Author Topic: Students Killed in school shooting... (Read 5436 times)

Curval · « **Reply #120 on:** March 23, 2005, 06:21:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Cars have some other purpose I am sure. Firearms have none.
The whole argument is so silly that it is hypocrocy to pretend its even a rational debate.

Correct.

Curval · « **Reply #121 on:** March 23, 2005, 06:24:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
Curval based on the efficiency of the tool in killing instantanious numbers you are prescribing it's uniqueness for denial to the population at large. In your post you have made a Freudian slip:

Curval said:
The logical conclusion that I reached was that guns are significantly more deadly in such attacks thatn the inanimate objects.

Guns are inanimate objects, the slip is your ellevating it above the other tools used to kill or maim humans, and not identifying as the primary tool of their deaths, the "DANGEROUS HUMAN" who comitted the act. A human in all of these cases commited the violence against those people while manipulating a tool. Not the tool manipulating the human. Who are you afraid of more, the gun or the man pulling the trigger????????????

Toad is being silly and stating that ALL inanimate objects should be banned if a gun ban is advocated. My point was that in the four cases quoted 3 inanimate objects he suggests should be banned caused a total of one death. The fourth "inanimate object" caused 16. That one was the gun.

Stop trying to play clever "gotcha" word games and address Naswan's post.

Toad · « **Reply #122 on:** March 23, 2005, 06:42:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
We can make a deal. I agree to live without a firearm if Toad loses his cars at the same time as they're directly comparable.

I'll counter with the offer to live without my firearms which are way down on the list of causes of death in comparison to autos if YOU will give up your mudering vehicles.

Skydancer · « **Reply #123 on:** March 23, 2005, 06:44:41 AM »

This is becoming surreal!

Toad · « **Reply #124 on:** March 23, 2005, 06:55:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Yes I can live without the Guns but I think a Car is a tad more usefull, as Siaf rightly points out. What a ridiculous argument comparing the two.

Which clearly shows you are not concerned about the loss of life. You might as well drop that pretense now.

Autos kill tens of thousands more than guns but since they are "usefull" to YOU any talk of banning them is "ridiculous".

There are alternatives to autos; mass transit as the primary example.

You willing to ban someone else's inanimate object but no way will you accept a ban on your inanimate object.

In 2000, there were 2,789 deaths in the US linked to motorcycles. There's absolutely no need for motorcycles, as there is public transportation in the cities which is more efficient.

In rural areas, a Toyota Corolla provides better mpg than the large cycles and is safer by a factor of 4 or 5. Therefore, motorcycles have no purpose other than increasing an already needless loss of life and should be banned.

There is absolutely no true need for motorcycles.

Toad · « **Reply #125 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:02:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Stop trying to play clever "gotcha" word games and address Naswan's post.

You also ignore the stats. Autos kill over 4 TIMES as many people as firearms in the US.

Now, are you concerned with saving lives or not?

Or are all of you only concerned with saving lives if it is convenient to you and your desired lifestyle?

While you are at it, you'd best figure in tobacco and alcohol. Autos and alcohol are an especially dangerous mix as the stats show. As alcohol has no essential purpose in society, it should be banned as well. It would save incredible numbers of lives beyond the savings in automotive slaughter; death from medically alcohol-related cause would drop significantly as well.

Now are you guys serious about saving lives or not? I suspect not.

Toad · « **Reply #126 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:11:55 AM »

The point is to save lives, is it not?

Or is there some other agenda?

Toad · « **Reply #127 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:21:18 AM »

SAVE LIVES

To do list:

According to 2001 data , the 10 leading causes of death in the United States are:

heart disease
cancer
stroke
chronic lower respiratory disease
accidents
diabetes
pneumonia/flu
Alzheimer's disease
kidney disease
suicide

OK, let's clear up these 10 if we're really serious about saving lives. Get busy.

