Jump to content
Brian-your point is? Your example is like commenting on a church's attendance and pointing out how amazing it is that everyone believes in God and prays. I wonder what would have happened if there were just 2 random shooters in the crowd in different locations. In my years of hunting I realized a few things. 1-shooters miss as often as they hit, 2-those shots that miss do hit something. These 2 factors are my concern. I lived in a little CO town where just about everyone carries. I would trust maybe a 3rd of them to hit their target most the time. The rest of them couldn't hit the broad side of a barn on the best of days. I suspect this is the norm for folks that carry in the US. Tie into this the "buck fever" phenom and I wouldn't want to be in the same county when the shooting starts.
I really enjoy following these discussions and actually learn something from time to time. I also read some things that just don't sound right. Brian asserts that guns save foks from crimes 2.5 million times a year. Didn't quite sound right so I looked up his first 3 examples-Pearling Miss-1997, SLC-2012, Grundy, VA- 2002. It seems if it happens 2.5 mil times a year, more recent examples would be easy to find and gun advocates (Fox News, AM talk radio) would celebrate each event and the NRA would have it plastered all over the country.
Ken keeps asking if everyone having a gun is so unsafe, why are gun ranges one of the safest places to be. Comparing gun ranges to concerts and clubs fails to take into account the demographics of the crowd, the varied purposes of attendance, the presence (or absence) of alcohol/drugs, the motivations of the attendees, etc. Talk about apples and oranges.
I once had a boss that would say"don't tell me why it can't happen, tell me how you are going to make it happen." One of the easiest things in the world to do is to come up with why something is not possible. Anyone can do that. How about coming up with workable, effective solutions. (disclosure-I am a gun owner, a hunter and a progressive. Go figure!)
So when a mass murderer eats their victims, imprisons young women for their pleasure, bombs a Fed building, etc they should be considered ideological terrorist, not criminals. A lot of what ISIS does (beheading, etc) is to get a reaction from the West….and they get it. If reports are to be believed, most new recruits do not practise Islam and are not there for the Jihad. They are poor, disenfranchised, angry youth that have found a way to channel their anger, make a living, and feel important. They could give two twits about Islam. By using any degrading term with the term Islamic is to feed into what ISIS wants- which is to bankrupt the West by creating a never ending, never winable war. Are there a few "true believers" in ISIS…of course. Are they using the religion for political and economic gain…you bet they are. Are they turning the West against the ME…unfortunately yes. That doesn't make them soldiers or warriors, it makes them criminals. On another note, are implied insults really necessary? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I have my head in the sand, I'm ignorant or any other implication you may have wanted to make. It simply means I see the world in a different light than you do. Maybe the reality lies somewhere between our views.
I heard something by a retired gerneral (sorry, don't remember name) that addresses the term and why it is to be avoided. By using the term Islamic, you are validity that it is a religious war against the West, thus they are warriors. This is an insult to true soldiers/warriors and those that practise the true Islamic faith. They are criminals and should be treated as such and not given the honored status of soldiers/warriors. Something to think about.
I try to stay out of these discussions, but you continue to use the safety of a gun range as a comparison to concerts and now a dance club in an attempt to show that when everyone has guns, the area is safer. You are very smart and must know that these comparisons are absurd. You have not taken into account the purpose of the gathering, the demographics of the folks attending the gathering, the presence of (or lack of) alcohol/substances, the motivations of those at the gathering, and on and on. Pls make you case on valid grounds instead of abusrd comparisons. (btw-I am a gun owner and long time hunter-and also a progressive)
When you state violent crimes against honest citizens you are making that judgement. You are simply pulling the switch with a jury. In your mind you are determining who is an honest citizen and who is not. Juries are fooled, some laws are unjust, some arrest are erroneous. Your black and white view of criminality is indeed you passing judgement whether you want to admit it or not.
And you can seperate the "good" from the "evil"? You can determine which laws are just and which aren't? "Honest" from "dishonest"? Justified from not justified? If you can, you are a much better man than I am or ever can dream of being. I think the Christian Jesus was the only one I know of that was capable of such judgements, and even with him I'm not so sure.
I would challenge the concept of a free market when it comes to services/goods that are required for life. Food, health care, energy, educaton, wages, clean environment. These markets aren't "free" because those needing the services/goods really don't have a viable option. Let's call it the captive audience syndrome instead of monopoly. Free markets have no conscience. No care for consequences, intended or otherwise, that they can't be held legally liable for. They are concerned with demand, supply and profit. Not a real good basis for forming a viable country/world, especially when the demand is often created to meet a supply. I guess I started this to point that our present economic modal does not work and we need to look at other options and not get hung up on old divisions and labels. Profit is important, but there are other priorities that must come before it. I think Colorado is leading the way in this new paradigm. First on the MJ issue and soon in the Health Care arena. With the wealth of the world today and the ability to transport goods/services around the world, there is no reason for the suffering we see, whether in the US or any other place. There is enough……...
So what you're saying is the free market capitalism modal does not apply to airports…….or railroads…….or?? for some strange reason but applies as the best possible economic modal for things such as health care services, food production/distribution, energy distribution, and establishment of wages? Just asking.
And this fits into the small government, free market, capitalism rationale how? Of course these are just 2 examples of how "business" charges taxpayers to increase their profits. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad or good, just seems inconsistent. In fact, doesn't it reek of democratic socialism?
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |