    Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that my question went unanswered by gun rights advocates. I didn't really expect that anyone would answer it. Pretty hard to come out and admit that, "hey, if a few innocent kids and adults have to die each year so I can keep my semi-automatic, well, what the hell. Too bad for them."
    I asked the question too, Go Fish, and it was asked again, in the article I linked to.
    The gun apologists have answered, perhaps in not so many words.
    It seems the lives of innocent children are just collateral damage, and they are not willing to give up one iota of what they perceive to be their 'rights' to save even one life.
    A FINE ROMANCE - JC Reg Thoroughbred - GOLD Premium CSHA - ISR/OLDNA Approved
    CSHA Brickenden Stallion Award Winner - for Performance offspring.
    Please visit A Fine Romance on FB!


    4 members found this post helpful.

  15. #335
    Join Date
    Oct. 11, 2007
    Location
    Andover, MA
    Posts
    5,707

    Default

    Side note, because it's been on my mind: many gun advocates saying this would not have happened in Switzerland or Israel, where "everyone" has guns. Maybe so.

    However, it's way more complicated than that. Both places have very strict regulations for guns, people who get guns are screened not only when they buy their guns, but fairly frequently after that... Few people actually carry their guns with them unless it is for a government-approved purpose, etc. In other words, the government is very involved and in some cases quite intrusive.

    Somehow I don't think that would fly, here in the US.
    You have to have experiences to gain experience.

    Proudly owned by Mythic Feronia, 1998 Morgan mare; G-dspeed Trump & Minnie; welcome 2014 Morgan filly MtnTop FlyWithMeJosephine



  16. #336
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,570

    Default

    In Switzerland, unless things have changed much, most guns and ammunition are kept in the town's armory, where if called the men go get them and get orders.
    Some do have theirs at home with some rounds, but still have to go to the armory for more ammunition and orders.



  17. #337
    Join Date
    Sep. 4, 2012
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    1,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that my question went unanswered by gun rights advocates. I didn't really expect that anyone would answer it. Pretty hard to come out and admit that, "hey, if a few innocent kids and adults have to die each year so I can keep my semi-automatic, well, what the hell. Too bad for them."
    You are assuming causality where it does not exist. You are, in effect, saying people own semi-automatic weapons, therefore we will have school massacres. This is simply not true.

    Take a look at the biggest school massacres in history and you will see that some did not involve the use of guns at all (bombs, homemade flame thrower, grenades), some that did involve the use of guns occurred in countries with very strict gun control laws, and not all the guns used were those evil auto or semi-auto weapons.

    The only common thread that they do have is that the perpetrator(s) was(were) mentally ill. (Except the UT Clock Tower shooter, who, it was discovered upon autopsy, had a brain tumor that may have been responsible for his behavior.)

    Of course it's not fine if "a few innocent kids and adults" die and it's disingenuous to suggest that just because someone supports gun rights and owns a semi-automatic weapon, they also support school massacres.

    BTW, I own two semi-automatic weapons. I much prefer clay target shooting with a semi-auto shotgun. Less recoil, softer on the shoulder, and easier to handle than a double barrel of equivalent gauge.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  18. #338
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    I asked the question too, Go Fish, and it was asked again, in the article I linked to.
    The gun apologists have answered, perhaps in not so many words.
    It seems the lives of innocent children are just collateral damage, and they are not willing to give up one iota of what they perceive to be their 'rights' to save even one life.
    Sigh...I know. I just wanted to get it out in the open and make them admit it. They won't, of course. It reflects badly and they know it.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #339
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoSuchPerson View Post
    You are assuming causality where it does not exist. You are, in effect, saying people own semi-automatic weapons, therefore we will have school massacres. This is simply not true.

    Take a look at the biggest school massacres in history and you will see that some did not involve the use of guns at all (bombs, homemade flame thrower, grenades), some that did involve the use of guns occurred in countries with very strict gun control laws, and not all the guns used were those evil auto or semi-auto weapons.

    The only common thread that they do have is that the perpetrator(s) was(were) mentally ill. (Except the UT Clock Tower shooter, who, it was discovered upon autopsy, had a brain tumor that may have been responsible for his behavior.)

    Of course it's not fine if "a few innocent kids and adults" die and it's disingenuous to suggest that just because someone supports gun rights and owns a semi-automatic weapon, they also support school massacres.

    BTW, I own two semi-automatic weapons. I much prefer clay target shooting with a semi-auto shotgun. Less recoil, softer on the shoulder, and easier to handle than a double barrel of equivalent gauge.
    You have still not answered the question. How much collateral damage is acceptable to you? Stop dancing around the issue.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef



  20. #340
    Join Date
    Oct. 31, 2001
    Location
    West of insanity, east of apathy, deep in the heart of Texas.
    Posts
    15,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    You have still not answered the question. How much collateral damage is acceptable to you? Stop dancing around the issue.
    Oh, let me answer this one!

    As much collateral damage as is inflicted every year on unsuspecting motorists and their passengers by those who are driving unsafely.

    Unless you're proposing outlawing cars, that is.
    In loving memory of Laura Jahnke.
    A life lived by example, done too soon.
    www.caringbridge.org/page/laurajahnke/


    3 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Counties/States with strict neuter laws?
    By shea'smom in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jun. 12, 2012, 05:23 PM
  2. Differences in TBs from different countries
    By Starda01 in forum Racing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sep. 7, 2011, 01:11 PM
  3. Vacations - other countries
    By MyGiantPony in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Apr. 22, 2011, 05:14 PM
  4. How strict is AHS in approving TB mares?
    By flyracing in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Feb. 23, 2011, 12:57 PM
  5. How strict are you about Fescue?
    By DLee in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Apr. 14, 2010, 11:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness