57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2023 12:53 am
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
TAVR? Pace Maker? Open Heart?

None of those things.

They kept calling it a STEMI.

They went in through a vein/artery (not sure which) in my right wrist. I had a 40% and 90% blockage in one of my heart's arteries. I got two stents installed in that artery, and they inflated a balloon in the artery to open it up.

Here's the post that I made just after it all happened:
https://able2know.org/topic/546079-146#post-7294118
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2023 02:10 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Keep in mind the fact that we've already won.


You're right, children are being butchered every day by the NRA.

Schools ade being shot up every week.

Thank God our children are protected from NRA filth.
Wilso
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2023 03:40 am
@izzythepush,
He’s a sociopath.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2023 02:50 pm
@oralloy,
Won? You just lost Illinois.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 06:50 am
Good article by Paul Auster on the damaging effect of guns.

Paul Auster: ‘The gun that killed my grandfather was the same gun that ruined my father’s life’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/15/paul-auster-bloodbath-nation-read-extract-guns-america

Apparently 82% of all gun deaths in the world occur in the US.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 02:01 pm
@izzythepush,
I found this bit of that article the most interesting. It suggests gun owners are getting more extreme in their desire to own guns:

Quote:
Cars are a necessity of civilian life in America. Guns are not, and as more and more Americans have come to understand that, the percentage of households that own guns has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years, from half of them to just below a third, and yet the number of guns currently owned by Americans is larger than ever before – which means that fewer and fewer people are buying more and more guns.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 03:37 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Cars are a necessity of civilian life in America. Guns are not . . .

Is that your answer to people who cite the number of deaths from car accidents to compare with the number of gun deaths?
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 04:42 pm
@Glennn,
You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions based on your dislike of something. How about you have a real look at what it was saying - as relates to what I said.

If you want to talk about what I said, as opposed to jumping onto a tangent, that is fine.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 04:54 pm
@vikorr,
You're so right. I was about to point out the utter hypocrisy of wanting to get rid of guns while keeping silent about all of the deaths caused by alcohol, but you're right. You're talking about something else, and I shouldn't have reminded anyone of that particular hypocrisy in this thread.

I was out of line . . .
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 05:05 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
the utter hypocrisy of wanting to get rid of guns while keeping silent about all of the deaths caused by alcohol
Yep, that would be hypocritical from the point of view of the number of deaths caused.

Mind you, they aren't the same, as for the most part:

A. Alcohol deaths are either self inflicted; or
B. Where alcohol imposes deaths on others is on the roads, and that is heavily regulated; and
C. You cant purposefully use alcohol as a weapon of mass murder.

But if you are wringing your hands over the gun deaths without saying batting an eyelash at alcohol related deaths, that indeed would be hypocritical. Yet as you can see, firearms have their own unique fear factor, so it is also quite understandable.

Lastly, each issue can be addressed in their own threads / discussions / debate. There is nothing hypocritical about doing such - that is a matter of convenience and orderliness.
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 06:33 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
the utter hypocrisy of wanting to get rid of guns while keeping silent about all of the deaths caused by alcohol


What? Are you going to bring smoking, over-eating, etc. into the mix now? This topic is about GUNS, not any other forms of killing. Stay on topic.

People who rampage with guns kill more people than smokers, drunk drivers or overweight people do.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 07:23 pm
@Mame,
Are you replying to me, or to Glennn? In case you didn't read my response - it was the same as yours - self inflicted, regulated, no mass murder, and each can have their own thread.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 08:30 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Alcohol deaths are either self inflicted . . .

Are you aware of how many gun deaths are self-inflicted?
Quote:
You cant purposefully use alcohol as a weapon of mass murder.

Yeah, it's not even designed to kill, and yet it does a better job of it than many things, including guns . . .
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 10:00 pm
@Glennn,
Around 50% of suicides in the US are self inflicted if I remember right.

