peacefuljeffrey 0 #51 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong, this isn't your classroom, this is the real world. No, this is DZ.com, about as far from the real world as you can get. My classroom is in the real world, on the south side of Chicago, about a mile from places the police won't go alone and paramedics won't go without a police escort. A place I have worked since before you were born. Don't lecture me about the real world. So... your classroom is then not in the places the police won't go -- so what relevance do those places have in this discussion? You said you're a mile from the places police won't go. Are you sure you don't really want to talk about the actual places the police won't go? Hey, I live in a place that the police will go to. Does that make it not the real world, where I live? Does "the real world" simply mean, "anyplace that is crappy and dangerous?" Anyone who doesn't live in a crappy, dangerous place where the police won't go, or where genocide, starvation and disease are not cutting huge swaths through the population is a spoiled brat who doesn't live in "the real world"? Maybe the real world is where things are going OKAY, and the places where things are as fucked up as you're talking about are the non-real world. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #52 November 22, 2004 this is off topic, but I gotta ask... dude, is that the LITTLE MERMAID you're quoting in your sig line??? someone's gonna try to revoke your guy card for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #53 November 22, 2004 Quotethis is off topic, but I gotta ask... dude, is that the LITTLE MERMAID you're quoting in your sig line??? someone's gonna try to revoke your guy card for that. I think is Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #54 November 22, 2004 You know, despite his career as an academic, I'll take kallend's representations about knowing the real world. We've all got different experiences, and kallend's shaped his opinions, just like ours. But, why will police not go to kallend's spot? Because the place is dangerous? Is it that it is infected with guns? You know, I'm sure I could point to plenty of places where there are a lot of guns, but it doesn't mean it is unsafe. Doesn't it say something more about problems with certain elements of society? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #55 November 22, 2004 Quote Do you find the level of firearms related deaths and injuries in the US acceptable? If so, at what level would it become unacceptable? If not, what should be done about it? They are what they are, commensurate with the current situation regarding our social reality, which includes everything from the mindset of the average citizen, the mindset of the average criminal, gun ownership and who engages in it, etc. The killings are regrettable, but do not push me to the point where I think guns should be banned/confiscated/destroyed... Because I fully realize that efforts made to do that will fail utterly to keep the bad people from having and using them. So we are left having to accept criminal use of guns in order to keep the good people able to be free enough to have theirs, and there is no disputing that good people with guns save lives. I am going to be thankful this Thursday (as I am every day, actually) that we did not elect the man who would have been certain to turn this event into an excuse to push more restrictive gun laws -- and BANS. The only reason liberals have left hunting rifles (soon to be called "high-powered sniper rifles" (and god forbid if they're semi-auto!) alone, is the fact that they realize they could never restrict every class of firearms at once. They have to feign "protection" for certain classes just to be able to go after class X, Y or Z at any given time. Only once they had clamps down on those would they start to turn toward hunting rifles. They always grant that the exemption to gun restrictions is "sporting use," as though we don't have a right to guns for personal defense, which is not nearly as important as the right to hunt . This is what has led to our rallying call, "The Second Amendment is not about hunting!" I am very glad that we won't have a John Kerry in the White House to rubber stamp an idiotic knee-jerk restriction due to this event. If we were in England, this would be the kind of seminal, fluke event that would be the trigger for a ban on guns. Their singular spike event in Dunblane (one guy committing one crime and killing a bunch of people) so skewed their thinking that it was enough to ban EVERYONE from having guns. That's irrational. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #56 November 22, 2004 QuoteI agree, and drivers' licenses should be much harder to obtain. Ahhh, you've just cited the perfect example of why gun registration and additional requirements are pointless. "Unlicensed and habitual drunk drivers are among the greatest safety threats on the nation’s highways, according to two studies released by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety." http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/safety/release_content.asp?id=786 What happens if you make it harder to get a license? Does the danger of unlicensed drivers go down? No....in fact it would go up. Because there would be more unlicensed drivers illegally driving. The same holds true for gun control. The more licensing you require, the more unlicensed owner there are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #57 November 22, 2004 QuoteTell me where we should be focusing our efforts as a country on curbing death? Here is some assistance for Kallend: Ten leading causes of death, 1994 (U.S.) 1) Heart disease ................ 2,286,000 2) Cancer ....................... 734,000 3) Stroke ....................... 536,000 4) Lung diseases ................ 102,000 5) Pneumonia & influenza ........ 82,000 6) Diabetes ..................... 