Should guns get banned?

[wvrevy]

I've only just become the norm. I've seen it in you since you started. Holier than whom? The UNcivilized beef poutry and pork farmers?

If you eat any of that, you can not claim killing something is uncivilized.

Ted

Meaning you missed the point, and won't admit it.

There is a difference in eating meat (or even in butchering animals for meat) and in "enjoying" the practice. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

I am so glad you are here to tell me about me and my friends and family. If not for you, I would not have known that how we grew up was a lie. I don't care about a Dateline study. I am speaking from my own experience.

Ted

And I'm speaking of something broader. Hate to tell you, Ted, but you aren't actually the center of the universe...lol

 

[Ted and Holly]

Meaning you missed the point, and won't admit it.

There is a difference in eating meat (or even in butchering animals for meat) and in "enjoying" the practice. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.


And I'm speaking of something broader. Hate to tell you, Ted, but you aren't actually the center of the universe...lol

So as long as I have a bad time hunting, I am ok? Tell me I missed the point again, please.

Are farmers and butchers always unhappy?

I don't claim to speak for everyone, do you?

I looked up a lot of your posts. You seem to enjoy debates. I don't. But I am not going to tell you to stop. I know, you aren't killing anyone. To be taken as a simile, not literally, please.

Ted

Ted

 

[Ted and Holly]

Just to let you know, I am logging off for the night. I do not wish to debate this forever. I am not conceding the point, just tired of it. And I don't like the "agree to disagree" cliche.

I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong.

Good night.

Ted

 

[magicfan]

The people who should not have them, will always be able to obtain them. The rest of us need to be able to protect ourselves and our families. So, I say no.

 

[Charade]

Again, 2 or 3 times I have asked the question why not impose mandatory safety devices such as trigger-locks and biometric sensors on guns. In this way you protect from inadvertant/accident/misuse of said gun. The NRA is against these controls. WHY????

If safety is a major concern (both personal and for others), why not make seat belts mandatory on a National level? Same thing with helmets for motorcycle riders. It is in some but not all states but we still have people who think the government should butt out. Why treat the personal responsibilty requirements for a firearm differently?

 

[Charade]

I have no idea why anyone would be against putting safety devices on guns.

There are already safety devices on guns. Just not the ones DD is talking about.

 

[Charade]

I was making the point that gun ownership should be illegal in a civilized society,

In a completely civilized society we wouldn't have a need for any weapons for protection or even hunting. Nor would we need any military.

I highly doubt we will ever see a completely civilized. Great stuff for the movies though.

But that leads me to the question. Civlized by who's standards? Wouldn't that require everyone in the world to agree to what is or isn't becoming of a civilized society?

 

[wvrevy]

So as long as I have a bad time hunting, I am ok? Tell me I missed the point again, please.

Are farmers and butchers always unhappy?

I don't claim to speak for everyone, do you?

I looked up a lot of your posts. You seem to enjoy debates. I don't. But I am not going to tell you to stop. I know, you aren't killing anyone. To be taken as a simile, not literally, please.

Ted

Ted

Know what....I want to apologize for my last post. Shouldn't get so fired up about these things, I guess.

Anyway...Yes, I did feel you were projecting your own personal experience onto the public as a whole, despite the fact that studies have been done that seem to show otherwise. I have no problem acknowledging the FACT that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible people, and are not out committing crimes with their firearms.

As to the hunting thing...There are a lot of arguments for continuing to allow the practice, including the not insignificant one of game management. Personally (and I am, again, only speaking for myself here), I find the idea of getting enjoyment out of killing a living creature to be abhorrent. I have no problem with people hunting for food. Have little problem with people that use their kills to help provide for theirselves or their family in any way. But the "trophy" hunter type...frankly, I'm appalled by the idea.

I have an uncle that is a BIG time hunter. The guy is one of the nicest people you could ever meet, and he treats my daughter like the princess she feels she is. I don't think he's a bad person because he's a hunter. I just don't see how an otherwise good person can get enjoyment out of causing death in a living, breathing animal.

Again, I apologize for my earlier shot (pun intended ). Never intended this to get personal. This is just a subject that I am pretty passionate about, and it comes out in a negative way sometimes.

 

[dcentity2000]

In a completely civilized society we wouldn't have a need for any weapons for protection or even hunting. Nor would we need any military.

I highly doubt we will ever see a completely civilized. Great stuff for the movies though.

But that leads me to the question. Civlized by who's standards? Wouldn't that require everyone in the world to agree to what is or isn't becoming of a civilized society?

