Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dark Knight Rises Massacre
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Nailed it. (Now I definitely think we should ban all motor vehicles to keep society safe).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermentation wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
fermentation wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Automobiles aren't used to intentionally murder dozens of people every day.


No, just unintentionally.



Isn't that a notable difference?


Yes. 32,885 people died in traffic accidents in the US in 2010. 8775 people were killed via firearms. I don't know the details, but I'm guessing most of those automobile fatalities were unintentional. An object that isn't designed with killing in mind kills many more people by accident than weapons designed to kill used by people who were using them with the intention to kill. And a car requires testing and a license to be able to use while a gun doesn't.

If safety is your main concern, you gotta be consistent. If you're going to restrict firearms on the basis of safety, you should do the same for a lot of other things.

Quote:
Shows like Modern Family and Glee betray them.


Are you seriously linking Glee to gun violence? Then again, if I watched that show maybe I'd wanna start shooting people.

Do you mean restrictions like this:
Quote:
Teen-age Driving Curfews

The Teen-age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act (TADRA), or Joshua's Law, is a statewide driver licensing procedure for Georgia teens aged 15 to 18 years. They have three steps to complete: the Instructional Permit, an Intermediate (Class D) License and a Full (Class C) License. Teen drivers aged 16 to 18 who hold the Intermediate (Class D) License are subject to a range of restrictions, including the following curfew: no driving between 12 and 6 a.m., with no exceptions.


Read more: What Is the Punishment for a Curfew Violation in Georgia? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6640451_punishment-curfew-violation-georgia_.html#ixzz25OdeWppz

Seems most states have similar laws.

If everyone who owned a firearm had to take a class, get licensed etc. that would be a good start. Also, it would be great if the laws that are currently on the books regarding gun ownership were better enforced.

I have to agree with you on Glee and the whole media creates violence etc. argument. The urge to kill is fundamental in animals, and that includes homo sapiens. The media reflects that, while guns make it easier to indulge the urge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ghostrider



Joined: 27 Jun 2011

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
^ Nailed it. (Now I definitely think we should ban all motor vehicles to keep society safe).

You can only reach that conclusion if you focus on the disadvantages of cars and conveniently ignore the advantages. People commonly use cars for transportation which must be taken into consideration if you want to ban them. Cars are very practical but guns much less so in today's world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With gang violence and wildlife populations being what they are, I would think defensive and hunting guns are extremely practical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

I don't think so. I don't think 1-3 people killed a year by scooters driving on the sidewalk justifies a crackdown against them. That's nothing compared to the thousands that are murdered via firearms, and the use of firearms in robberies and assaults.

1-3 people a year are probably killed by people running down the stairs.

Quote:
Yes. 32,885 people died in traffic accidents in the US in 2010. 8775 people were killed via firearms. I don't know the details, but I'm guessing most of those automobile fatalities were unintentional. An object that isn't designed with killing in mind kills many more people by accident than weapons designed to kill used by people who were using them with the intention to kill. And a car requires testing and a license to be able to use while a gun doesn't.

If safety is your main concern, you gotta be consistent. If you're going to restrict firearms on the basis of safety, you should do the same for a lot of other things.


Cars are used far more frequently and in far greater numbers. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that nations where gun discharge by individual citizens in an attempt to intentionally hurt another person on a daily basis is as common as driving, will have significantly higher rates of gun death.

And I do think those gun deaths should be corrected to leave out accidental deaths because I don't see accidental gun death as a reason to override a gun owner's right to hunt, target shoot, or protect themselves.

The difference between a car and a gun is the difference between a weapon and a vehicle.

I don't think its ridiculous to look at significant regulations for weapons.

Again gun supporters, keep it simple- You like guns. You want to go hunting and target shooting. You want to be able to carry one in self defense. That's all that needs to be said. Those reasons alone are sufficient to justify gun ownership.

But so far we've had these ludicrous arguments-
1)Armed citizens everywhere would be more effective in shooting-spree type incidents where they turn on the gunmen. They'd also be better than the police at it.
2)Guns strike fear into the heart of the government. Yeah, AK vs. Predator drone. Some real intimidation there.
3)When it comes to safety, intentional death with weapons should be taken the same way as accidental death via vehicle/tool.

Those arguments are just devoid of common sense. Intellectual phantasmagory that is completely unnecessary. Let the other side make idiotic claims about how guns are evil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

I don't think so.

.

Of course you don't, but that argument was ludicrous from the get-go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atwood wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

I don't think so.

