Nothing about Stillwater crash? - Page 5

CrazyDaisy · ‎03-20-2010

@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:

_____________________________________________________________

Why did I know you were going to say that?

An vehicle's primary purpose is not one of killing or wounding. A firearm's is. Big difference.

If you support background checks for anything that might be used for killing, then there should be background checks for everything, After all, even a roll of duct tape can be used to wound or kill. Your point is the perfect example of a strawman argument.
I have to disagree with you on this statement. The primary purpose of a firearm is NOT for killing or wounding. However if that is what you choose to believe, there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Sad....
___________________________________________________________
Well, they sure aren't wall art.
I am sure I won't change your mind either. So sad.

They have a purpose, it is not killing and wounding and definitely not wall art. Don't think a police officer it carrying one around looking for someone to kill, but then maybe you do. moving on....

Someday, when scientists discover the center of the Universe....some people will be disappointed it is not them.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@hckynutjohn wrote:

I can't believe nobody has started a thread about the travesty/death and 40+ people critically and seriously injured when a car ran through the crowd during the parade in Stillwater.

Hear a lot when people are killed and maimed by another means, but about this? The silence is deafening.

Have a lot more to say but not until I hear something from those that like to talk about mentally disturbed people being able to get a license for one of our rights, but not a peep about checks for the same type of people when it comes to driving.

NOTE: I am making no comments on the guilt or what caused this woman to drive into this crowd of so many people. What I did hear is her attorney say she has a mental illness. But?? She still had a license to drive, I think! Hey! If this stays on point and everyone plays nice, maybe this thread will stay up for awhile.

hckynut(john)

John, there's no need for the disdain, this was discussed earlier. This woman is not being charged with murder because I suspect there is some mental issue there that can probably be proven. We will see.

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:

_____________________________________________________________

Why did I know you were going to say that?

An vehicle's primary purpose is not one of killing or wounding. A firearm's is. Big difference.

If you support background checks for anything that might be used for killing, then there should be background checks for everything, After all, even a roll of duct tape can be used to wound or kill. Your point is the perfect example of a strawman argument.
I have to disagree with you on this statement. The primary purpose of a firearm is NOT for killing or wounding. However if that is what you choose to believe, there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Sad....
___________________________________________________________
Well, they sure aren't wall art.
I am sure I won't change your mind either. So sad.
They have a purpose, it is not killing and wounding and definitely not wall art. Don't think a police officer it carrying one around looking for someone to kill, but then maybe you do. moving on....

____________________________________________________________

You don't get it.

Yes, a police officer carries one. It's not for show. It's there in case he has to use it.

...and what is it used for? To stop a criminal by doing bodily harm.

There is no need for the sarcasm, CD. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to insults, then yes, please do move on.

~Enough is enough~

CrazyDaisy · ‎03-20-2010

@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:

_____________________________________________________________

Why did I know you were going to say that?

An vehicle's primary purpose is not one of killing or wounding. A firearm's is. Big difference.

If you support background checks for anything that might be used for killing, then there should be background checks for everything, After all, even a roll of duct tape can be used to wound or kill. Your point is the perfect example of a strawman argument.
I have to disagree with you on this statement. The primary purpose of a firearm is NOT for killing or wounding. However if that is what you choose to believe, there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Sad....
___________________________________________________________
Well, they sure aren't wall art.
I am sure I won't change your mind either. So sad.
They have a purpose, it is not killing and wounding and definitely not wall art. Don't think a police officer it carrying one around looking for someone to kill, but then maybe you do. moving on....
____________________________________________________________
You don't get it.
Yes, a police officer carries one. It's not for show. It's there in case he has to use it.
...and what is it used for? To stop a criminal by doing bodily harm.

There is no need for the sarcasm, CD. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to insults, then yes, please do move on.

There you go, primary purpose is for protection. In the case of a police officer, to protect himself and the public. For others it may be the protection and safety of their family.

Someday, when scientists discover the center of the Universe....some people will be disappointed it is not them.

151949 · ‎03-09-2010

@chrystaltree wrote:
@151949 wrote:
I have a former co worker who has a mentally ill son. They have had to call an ambulance because he cuts himself and then is profusely bleeding and needs to go to the hospital. They have tried to have him hospitalized when these incidents occur to no avail - they send him home with no change in his treatment. This summer one day he gets into one of these moods and starts cutting himself and when his dad tried to stop him he slashed the knife at the dad and severely cut the dad. The dad has a fib and is on anticoag therapy so was bleeding profusely and had to call an ambulance. The police came and arrested the son, because the hospital treating the dad reported he was violent. Now the son was in jail instead of where he NEEDED to be , which is a hospital. When he was scheduled to be released from jail the Mom called his doctor to try and get him admitted to the hospital. She literally begged - they kept him in the hospital 2 days, and did nothing to change his therapy. These parents can't afford a private hospital but that was their only choice . They had to take out a mortgage on their home to pay to put him in a private hospital. They are at the end of their rope with this and no one has any advice to help them. right now he is still in the private hospital, but they are fast running out of money. what are people supposed to do?

