SenorBeef: "hey, dead kids. Everyone wins!"

Let’s say I tell management that we need to add Ball Bearing Integrators to our devices, in order to prevent our users from getting Dick Rot.

Every time one of our customers reports his Johnson falling off, I’m going to bring it up. Not to “gloat”, not to say “I told you so” but to remind them that there IS a solution, and maybe we can fix it now before we have to hear about more rotting penises. Or, perhaps I’d be effectively asking “How many more of them do we need before you acknowledge that this is a problem that deserves a fix?”

So, back to guns… How many massacres (let’s define that as 10 or more dead in a single location) are needed to re-examine our gun culture? One per year? One per month? One per week? How about accidental deaths to children? One per month, one per week, one per day?
My wife went on an Elementary School tour last night, as the kiddo is entering Kindergarten this fall. There was a 3rd grader helping with the tour, and was asked to describe the activities in the art room. Being in 3rd grade he went off on a tangent, and described in detail their lock down procedures and stressed the importance of finding a good place to hide where nobody can find you. Trust me, I’m not relaying that story with glee.

SenorBeef I understand what you are saying about the Bush administration but I feel your logic is flawed. You see it as Bush and Cheney reigning in power with the patriot act. This makes sense to me only so long as Bush and Cheney hold their offices. After that they are passing all this power they created…possibly to the “opposition” (Democrats). That wouldn’t be logical unless you also assume they installed the Patriot act to stir business in the industries they are invested in: defense, construction, etc.

I only find your argument logical if you follow through. Who would directly benefit from gun control, and why?

Keep in mind - this is the pit and I know you are being extreme - but I agree with your basic idea: We should not make decisions as a nation in knee-jerk reaction to tragedy. That will lead to foolish, irrational, fear-guided decisions.

Yes, these events MUST be considered when talking about gun control, but not, as you suggest, with the mentality that you either support gun control or you don’t want those children to live.

That is what I would pit: The gun control nuts who offer the ultamatum: you either want gun control or you want children to be slaughtered.

It isn’t fair to demonize the other side of the argument. When you make an enemy of someone right from the start how can they respond otherwise?

Since your earlier statement was not directed at politicians, this statement is irrelevant obfuscation.

Citation Needed.

What always irritates me in these discussions is some of us “gun control nuts” have guns and still see the need! I don’t know how we can stop shootings. I don’t know if we can, to be honest. But there has got to be some way to stop a toddler from picking up his daddy’s gun and shooting daddy with it! Can’t we at least put bio scanners on the guns? I hear they’re pretty fucking cheap now.

What angers us is the NRA’s refusal to consider any type of gun control, because that apparently means we have to consider all types of gun control. Hello? The NRA has a lot of money; they can take things on a case-by-case basis. They can fight the stupid controls, and maybe if we had some reasonable controls in place we wouldn’t advocate for stupid controls. Oh, someone always would, but throw us a fucking bone here, people! Let’s maybe not give out guns willy-nilly at gun shows?

Daddy can put his guns in a safe! There is already an easy, obvious solution! Why do we need some kind of legislated electronic doodad because some parents are fucking idiots? If you want, just mandate that everyone buy a gun safe! I certainly don’t want my gun’s functioning to be dependent on a “cheap bio scanner”.

Der Trihs, in various threads, and several other people. I’m not going to dig up a link, I have to go to work. But I remember the next one off the top of my head.

I said it was just as despicable as all the bullshit the anti-gun folks spew at gun owners. So, yeah, I’ve sunk to your level. Sue me.

Because kids aren’t their parents’ property; kids have a right to be protected from their parents’ neglect, malevolence, and their stupidity when their stupidity has especially hazardous potential consequences.

So, once again, the liberal solution is to implement a half-assed, poorly-thought-out blanket policy that affects everyone, including responsible gun owners who already own a safe, or gun owners who don’t have children, because of a few idiots. Do you not understand why I object to this?

