ExiledInIllinois Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 200 Million guns didn't kill anyone yesterday. Your child is more likely to be struck by lightening than injured by a legally held firearm. Your uniformed opinions are just that. 355867[/snapback] Was this directed towards me? I have seemed to have touched a nerve? I here what you are saying Darin. I guess the randomness of getting struck by lightening makes it easier to deal with? Then again if you are observing all safety percautions in dealing with lightening, you are not going to get struck. The same can be said for firearms... Yet, firearms are still left in the control of man... Which means (at least to me, IMO) that all accidental deaths, random, what not can be avoided. Don't let that whoosh over the top of your head distract you or throw you off course?
Alaska Darin Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Was this directed towards me? I have seemed to have touched a nerve? I here what you are saying Darin. I guess the randomness of getting struck by lightening makes it easier to deal with? Then again if you are observing all safety percautions in dealing with lightening, you are not going to get struck. The same can be said for firearms... Yet, firearms are still left in the control of man... Which means (at least to me, IMO) that all accidental deaths, random, what not can be avoided. Don't let that whoosh over the top of your head distract you or throw you off course? 355875[/snapback] As usual, you give yourself entirely too much credit.
Chilly Posted June 11, 2005 Author Posted June 11, 2005 is this what sent you spiraling downward into liberalism? 354968[/snapback] On Social Policies, for the most part yeah. I started valuing individual freedom more after I came here. Tracking the bullets is going to be difficult. As the monkey mentioned, putting a chip in the bullet itself is difficult for many reasons: 1) If the chip is IN the bullet, you have to make sure it can survive the smelting process of creating the bullet. If it is on the outside, you now have issues of balance and aerodynamics of the bullet. You also need to find a way of making sure it can withstand items 2 and 3 when fired. Depending on th elocation of the chip, you now may have isses with the pressing of the casing. 2) the shock on the bullet when firing 3) the shock on the bullet when it hits its target Bullets can fragment. All of this needs to be considered if you want to add a chip to a bullet (plus some considerations I am probably missing). As far as tracking weapons, there is a crude system in place now. The problem you have is that you need to wait until a crime is committed before you can add a gun to the system, or you risk infringing on civil liberties. The BATF can trace weapons, but that is not always effective or reliable. Don't even get me started on ballistic fingerprinting. Talk about a COMPLETE waste of taxpayer resources. 355006[/snapback] I'd like a system in which we can track bullets because thats the most important thing. If it takes a long time, and we have to put taxpayer money into researching it, it'd still be worth it IMO. Being at UT Austin sent me spiraling towards conservatism. I can't handle all these hippies! 355155[/snapback] There are a lot of them for sure. The Keep Austin Weird folks freak me out, although all of my friends are from Dallas/Houston and are conservatives. Seems like those liberal hippies don't really go to UT for hte most part, they're just the homeless guys on Guadalupe.
blzrul Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Was this directed towards me? I have seemed to have touched a nerve? I here what you are saying Darin. I guess the randomness of getting struck by lightening makes it easier to deal with? Then again if you are observing all safety percautions in dealing with lightening, you are not going to get struck. The same can be said for firearms... Yet, firearms are still left in the control of man... Which means (at least to me, IMO) that all accidental deaths, random, what not can be avoided. Don't let that whoosh over the top of your head distract you or throw you off course? 355875[/snapback] Naturally he attacks instead of discusses. No-one wants to take away your guns AD. If all gun owners were responsible and conscientious as you must be, there would be no issues. Which family value is it though that says it's ok to leave a loaded, unlocked gun around for a kid to kill his friend with during playtime? I guess in your mind it's just A-OK and it's what the parents deserve for being careless. I don't give a rat's ass about the parents. I'm talking about the kids. And yeah, maybe it doesn't happen very often. But when it happens to someone you know or love, it's once too many. Come on, let's see some of that compassion!
Alaska Darin Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Which family value is it though that says it's ok to leave a loaded, unlocked gun around for a kid to kill his friend with during playtime? I guess in your mind it's just A-OK and it's what the parents deserve for being careless. 355976[/snapback] Nothing more than another strawman argument. Parent your own kids - in my experience the government isn't going to do a better job. Yeah, it's all about the children. Bill Clinton was really good at pulling on those emotional heartstrings, too. At the end of the day, you're not doing anybody any good.
blzrul Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Nothing more than another strawman argument. Parent your own kids - in my experience the government isn't going to do a better job. Yeah, it's all about the children. Bill Clinton was really good at pulling on those emotional heartstrings, too. At the end of the day, you're not doing anybody any good. 356017[/snapback] That's it, trot out Bill Clinton. As I scan my posts above I don't see mention of any politician. It transcends administrations. I guess that's what I'd expect, you have no answer so you'll sputter and out with some childish stuff that has nothing to do with anything. Here are some facts: in 1999, according to the University of Michigan, 3,385 children between 0 (that's less than a year in case it's confusing) and 19 were killed with guns. These break down with the bulk, some 1,990 being homicide. There were over 1000 suicides. One could argue that the homicides come from guns OUTSIDE the child's home - but they come from someone's home. In 2001 LESS THAN 3000 PEOPLE were killed in a terror attack. Given that we've had two terror attacks by outsiders on our soil in some 240 years, that would be statistically more a remote happenstance than lightening striking. But look at the reaction - people have willingly given up some of their freedoms and the government is starting wars and spending a bazillion dollars on it to avoid it happening again. Sure, they're different. They're different like dropping dead of a heart attack versus wasting away from cancer. Once's sudden and final. The other one gives more notice. But in the end they both end in death. Statistically then it is probably more likely that a child will die from a gun injury that a terror attack. So why is one so important and the other just gets poo-pooed? I don't want to take anyone's guns away. I just don't feel like burying another kid because someone else isn't responsible. Is that so much to ask? I wonder, do you have children?
