Originally Posted By mawnck >>No what I'm saying is people need to change first.<< And your proposal to make that happen is what? Read over the "enemies list" for reference. What changes would you suggest for the National Spinal Cord Injury Association so the NRA wouldn't regard them as enemies? Or Hallmark Cards? Or Dick Van Dyke?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Here we go again. That. Is. Not. How. Human. Behavior. Works. Attitude changes follow from changes in behavior. Not the other way around. Always. Always. Always.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why? People didn't change seatbelt habits until it was mandated. People didn't stop smoking until the health effects were widely known and when prices were raised to pay for the public health expenses caused by smoking. People didn't allow African Americans to vote, to sit at the front of the bus, or to attend public schools until the government told them that they had to. They had to be told that they couldn't own other human beings as property anymore. People will change when the social and economic cost of continuing the old behavior becomes too high.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 But again violence has always been apart of human nature so how do you change that?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But again violence has always been apart of human nature so how do you change that?<< Just so I understand your argument here, only because it's Friday afternoon and I have no other use for my typing fingers at the moment. (1) We need to change people's behavior first. (Post 80) (2) People's behavior will never change. (Post 84) (3) ??? (4) GUUUNS FER EVERYBODY! Did I get that right?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You don't change it, barboy. You mitigate for it. You plan for it. You find ways to regulate the ownership of items that can be deadly. You try to limit the potential damage of a violent person wielding a tool designed to inflict death on other persons. You go in to it assuming that people have the capacity for violence, so you do background checks to make sure people with a violent criminal history or a potentially violent mental disorder can't buy a gun. You limit the magazine size of the weapons that they are carrying so that they can't blast through thirty rounds in a classroom with 20 kids in it in half a minute. It is because people are prone to violence that we need to regulate guns and ammunition sales.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Yes I said we need to change the violent nature of human beings, but the big question is how do you change that attitude that has been with mankind for that long? And point out where I said GUUNNS FOR EVERYBODY!!!! At anypoint in any post I wrote today. Because it's not there.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Yes, yes I did. I meant that for you. Man, ever since we made pot legal in Washington my brain has been a little slower than usual
Originally Posted By mawnck >>At anypoint in any post I wrote today. Because it's not there. << It's implied with every post you make. Read Post 85 again. What would YOU put at #4?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But again violence has always been apart of human nature so how do you change that?<< First, by maybe not glorifying guns so much. By not making gun ownership such an emotional and "patriotic" thing. By addressing our country's shortcomings in the realm of mental health. We are a long way from this things, and changing attitudes is more evolutionary than revolutionary, but we have to first at least get on the same page and declare that we must do as much as we can to prevent one more gun death.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Tom you get a hold of barboy's stash?// ///Yes, yes I did./// NOT COOL! Everybody should know by now that you don't be 'messin' with these 4 things: a homeless dude's cart Francis Soyer's(aka 'Psycho')stuff Tony Manero's hair barboy's 'stash'
Originally Posted By fkurucz >But again violence has always been apart of human nature so how do you change that?<< It seems to me that you just made an argument for gun control. If you told me that human nature was not violent and that we just want guns for sporting reason, then it would be hard to argue against that. The recent shootout at Lone Star College proves that point. Had those two knuckleheads not been armed it would have been a mere case of fisticuffs, which the campus police would have dealt with without incident. Instead there was a shootout and several bystanders were wounded.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. DDman actually is making a case for gun control without realizing it. Tom's post was right on the money as well. To give another example: one of my gun-loving cousins posted a thing on his facebook page about how there are more incidents of violence in the UK per capita than in the US. This is true. But I pointed out he was actually proving the opposite point that he thought. Because although there are more incidents of violence (largely related to the near ubiquitous pub culture in the UK - control for that and the rates are about the same), the incidents of murder (let alone murder) is WAY lower per capita. In other words, people are violent everywhere. But whereas over there if they get into a pub fight, or two young (sober) guys fight over a girl, it's probably settled with fists. Over here, too often, it ultimately gets settled with a gun and somebody dead. And that goes for domestic violence, gang activity, road rage, and all the rest. Tom got it exactly right: "It is because people are prone to violence that we need to regulate guns and ammunition sales."
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Again I never said I was against any type of gun control. I'm simply saying even if it's there if someone wants to shoot a place up they will find a way. And Mawnck still waiting for the post where I said guuunnnnssss for all. Not where you think it was implied but where I actually said
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm simply saying even if it's there if someone wants to shoot a place up they will find a way.<< And the effectiveness of DUI laws proves that to be false.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. Saying "if someone wants to shoot up a place they will find a way" is as meaningless (and as helpful) as saying "if someone wants to drink and drive, they will." Well... yeah. But it's a pointless point. People still drink and drive. But we've cut way down on it. We can cut down (not eliminate) the gun violence too using a similar formula of de-glamorization, sensible new laws, and putting more teeth into the enforcement of existing laws.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "I'm simply saying even if it's there if someone wants to shoot a place up they will find a way." Sure. But we can put things in place so that when they are trying to find a way there will be signal flags popping up left and right. There'll be a greater chance of someone noticing.
Originally Posted By mawnck Even Chris Wallace thinks the NRA is nuts. >>Appearing on Fox News this morning, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre reiterated his organization's claim in a recent ad that all American children deserve the same amount of protection that the President Obama's daughters receive. Fox News host Chris Wallace responded, "That's ridiculous and you know it, sir."<< <a href="http://gawker.com/5981207/fox-news-host-tells-nra-chief-thats-ridiculous-and-you-know-it-sir" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/5981207/fox-...w-it-sir</a>
