Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
everyone that owns a gun needs to stare at the photos of the dead children and know that the vast majority of them would still be happily making holiday wishes if not for guns.
Bravo, Times!
I also get that many people want and some need weapons for self-defense. The idea that mass gun ownership and C&C laws will make us safer seems unsupported and somewhat ridiculous to me. But guard your home? Sure.
The real thing is the stop government tyranny argument. This strikes me as both risible in practical terms and outrageous in civic terms. I’m sorry but that crap you bought at the gun show is not going to defend you against the United States government — either in the much more likely case that you pull a Koresh and take a few federal agents with you into the afterlife or in the rather more remote chance that the government goes bad and sends FEMA to put you in concentration camps. The USG has all your machine guns and body armor plus heavy weapons, helicopter gunships, an Air Force, artillery, etc. Of course, quite unlikely that you’re going to see the US military. It’s a few cops you’ll kill before they take you out or arrest you. As I said, just in practical terms, this is laughable. This is just part of the survivalist mentality hiding in constitutional clothes.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20…
many nations have 4% gun ownership, allowing rifles and some handguns, banning AWs and highly limiting gun availability so that the average NJ mom doesn't have one. obviously CT laws don't matter if guns are brought in for illegal murder, duh. NO ONE is claiming state level laws work. we do not point to bavaria's laws, we point to germany's laws. the ownership of an AW is irresponsible as it puts it within reach ofa dozens of potentially mad, crazy or drunk people to go out and kill 20 school kids, so if you own an AW, you are responsible for this. it's your collective action that banned tha ban on AWs. guns are to blame, and gun owners.
" I was speeding today, and if you pass laws against speeding I will speed till you take my curling dead fingers off the steering wheel." "Oh okay, if some oppose a law, we shouldn't have it" most arguments by the gun lovers are about this absurd and phoney. here's another one: "despite truancy laws, some people don't go to school. Truancy laws and norms to encourage people not to go to school are thus worthless, we should make no attempt to get kids to go to sc hool."
2. your implicit demand that any proposed set of laws be shown to stop a specific incident is bullshit. take OJ: murder law didn't stop him. so what, how does that mean we shouldn't have laws against murder?
3. I can't believe you honestly are unaware that japan england etc. canada many nations with strong bans and gun controls don't have much lower rates of death by gun, or massacres. are you really that ignorant?
4. the mom in NJ who got the bushmaster used to kill the kids in CT ....she had no need of it. in this nation, we can't even agree on banning assault weapons this proves to me most of the pro gun side arguing this are lying, or deliberately stupid, or literally deranged. we ended the ban on AWs in the usa and as a result, we have these bushmasters all over.....they simply don't have this level of violence in germany japan england scotland australia etc or canada and btw in many of those places lots of folks have guns so no one is saying no one can have a gun.
I'm a democrat, nigh socialist, and I will never, in my lifetime, nor vicariously through my children, support any gun bans, nor any form of gun control that neuters our constitutional right to bear arms, and clearly, I'm not the only one. I'm a good-hearted, socially active, and responsible citizen, but I will never support a politician who will implement unconstitutional or overly-restrictive gun laws.
Put your effort into something that will actually make a difference.
Switzerland allows its citizens to keep fully automatic rifles at home while they're fulfilling their military service obligation.
Yet Switzerland has a very low rate of gun-related violence.
But Switzerland also has universal health coverage.
The laws on drunk driving and even on the dispensing of alcohol are a hell of a lot stricter and plentiful than there are on guns. So, maybe you have a point, just not the one you were attempting to make.
Ideally, I'd like to see guns regulated as completely as explosives. However, I don't see it happening. The battle for even minimal, innefective regulation will be vicious and alienate moderate democrats.
A mental health program with both out-patient and institutionalized treatments could be billed as a public safety issue, not another entitlement program, and gain both support and funding that way. It would also benefit many more people.
Anonymous words should be banned.
Identification must accompany opinions.
