That's a sad observation. I'd like to dismiss it as overly cynical, but realism forces me to acknowledge that it is true. We've are in a continuous cycle of mayhem against ordinary people, which is not even noticed. We do notice when prominent people are victims, but forget it completely in a few days.Amy Probenski wrote:Bob Herbert on Jan 10 wrote:For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.
historyforall wrote: If you say words like we need to target, pull the trigger and reload when talking about political opponets than you should lose your right to own a gun. Any verbal threat should be taken as a threat and result in the loss of the right.
crux wrote:Americans have ALWAYS cherished their LIBERTY, and the Right to Keep and Bear is one of those FUNDAMENTAL Individual Rights.
coondog wrote:Quite predictably, left wing pundits argue that bombastic statements concerning 2nd amendment
solutions and "taking out" folks have the potential to tip the scales toward such taking of action. This
is, after all, what they've been warning about since such statements were made. The right wing
pundits deny that the potential for any such direct cause and effect even exists.
No serious person is talking about banning guns either. But we do advocate rules as sensible for guns as the rules we demand for trucks.coondog wrote:But, had the method been a big pick up truck, we would not be talking about banning the use of automobiles.
Wise One wrote:No serious person is talking about banning guns either. But we do advocate rules as sensible for guns as the rules we demand for trucks.
Wise One wrote:Another point. You will notice that gunnies always cast their arguments in terms of protection from criminals or, for the true crazies, in terms of protection from our government. The latter is so ridiculous (ask the boys at Ruby Ridge and Waco how that worked out for them) I won't respond.
Wise One wrote:Our principal danger is not from criminals, but from ourselves. The vast majority of gun slayings occur when the victim is friend, spouse, or acquaintance of the killer. This is a public health issue, ordinary people killing other ordinary people simply because a gun is at hand. Fists have a lower mortality rate than guns.
crux wrote:Your statement reads as gobbledy gook. Our principle danger is from criminals, who may very likely be "loved ones", or AQUANTANCES. Should these seek to RAPE, commit viscious BATTERY, or MURDER, they become CRIMINALS, against which we may wish to DEFEND OURSELVES... "Public health ISSUE?" You can call this what you will. Fists, and any other WEAPON can KILL.
You will notice that gunnies always cast their arguments in terms of protection from criminals or, for the true crazies, in terms of protection from our government. The latter is so ridiculous (ask the boys at Ruby Ridge and Waco how that worked out for them) I won't respond.
HARDLY -2%coondog wrote:Coondog is an equal opportunity annoyance.
OR not so stupid things! -2%coondog wrote:We have just as much right in this country to say stupid things as we have to wave firearms around while we're saying them.
I am unclear as to the last bit. However, a violent act of a crazy paranoid schizophrenic loon, EVEN if in the FINAL analysis are TRIGGERED by something someone said, are STILL the personal responsibility OF THE PERPETRATOR. -2%coondog wrote: Vocalized ideas are too far removed from their potential consequences to admit that the content might be inflammatory. We can wait for an event where direct cause and effect is undeniable. Shouldn't have to wait too long. But that won't really affect most people's entrenched attitudes or need for defensive denial. Surveyor's Marks? Really?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest