The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 542
  1. #341
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    Trevon Martin
    Sorry... can you connect the dots for me?

    I was asking about all the pro-gun types who logically have to agree that everyone-- people they don't like, trust, respect or is predictable to them-- also gets to have a gun.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  2. #342
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    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."
    Not on the pro-gun side, primarily because I think the position is logically flawed. But I think their answers about "collateral damage" would be:

    1. Guns aren't the cause of those unjustifiable deaths. They are correct, but only in a semantic sense. You have read lots of that here. The point is that you'd have to consider all contributing causes and you could find a way to make guns a minor one. So no "collateral damage" needs to be attributed to guns in particular.

    2. They haven't been on the losing side of the equation-- they or one of their kids hurt badly or even killed in part because the person with a beef had a gun as opposed to lesser weapon.

    2a. They believe that they will never be in that position.

    2c. In fact, they believe they will never be in that position precisely because they both have a gun and are better at using it that their foe.

    3. The deeper "collateral damage" is the slippery slope of losing this right granted in the 18th century. (FWIW we lost more when it was decided to make corporations strangely like people, only better. But, hey, you keep the rights you can see and cite regardless of whether or not they materially influence your life.)

    4. There would be less collateral damage of the killing kind if everyone were allowed to carry guns because all people would walk around knowing they could die for their bad decisions. Works well, so long as everyone is rational, predictable and, equally important, extremely good at reading other people. If not? Your guess is as good as mine.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    4 members found this post helpful.

  3. #343
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Not on the pro-gun side, primarily because I think the position is logically flawed. But I think their answers about "collateral damage" would be:

    1. Guns aren't the cause of those unjustifiable deaths. They are correct, but only in a semantic sense. You have read lots of that here. The point is that you'd have to consider all contributing causes and you could find a way to make guns a minor one. So no "collateral damage" needs to be attributed to guns in particular.

    2. They haven't been on the losing side of the equation-- they or one of their kids hurt badly or even killed in part because the person with a beef had a gun as opposed to lesser weapon.

    2a. They believe that they will never be in that position.

    2c. In fact, they believe they will never be in that position precisely because they both have a gun and are better at using it that their foe.

    3. The deeper "collateral damage" is the slippery slope of losing this right granted in the 18th century. (FWIW we lost more when it was decided to make corporations strangely like people, only better. But, hey, you keep the rights you can see and cite regardless of whether or not they materially influence your life.)

    4. There would be less collateral damage of the killing kind if everyone were allowed to carry guns because all people would walk around knowing they could die for their bad decisions. Works well, so long as everyone is rational, predictable and, equally important, extremely good at reading other people. If not? Your guess is as good as mine.
    You forgot to mention #5.
    Guns are a tool with several uses.
    There are millions of them out there used properly.
    Many think that we should continue to be able to use them, legally and responsibly, just as all those millions with them do, even if some will be misused and as here, misused so terribly.

    Tried banning alcohol, that kills many, many more than guns ever did and sensible people prevailed because, like with guns, alcohol can be used responsibly and is by millions, although so many also misuse it.
    That from someone that personally would be glad if alcohol was banned so no one could get drunk, but understand that so many do drink responsibly and they also have rights.

    Yes, guns are dangerous, so is so much else in this world that we use.
    Guns are already restricted.
    Can or should they be restricted even more?
    That is hard to define, because so many are against guns period, see so many posts here questioning why anyone should have a gun, by those that don't understand what ALL guns, a tool, are used for.

    How much "collateral" damage are you accepting driving, flying, just being alive?
    That is an asinine question.
    We want to be safe, as safe as we can make our lives.
    All are striving for 100% safe, but that is an impossible goal.
    Banning guns won't make us any safer from crazy people, if that is the goal of banning them.

