Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Phil Smythe <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 03:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
On May 12, 8:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Smythe wrote:
I agree, violent people ARE the core problem. So are reckless drivers
on the roads the core problem for road fatalities.
Really? Reckless drivers? Can you substantiate that?
Yes, I can. From the report 'REPORTED ROAD CRASHES IN WESTERN
AUSTRALIA 2006'
[In 2006, we saw a disappointing increase in speed and alcohol related
road crashes and those involving the non-use of restraints compared to
previous years. Speed was found to be a factor in 35 per cent of all
fatal crashes and just over a half (52 per cent) of all passenger
fatalities were as a result of speed related crashes. Of all the young
adults aged between 17 and 24 years that were killed or hospitalised,
over a third (32 per cent) were involved in crashes where speed was
found to be a factor. Over a quarter (26 per cent) of fatal crashes
involved a driver/rider with a BAC of 0.05 g/100mL or above. Almost a
third (29 per cent) of all people killed were not wearing seatbelts.]
Somewhat surprised you never realised this. Did you think cars just
ran into other cars of their own accord or because the traffic lights
malfunctioned? Or knocked over pedestrians because the brakes failed
or the steering wheel came off in the driver's hands?
Should society not
have put efforts in safer cars, better designed roads, etc because
they weren't the "core" problem?
Well, if the core problem was reckless drivers, then spending $$ on
safety is wasted and mis-directed effort. The money should have been
spent on eliminating reckless drivers. Safer cars and better designed
roads are little comfort to me if there are still reckless drivers on
the road.
So air bags and seat belt are of little comfort to you when a drunk
driver slams into you head on? Have you told the auto industry they've
wasted millions developing these measures because they are "of little
comfort" to vehicle users?
You come across as a very uneducated person Peter. Would you like to
rethink your statement?
So, if you are interested in debate: do you think that the gun is the
core of the problem? If not, then why start w/ a non-core issue?
I have NEVER said that guns are the core problem.
This, in case you hadn't noticed, is a gun politics group. It deals
with guns and the politics surrounding them. I'm presuming you're
American so you should know that 75% of murders in the US are carried
out with guns and that the US has a very high murder rate compared to
most equivalent nations.
It is irrelevant what percentage of murders are committed w/ what tool.
The fact remains, there are violent people out there, and they will
use whatever is convenient to affect their ill will. If you can prove
that the elimination of guns will eliminate murder, then you have a
point. Otherwise, your point is wasted effort on consequence instead of
the cause.
NOBODY has claimed guns will eliminate murder, nothing can "eliminate"
murder not even your supposed plan re a solution to violent people. If
you reckon that it is irrelevant what tools are used to commit murder
why do American murderers consistently choose guns as their preferred
weapon? You reckon it's irrelevant so weapon usage should fluctuate,
but it doesn't, it's very consistent indicating it IS relevant.
Certainly professional criminologists think it's relevant that's why
they include a weapon breakdown in FBI, USDOJ, CDC etc analyses of
violent crime. Should You tell then they're wrong or should I?
You need to actually think before you type Peter, you come across as
quite naive.
In the meantime, I've detailed solutions to the 'violent people' problem
in the past:
Eliminate violent people. Yes, that means execute them. THAT solves
the murder problem, not gun controls. You on board?
Not with a crackpot plan like that. If you think that executing the
"violent people" solves the murder problem you need to check your
medication levels. How are you going to deal with the people whose
first indication of their violent tendencies is when they murder
someone? Whoops, that didn't work. Who is going to make the call that
a certain level of violence is worthy of execution, but another level
is not? And if you aren't going to make that distinction does that
mean that anyone who's ever hit or threatened another person should be
executed?
Again, you need to seriously rethink your positions Peter, they appear
made up on the run with very little thought.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Peter Franks
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Phil Smythe
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Peter Franks
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Phil Smythe
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Peter Franks
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Phil Smythe
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- From: Peter Franks
- Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- Prev by Date: Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- Next by Date: Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- Previous by thread: Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- Next by thread: Re: "The ones who need education are those who oppose common-sense gun controls"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