.

Of course you don't, but that argument was ludicrous from the get-go.


What? That 1-3 deaths a year from scooter accidents on the sidewalk isn't sufficient reason to ban their use on the sidewalk? That's a ludicrous argument?

Or the argument that deaths from accidents with vehicles are not the same thing as intentional deaths from firearms?

Again- One is an accidental death from a transportation device, used daily by the general public. The other is intentional death from a weapon, used infrequently by criminals. Such things might require different principles in approaching their regulation, not just "they all cause death, let's go safety to the max".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fermentation



Joined: 22 Jun 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atwood wrote:
Do you mean restrictions like this:
Quote:
Teen-age Driving Curfews

The Teen-age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act (TADRA), or Joshua's Law, is a statewide driver licensing procedure for Georgia teens aged 15 to 18 years. They have three steps to complete: the Instructional Permit, an Intermediate (Class D) License and a Full (Class C) License. Teen drivers aged 16 to 18 who hold the Intermediate (Class D) License are subject to a range of restrictions, including the following curfew: no driving between 12 and 6 a.m., with no exceptions.

Read more: What Is the Punishment for a Curfew Violation in Georgia? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6640451_punishment-curfew-violation-georgia_.html#ixzz25OdeWppz

Seems most states have similar laws.

If everyone who owned a firearm had to take a class, get licensed etc. that would be a good start. Also, it would be great if the laws that are currently on the books regarding gun ownership were better enforced.


I think you missed my point. Cars kill more people despite having more restrictions and regulations regarding their operation, ownership and manufacture than guns. Yet they kill way more people used by people who had no intention of killing. Of course they are used more (more than 200 million registered cars around 80 million registared guns) but that was kind of my point. The fact they exist and are permitted isn't the only factor for all these deaths. Cars don't kill people because people drive them. Guns don't kill people simply because people own them. There are various other factors people should take into consideration before automatically going to the "ban them" route.

Quote:
I have to agree with you on Glee and the whole media creates violence etc. argument. The urge to kill is fundamental in animals, and that includes homo sapiens. The media reflects that, while guns make it easier to indulge the urge


Ok...I have never seen Glee, but is it really a violent show?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermentation wrote:
Captain Corea wrote:
fermentation wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Automobiles aren't used to intentionally murder dozens of people every day.


No, just unintentionally.



Isn't that a notable difference?


Yes. 32,885 people died in traffic accidents in the US in 2010. 8775 people were killed via firearms. I don't know the details, but I'm guessing most of those automobile fatalities were unintentional. An object that isn't designed with killing in mind kills many more people by accident than weapons designed to kill used by people who were using them with the intention to kill. And a car requires testing and a license to be able to use while a gun doesn't.

If safety is your main concern, you gotta be consistent. If you're going to restrict firearms on the basis of safety, you should do the same for a lot of other things.


It's never been 100% about safety, IMO. It's about cost/return.

Cars are an integral part of most developed economies. Sure, we could look to a future without them... or smarter ones, but for the most part, it is accepted that they are needed - especially in large places like the US/Can/Aus.

I think the point many people cautioning about gun control is that they view guns as less of a necessity.

As for the regulations, training, and licensing, I think we kind of had a good discussion on that part way through this thread. Simply put, it'd be cool if there was more, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermentation wrote:
atwood wrote:
Do you mean restrictions like this:
Quote:
Teen-age Driving Curfews

The Teen-age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act (TADRA), or Joshua's Law, is a statewide driver licensing procedure for Georgia teens aged 15 to 18 years. They have three steps to complete: the Instructional Permit, an Intermediate (Class D) License and a Full (Class C) License. Teen drivers aged 16 to 18 who hold the Intermediate (Class D) License are subject to a range of restrictions, including the following curfew: no driving between 12 and 6 a.m., with no exceptions.

Read more: What Is the Punishment for a Curfew Violation in Georgia? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6640451_punishment-curfew-violation-georgia_.html#ixzz25OdeWppz

Seems most states have similar laws.

If everyone who owned a firearm had to take a class, get licensed etc. that would be a good start. Also, it would be great if the laws that are currently on the books regarding gun ownership were better enforced.


I think you missed my point. Cars kill more people despite having more restrictions and regulations regarding their operation, ownership and manufacture than guns. Yet they kill way more people used by people who had no intention of killing. Of course they are used more (more than 200 million registered cars around 80 million registared guns) but that was kind of my point. The fact they exist and are permitted isn't the only factor for all these deaths. Cars don't kill people because people drive them. Guns don't kill people simply because people own them. There are various other factors people should take into consideration before automatically going to the "ban them" route.