I’m sure somewhere inside this proposal is the thought that, if the cheap bio-sensor ever malfunctions and causes the gun not to go off, that’s a good thing, because guns are bad and guns that don’t shoot reliably are less bad.

Weak pitting. SenorBeef is absolutely correct. The anti-gun folks take advantage of the shooting just like 9/11 was used to justify the Patriot act.

Also as others have pointed out, if there is a side of this debate that is unreasonable and hysterical it’s certainly not the pro-gun people. It’s the anti-gun people who routinely argue that all gun owners are murderers and worse. I’m sure it will start happening in this thread soon enough so just wait for it.

So you’re fine with being his equal in terms of reasonable arguments and civility. Thanks for letting us know; I’ll treat you accordingly.

A terribly clear example of confirmation bias. Are you seriously saying you’ve not seen pro-gun people be unreasonable and hysterical? Are you seriously saying you’ve not seen gun-control people be civil and calm? If you can answer “yes” to both questions, it’s almost certainly because you yourself are unreasonable and hysterical, because you’re so busy demonizing the opposition that you can’t pay attention to the idiots on your side or the decent people on the other.

There are plenty of idiots in favor of gun control, I’ll freely admit. There are plenty of decent people against new gun control measures. And vice versa. You should work at raising the level of dialog, not at adopting the lowest level of discourse.

Oh, look, a Republican talking to an empty chair. As many times as you present this caricature of pro-gun control people, it doesn’t make it any more true. A fringe minority of people think gun owners are murderous idiots. They themselves are idiots. And Absolute, just for reference, Der Tris isn’t a good cite. It’s like one of our more liberal posters quoting Curlcoat as a standard Republican viewpoint. Everyone realizes they’re crazy. We like to keep them around to makes things interesting.

What infuriates gun control proponents is that people reject any measures that would restrict guns rights in any way.

Take universal background checks, for instance. Supported by 91% of the public. Supported by a majority of gun owners. However, it’s the devil because, you know, confiscation or some such nonsense. Nobody wants to take your guns unless you are a menace or potentially unbalanced. Even if people did want to take all the guns, how possible do you think that’d be when we can’t even get universal background checks passed when it has 91% public support? It’s ridiculous. Instead of screaming, “SECOND AMENDMENT!!11!eleventy” at the top of your lungs, how about you suggest something that would meaningfully curb gun violence and save innocent lives, because that’s all we’re trying to do.

What the hell kind of business are you in?

Never mind any of that, I want to know more about how to prevent Dick Rot, and I want to know now!

I’m not going to argue about whether a solution is good or bad. That’s not what this thread is about. I didn’t start this thread to argue gun control generally. I started it because a worthless asshole suggested that we libruls didn’t give a damn about the dead kids, except as a means to promoting our agenda.

This isn’t what the thread is about either, but I’m willing to deal with what should be this brief aside: that the right of the body politic to require safety measures to protect children that parents wouldn’t necessarily initiate on their own - hell, even the right to remove a child from his/her parents’ care, if deemed necessary - is well established.

Children are not parental property. Full stop.

It involves ball bearings and penises, I think you can guess.

You’re confusing the issue. It is not what we want, but it’s what’s expected.. When you live in a country with 300 million individual, some of whom are mentally ill, and have such easy access to guns, these things are inevitable. We don’t push for stronger gun laws to deprive you, we do it because it’s the responsible thing to do. So when something like Sandy Hook takes place I have no shame in saying “I told you so.”

Diesel powered Bulgarian vibrators?

That’s not directed at you personally Senor Beef because I really don’t know enough about your position to make that claim. It’s more of a generalization for anyone who is opposing any type of gun law. Some are making the claim that proposed gun laws like the assault weapons ban are not “sensible.” To that, I say at least it’s a step in the right direction. It’s a process that will take trial and error but I still think it’s better than the alternative which is to do nothing.

Yeah, I can understand. The proposed laws aren’t to your liking because they are unfair or insensible. Do you expect them to just whip up legislation that’s going to be 100% accurate and pleasing to everyone? No, it’s going to take steps before we get anywhere reasonable.