Who knows how many Adam Lansa's in waiting there are making themselves known under cover of a false name on a blog.
In Australia, no colors or brand logos can be used on a pack of cigarettes. the whole package is covered in one big warning. In Canada, cigarette packages must depict graphic deterrents, such as X-rays of lung tumors. In much of the US and the world, smoking indoors is prohibited. Taxes on tobacco products deliberately price them out of the ability of an average young person to afford.
The result is that lives are being saved.
Lets restrict guns so that we can save lives that way too.
That suggests the laws and restrictions aren't helping.
Why would more laws and restrictions help with gun violence then?
All people are asking for is gun regulation. Don't let crazy people buy them. Don't let people buy them on a whim. Don't permit the ownership of assault weapons [or at least require special licensing for them]. Limit the amount of ammunition a gun can hold. Get rid of the gun show loophole [which is a fairly recent thing] so that crazy people can't just go to a gun show on a whim, pick up an assualy rifle and kill as man6y people as they want. These things seem sensible to me.
Even in the old west, a cowboy was required to turn his guns over to the sheriff when entering city limits.
I'm not saying that guns should be banned - that is obviously unconstitutional. But regulation was fine with the founder fathers, so why can't we just regulate the damn things to prevent tragedies like this from happening?
"Historically, no curb on gun ownership has ever been overruled on second amendment grounds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v.…
The SCOTUS says otherwise.
Guns kill the holy fuck out of people.
Gun registration is a no-brainer, but "identify and track" mentally ill people? This is way out of line, a newer version of pink triangles and yellow stars. If we create a proper mental health system, which we most fucking definitely do not have, much of the problem will take care of itself.
And don't get me started on monitoring police departments and elected officials, and certainly military officers, for signs of mental illness leading to acts of mass murder.
same-sex marriage = end of traditional marriage
low taxes = prosperity
war = peace
car + oil = freedom
manmade global warming = hoax
war on drugs = saving our kids
black president = welfare socialist economic doom
and...
guns = safety
Sooner or later, the resistance will break down. It won't come soon enough (especially on global warming), but the number of people who view their guns the way a 5-year old views his security blanket and teddy bear is dropping.
But... alcohol is not a gun.
Cars and trucks are not guns.
Properly used, alcohol doesn't result in death. That only happens as a result of abuse.
Properly used, cars and trucks don't kill. Their purpose is to take you from one place to another. They actually are pretty inefficient at killing people, if you look at the ratio of nonfatal accidents to fatal ones.
Kitchen knives can be pretty big, but they're not designed to kill, and can be hard to kill someone with, even if sharp. That's because they have only one blade. They're not ideal weapons for that reason.
But AR-15's? They are designed to kill people. Used properly, you can kill a lot of people with one. Sure, it can probably be used to break a car window if you need to do that, but one of those clubs the fire department use would probably do a better job.
That's why your comment @ 16 is patently absurd.
The difference between guns and anything else that can kill people is that guns are just about the only thing commonly available to Americans that have that express purpose, while few other things do. And they do it better than ANY of those things.
That's the key phrase. "Used properly."
Used properly, a gun will seriously maim or kill a person. In the case of the AR-15, you can scratch the "seriously maim."
You have to use alcohol IMPROPERLY in order for it to be deadly. Its proper use NEVER results in death.
Then shut up about your damned rights to own a weapon whose ONLY PURPOSE is to kill.
"Its proper use NEVER results in death." - how many accidental gun discharging result in death EVERY FUCKING day in the U.S.
All your arguments are stupid.
I'm starting to lose respect for you Goldy. You're getting emotional... journalists can be a bit emotional, but you're starting to go overboard.
I, for one, will gladly, GLADLY, admit that a school full of dead children is the price we pay for our freedom. It's not a small price, I disagree with you on that, it's a terribly large price to pay. But it's worth it. Freedom is worth the terrible price we pay for it.
As a journalist, writing whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want to write it, I would have thought you'd feel the same.