    Work on the real problem, crazy people and yes, their access to guns and knives etc. is a good place to start.
    Ban all guns so crazy people can't shoot others?
    That is like banning all vehicles so no one is killed in wrecks, those many innocent people a day that are killed just driving down the roads.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  4. #344
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    11,151

    Default

    Interestingly bluey, you once again neglected to 'enlighten' us on all the other uses of guns.
    You make statements, use a lot of words, but you sidestep the questions.
    'Gun Control' does not mean 'banning all guns' - but you polarize the issue by taking it to that extent.
    Once again, you use the illogical 'car/plane' analogy to attempt to make your point, and once again it is a red herring. This was discussed earlier, but you did not respond to that.
    And once again, you insist that people who disagree with you "don't understand".
    Ah yes, we are stupid. You are smart.

    MOST of us understand that the easy availability of guns,and in particular, multi-shot weapons is not the only cause of this, and increased gun control/restrictions is not the only answer, most of us have said that repeatedly, but it is one part of the answer.
    And if you can't or won't see that, then you are part of the problem, imo.

    What happened in CT is beyond heartbreaking.
    I can not imagine how those people will carry on, but I know that their lives are blighted forever.
    My parents lost a child, my husband's parents lost a child - and I saw how that affected them and all of us, forever.
    I can't look at Gabby Giffords and her brave attempt to get her life, her self back, without crying.
    How senseless, what a terrible loss.
    Guns don't kill people?? Once again, tell that to the parents of those children.
    Tell it to the medical examiner who I saw bend over and nearly crumble at the the horror of what he was seeing. Tiny children shot in the face many times at close range.
    And yet you (and I mean the general 'you' - gun rightists) continue to insist on your 'rights' in the face of that?

    People are trying to understand what is going on, particularly in America, and attempting to reduce the chances, the opportunities for it to continue to happen.
    Something, many things, have to change, including the easy access to guns and the whole 'lock and load mentality' - and it takes everyone working together, to make positive change, to make things better.
    That's my hope.
    God bless those poor people.
    When all the crowds and cameras go away, they are left with their grief and loss.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  5. #345
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2002
    Posts
    3,987

    Default

    To answer the OP, in the countries that I know of (mostly European countries) that have strict gun laws, massacres such as this one very rarely happen, if at all.

    Yes, people still get crazy and kill, by stabbing, clubbing people...but with few exceptions (the latest that comes to mind is that crazy gunman on the island in Norway last year), you don't see so many people being killed because of one shooting event.

    However, there was never such a " gun culture" in these countries as there was and still is in the US. Nor are there such powerful gun lobbies in those countries.
    What can the US do...
    -stricter gun control? (as in, no more legal access to rapid fire shooting weapons, etc)
    -guns that can only be fired by the person who legally purchased them? (dreaming...)
    - metallic detectors at every public place including schools? (I'm sure that's already in place in most of the US?)
    - armed marshals in every public place?
    - better detection and management of people with mental illnesses?

    All I feel right now is an immense sadness for all the families touched by this tragedy.
    Ottbs - The finish line is only the beginning!


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #346
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Bluey,of course you are correct.

    And alcohol is a good analogy; I do not believe that those who buy alcohol and drink responsibly "support" drunk drivers, nor are they "responsible" for drunk driving tragedies. Just as those who own firearms and use them for shooting events, home defense, self defense, collecting and so forth do not "support" massacres, nor are they responsible for the horrific actions of others.

    Whether we like it or not, we all do pay the price for the private choices of others-health-related decisions, drinking decisions, drug decisions, decisions around mental health, decisions around child care and parenting and decisions around firearms. And sure, I find many decisions that others make very scary. But I think that's the price we pay when we talk about living in the "land of the free". Nut jobs and crazy people will always be there, sadly.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  7. #347
    Join Date
    Aug. 1, 2007
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happymom View Post
    I will not !

