Oklahoma hospital shooting

#153
#153
OHvol40 said:
No, the comparison between cars and guns that I’ve seen most is that both are tools used by people and that both are deadly. I agree with this much, but vehicles are far more regulated than guns and in almost all instances serve a different utility than killing or maiming. This is a paradox.
Click to expand...
There are at least 400 million privately owned guns in this country. We can all safely say that in almost all instances they serve a different utility than killing or maiming people. Like 99.99999999999%.

Any given vehicle is more likely to kill or maim you than any given gun based on sheer volume. Especially if you remove sole victim suicide from the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#155
#155
hog88 said:
Can you operate a gun without a license? Yes and you can also operate a car without one.
Can you own and operate a gun without education? Yes and same goes with a car
Can you operate a gun without a written test? yes and same goes with a car
Can you operate a gun without a practical test? See the 3 above
Can you operate a gun without insurance? Same as the 4 above
Can you operate a gun with physical limitations? Depends on those limitations
Can you operate a gun without registering it yearly with the state? See 1st 3
Can you operate a gun without renewals and inspections? See 1st 3
Click to expand...
🙄
Can you do any of that anywhere but an old dirt road or driveway (so basically to get anywhere)?
 
#157
#157
LouderVol said:
There are at least 400 million privately owned guns in this country. We can all safely say that in almost all instances they serve a different utility than killing or maiming people. Like 99.99999999999%.

Any given vehicle is more likely to kill or maim you than any given gun based on sheer volume. Especially if you remove sole victim suicide from the equation.
Click to expand...

I think we need to reconcile the difference between utility and function (perhaps I should have used function instead?) and then we can have a meaningful conversation. Maybe you can help me by explaining what you see as the difference between utility and function.
 
#159
#159
OHvol40 said:
Nah
Click to expand...

This was about ownership to begin with and there is more obstacles in buying and owning a gun than there is in buying and owning a car. There are a lot more places where a person isn't allowed to take their legally purchased gun than there are places banning cars. You can buy a car and the fuel for it at any age, can't do that with a gun and ammunition. I can carry the keys to my car in my pocket on an airplane, can't take bullets to my gun. Shall I go on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, NorthDallas40, Orangeslice13 and 2 others
#161
#161
OHvol40 said:
I think we need to reconcile the difference between utility and function (perhaps I should have used function instead?) and then we can have a meaningful conversation. Maybe you can help me by explaining what you see as the difference between utility and function.
Click to expand...

No , you just need to understand that one is an inalienable right , the other is a vehicle .
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#162
#162
hog88 said:
This was about ownership to begin with and there is more obstacles in buying and owning a gun than there is in buying and owning a car. There are a lot more places where a person isn't allowed to take their legally purchased gun than there are places banning cars. You can buy a car and the fuel for it at any age, can't do that with a gun and ammunition. I can carry the keys to my car in my pocket on an airplane, can't take bullets to my gun. Shall I go on?
Click to expand...
Practically, there are a lot less places to take a car if you’re taking a semantics stance. Legally, those parameters to own and operate a vehicle in the places you speak of are much more stringent. You can’t convince me any different, I use both.
 
Last edited:
#163
#163
OHvol40 said:
Practically, there are a lot less places to take a car if you’re taking a semantics stance. Legally, those parameters to to own and operate a vehicle in the places you speak of are much more stringent. You can’t convince me any different, I use both.
Click to expand...

Really? Name me all the places a person can operate their gun?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp1 and marcusluvsvols
#164
#164
0nelilreb said:
No , you just need to understand that one is an inalienable right , the other is a vehicle .
Click to expand...
Random “inalienable” right, owning guns… do you think it’s just part of the basic idea of inalienable individual freedoms, or is carrying a gun a specific right brought to us by god?
 
#165
#165
hog88 said:
Really? Name me all the places a person can operate their gun?
Click to expand...
Places isn’t the point, the responsibility that comes with each and gauging a person’s ability to be responsible with both is.
 
#166
#166
OHvol40 said:
Places isn’t the point, the responsibility that comes with each and gauging a person’s ability to be responsible with both is.
Click to expand...

Moving the goalposts again?

Come on, you said there is more restrictions on operating a vehicle than there is on a gun so tell us all the places where a person can operate their guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Rickyvol77 and jp1
#167
#167
OHvol40 said:
Random “inalienable” right, owning guns… do you think it’s just part of the basic idea of inalienable individual freedoms, or is carrying a gun a specific right brought to us by god?
Click to expand...

What did the ones that wrote the constitution say about our rights immediately after fighting and dying for those rights against a tyrannical government? Why were the first shots of the revolution fired at concord , What was that tyrannical government trying to do at concord ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#169
#169
hog88 said:
Moving the goalposts again?

Come on, you said there is more restrictions on operating a vehicle than there is on a gun so tell us all the places where a person can operate their guns.
Click to expand...
I’m convinced most of you don’t know what moving goalposts actually means. I’m not moving anything, I’m telling you the point that you’re trying to prove isn’t the point at all. Steering you toward the point isn’t moving the goalposts, its prompting thought from a different perspective.
 