55,000 7) Motor vehicle accidents ...... 42,000 8) AIDS ......................... 42,000 9) Suicide ...................... 33,000 10) Liver diseases ............... 26,000 Source: National Center for Health Statistics If you add up the top ten causes of premature death (3,938,000), and compare that to the number of fatal firearm murders and accidents (11,000), you see that guns are used in just 4/10ths of one percent of all premature deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #58 November 22, 2004 Quote Any of these deaths are unacceptable. Drunk driving is unacceptable. Stabbings are unacceptable. White collar crime is unacceptable. When a person commits a crime, it is unacceptable, and society should punish this crime, and not punish those who are not criminals. The issue is, the gun-banner-types in society claim to believe that through gun bans, they will control society to make it unable to use guns to commit these types of crimes. The problem is, when the evidence makes quite clear that their efforts, which restrict the rights of good people, don't have any effect as far as controlling the bad people, they are not willing to wipe the slate clean, end the restrictions that are affecting the good people, and try something else. They are unwilling to acknowledge the failure of their efforts. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 November 22, 2004 Quotethis is off topic, but I gotta ask... dude, is that the LITTLE MERMAID you're quoting in your sig line??? someone's gonna try to revoke your guy card for that. It's a chick magnet -- they can have my "guy card" if they want it! LOL! Hey, it's a great song, and a great movie, and that line describes me soooo well!... What can I say? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #60 November 22, 2004 QuoteThat is a silly example. There are a lot more drivers than gun toting cowboys. Gun-toting cowboys aren't the ones committing all the gun murders. Let's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 1992..: 1,409 Accidental firearms death rate....: .6 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 1992: 40,982 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars Cars produce almost 30 times as many accidental fatalities as guns, and have a death rate 34 times higher - while there are fewer of them! Cars are more dangerous than guns! We should be so lucky as to have accidental auto fatalities at the same low rate as accidental firearms fatalities - it would save 39,000 lives per year! (Accident statistics from National Safety Council, "Accident Facts". Gun statistics from BATF. Auto statistics from "The World Almanac".) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 November 22, 2004 QuoteI never said anything about FURTHER bans. I was simply reflecting on checks and balances.... balance. There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. How many more do you think we need to have "balance"? The fact is, gun laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes - it just gives you something to charge them with after the fact. Despite 20,000 laws, we still have criminals who misuse guns. Passing even more laws isn't going to change that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 November 22, 2004 From Fox news.com: QuoteZeigle said the suspect was "chasing after them and killing them," with an SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle (search), a common hunting weapon. (emphasis theirs) Um, isn't that exactly the kind of rifle that gun-banners tell us we don't need or use to hunt game? Fox is saying here that it is a common hunting rifle, but when the banners go after it, they claim that it is NO use in hunting! -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #63 November 22, 2004 QuoteThe only real solution would be totally outlaw guns... Nope. England is proving right now that a total ban on all handguns and semi-auto long guns is ineffective. In the years since they did that, their gun crime rates have gone *up*. Those darned pesky criminals just refuse to heed the law! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #64 November 22, 2004 QuoteBut, why will police not go to kallend's spot? Because the place is dangerous? Is it that it is infected with guns? You know, I'm sure I could point to plenty of places where there are a lot of guns, but it doesn't mean it is unsafe. Doesn't it say something more about problems with certain elements of society? Oh no, we can't blame *people* for their own behavior. Where have you been? Don't you know that this is socially unacceptable now? Blame it on the *guns*. It's their fault. Those evil gun manufacturers give them away to people in the "hood", and the mere presence of those guns turns otherwise innocent little angels into murderous monsters. It's gun voodoo! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #65 November 22, 2004 Ugghhhh....I guess we can't play in this thread anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #66 November 22, 2004 John, you are right. Worded poorly, I meant a theoretical complete removal of all firearms. Totally academic and will never happen, it is physically impossible to uninvent.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #67 November 22, 2004 QuoteLet's look at a couple categories of accidental deaths. Number of guns in America.........: 240,000,000 Accidental firearms deaths, 1992..: 1,409 Accidental firearms death rate....: .6 per 100,000 guns Number of cars in America.........: 200,000,000 Accidental automobile deaths, 1992: 40,982 Accidental car death rate.........: 20.5 per 100,000 cars It's not the ACCIDENTAL deaths that I'm worried about. Now give me the same statistics for vehicular manslaughter, and manslaughter by fire arm. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #68 November 22, 2004 QuoteNow give me the same statistics for vehicular manslaughter, and manslaughter by fire arm. No one is going to dispute that a firearm is far more efficient at killing someone than a vehicle. But, is the gun causing that person to kill someone, or do they want to kill someone and they are using the most efficient means? Take away all the guns, and the murders by knives increase. In other words. That kind of statistic is meaningless. A gun is a tool that can be used to kill someone else. If you want to kill someone, you'll use whatever tool you can find. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #69 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo, I kinda think kallend made a fair comment. wow.... I guess I am loosing respect for you too. What do you know about what Aggiedave has seen or where he has been? What do you know about his life and the things that have happened to him? Or, what does Kallend know for that matter? Kallends statement was arrogant, and ignorant. It implied no ones life in College Station TX could compare to some ones in Chitown.... It was an asinine statement, no way around it. It was not I that lectured AD about being in the "real world", it was the other way around. I just drew attention to the absurdity of it. You should lose respect for him according to your logic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #70 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Do you find the level of driving related deaths and injuries in the US acceptable? I don't, that's a MUCH larger issue then gun violence. There are many many many more people killed and injured each year in the US due to automobiles then from firearms. I agree, and drivers' licenses should be much harder to obtain. You think that driving deaths would decline just because we made driver's licenses harder to obtain?! How would that affect the number of people killed or injured by those who drive without licenses? Driving deaths are not caused necessarily by people who lack driving skills -- they're caused by people being careless or stupid or reckless. This has nothing to do with inadequate training or skill. -Jeffrey Why bother to have a driving test at all, then? If you accept the test at all, then you have to accept that some standard is necessary to pass, and thus that the standard can be adjusted upwards.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #71 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteTell me where we should be focusing our efforts as a country on curbing death? Here is some assistance for Kallend: Ten leading causes of death, 1994 (U.S.) 1) Heart disease ................ 2,286,000 2) Cancer ....................... 734,000 3) Stroke ....................... 536,000 4) Lung diseases ................ 102,000 5) Pneumonia & influenza ........ 82,000 6) Diabetes ..................... 55,000 7) Motor vehicle accidents ...... 42,000 8) AIDS ......................... 42,000 9) Suicide ...................... 33,000 10) Liver diseases ............... 26,000 Source: National Center for Health Statistics If you add up the top ten causes of premature death (3,938,000), and compare that to the number of fatal firearm murders and accidents (11,000), you see that guns are used in just 4/10ths of one percent of all premature deaths. I expect we should outlaw old age, then, since it appears that you define ANY death as a PREMATURE death.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #72 November 22, 2004 Here is an idea, send all the bad drivers to inner chicago, put them in armored cars, let them run over the unruly cop killers, and call it a 'reality' TV show. /me laughing my ass off at the 'real' irony-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #73 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteI never said anything about FURTHER bans. I was simply reflecting on checks and balances.... balance. There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. How many more do you think we need to have "balance"? The fact is, gun laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes - it just gives you something to charge them with after the fact. Despite 20,000 laws, we still have criminals who misuse guns. Passing even more laws isn't going to change that. Quite right. They should scrap 19,999 of them and put just one effective one in their place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #74 November 22, 2004 QuoteIt was not I that lectured AD about being in the "real world", it was the other way around. I just drew attention to the absurdity of it. You should lose respect for him according to your logic. Kallend, You're blinded to the actual point of my comment. The point is, with discussion you tend to take the stance "I'm right, you're wrong" without even attempting to see the other side of the arguement. Just as I would expect a prof to react and just as I've seen many non-liberal arts profs react. The point was and still is, this is real life, this isn't your classroom. This can not be solved with textbooks on calculus and the laws of physics, its more complex then lecturing to your classroom and you acting like you're 100% right. That is the point. Then you have to go and loose your temper and then try to belittle the people that have agreed with myself and the majority of the others in this thread instead of looking at the other side of the arguement and even attempt to view it rationally. I would have expected much more from an academic.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #75 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuite right. They should scrap 19,999 of them and put just one effective one in their place. Once again, you're not seeing the point. The point is that one law or 20,000 laws doesn't get the job done, actual enforcement of the laws does. Just like all the other laws. Drunks and those without licenses kill the most people while driving, there are laws against that, enforcement is the problem...the examples could continue for many more hours.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