    This:
    I would like to talk Florida and what actually seems to be an anti right to life state.
    Not only has Scott (whose company paid the largest medicare settlement in US history) eliminated many locally determined gun regulations, he also mandated that doctors not discuss gun safe storage with patients having children in the house.
    He has removed funds for mental health help for children, opting for pharmacological assistance instead which will increase profits for the pharma companies.
    Stand Your Ground has become a state wide policy.
    He has approved a law allowing people to "briefly flash" their guns at will. Any and all pro gun laws are promoted and mental health issues are being ignored.
    I find myself afraid of ANY confrontational situation in FL and cower when in them as it has become a shoot first, think later state.
    Yes, I'm planning to leave....quickly.
    Rick Scott is a sociopath and I can't WAIT to vote him out of office.
    People call themselves animal lovers, then let their dogs chase the squirrels. You're scaring the shit out of the squirrels, you schmuck!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #348
    Join Date
    Sep. 4, 2012
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    1,535

    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.
    1. Your question is like the old classic "Are you still beating your wife?" You're attempting to maneuver people who disagree with you into saying something that will make them look like sociopaths. Your question is based on a false premise.

    2. Many people have answered your question already. You just don't like what they have to say, so you continue to insist that no one is answering your question.

    3. No collateral damage is acceptable. None. Zero. Is that plain enough for you?

    4. Your false premise equates the belief that "no collateral damage is acceptable" to support for your proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons and impose strict gun control. Your false premise is, well, false. One does not necessarily follow the other.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #349
    Join Date
    Apr. 17, 2002
    Location
    between the barn and the pond
    Posts
    14,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sophie View Post
    To answer the OP, in the countries that I know of (mostly European countries) that have strict gun laws, massacres such as this one very rarely happen, if at all.

    Yes, people still get crazy and kill, by stabbing, clubbing people...but with few exceptions (the latest that comes to mind is that crazy gunman on the island in Norway last year), you don't see so many people being killed because of one shooting event.

    However, there was never such a " gun culture" in these countries as there was and still is in the US. Nor are there such powerful gun lobbies in those countries.
    What can the US do...
    -stricter gun control? (as in, no more legal access to rapid fire shooting weapons, etc)
    -guns that can only be fired by the person who legally purchased them? (dreaming...)
    - metallic detectors at every public place including schools? (I'm sure that's already in place in most of the US?)
    - armed marshals in every public place?
    - better detection and management of people with mental illnesses?

    All I feel right now is an immense sadness for all the families touched by this tragedy.
    And those northern European countries are tiny, and homogenous. Everyone looks like and acts like everyone.

    Apples to oranges, Sweden to USA.

    It's illegal to own a handgun in Mexico. How's that working out down there?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #350
    Join Date
    Feb. 2, 2003
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    2,683

    Default

    @NoSuchPerson: I strongly disagree with your position on guns, however I want to say that I appreciate the way you've expressed it. To have a reasonable and constructive debate, we have to call out logical fallacies and inflammatory rhetoric on BOTH sides. That said , I feel like you strayed into logical fallacy land yourself a bit with this statement:
    "Nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns. People murdering other people is not related to the availability of guns, it's related to other societal factors. If guns aren't available, other weapons (bombs, knives, etc.) are used."
    Linking nations with gun controls with higher murder rates than nations that allow guns implies causality, when the next sentence is rightly trying to say that it's NOT cause/effect.
    But anyway, thanks for your reasoned input.
    As I've thought more about this issue over the weekend., I think we would do better if we stopped screaming for "gun control" (and I've been part of that chorus) and instead called for measures to reduce GUN VIOLENCE. The term gun control brings up all manner of 2nd Amendment fears that I believe are for the most part unfounded or at least exaggerated. That said, controlling gun violence, IMO, should include limiting availability of some types of guns, but that is not by far the only aspect of this issue we need to address.
    Addressing this issue will be difficult for all of us, and will touch sacred cows on all sides. It's going to be a tough conversation for us as a nation, I hope we're up for it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #351
    Join Date
    Sep. 4, 2012
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Thanks, HungarianHippo.

