Don’t drag me into this!
That’s not at all what I asked you for; I asked you how many multiple murders were committed using swimming pools, or ATVs or alcohol. And you come back with vehicular deaths and suicides.
Sorry, again: these aren’t murders and certainly not examples of multiple murders. Come back when you dig up those numbers, please.
You’ve made it perfectly clear that you don’t care about other people’s deaths; some of us do. I do. And since you seek to compare murder with guns with murder with swimming pools (and ATVs and alcohol), I’m asking you for some real world numbers. If the number of multiple murders committed this year using those things is at or near the number of multiple murders committed with guns, then you may have a point that some people, like myself, should be showing concern over their easy availability.
There is nothing funny about a horrible tragedy like this where innocent people lose their lives, but I admit to being a little amused following the Atlantic’s coverage and their complete inability to locate College Station on a map. It’s like they didn’t have access Wikipedia or google maps.
When the article first came out it mentioned the shooting as being right near the location of the '66 Tower shootings, which is of course actually in Austin at UT 100+ miles away. Then the article stated that A&M was actually in Houston (also 100 miles away from the real place) before finally settling on “outside of” Houston which is truish but a little like saying that Philadelphia is outside of New York.
*Shakes head * “Too much, too soon.”
Are we going to be plunged into another week of national mourning because of this incident? Because, frankly, three dead and four wounded just isn’t all that impressive.
I never claimed they were murders, so no can do. If you are interested in explaining why 75,000 deaths directly attributable to alcohol consumption can’t at all be compared, as a public policy problem, to 12,600 people killed per year in gun homicides (or the 30,000 total killed by guns per year) as a public policy problem I’d be interested in hearing why they can’t be compared.
Is it your contention that mass shootings, even if they kill fewer than 45 people per year are more worthy of being looked at from a public policy perspective than 75,000 alcohol deaths?
Note, I never once claimed ever that ATVs, swimming pools, or alcohol are used commonly in mass murder. I’m not interested in even discussing that, because to me if we have an object that:
-
Serves a purpose other than strict necessity (meaning not something needed to function in our society)
-
Is directly attributable to a significant number of deaths
-
Something we can easily regulate the sale or production of
Then that object should be just as valid a topic for debate about whether they need to be regulated or prohibited as firearms. If you don’t agree that ATVs, swimming pools, and alcohol meet the above three criteria, then explain why. If you do agree they meet the above criteria, then tell me if you are just as ready to regulate those as you are firearms, if not, why not? Because it would seem very difficult to me to actually justify regulating firearms if your only reason is that it kills people when you aren’t willing to regulate other items which kill a significant number of people or even more people.
My prediction: you’ll refuse to answer anything I’ve said and just repeat you pathetic strawman about ATVs, swimming pools, or alcohol being used in “multiple murders.” From a public policy perspective “multiple murders” are almost irrelevant, so rare as to be inconsequential. Not even worth 5 minutes of a civil service research staffer’s time. Now, I’ll certainly concede total gun homicides or total gun deaths are a very relevant, consequential problem. But if all you’re interested in is multiple murders, I see no reason your concerns should be addressed by society or government at all. Why should we as a society change anything over something that affects less than 1 out of every 100,000 people?
Yeah, I’m guilty of that. The really odd thing is, I thought folks would be upset some dipshit killed a law enforcement officer. Instead the usual dickheads are all worked up I mentioned the type of gun one of the early news reports said this fuck monkey used.
You’d think they might have just a smidgen of upset one officer is dead and two are seriously injured. Not to mention the male civilian killed or the female civilian who was injured.
Naw. The only thing that matters is to swat frantically at anything anyone says that might possibly be construed in their sweaty, paranoid little ol’ brains as a threat to their substitute phallus.
You really are a fucking idiot, aren’t you? There are already Federal regulations related to swimming pools, alcohol, and ATVs. I don’t know anyone in favor of strengthening gun regulations who objected to any of those.
To late to edit: I ask because the suspect has posed for pictures before holding an AK-47.