I'm not a conservative, not a republican, not a gun nut. I'm as liberal democrat as it gets, but those silly mouth breather redneck conservatives ARE right on one of their platitudes: Freedom isn't free. It isn't. We pay for it all the time every time a free person uses their free will and free expression for violence.
But you can have freedom or you can have control. You can't have both.
Dead children is a terrible thing. And that guy in China could only use a knife, and he didn't kill anyone. Ok. So would you rather have the freedom you can have in China or would you rather have the freedom you can have in the United States?
Freedom is not free Goldy. It really isn't.
Alcohol is a poison. The proper use of alcohol is to sterilize - to kill.
We drink it in small doses because it makes us high, but that doesn't mean that's it's proper use. We're using alcohol very improperly, but we like it a lot, so we tell ourselves it's ok... it's civilized and part of our culture to have a toast.
That's just window dressing though. Alcohol is designed to kill. And it's good at it. When we drink it, we're using it improperly.
Unlike others, I don't live in some sick paranoid fantasy where I must defend my freedom at the barrel of a gun. So no, you're China analogy doesn't hold.
That said, I commend you for having the courage to defend your conviction that a school full of dead children is a price worth paying for preserving your right to own an AR-15.
Goldy, you seem to be okay with X deaths every year on the highways.
But you aren't okay with the far fewer people killed by other people with guns.
So it isn't about the deaths.
It is about whether you approve of the means of death or not.
A person killed on the road is worth, what, 1/10th a person killed by a gun?
1/20th?
Less?
I'm not going to argue about whether something is used "correctly" or "properly" or was "designed" differently.
This is about whether you approve of the means by which the person was killed.
Switzerland is an example that shows that guns do not lead to gun violence. They have had a lot of guns and they have not had the same level of gun violence that the US has.
Now, granted, there is obviously some deep cultural difference between Switzerland and the USA that ought to be examined. But that doesn't mean that comparisons of tools of transportation to tools of death are suddenly valid.
Gun deaths are often accidental, it's true, but more than a teeny, tiny fraction of them are brought about by deliberate use of the gun to kill.
Whether they were deliberate or not is irrelevant.
A dead person is a dead person.
I'm not the one saying that a person killed by a gun is worth 10x more than a person killed by accident in a car.
I'm showing that it is whether people approve or disapprove of the MEANS of death that is deciding factor.
The point with the Switzerland example is to show that guns are not equivalent to gun violence.
People are going crazy because they can't figure out why they can't be anyone. Why no matter what they do they end up broke, bankrupt, without a home or hope. Well, stop listening to the propaganda would be good first step.
Honestly, it's taken my entire life to see that finally the people of Washington State have enough sense, enough balls, to not only give gays equality but to also start to throw out the bullshit about smoking pot. However, you notice that the Federal Govcorp hasn't exactly given it's blessing has it? Oh sure, they don't have any problem with letting gays get married, that's a legality they can deal with, but pot is something else. There's a reason beyond all convention that issue exists.
Yet once more...right in front of you own damn eyes you can't see what's going on. Like once you disarm then everything will be OK...Right? Yea, that's why while you all are getting ready to toss out another part of the bill of rights, the laws are being rewritten by the lobbists to change State Laws to match Federal Laws; so that they can help you. Never mind what the people want...yet again, lets toss out the right to not have a jack boot put up your ass...sheeze!
Interesting isn't it that right after Washington State passes this measure we get these murders. What, you think your little demonstration at WTO couldn't and wouldn't have been handled differently if your parents didn't have ways of fighting back. You kids need to wake up to the reality of the world around you. Go ahead and give up your rights. See where that gets you when you can't get jobs to pay back those student loans that they already know there aren't jobs enough for.
While you are all so quick to toss out your right to protect and defend your own lives and those of you loved ones you didn't notice that Canada's High Court ruled against two main Unions seeking an injunction to prevent the importation of Chinese Labor. LOL!