That said - the difference I posted was as a whole (eg. Cats and dogs have 4 legs, a tail, whiskers, sharp teeth, heart, lungs, intestines... and a great deal more in common. It is the differences that define which is which).

And it is the differences that concern many people. You are welcome to your opinion on whether it means anything or not to you - same as others are welcome to choose what those differences mean to them. There's isn't a right and wrong to how someone feels about weapons that can take away their lives with little to no say on their part.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 10:13 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
There's isn't a right and wrong to how someone feels about weapons that can take away their lives with little to no say on their part.

Yes, and the same can be said of alcohol.
Quote:
That said - the difference I posted was as a whole (eg. Cats and dogs have 4 legs, a tail, whiskers, sharp teeth, heart, lungs, intestines... and a great deal more in common. It is the differences that define which is which).

I see . . .
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 10:44 pm
@vikorr,
Plus, there's quite a relationship between firearm homicide and alcohol, and firearm suicide and alcohol. It's hard to look seriously at gun abuse without also looking at the role alcohol plays in the statistics.

Just sayin'.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 11:46 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
You are still making a false conclusion. The constitutionality of pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks is not continget on the constitutionality of a gun that there is no justification for outlawing.

If there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, or retractable stocks, then outlawing them is a violation of the Heller ruling.


InfraBlue wrote:
Yes there is.

I have no trouble at all seeing exactly what the Second Amendment means. The Founding Fathers were quite clear.


InfraBlue wrote:
Yes. The courts are the authority in regard to the legality of the laws of the nation. Unofficial arguments supported with facts and logic do not override the courts' authority in regard to their arguments in regard to the legality of the laws of the nation.

"The authority of the courts" is of little relevance in a discussion of "the correct interpretation of the Constitution."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 11:49 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home” is merely an assertion of opinion.

That is not a fact since it is untrue that my statement is an opinion.

You might wish to claim that my claim is untrue, but regardless of whether my claim is true or false, my claim is not an opinion.


InfraBlue wrote:
True, but if a claim of yours is merely an opinion then any factualness within the claim would be irrelevant to the fact that the claim is merely an opinion.

It is a good thing that "claims about facts" are not opinions.


InfraBlue wrote:
Wrong. Recorded history is constantly being reassessed, reevaluated and reinterpreted.

Go ahead and produce a credible historical argument that the Second Amendment means anything different from what I posted.


InfraBlue wrote:
The closest we'll get to a productive discussion of your conclusions is to acknowledge that your conclusions are opinions derived from what you understand recorded history says.

We'll see.


InfraBlue wrote:
Sure, among other things.

What other concerns were the Anti-Federalists trying to address when they proposed the Second Amendment?


InfraBlue wrote:
Sure, but the claim that, "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home,” is merely an assertion of opinion.

My claim may be true or untrue, but my claim is in regards to "what the facts are". I did not express any opinion.


InfraBlue wrote:
"The fact that the Second Amendment says that the job of the militia is the security of the nation", is one thing: a statement of fact; the claim that that, "means the militia has the right to have weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion," is another thing: an assetion of opinion based on interpratation of the statement of fact;

"The security of the nation" includes "protecting the nation from foreign invasion."

That's why the Constitution expressly lists "repelling foreign invasion" as one of the duties of the militia.


InfraBlue wrote:
and the conlusion that these support the claim that "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home," is yet another thing that is mere conjecture based on the first thing: the statement of fact, and the second thing: an assertion of opinion based on interpretation of the satement of fact.

No opinion here either. It is a fact that repelling a foreign invasion requires weapons like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 11:50 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:
He’s a sociopath.

All you ever do is lie about people. You've never made an intelligent argument. Ever.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2023 11:51 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
I hope those parents will be charged with something.

Even if it turns out that they did nothing wrong?

Note that I am not following the case, and am not saying that they did nothing wrong. But one possibility is that they did not do anything wrong.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/15/2024 at 12:08:11