4 dead (including a child) 1 critically injured in office complex shooting in Orange, California

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
People who are "irresponsible" with guns can get arrested and sentenced to life (or death) in prison

Nice selective response, almost like you are deliberately choosing to ignore my entire point.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Where were you, all week, when Chicagoans were being blasted down by bullets?

Give me the link, to all of your posts, wherein you expressed such care and compassion for your fellow country-persons (in inner city Chicago):

________________________________________
Well for starters I didn't know about any of those shootings in Chicago but they are all part of the problem that is bringing such misery and heartache to so many people.
Also, I will not be lectured by someone like you about care and compassion when all you do is produce statistics and talk about drunk drivers in an effort to defend the use of guns.
Four people and a child died needlessly and you have not once expressed any regret about what has happened. Just statistics, drunk drivers, and whataboutisms.
I also noticed ln one of your posts that you enclosed the term, mass shootings, in quotation marks.
I take that to mean you are unhappy about the use of that term, and I say so because in your post number 18 you suggested that people are led to believe something is happening more often than it really is.
If that is your line of thought then I would not like to think just how many shootings, like the one we are discussing, there would need to be before mass shootings would be the correct terminology for you.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
too many drunk drivers have cars, too

in fact, far far more drunk drivers have American-killing cars, than mass shooters have guns

priorities

fine, let's get to guns...

right after we deal with higher priorities, like drunk drivers killing more Americans each year than guns

as soon as we solve drunk driving, then, right after that, we'll deal with guns

you care so much about Americans, so you focus first, one thing at a time, on the issues taking their lives... you solve them, one by one, working down the list

as soon as we solve drunk driving, then we'll solve guns, next, right after that

if you want to get to guns so much, then let's hurry up and solve drunk driving, first

ideas (for reducing vehicle fatalities per year), go:


_________________________________________________

Come on man, that's a pretty dumb argument. Should fast food also be banned? Unhealthy eating may be (according to some studies) the number one cause of death in the US. Arguments comparing this kind of thing with the use of weapons are just plain silly.

Just think about it. There are far fewer pro rata road fatalities than there were in the 1930s in Europe, although there are many, many more cars on the road. This is because of continual efforts to make driving safer. Eliminating deaths from driving altogether is no more possible than eliminating the number of work related deaths, or deaths caused through any other everyday activity, but as driving has become much safer over the last decades it will steadily become even safer into the future. Perhaps one day there will be cars which simply will not start if the driver is intoxicated (although some Americans would balk at this infringement on their 'freedom' I am sure). Cars and other vehicles are however an integral part of modern society, it would be literally impossible for anyone to exercise enough authority to simply get rid of them, and there is no immediate reason to believe that this would not simply give way to other safety issues related to travel and work.

Guns, on the other hand, are not essential to civil society. In a society where they are perceived as essential, then the problem is something within that society. A gun is for killing, that is its sole purpose. Surrendering the fun of shooting at things is is no way comparable, not remotely, to surrendering the ability to travel by car.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Did you know that you have to pass a test, get a license, and pay insurance to operate a vehicle; and that if you are irresponsible with your driving you can get a ticket, or arrested, or have your license suspended?

Which do you think should have tighter requirements:

1) To own and operate a transportation vehicle?
2) To own and operate a weapon designed specifically to kill?

-CryptoLutheran
which one kills more people?
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Come on man, that's a pretty dumb argument. Should fast food also be banned? Unhealthy eating may be (according to some studies) the number one cause of death in the US. Arguments comparing this kind of thing with the use of weapons are just plain silly.

Just think about it. There are far fewer pro rata road fatalities than there were in the 1930s in Europe, although there are many, many more cars on the road. This is because of continual efforts to make driving safer. Eliminating deaths from driving altogether is no more possible than eliminating the number of work related deaths, or deaths caused through any other everyday activity, but as driving has become much safer over the last decades it will steadily become even safer into the future. Perhaps one day there will be cars which simply will not start if the driver is intoxicated (although some Americans would balk at this infringement on their 'freedom' I am sure). Cars and other vehicles are however an integral part of modern society, it would be literally impossible for anyone to exercise enough authority to simply get rid of them, and there is no immediate reason to believe that this would not simply give way to other safety issues related to travel and work.

Guns, on the other hand, are not essential to civil society. In a society where they are perceived as essential, then the problem is something within that society. A gun is for killing, that is its sole purpose. Surrendering the fun of shooting at things is is no way comparable, not remotely, to surrendering the ability to travel by car.
A gun is for killing, that is its sole purpose.
WRONG
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How does that help those whom were victims of these folks’ irresponsibility?
Newsflash -- punishment deters crime

But now you want to ban all cars b/c of a (relative) few drunk drivers?
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well for starters I didn't know about any of those shootings in Chicago but they are all part of the problem that is bringing such misery and heartache to so many people.
Also, I will not be lectured by someone like you about care and compassion when all you do is produce statistics and talk about drunk drivers in an effort to defend the use of guns.
Four people and a child died needlessly and you have not once expressed any regret about what has happened. Just statistics, drunk drivers, and whataboutisms.
I also noticed ln one of your posts that you enclosed the term, mass shootings, in quotation marks.
I take that to mean you are unhappy about the use of that term, and I say so because in your post number 18 you suggested that people are led to believe something is happening more often than it really is.
If that is your line of thought then I would not like to think just how many shootings, like the one we are discussing, there would need to be before mass shootings would be the correct terminology for you.
Know Andrew Pollack ?

How about we both defer to him
 
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Newsflash -- punishment deters crime

But now you want to ban all cars b/c of a (relative) few drunk drivers?
Nobody has suggested banning cars. You have flogged that silly drunk driver nonsense to death. No one with any sense is buying it.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Guns, on the other hand, are not essential to civil society. In a society where they are perceived as essential, then the problem is something within that society
Problem is the 2A, or whole entire Constitution?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nobody has suggested banning cars. You have flogged that silly drunk driver nonsense to death. No one with any sense is buying it.
So why are you suggesting banning guns -- "what good does punishing drunk drivers (after the fact) do to help the families of their (far more numerous) victims" ?

Answer your own question?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Problem is the 2A, or whole entire Constitution?

That doesn’t answer the question, it’s just another dodge.

You may feel the 2A (or your interpretation of it) is some kind of eternal, perfect law, not everyone does.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If humans didn’t kill things, and each other, there would be no guns. That seems pretty obvious. What do you think drove the development of the first projectile weapon?
Well it may be obvious but it is just flat out wrong. I have fired thousands of rounds that did not kill anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you think, therefore, drove the development of the second projectile weapon?

The same answer as applies to the first. There are all kinds of offensive and defensive uses of weapons, but there is nothing comparable in the world that causes so many pointless and avoidable deaths as the free availability of firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0