......they do what your friends did, assume the costs of a private hospital themselves and when the money runs out, they rely on outpatient treatment in a public clinic and medication. If you don't have money or very good insurance coverage; that's the only option. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is.

Why are you willing to accept that "that is the way it is"? It doesn't have to be. That is my whole point - we HAVE TO start treating the mentally ill patients in this country with more than a Rx and out the door you go.

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:

_____________________________________________________________

Why did I know you were going to say that?

An vehicle's primary purpose is not one of killing or wounding. A firearm's is. Big difference.

If you support background checks for anything that might be used for killing, then there should be background checks for everything, After all, even a roll of duct tape can be used to wound or kill. Your point is the perfect example of a strawman argument.
I have to disagree with you on this statement. The primary purpose of a firearm is NOT for killing or wounding. However if that is what you choose to believe, there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Sad....
___________________________________________________________
Well, they sure aren't wall art.
I am sure I won't change your mind either. So sad.
They have a purpose, it is not killing and wounding and definitely not wall art. Don't think a police officer it carrying one around looking for someone to kill, but then maybe you do. moving on....
____________________________________________________________
You don't get it.
Yes, a police officer carries one. It's not for show. It's there in case he has to use it.
...and what is it used for? To stop a criminal by doing bodily harm.

There is no need for the sarcasm, CD. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to insults, then yes, please do move on.
There you go, primary purpose is for protection. In the case of a police officer, to protect himself and the public. For others it may be the protection and safety of their family.

____________________________________________________________

Protection in the form of shooting the gun with the intent to harm someone you feel threatened by. You don't throw the gun at a threat nor do you hit them over the head with it.

A gun is designed to fire ammunition. That ammunition is a bullet which will harm or kill the object it comes into contact with. THAT is the primary use of a gun. Using it simply as a symbol of protection wouldn't work if it did not do the job it was designed to do.

~Enough is enough~

151949 · ‎03-09-2010

There is absolutely no other function for a gun than to shoot someone with it. It has no other functional parts except a trigger you pull to shoot it. no matter what you may fantisize about them - that is ALL they are capable of doing.

Yesterday I read a story on FB where an elderly woman was being robbed at gunpoint - reached into her purse and pulled out her gun - got one shot off before the robbers shot her multiple times and killed her.All for the few dollars she had in her purse. What a fool. Give them the darn money and let them go and you'll be alive to tell the tale.

Lacey1 · ‎03-09-2010

What about all the old people that confuse the gas and the brake pedal? They are always plowing into stores and injuring people. Should we ban them from driving, for the actios of a few?

CrazyDaisy · ‎03-20-2010

@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:

There you go, primary purpose is for protection. In the case of a police officer, to protect himself and the public. For others it may be the protection and safety of their family.
____________________________________________________________
Protection in the form of shooting the gun with the intent to harm someone you feel threatened by. You don't throw the gun at a threat nor do you hit them over the head with it.
A gun is designed to fire ammunition. That ammunition is a bullet which will harm or kill the object it comes into contact with. THAT is the primary use of a gun. Using it simply as a symbol of protection wouldn't work if it did not do the job it was designed to do.

You stated that the PURPOSE of a gun is to kill and wound, now you are going with primary USE. Big difference. People will buy a gun for protection, a deterant, not with the intent to USE.

Someday, when scientists discover the center of the Universe....some people will be disappointed it is not them.

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

@CrazyDaisy wrote:
@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@CrazyDaisy wrote:

There you go, primary purpose is for protection. In the case of a police officer, to protect himself and the public. For others it may be the protection and safety of their family.
____________________________________________________________
Protection in the form of shooting the gun with the intent to harm someone you feel threatened by. You don't throw the gun at a threat nor do you hit them over the head with it.
A gun is designed to fire ammunition. That ammunition is a bullet which will harm or kill the object it comes into contact with. THAT is the primary use of a gun. Using it simply as a symbol of protection wouldn't work if it did not do the job it was designed to do.
You stated that the PURPOSE of a gun is to kill and wound, now you are going with primary USE. Big difference. People will buy a gun for protection, a deterant, not with the intent to USE.