    With respect to your quote of my post, sometimes things seem obvious when I'm typing but aren't really so obvious to the reader. I did not intend to imply a causal relationship between private ownership of guns, or lack thereof, and murder rate. Murder rates do tend to be higher in countries with very strict gun controls, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people own guns but rather with other societal (economic/political/cultural) factors that exist in those countries. Thus, having a government that is both willing and able to ban private ownership of guns is no guarantee that we will see see a reduction in violence and murder rate. I hope that makes sense and clears up the logical fallacy.

    Having a society in which all/almost all individuals see no need and have no desire to own a weapon, which is an entirely different situation than having a government that has banned gun ownership, is probably a horse of a different color. It might be fun to do some research on that concept - not that I have time to do it.

    And, I don't disagree that we, as a society, need to do something to prevent tragedies like the one that just happened in CT. And part of that solution may well be to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Unfortunately, much of what has been posted here has been of the "OMG we need to ban guns/semi-automatic weapons, nobody needs to own those" variety, with which I strongly disagree.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #352
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    11,151

    Default

    This, from a well-known 'pro-gun' person:



    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/..._joe/#50222624
    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!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #353
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,935

    Default

    There is no doubt that more responsible gun control laws would have made it less likely that Bushmaster AR-15s could have found their way in to the hands of loonies.
    ... _. ._ .._. .._


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #354
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You forgot to mention #5.
    Guns are a tool with several uses.
    There are millions of them out there used properly.
    Many think that we should continue to be able to use them, legally and responsibly, just as all those millions with them do, even if some will be misused and as here, misused so terribly.

    Tried banning alcohol, that kills many, many more than guns ever did and sensible people prevailed because, like with guns, alcohol can be used responsibly and is by millions, although so many also misuse it.
    That from someone that personally would be glad if alcohol was banned so no one could get drunk, but understand that so many do drink responsibly and they also have rights.

    Yes, guns are dangerous, so is so much else in this world that we use.
    Guns are already restricted.
    Can or should they be restricted even more?
    That is hard to define, because so many are against guns period, see so many posts here questioning why anyone should have a gun, by those that don't understand what ALL guns, a tool, are used for.

    How much "collateral" damage are you accepting driving, flying, just being alive?
    That is an asinine question.
    We want to be safe, as safe as we can make our lives.
    All are striving for 100% safe, but that is an impossible goal.
    Banning guns won't make us any safer from crazy people, if that is the goal of banning them.

    Work on the real problem, crazy people and yes, their access to guns and knives etc. is a good place to start.
    Ban all guns so crazy people can't shoot others?
    That is like banning all vehicles so no one is killed in wrecks, those many innocent people a day that are killed just driving down the roads.
    Fair enough. Add #5: Guns (like planes, cars booze and even sex) can do things other than kill.

    And #6: The cost of limiting arms should be considered "collateral damage" as well. The Prohibition Era and perhaps even our more recent failure at the War On Drugs can be taken as examples. Lots of money poured on the problem and a crappy ROI.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  15. #355
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    Just for clarification: What can guns do other than kill?

    Well, maim, I guess.
    "A horse gallops with his lungs, perseveres with his heart, and wins with his character." - Tesio


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #356
    Join Date
    Dec. 17, 2012
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sannois View Post
    EXACTLY RIGHT! It is the criminals that will always gain access to guns, they do now, nothing will stop that, but disarming law abiding citizens, makes them victims. Just ask Australia and countries that have strict gun laws.
    There have been so many horrific things like this that could have bee stopped
    If there had been an armed citizen to take the shooters down. And yes I have a concealed carry permit.
    Hi all,

    I live in Melbourne, Australia, and I'm am fascinated by this comment.

    Yes we have strict gun laws. This happened in the 90's after a mentally fragile person used an assault weapon to kill many people in Tasmania.

    The consequences of these stricter gun laws have been exactly what was intended, a significant drop in the number of deaths or injuries caused by firearms.

    In fact Australia is now a very safe place to live. Australians are 15 times less likely to be killed by a gun that people living in the USA, and this takes into account our smaller population.