If you think all these other countries are so wonderful then you should move to them. Canada is close, but of course you have be worth a bit of money, and you have to have some valued and sought after service. So, you can't run, you can't hide, you can't get a decent paying job if you can get a job, and now you want to toss your right to defend yourselves out the window while "they" have their lobbists rewrite all the laws. Again...Brilliant.
Don't you think that words inspire people to do violence though?
If a maniac reads a blog and is inpired to murder because of it, would you be so quick to suggest we put some restrictions on the First Amendment?
Indeed, what if the real problem is freedom of speech, not guns? I'm serious.
Don't be so eager to toss out the parts of the Bill of Rights that you feel lukewarm on, while conveniently defending the one that happens to protect your livelihood.
That's because others have already done it for you.
Yeah, I think we did discuss this before. I don't recall conceding your point though. Alcohol IS a poison. Just because it has the side effect of thinning your blood to protect against heart attacks doesn't change that fact.
Botulism toxin is also a poison that people use for cosmetic reasons. Botox... botulism toxin. Gets rid of wrinkles... still a poison.
For your notion to be valid, you'll have to cite medical evidence, specifically, what damage happens over the long term to moderate drinkers? The answer is "nothing." Lifelong light drinkers have a 15-18% decrease in all-cause mortality rates compared to both abstainers and heavier drinkers. That, again, is the opposite of poison - when used properly (lightly).
Alcohol is comparable to medicine. A little bit is fine; a lot is not. There may be the danger of poisoning if too much is taken too fast, but that would be an example of IMproper use. I was speaking of proper use, as you know.
Anyway, alcohol is very restricted, and with good reason. If you really and truly believe that alcohol is a fair comparison to guns, then you'd support similar restrictions for gun sales.
(Also, botox isn't taken orally, and is administered by medical professionals. We'll see in a few decades if it isn't poisoning people anyway, but that's different from the hundreds of thousands of years alcohol has been consumed by humans.)
I DO support restrictions for gun sales. Always have.
From the end of the second paragraph in the wikipedia article you linked to:There's no "proper" use of alcohol, other than by medical workers to sterilize things. There's no "proper" amount to drink. Not drinking it at all is the "proper" amount. It may not be dangerous, and it may even have some benefits, but no doctor is going to write you a legal prescription to drink alcohol. They'll tell you to exercise and eat healthy foods instead.
"yes, the intent and use matter."
No they do not.
They only matter in court for charging the person who killed someone.
Dead people are dead people.
If they were killed by accident that does not make them less dead.
"Why is that a problem here and not Switzerland?"
Because guns do not equate to gun violence.
Switzerland is the example of that.
As are the millions of guns here that are owned by responsible people that are not used in any crimes.
Regarding your comments on alcohol, that's a shift from calling it poison, I'd say. And although no doctor would prescribe it to treat heart disease, no doctor will tell you that total abstinence is better than 1-2 drinks a day, either. (No doctor that's up on the studies, at any rate.) And I didn't allege that it was something that could take the place of cardio or diet. But the study I mentioned presumably included those who practiced good cardio and diet with light alcohol and those who did none at all. "All causes of death" seems to cover all the bases, anyway.
To say that abstinence is the "only" proper use flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. One CAN safely drink, and it will not result in your death, my death, or anyone's death. Which is precisely what you asserted back @ 56. EVERY time that happens, it's because someone drank too much, which is to say that they used it improperly. Whether it was to the point of poor judgment ("I can drive home, I done it lots of times before") or to acute alcohol poisoning (like drinking a liter of vodka in an hour or two), or to liver failure (after decades of abuse, AKA habitual overdrinking), those are all the wrong way to consume alcohol.
You can keep asserting that light drinking is as bad as heavy, but unless you can really point to something supporting that, I think the case is closed.
@ 75, there are already all kinds of restrictions on alcohol that DO have a positive effect on public health. I do believe DUI related fatalities are down over the past 25 years, when MADD got the drinking age raised nationally and got the states to enact serious penalties for DUI's.
There's no point in elaborating. I'm right and you're wrong, and it's just that simple.