Quote:
I have to agree with you on Glee and the whole media creates violence etc. argument. The urge to kill is fundamental in animals, and that includes homo sapiens. The media reflects that, while guns make it easier to indulge the urge


Ok...I have never seen Glee, but is it really a violent show?

No, I understood your point. We recognize that cars are potentially lethal and thus place restrictions on their use. The same should go for guns. I'm not saying ban them, but rather that the laws regarding them should be enforced.

The laws regarding driving have gotten progressively stricter. Can the same be said for guns? And do gun owners have to carry liability insurance? Why not?

Glee, to my knowledge, isn't violent. I just lumped it in with the rest of the media.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
atwood wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

I don't think so.

.

Of course you don't, but that argument was ludicrous from the get-go.


What? That 1-3 deaths a year from scooter accidents on the sidewalk isn't sufficient reason to ban their use on the sidewalk? That's a ludicrous argument?

Or the argument that deaths from accidents with vehicles are not the same thing as intentional deaths from firearms?

Again- One is an accidental death from a transportation device, used daily by the general public. The other is intentional death from a weapon, used infrequently by criminals. Such things might require different principles in approaching their regulation, not just "they all cause death, let's go safety to the max".

Yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atwood wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
atwood wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

I don't think so.

.

Of course you don't, but that argument was ludicrous from the get-go.


What? That 1-3 deaths a year from scooter accidents on the sidewalk isn't sufficient reason to ban their use on the sidewalk? That's a ludicrous argument?

Or the argument that deaths from accidents with vehicles are not the same thing as intentional deaths from firearms?

Again- One is an accidental death from a transportation device, used daily by the general public. The other is intentional death from a weapon, used infrequently by criminals. Such things might require different principles in approaching their regulation, not just "they all cause death, let's go safety to the max".

Yes.


I disagree. 1-3 deaths per year is not sufficient reason to ban scooters driving on the sidewalk. I bet 1-3 people per year are killed by two people bumping into each other the sidewalk while walking. By that logic we should ban walking on the sidewalk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
atwood wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
atwood wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Come on, just admit he caught you out with with your scooter argument.

I don't think so.

.

Of course you don't, but that argument was ludicrous from the get-go.


What? That 1-3 deaths a year from scooter accidents on the sidewalk isn't sufficient reason to ban their use on the sidewalk? That's a ludicrous argument?

Or the argument that deaths from accidents with vehicles are not the same thing as intentional deaths from firearms?

Again- One is an accidental death from a transportation device, used daily by the general public. The other is intentional death from a weapon, used infrequently by criminals. Such things might require different principles in approaching their regulation, not just "they all cause death, let's go safety to the max".

Yes.


I disagree. 1-3 deaths per year is not sufficient reason to ban scooters driving on the sidewalk. I bet 1-3 people per year are killed by two people bumping into each other the sidewalk while walking. By that logic we should ban walking on the sidewalk.

More ludicrosity.

BTW, your assumption that there is any logic to your post is far-fetched at best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ghostrider wrote:
visitorq wrote:
^ Nailed it. (Now I definitely think we should ban all motor vehicles to keep society safe).

You can only reach that conclusion if you focus on the disadvantages of cars and conveniently ignore the advantages. People commonly use cars for transportation which must be taken into consideration if you want to ban them. Cars are very practical but guns much less so in today's world.

Totally irrelevant. Your own "logic" dictates that we must ban all motor vehicles today. To do otherwise would be morally reprehensible and put the public at continued risk of death.

In fact, I'm loving your "logic" so much I'm struggling at the moment to think of things we shouldn't ban...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Cosmic Hum



Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
visitorq wrote:
^ Nailed it. (Now I definitely think we should ban all motor vehicles to keep society safe).

You can only reach that conclusion if you focus on the disadvantages of cars and conveniently ignore the advantages. People commonly use cars for transportation which must be taken into consideration if you want to ban them. Cars are very practical but guns much less so in today's world.

Totally irrelevant. Your own "logic" dictates that we must ban all motor vehicles today. To do otherwise would be morally reprehensible and put the public at continued risk of death.

In fact, I'm loving your "logic" so much I'm struggling at the moment to think of things we shouldn't ban...


... the need to ban "logic" is imminent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 28 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International