Indianapolis shootings.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100718/LOCAL18/7180387/Update-10-hurt-in-3-Downtown-shootings

This is what happens when guns are accessible to the general public.

It's just human nature.

I've only had one cup of coffee, (about 15% of my daily requirement), so why not dump a car analogy on this shit pile of a thread.



This is what happens when CARS are accessible to the general public.

make the guns credible. There is no comparable between cars and guns, but always the guns are put aside by the "what if's" of other things that may be involved in an accident. Pointing a gun and shooting someone is no accident. It's as if the gun owner knows that guns kill but must keep up the charade that they are no worse than tripping over a crack in the sidewalk.

Cars are as ubiquitous as guns in our culture, and to the owners of both are necessary for life in the modern world.

Of course cars are not weapons most of the time while guns are always weapons whether they are used as such or not.

Guns are unique in that they are almost completely useless until you need it for it's intended purpose, an occasion that is rare, but when it does occur brings with it irrevocable life altering consequences.

I'm not aware of an analogy using any other piece of technology that is really sufficient. Considering the premise put forth by the OP a car analogy is more than adequate here.

"It's as if the gun owner knows that guns kill but must keep up the charade that they are no worse than tripping over a crack in the sidewalk."

Sorry, this does not work. You have actually made the analogy yourself (guns and sidewalks), but failed to get the meaning of the traffic analogy: it is to show how one's greatest fears about cars being widely available don't seem to pan out; I mean, have you ever seen the photo-shopped picture depicted? That's because it had to be created.

BTW, I and other 2A defenders are fully aware guns can kill, and have no intention of hiding that fact. That's your bidness.

Shares, imo, is an example of truly antique and doctrinaire prohibitionism; the kind which swells with moral pride beneath the gaseous clouds of corruption such outlooks inevitably breed.

"We have to register and insure our automobiles and have a drivers license". "Why shouldn't gun owners have to do likewise"?

kill and injure more people per year than guns do.

you are wrong.

Typical racist "dog whistle" post.

"General public" is right-wing code language for Negroes, Mexicans, Indochinese immigrants, and all of their "mud people" descendents.






























:sarcasm:

practice in places like NYC

Because that's what you're saying.

Here are some of the many minorities for stronger gun regulations including the NAACP. the Congressional Black Caucus. Oprah Winfrey and more.
<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>

The one you're presently using for logic is all wet.

some gun-controllers who not only refuse to recognize the library of evidence of gun law racism in our history, but feel free to build upon those wormy foundations, even as they accuse fellow progressives of the racism they abet.

Unless, of course, they are not at all progressive or liberal.

Really, is that all you have now? Comparing fellow DUers to Teaparty types and racists? What's next?

of gun control and back that assertion up with lots of facts to support it. Perhaps he would have an open mind to new information that he may never have seen before.

I guess not.

Steve wasnt pullin my leg . You are high .

Way up there.

Try Harriet Tubman, Fannie Lou Hamer, Zora Neale Hurston, Eleanor Roosevelt. For starters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x330300

Care to explain?

All opinions and neuroses are special little flowers ,

The laws you desire would not disarm any criminals.

if they are, the shooters will probably have a history of violent crime.

Gun control should focus more on those who use firearms criminally or irresponsibly than on the average member of the general public.

Restricting gun ownership for the general public will have little or no effect on shootings between gangs fighting for respect and turf. Since many of these gangs are involved in dealing drugs, often their addicted victims resort to criminal activity to get money to buy drugs. In some instances, firearms may enable honest citizens to be able to stop violent attacks or home invasions. Firearms can also allow store owners to stop violent robberies by druggies looking for quick cash to satisfy their cravings.

The solution to the problems caused by drug gangs in our society will require better policing and IMO legalizing many of the currently illegal drugs. In the long haul, we also need to change our educational system so that students actually learn enough to have the skills to find profitable jobs and we also have to generate those jobs rather than send them overseas.

"the shooting victims were all males between 10 and 18 years old".

I'm betting they weren't CYO,4H or Boy Scout members... but, that's just a hunch. :smoke:

Did you get tired of lying?

Anyway, why do you want only criminals to have access to personal firearms?

whats that sound from Shares? Sounds like..........crickets.

I sent him a PM about the lying and.......no response.