    I personally have never seen a gun in person, other than on a police officer. None of my friends have guns. I work in a hospital and see emergency patients every day, yet have only seen a gun shot wound a few times ever.

    Australia benefits from few if any guns in the community. Why wouldn't the USA benefit from the same policy?


    9 members found this post helpful.

  17. #357
    Join Date
    Feb. 2, 2003
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    2,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    Hi all,

    Australia benefits from few if any guns in the community. Why wouldn't the USA benefit from the same policy?
    I agree that we would. But it's not as simple as passing new regulations; gun ownership is enshrined in our Constitution, right along with free speech and separation of church and state: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There are many conflicting interpretations of the Founders' intent behind that amendment and what it means in practical terms, of course.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #358
    Join Date
    Dec. 17, 2012
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HungarianHippo View Post
    I agree that we would. But it's not as simple as passing new regulations; gun ownership is enshrined in our Constitution, right along with free speech and separation of church and state: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There are many conflicting interpretations of the Founders' intent behind that amendment and what it means in practical terms, of course.
    We have free speech here too, and separation of church and state. What we don't have is a shite load of guns, and our community is safer for it.

    How anyone cannot see this obvious connection is beyond me.

    I'm about to get in my car and drive to work. My sole purpose for buying that car was to get from one place to another efficiently. If I crash and the passenger in the other car dies I will be devastated and feel I am to blame. But this would be an accident.

    I do not own a gun but if I was to take a gun with me to work what would my purpose be? To hunt rabbits on the way? To protect my self in case I was attacked? How, by killing them?

    The purpose of a gun is to shoot someone to injure or kill them. It may double as protection but lets be honest, the protection comes through a potential to kill. How sad...
    Last edited by Xmas; Dec. 17, 2012 at 04:38 PM. Reason: Additional comments


    4 members found this post helpful.

  19. #359
    Join Date
    Sep. 4, 2012
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    Hi all,

    I live in Melbourne, Australia, and I'm am fascinated by this comment.

    Yes we have strict gun laws. This happened in the 90's after a mentally fragile person used an assault weapon to kill many people in Tasmania.

    The consequences of these stricter gun laws have been exactly what was intended, a significant drop in the number of deaths or injuries caused by firearms.

    In fact Australia is now a very safe place to live. Australians are 15 times less likely to be killed by a gun that people living in the USA, and this takes into account our smaller population.

    I personally have never seen a gun in person, other than on a police officer. None of my friends have guns. I work in a hospital and see emergency patients every day, yet have only seen a gun shot wound a few times ever.

    Australia benefits from few if any guns in the community. Why wouldn't the USA benefit from the same policy?
    Again, overall murder rate is just as important as the rate of murder by gun. Australia has had a low rate of violent crime for decades and the murder rate was not measurably reduced by the gun control laws enacted after the 1996 and 2002 shootings. Murder rate 1995 = 1.8/100,000. Murder rate 1999 = 1.8/100,000. Murder rate 2001 = 1.6/100,000. Murder rate 2005 = 1.3/100,000.

    Murder rates in Australia have declined from 1995 to 2010, going from 1.8/100,000 to 1.0/100,000. However, murder rates in the US in the same time period have also declined from 8.1/100,000 to 4.8/100,000, without any significant gun control legislation.

    (All statistics are from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime)


    3 members found this post helpful.

  20. #360
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,935

    Default

    Free speech and seperation of church and state are also enshrined in the constitution, but NOT observed. There is HUGE hypocrisy going on here.


    International homicide statistics; http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a.../homicide.html
    ... _. ._ .._. .._


    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, 06:23 PM
  2. Differences in TBs from different countries
    By Starda01 in forum Racing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sep. 7, 2011, 02:11 PM
  3. Vacations - other countries
    By MyGiantPony in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Apr. 22, 2011, 06:14 PM
  4. How strict is AHS in approving TB mares?
    By flyracing in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Feb. 23, 2011, 01:57 PM
  5. How strict are you about Fescue?
    By DLee in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Apr. 15, 2010, 12:55 AM

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