It looks like the only line of defense between America and the Zombie Apocalypse.
Yeah. That’s what it looks like.
I imagine Martin Hyde will say it looks like a swimming pool though.
I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, though.
- It might not be an AK-47.
- It might belong to an innocent passer-by that dropped it in the excitement.
They can be compared, sure. The problem is, the comparison breaks down since in one instance (guns) people are intentionally killing other people, which is a violation of the other person’s right to continue existing. There is no such violation of another’s rights when a person drinks themselves to death. Did you not know that there was a difference between the two types of deaths? :dubious:
We have looked at alcohol deaths, and we have public policies in place to try and prevent, or at least minimize them. Very few people object to them; the pro-drunk driving lobby is very, very small and not well funded (presumably because most supporters are spending their money on more alcohol).
Okay, so how many murders are committed using swimming pools, ATVs or alcohol? They don’t have to be mass murders, just plain old, “one person killing another person” murders.
Mind you, that’s gonna make the number of gun murders go up, since now were gonna include any intentional unlawful homicide that was committed with a gun, even if only 1 person died.
Why don’t you think there’s a significant difference between a person taking another’s life and a person accidentally losing their own life?
Well, you’re definitely not Nostradamus.
So, the big question (again, in case you missed it): Why don’t you think there’s a significant difference between a person taking another’s life and a person accidentally losing their own life?
Swimming pools: for swimming, taking care of Your health ( mental health too )
Cars: transporting people and things
Alcohol: ( really can’t answer to that 'cause I don’t like the taste of alcohol or its effects, but I don’t want to ban it, just regulate like it is )
Guns: killing, robbing, protecting Yourself from other armed people
Now see, I’m gonna have a bit of a quibble here. Guns are made for killing, pure and simple. That doesn’t mean they are inherently bad, but it is what they are specifically made to do.
Some folks misuse them for things like robbing or going on inexplicable, psychotic rampages, fatally harming innocent people.
No matter how often folks use them to do those things, it isn’t how the manufacturer intended them to be used.
Think of it like this - swimming pools are made specifically made for swimming. Sadly, some folks misuse them for things like urination.
Yes, I’m sure it is in the manual: ‘not for murdering or robbing’.
I actually have nothing against guns itself, but I’m all with that sheriff who rejected all applications for a gun license on a basis that ‘a person who wants to have a gun is not suitable for having a gun’.
I’ll bet that we can scour local websites across the country and read about different traffic accidents, all from yesterday, where several people were killed in auto accidents. Do we weep and mourn for each of them? Of course not. We don’t know these people and we might spend about 1 second feeling bad for their families, we move on because bad shit happens everywhere.
So, in this sense, I agree with the poster when he says “So what?” I didn’t know the three people who died, and I’ll use my one second to feel sorry for them or their families, but I have the same lingering pain for them that they would have had for me if I died yesterday instead of them.
In a country with 300 million people, bad stuff happens all of the time. If we dwell on it, we’d go insane.
Are You saying that every deranged psycho should have a right to get a gun ( or whatever they want ) legally and that the price should be paid by innocent people?
Or do you think that only reasonable people should have guns?
Then why the price shouldn’t be paid by the people who want to have those guns. For example by going through training and psychological tests and maybe something else. You bothered for a driving licence, right?
Then everybody would be happy - except for those wackos who won’t pass that psychological evaluation, but what they can do with their bare hands.
As a European I really don’t see why this is such a big problem in the U.S. - You just prove you’re sane enough and You can get a gun, if You fail You don’t get a gun.
Last year We had a Euro-style rampage here. There was this guy who cycled through the city and punched teenage girls to the back of their heads with a fist. I think it lasted a week or so and total ‘body count’ was about a dozen, it was serious enough to go into national papers.
You can have my swimming pool when you pry the ladder out of my cold, dead, damp, and likely pruney fingers.
When pools are outlawed, only outlaws will swim laps.
A well regulated swim team, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and maintain pools, shall not be infringed.