Alaska Darin Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 That's it, trot out Bill Clinton. As I scan my posts above I don't see mention of any politician. It transcends administrations. I guess that's what I'd expect, you have no answer so you'll sputter and out with some childish stuff that has nothing to do with anything. Here are some facts: in 1999, according to the University of Michigan, 3,385 children between 0 (that's less than a year in case it's confusing) and 19 were killed with guns. These break down with the bulk, some 1,990 being homicide. There were over 1000 suicides. One could argue that the homicides come from guns OUTSIDE the child's home - but they come from someone's home. In 2001 LESS THAN 3000 PEOPLE were killed in a terror attack. Given that we've had two terror attacks by outsiders on our soil in some 240 years, that would be statistically more a remote happenstance than lightening striking. But look at the reaction - people have willingly given up some of their freedoms and the government is starting wars and spending a bazillion dollars on it to avoid it happening again. Sure, they're different. They're different like dropping dead of a heart attack versus wasting away from cancer. Once's sudden and final. The other one gives more notice. But in the end they both end in death. Statistically then it is probably more likely that a child will die from a gun injury that a terror attack. So why is one so important and the other just gets poo-pooed? I don't want to take anyone's guns away. I just don't feel like burying another kid because someone else isn't responsible. Is that so much to ask? I wonder, do you have children? 356052[/snapback] Typical liberal heartstring pulling lahjik. Pulling out a statistic about "Children between the ages of 0-19"? I wonder why the included "children" aged 18-19?Gee, that couldn't mean that the majority of those were gang/drug related? Nah. Too easy and doesn't help the ridiculous argument. According to NCJRS, nearly 2/3rds of all homicides involving guns are gang related. Stunning. As far as people being willing to give up freedom for the perception of security, that's the inherent weakness of the terminally stupid. The answer isn't to give the government more money or power, rather it's to do the inverse. The entire reason that the American populous is now the target has everything to do with our government not being able to keep its hands to itself. Good luck on your quest to not bury another kid because someone else isn't responsible. You're not going to get much sleep.
blzrul Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Typical liberal heartstring pulling lahjik. Pulling out a statistic about "Children between the ages of 0-19"? I wonder why the included "children" aged 18-19?Gee, that couldn't mean that the majority of those were gang/drug related? Nah. Too easy and doesn't help the ridiculous argument. According to NCJRS, nearly 2/3rds of all homicides involving guns are gang related. Stunning. As far as people being willing to give up freedom for the perception of security, that's the inherent weakness of the terminally stupid. The answer isn't to give the government more money or power, rather it's to do the inverse. The entire reason that the American populous is now the target has everything to do with our government not being able to keep its hands to itself. Good luck on your quest to not bury another kid because someone else isn't responsible. You're not going to get much sleep. 356065[/snapback] You can ask UM about why they included those children. That's the way the numbers were given. To each their own - but I think the government mandating a reasonable thing like a gun lock at manufacture is not much different than the government mandating airbags, seatbelts and other safety features in autos. There are always the idiots who won't wear the seatbelts and will maybe even disable the airbags just to show the government who's boss...but then there are idiots everywhere.
Alaska Darin Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 You can ask UM about why they included those children. That's the way the numbers were given. Thanks for the copout. I'll remember that the next time you bash the current administration for presenting information that makes them look good. Hypocrite. but then there are idiots everywhere. 356068[/snapback] You prove that here virtually everyday.
Thurman's Helmet Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 So if there are id codes on bullets and/or guns and I steal someone's guns and go on a 5 state killing spree, they'll come and get that person and I'm off scot-free? Cool And if I have a gun thats locked and hidden away and someone breaks into my house are they going to patiently wait while I fiddle with the numerous locking mechanisms that have my gun in their grasp? I'm more worried about my kids getting killed by strangers, cars and dogs than I am about guns.
Chilly Posted June 12, 2005 Author Posted June 12, 2005 So if there are id codes on bullets and/or guns and I steal someone's guns and go on a 5 state killing spree, they'll come and get that person and I'm off scot-free? Cool 356209[/snapback] Uh, no. But it DOES give the cops a place to start. Without fingerprinting, phroensics, and ltos of other evidence it'd have no chance in court.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Uh, no. But it DOES give the cops a place to start. Without fingerprinting, phroensics, and ltos of other evidence it'd have no chance in court. 356221[/snapback] They teach no spelling and diction at UT?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Uh, no. But it DOES give the cops a place to start. Without fingerprinting, phroensics, and ltos of other evidence it'd have no chance in court. 356221[/snapback] What the !@#$ is "phroensics"?
Ghost of BiB Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Hey, PM or email me on the UbiSoft solution. I forgot. Copy to HD?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Hey, PM or email me on the UbiSoft solution. I forgot. Copy to HD? 356244[/snapback] What was the question?
SilverNRed Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 They teach no spelling and diction at UT? 356227[/snapback] *slaps forehead* Um, Hook 'Em Horns..?
Chilly Posted June 12, 2005 Author Posted June 12, 2005 *slaps forehead* Um, Hook 'Em Horns..? 356301[/snapback] Hey hey hey, no hatin.
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 this might sound silly, but...if women who didn't want children would stop manufacturing them...it would help put a dent in the abortion problem. 354967[/snapback] Yeah, they should just quit poppin' 'em out. Men have no responsibility at all for producing children.
Alaska Darin Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Yeah, they should just quit poppin' 'em out. Men have no responsibility at all for producing children. 356355[/snapback] No means no.
Recommended Posts