#170
#170
0nelilreb said:
What did the ones that wrote the constitution say about our rights immediately after fighting and dying for those rights against a tyrannical government? Why were the first shots of the revolution fired at concord , What was that tyrannical government trying to do at concord ?
Click to expand...
I understand the rationale behind owning guns to defend yourself against foes, believe it or not I *gasp* agree with this notion. What I don’t understand is the absolutist position that in times of peace that we waive the deadly responsibility of owning a gun in favor of warding potential, future tyrannical governments. We clearly have a gun violence problem, and to be the greatest nation means addressing those problems instead of burring your head in the sand. Domestic gun violence is a clear and present danger, tyrannical domestic or foreign governments is a hypothetical problem.
 
#171
#171
This shithole governance of eliminating police and downright dysfunctional gov and now want people to give up their arms... 🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#173
#173
OHvol40 said:
I understand the rationale behind owning guns to defend yourself against foes, believe it or not I *gasp* agree with this notion. What I don’t understand is the absolutist position that in times of peace that we waive the deadly responsibility of owning a gun in favor of warding potential, future tyrannical governments. We clearly have a gun violence problem, and to be the greatest nation means addressing those problems instead of burring your head in the sand. Domestic gun violence is a clear and present danger, tyrannical domestic or foreign governments is a hypothetical problem.
Click to expand...

What the FF wanted was peace and to be left alone to live their lives as they chose , their government that thought this was a great idea at first changed its mind and demanded they bend the knee or else . What part of that is hypothetical? It’s a history lesson , what are we told about learning from history ? They laid the foundation to deal with such entities that became too powerful and decide to force its citizens to bend the knee . “ Si vis pacem, para bellum “ . A wise man told me once that it’s always better to have something and not need it , then to need it and not have it . Luckily we have inalienable rights that can’t be done away with on the illogical, emotional whims of people with subjective opinions . Can I get an amen ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and NurseGoodVol
#174
#174
OHvol40 said:
I understand the rationale behind owning guns to defend yourself against foes, believe it or not I *gasp* agree with this notion. What I don’t understand is the absolutist position that in times of peace that we waive the deadly responsibility of owning a gun in favor of warding potential, future tyrannical governments. We clearly have a gun violence problem, and to be the greatest nation means addressing those problems instead of burring your head in the sand. Domestic gun violence is a clear and present danger, tyrannical domestic or foreign governments is a hypothetical problem.
Click to expand...
I haven't agreed with you too much in this thread, but I've learned a good bit regardless.

I did like how you kind of satirized the 'armed teacher deturence(?)' notion by contrasting it against their expectations regarding selecting curriculum and teaching sexuality.
I won't argue it in this thread anymore as it's already been argued in others, but implementing armed teachers as a deturence strategy is just plain F-ing stupid. It would eventually become a pyrhiic victory at best after the inevitable misfire. Do the people suggesting this actually look at ballistic reports from military and police engagements?

OHvol40 said:
clearly have a gun violence problem, and to be the greatest nation means addressing those problems instead of burring your head in the sand. Domestic gun violence is a clear and present danger
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree. The national rates of gun violence in homicides is less than that of the 80's, and the accessibility to obtain guns was less lenient in the 80's, yet school shootings were not occurring with even close to recent history's regularity.

Gun accessibility wasn't the causative precursor to the high gun homicide rates during the 80's. Cartel and gang drug wars, over crack cocaine in particular, were the causative precursors. Legal gun accessibility neither inflated nor decreased the rate to any notable degree during that period.

I personally believe we have a religious or spiritual crisis in our country and Evil is a driving factor in school shootings. I'll leave that statement isolated as spirituality is tough to argue in a politics forum.

We clearly have untreated mental health problems and too lenient sentencing for violent offenders effecting the school shootings as well.

A very close friend of mine was recently murdered during the past few months by a violent offender with a past history of violent crimes. Wrong place wrong time for my friend, But the scum bag that killed him shouldn't have been on the streets to begin with. It didn't involve a gun, and a good guy with a gun couldn't have saved my friend.
(If you want to send me a pm, or we'll figure out how to pm with mod help, and I'll send you articles and official reports to verify the veracity of what I just said)
 
#175
#175
0nelilreb said:
What the FF wanted was peace and to be left alone to live their lives as they chose , their government that thought this was a great idea at first changed its mind and demanded they bend the knee or else . What part of that is hypothetical? It’s a history lesson , what are we told about learning from history ? They laid the foundation to deal with such entities that became too powerful and decide to force its citizens to bend the knee . “ Si vis pacem, para bellum “ . A wise man told me once that it’s always better to have something and not need it , then to need it and not have it . Luckily we have inalienable rights that can’t be done away with on the illogical, emotional whims of people with subjective opinions . Can I get an amen ?
Click to expand...
Very simplistic idea that allows you to keep your head in the sand and ignore actual problems.
You prefer logic, here is a logical example I can apply: If a patient is crashing the worry is about what can be given now to save them, not the acute kidney injury that we’ll have to treat later from pushing fluids and medications. You treat the problem now, not potential hypothetical problems in the future. Logic.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top