"yes, intent matters."
No. Because the intent does not change whether a person is dead or not.
"If all the people who died in car crashes were killed because of someone's intent, then you would see calls for banning cars."
Yeah, can we stick to what can be demonstrated?
"There's no point in elaborating. I'm right and you're wrong, and it's just that simple."
Whoops. Sorry, Jesus. I didn't know it was you behind that name.
Maybe you might want to scale back the omniscience?
You've just stepped really far in the "wrong" territory with that.
That's not what I'm arguing (and I don't recall ever making that assertion). I don't think there's anything wrong with light drinking - I drink all the time - but that's not the same thing as saying it's proper to do so.
You said the purpose of guns are to kill. I said the purpose of alcohol is also to kill. We make a version of alcohol that doesn't kill us as long as we go easy on it, but it's a twisting of alcohol's purpose. There are also versions of guns that don't kill, but it's also a twisting of a gun's purpose.
@ 80, bold assertions don't make one wrong. As I just told @ 79, I made my case. You ignored it, ironically not explaining why I'm wrong as @ 79 accuses me.
But I'll ask you to think about this. Imagine coming across two different people as you go about your day. One is intending to use his car for its purpose - to get from one place to another. The other has his AR-15 and is intending to use it for its intended purpose. What do you think are your chances with surviving your encounters with each individual?
If that's not enough, try to find some per capita data relating how many fatal accidents there are per 1,000,000 car trips taken in the USA, and compare that to the per capita data of how many fatalities there are when someone decides to go shooting an AR-15 at people.
THAT is why you're wrong.
@ 81, there is more than one kind of alcohol. The kind that's used to sterilize (isopropyl alcohol, aka rubbing alcohol) is not safe to consume in any amount. The kind found in solvents (methanol) isn't, either. They're all different compounds. You probably know all that, but ethanol (the kind we drink) has no sterilization properties, which you seem to have asserted. If I misunderstood, never mind all this.
I will say this - I don't understand what you mean by "twisting alcohol's purpose." Maybe using the word "proper" is confusing. How about "responsibly"?
Now, one may rejoin with the fact that guns aren't being used responsibly when used to murder in cold blood. But it does beg the question as to why would someone would need to own one, if killing isn't what they want it for. I'm sure it destroys stuff pretty well - one of my wife's cousins, an Iraq vet, reported told my brother in law that unloading a clip at a person with an M-16 left nothing but a big bloodsmear, so if true, I'm sure there's shit you can destroy with its civilian cousin real good. Maybe that's "responsible," but I have a hard time seeing that.
"As I just told @ 79, I made my case."
Yes, you are Jesus and therefore whatever you say is Holy Writ.
Guess I'm just a heathen.
"One is intending to use his car for its purpose - to get from one place to another. The other has his AR-15 and is intending to use it for its intended purpose. What do you think are your chances with surviving your encounters with each individual?"
Pretty good.
In fact, almost 100%.
Based off of prior experience.
"THAT is why you're wrong."
You might want to check with God on that, Jesus.
Because I'm still alive.
Anecdotally, I've had more people hit me with their cars than with guns or bullets.
Jesus, why have you forsaken the facts?
This is one of the dumbest things Ive yet read here. Alcohol = natural product with many properties. Yes, it is a cellular toxin at high does and ethanol can be used to sterilize things (Matt, youre right about most of what you wrote, but it can be used to sterilize). It also depolarizes cell membranes, leading to a nice buzzy effect. However, we did NOT design alcohol. It comes from nature, and we have found ways to exploit its properties (much like many other natural products - morphine, taxol, vinca alkaloids, cannabis etc etc). How THE FUCK is this like a gun - a product which has no other stated purpose other than to kill things. Both you and K.M. are a couple of bloody crazy loonies. Oh and fuck you both. Cunts. Love, Me.
It's a pretty good plan. Too bad we have a massive standing army, no militia, and people who think they have that they have a right to carry a concealed weapon everywhere.