Gun Threads - Merged

[Dog Wonder]

Existing laws didnt work. She broke the law, he broke the law. 

You are the one making the statement existing laws didn't work.  Do you want to see events like this prevented?

 

[townpete]

You are the one making the statement existing laws didn't work.  Do you want to see events like this prevented?

 
Existing laws didn't work.
 
It's illegal to give a firearm to a known felon as was done by the girlfriend. She knowingly broke existing law.
 
It's illegal to posses a firearm as a convicted felon as was done by the shooter. He knowingly broke existing law.
 
 
So again i ask, what new laws would have prevented this from happening.
 
You guys keep repeating yourself but unable to answer what new law would have prevented this.
 
Specific's guys, specifics.

 

[delldude]

Alcohol induced deaths are almost twice that of homicides.
Deaths from illicit drug use are higher than homicides.
Cardiovascular deaths over 49 times the homicide rate.
Unintentional accidents over 8 times the homicide rate.
Drug overdoses 3 times the homicide rate.
 

 
 

Abortion:

172812
 


Heart Disease:

94409
 


Cancer:

91262
 


Tobacco:

55388
 


Obesity:

48583
 


Medical Errors:

33233
 


Stroke:

20404
 


Lower Respiratory Disease:

22621
 


Accident (unintentional):

20009
 


Hospital Associated Infection:

15667
 


Alcohol:

15825
 
 


Diabetes:

11684
 
 


Alzheimer's Disease:

13447
 


Influenza/Pneumonia:

8518
 


Kidney Failure:

6767
 


Blood Infection:

5296
 


Suicide:

6254
 


Drunk Driving:

5350
 
 


Unintentional Poisoning:

5026
 


All Drug Abuse:

3957
 
 


Homicide:

2658
 


Prescription Drug Overdose:

2374
 


Murder by gun:

1819
 


Texting while Driving:

948
 


Pedestrian:

791
 


Drowning:

620
 


Fire Related:

554
 


Malnutrition:

439
 


Domestic Violence:

231
 


Smoking in Bed:

123
 
 


Falling out of Bed:

93
 


Killed by Falling Tree:

23
 


Struck by Lightning:

13
 
 


Mass Shooting  *:

10
 
 


Spontaneous Combustion:

0
 

Totals of all categories except mass shooting are based upon past trends documented below.
Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/graphs.htm
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0052833/m0052833.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/Pedestrian_Safety/factsheet.html
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=953
http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/781687/john-james-a-new-evidence-based-estimate-of.pdf
​

 
How about some perspective here.

 

[Dog Wonder]

 
Existing laws didn't work.

You said that, flunked the first yes/no quiz on more laws, and the second on wanting to see incidents like these prevented.  Want to try for extra credit?

 

[townpete]

You said that, flunked the first yes/no quiz on more laws, and the second on wanting to see incidents like these prevented.  Want to try for extra credit?

 
You flunked answering what laws would have prevented this incident from happening. Since, you know, they disregarded existing laws.
 
Both you and Kev are avoiding this answer like the plague.
 
Why is that?

 

[Kev3188]

I sense a meme coming...

 

[townpete]

I sense a meme coming...

 
Why can't you answer the question Kev? 
 
What law would have prevented this incident from happening. Since, you know, they disregarded existing laws?

 

[Kev3188]

Not only have I already answered this on every other thread, I've also done so here. You glossing over my responses is your own deal.

So... Let's recap: TownPete thinks current laws are ineffective, but is also not interested in new ones- or even tightening up existing ones. Further, any advancements in technology or other options aren't worth it if they're not 100% effective. That's the same fallacy that states since people speed we should eliminate speed limits. That's cool as long as they're is barreling through someone else's (read: poor or minority) neighborhood.

Same BS rationale here; we've seen examples that were either completely preventable or could've at least had the odds raised a bit, and Pete either responds with a cartoon, some jabberwocky disguised as a rationale (see: Chi-raq, her first comment out of the gate in this thread, etc.) or both. I can almost guarantee this post will be met with more of the same and maybe a "sad panda" chaser.

But thank Allah that teabillies nationwide can still play tough guy and freak people out by bringing their long guns into the local CVS...

F--- yeah America!

 

[townpete]

Not only have I already answered this on every other thread, I've also done so here. You glossing over my responses is your own deal.

So... Let's recap: TownPete thinks current laws are ineffective, but is also not interested in new ones (or even tightening up existing ones. Further, any advancements in technology or other options aren't worth it if they're not 100% effective. That's the same fallacy that states since people speed we should eliminate speed limits.

But thank Allah that teabillies nationwide can still play tough guy and freak people out by bringing their long guns into the local CVS...

 
You never cite examples only say things like "everything should be on the table" etc., which says nothing.
 
Never able to cite anything specific that would have prevented these shootings.
 
So again I ask, what law would have prevented this incident from happening. Since, you know, they disregarded existing laws?

 

[Kev3188]

Nothing. We should just stop trying, and instead aim for being more like Yemen.

 

[townpete]

Not only have I already answered this on every other thread, I've also done so here. You glossing over my responses is your own deal.

So... Let's recap: TownPete thinks current laws are ineffective, but is also not interested in new ones- or even tightening up existing ones. Further, any advancements in technology or other options aren't worth it if they're not 100% effective. That's the same fallacy that states since people speed we should eliminate speed limits. That's cool as long as they're is barreling through someone else's (read: poor or minority) neighborhood.

Same BS rationale here; we've seen examples that were either completely preventable or could've at least had the odds raised a bit, and Pete either responds with a cartoon, some jabberwocky disguised as a rationale (see: Chi-raq, her first comment out of the gate in this thread, etc.) or both. I can almost guarantee this post will be met with more of the same with maybe a "sad panda" chaser.

But thank Allah that teabillies nationwide can still play tough guy and freak people out by bringing their long guns into the local CVS...

F--- yeah America!

 
How do you "tighten" existing laws that were entirely disregarded in this case?
 
Its illegal to give a known felon a firearm and illegal for a known felon to own one. 
 
Doesn't get much "tighter" then that.

 

[Kev3188]

Yep, so let's just throw it in... There's really no point. Good thing we both work in (sorta) secure areas!

'Merica!

 

[townpete]

Not only have I already answered this on every other thread, I've also done so here. You glossing over my responses is your own deal.
So... Let's recap: TownPete thinks current laws are ineffective, but is also not interested in new ones- or even tightening up existing ones. Further, any advancements in technology or other options aren't worth it if they're not 100% effective. That's the same fallacy that states since people speed we should eliminate speed limits. That's cool as long as they're is barreling through someone else's (read: poor or minority) neighborhood.
Same BS rationale here; we've seen examples that were either completely preventable or could've at least had the odds raised a bit, and Pete either responds with a cartoon, some jabberwocky disguised as a rationale (see: Chi-raq, her first comment out of the gate in this thread, etc.) or both. I can almost guarantee this post will be met with more of the same and maybe a "sad panda" chaser.
But thank Allah that teabillies nationwide can still play tough guy and freak people out by bringing their long guns into the local CVS...
F--- yeah America!

And you all cartoon yourselves by always laying blame at the feet of the NRA and or fairy tales like "gun show loopholes".

Was Cedric an NRA member? No
Did he get the weapons via a "gun show loophole"? No

 

[townpete]

Yep, so let's just throw it in... There's really no point. Good thing we both work in (sorta) secure areas!

'Merica!

 
You can't do it can you?
 
You never cite examples only say things like "everything should be on the table" etc., which says nothing.
 
Never able to cite anything specific that would have prevented these shootings.
 
So again I ask, what law would have prevented this incident from happening. Since, you know, they disregarded existing laws?

 

[Kev3188]

You never read what I write, or what?

Go back and look, ffs.

Pro tip: It's never about fixing one that's already occurred; it's about preventing the next one...