Toad · « **Reply #128 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:23:28 AM »

BTW, before you say "we can't cure cancer"

12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 9.5/100K
13. Homicide 7.1/100K

So you guys will have to ban alcohol to save livers and thus save lives.

Homicide includes "all means"; not all are firearms related.

What? Alcohol is necessary to YOUR lifestyle so it can't be banned?

Thought so.

Skydancer · « **Reply #129 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:27:47 AM »

Look

Listen

No one is trying to tell you guys on that side of the slighly more salty than pacific side of the pond what to do. We are merely pointing out that we seem not to have even a fraction of the gun related violence and death that you do. In addition we have much stricter gun control. It seems rather common sense that if there are fewer guns in circulation there will be fewer chances for them to be used in crime and in acts of unbalanced violence. It aint rocket science. Its pretty straighforward and appears to work quite well for us. ( nothing is perfect though as I'm sure you'll point out ) It's what you do in a discussion. Personaly I think its odd that you are happy with the ammount of gun related homicides you have. Now maybe Guns are not the cause of this as you say. But isn't a mad man with a gun far more destructive and dangerous than one without. Isn't that same argument used when you guys rant about Iran and its nukes.

Yes cars kill people, but cars can be used to get us to work, hospital, see the relatives etc etc etc. You'd look pretty bloody silly sitting on your Glock in the middle of the road wondering where the ignition swith is wouldn't you. Its a completely different issue. You might as well call for a ban on weather as that kills people too!

C'mon Toad you are more intelligent than that surely mate.

Toad · « **Reply #130 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:29:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
No. The point is to prevent unnecessary fatalities. Road accidents are unfortunate but largely unavoidable results of a necessary activity in our societies. Banning cars will have a huge impact on our lives.

Ah, so we're back to "acceptable losses". Auto deaths are acceptable because YOU, your lifestyle, needs them.

YOU don't need guns, so those losses are unacceptable.

Do you "need" alcohol? Are cirrhosis of the liver losses "acceptable"? Are drunk driving losses "acceptable"?

And no one said BAN cars... we just want to ban PRIVATE cars mostly. A slow transition to safe, cheaper mass transit. Only professional, trained governmental drivers allowed to handle the dangerous police cars, ambulances, buses, etc.. Clearly, viewing the carnage created by the inept "civilian" drivers, this slaughter can't be allowed to continue. I'm afraid you'll just have to take the bus.

Again, you are all for banning things that, if banned, will cause you no personal inconvenience.

Is it about saving lives or not?

Toad · « **Reply #131 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:32:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
...Guns have no other purpose than to kill other people Its what they were origionaly invented for fer chrissakes!...

....Went Shooting last weekend as it happens. For the first time. Clays only. Was good fun....

And you are surely more intelligent than that. I'm sure we'll see some evidence sooner or later.

Now... is it about saving lives or not?

mora · « **Reply #132 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:33:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
In 2000, there were 2,789 deaths in the US linked to motorcycles. There's absolutely no need for motorcycles, as there is public transportation in the cities which is more efficient.

In rural areas, a Toyota Corolla provides better mpg than the large cycles and is safer by a factor of 4 or 5. Therefore, motorcycles have no purpose other than increasing an already needless loss of life and should be banned.

There is absolutely no true need for motorcycles.

They've tried to do that in Europe for years, and no doubt they will some day be succesful.

Skydancer · « **Reply #133 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:34:49 AM »

Be real what personal inconvenience is it not to shoot a handgun? This is not the wild west.

Rerad the bulk of my argument and then say it isn't so rather than picking on one odd comment!

Skydancer · « **Reply #134 on:** March 23, 2005, 07:45:49 AM »

My life you hand gun defenders will use any daft old argument.

Its madness. You are losing thousands of people each year to a weapon that is endemic across your society.

How simple can this be. A mad man, dangerous criminal etc is far more dangerous with a gun than without. If he hasn't got a gun you don't need one.

Its just common sense. But hey if you want to live in such a mucked up place then who am I to stop you. I actualy feel sorry for you gun guys.