That's very well put and an extremely interesting point. I think that a beast that know the answer to that is rare by anyone's standards.

Perhaps banning weapons creates a civilised society?



Rich::

 

[wvrevy]

If safety is a major concern (both personal and for others), why not make seat belts mandatory on a National level? Same thing with helmets for motorcycle riders. It is in some but not all states but we still have people who think the government should butt out. Why treat the personal responsibilty requirements for a firearm differently?

Because seatbelt laws are designed to protect you from yourself. Gun control laws are designed to protect you from other people. Again, the analogy just doesn't hold up.

 

[wvrevy]

That's very well put and an extremely interesting point. I think that a beast that know the answer to that is rare by anyone's standards.

Perhaps banning weapons creates a civilised society?

Rich::

I don't think that would do it on it's own, but it'd certainly have to be one of the steps.

 

[Charade]

Perhaps banning weapons creates a civilised society?



Rich::

Perhaps giving everyone a job, food , a warm dry place to live and free trips to WDW would create one as well.

Me thinks the second one has a better chance.

 

[dcentity2000]

The measure of a civilised society is how we treat our young, our old and our captive



Rich::

 

[Charade]

Because seatbelt laws are designed to protect you from yourself. Gun control laws are designed to protect you from other people. Again, the analogy just doesn't hold up.

From the basic standpoint of being safe it does. How many people have accidentally shot themselves? Gun control laws (complete banning) would have prevented that. How many drivers have been the only death (or severely injured) in a vehicle related accident where it was reasonably determined that if that they had worn their seatbelt, they'd still be alive or less injured? Mandatory seat belt laws would significantly reduce that as well. So why not advocate safety for everyone instead of just yourself?

 

[Charade]

The measure of a civilised society is how we treat our young, our old and our captive



Rich::

Define treatment.

 

[dcentity2000]

Define treatment.

Acts directly or directly via proxy affecting the subject in question negating the inherent state of said subject.

Yah boo hiss!



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Define treatment.

Define cheese.



Rich::

 

[brerrabbit]

Thanks for the understanding wvrevy. I am not asking you or anyone else to understand why I hunt. I enjoy it and it's the culture I was raised in. I also dislike hunters who kill for the sake of killing. I was taught long ago by my Grandfather that if you accept the responsibility of hunting then you also accept the responsibility of caring for your game you take. I eat everything I kill. I have no full head mounts of any deer. I keep only the rack or antlers. Do I need the extra food. No its the most expensive meat in my freezer by far. I have invested a lot in it. But I have also had some of the most beautiful and rewarding experiences of my life while hunting. Watching the sun rise over a saltwater marsh that is pretty much untouched by man and as it was a hundred years ago. I've seen sunsets over the mesquite of South Texas and watched the game come out and graze as the air got cooler. I have packed into the New Mexican mountains on horseback in search of Mule Deer. I have walked endless rows of corn in Nebraska Pheasant hunting, I have goose hunted om the Missouri and South Dakota breaks. I have seen the sunrise in the middle of a flooded pine forest while hunting mallard ducks. Now granted I could have done all these things with a camera instead of a gun but I had the added enjoyment of the hunt because it's something I like to do. It may seem ridiculous to some but I know if not for my love of hunting I would have never experienced these things because I probably would not go to these places and do these things if not for my love of hunting.

 

[FayeW]

...that could end up transmitting all sorts of diseases to your kids. Where as, USDA beef has standards it must pass before entering the kitchen.

Yum, good ole wild deer. Diseases and all

Interesting that this argument should be raised, as yesterday I read an article about one of the veterinarians who inspected the slaughterhouses, and slaughtered cattle for the U.S.D.A. He said that he, and many, many other veterinarians had suspected cases of mad cow disease, and in some cases had the brains sent to an independant lab, where the presence of the disease was confirmed. The same animals were either NOT permitted by USDA regulators to be tested, or had a different type of testing performed (there are 2 types of testing, one that is more widely accepted by the industry as being more accurate, the other, nearly completely disregarded by the professional community, but this is the kind the government officials perform). In one case, he documented the animal staggering around before it was slaughtered (huge indicator of presence of Mad Cow), he wanted to send the brain for testing and was told "No, we aren't going to do that". It was in our local paper yesterday, so I'm sure if you google it you'll find it. I'll check my recylce bin to see if I can find the exact article.

 

[chadfromdallas]

I'll check my recylce bin to see if I can find the exact article.

Any of these look familiar?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=mad+cow

Very interesting indeed...