Should we provide the homeless with shotguns?

[savagewind]

You'd be winning overwhelmingly if I didn't have some bug which has
me planted in me green leather chair posting absurities on the internet.

Yes, the flu or something. I am not even planted and I'm doing pretty trollishly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, the flu or something. I am not even planted and I'm doing pretty trollishly.

You're the daily winner now by a safe margin.
Woohoo!

 

[savagewind]

You're the daily winner now by a safe margin.
Woohoo!

No, not the last time I looked. You were ahead. And, I think you are not going anywhere. I don't have to stop to cook because it is in the crockpot.

 

[savagewind]

Oh no! We have gone off topic...............................................

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Car still leading the death count even with all that.

People continue crying about the evils of guns but not cars, even when facts concerning mortality rates stare you in the face.

I wonder why.

You do? You wonder why many people are more concerned with guns than cars? You haven't noticed the answer on this thread yet?

It was explained to you. The issues are unrelated. We care about both car safety and gun safety, and ought to try to minimize deaths from each.

But the issues are unrelated, and there is no merit in discussing them side-by-side. The number of car deaths is irrelevant to the issue of whether gun laws are rational, and in this discussion, repeatedly referring to cars only serves as a deflection from discussing rational gun laws.

Don't worry. You'll still be able to keep your guns. The powers that make such decisions in America support essentially unfettered access to even assault weapons to just about anybody. I'm sure that you understand what that means for America - more of the same.

Incidentally, I think I rebutted your claim that "Cars are no more or less necessary than guns are" by pointing out that a car was critical to my livelihood and beneficial to my life in general, but that guns were absolutely unnecessary. You chose to not respond to that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You do? You wonder why many people are more concerned with guns than cars? You haven't noticed the answer on this thread yet?

It was explained to you. The issues are unrelated. We care about both car safety and gun safety, and ought to try to minimize deaths from each.

But the issues are unrelated, and there is no merit in discussing them side-by-side. The number of car deaths is irrelevant to the issue of whether gun laws are rational, and in this discussion, repeatedly referring to cars only serves as a deflection from discussing rational gun laws.

Don't worry. You'll still be able to keep your guns. The powers that make such decisions in America support essentially unfettered access to even assault weapons to just about anybody. I'm sure that you understand what that means for America - more of the same.

Incidentally, I think I rebutted your claim that "Cars are no more or less necessary than guns are" by pointing out that a car was critical to my livelihood and beneficial to my life in general, but that guns were absolutely unnecessary. You chose to not respond to that.

The issues are related because once again you and others continue to ignore that death is death. It's a fact of life and people need to start living with the reality that people will continue to kill one another no matter what the law says.

Cars are given a pass, they kill more people period . Guns kill less people period. that's the bottom line of it all and I'm not buying into that kind of BS that guns are god awful things. Anybody who's against the gun doesn't deserve freedom in my opinion because that's the way the world works. You need them whether you like it or not.

If you're going to argue against the evils of firearms stop talking about death as a lever for your arguments. It doesn't work. It's people you should be looking at, not the tools or means and start examining the systemic reasons why it would trigger people to go off the edge like that.

The problems lays one way, and you have a bunch of daffodils looking entrely the other direction at guns themselves and thinking they're doing everybody a service.

I think people should stop blaming guns because it wasn't always like this. It's the asinine idiotic generations that we have today that can't tell their head from their *** where the actual problems lay.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The issues are related because once again you and others continue to ignore death is death.

Cars are given a pass, they kill more people, guns kill less people, that's the bottom line of it all and I'm not buying into that kind of BS.

If you're going to argue against the evils of firearms stop talking about death as a lever for your arguments. It doesn't work. It's people you should be looking at, not the tools or means and start examining the systemic reasons why it would trigger people to go off the edge like that.

The problems lays one way, and you have a bunch of daffodils looking entrely the other direction at guns themselves and thinking they're doing everybody a service.

I think people should stop blaming guns because it wasn't always like this. It's the asinine idiotic generations that we have today that can't tell their head from their *** where the actual problems lay.

Except, for the Nth time, cars are NOT "given a pass".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Except, for the Nth time, cars are NOT "given a pass".

For the 10th time they are.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

For the 10th time they are.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. Licensing, registration, mandatory insurance, medical requirements, road laws enforced by traffic stops, sear belts, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the 10th time they are.

Back in the 70s, I was on a long bike ride.
A guy (drunken veteran) ran me down, & fled the scene.
The cops said that he was disappointed that my neck wasn't broken.
He wanted me dead.
Sounds like attempted murder to me.
He only lost his license for a year.
It was just car....& he was just drunk....& I survived.

Back in the 90s, a gal who wasn't paying attention ran a red light.
She hit my truck side on. I was only lightly injured.
She was uninsured (violation of MI law).
She wasn't arrested....might've gotten a ticket...but I didn't see one issued.

People give cars a pass.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. Licensing, registration, mandatory insurance, medical requirements, road laws enforced by traffic stops, sear belts, etc.

Okay. Given the present amount of regulation and safety measures there's still a certain amount of deaths that are tolerated without the vilification of cars coming to the forefront.

I'll go through the back door on this, given our tolerances and acceptance for cars, how many tolerable deaths will be allowed before guns will stop being vilified?

There has to be some quantity of death allowed because we don't vilify cars and they cause more deaths than guns. I'm including accidental and intentional death.

At any rate, it should serve as a indicator of what regulation and safety says.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Back in the 70s, I was on a long bike ride.
A guy (drunken veteran) ran me down, & fled the scene.
The cops said that he was disappointed that my neck wasn't broken.
He wanted me dead.
Sounds like attempted murder to me.
He only lost his license for a year.
It was just car....& he was just drunk....& I survived.

I'm sure the car wasn't blamed or vilified whatsoever.

It would be the person and the core reasons behind his actions that need to be looked at.

I'm certainly glad you survived the ordeal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure the car wasn't blamed or vilified whatsoever.

It would be the person and the core reasons behind his actions that need to be looked at.

I'm certainly glad you survived the ordeal.

Always wear a helmet when bicycling.
It was toast after that.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is an idea that has been proposed by Brian Ellison, a candidate for the U.S. senate.

<link>Arm homeless people with shotguns and ban the TSA, this Senate candidate says <link>

And in case you are worried that the homeless will waste ammunition, Ellison proposes that they be give a limited number of bullets, and if those bullets are wasted doing something like shooting innnocent tin cans the homeless person won’t be given any more. But if the homeless use the guns and bullets for the intended purpose (shooting people), they will be able to get more.

Is this a good idea? Would you support this? Would the NRA support this? Is this something President Trump should get behind?


Bonus question: Ya got any spare change?

Why would we want anyone to shoot people? And do we give the shotguns to the homeless mentally ill?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Why do people assume the homeless don’t already have guns?

Homeless man threatened with tire iron fatally shoots attacker (VIDEO)

I don't see how that is anything except a non-sequitur to what the OP was arguably driving at. Homes and employment resources are more important for the homeless than guns. More ways for the NRA to profit is all this could be. They'd be getting money from our taxes to provide the homeless with guns. The greed honestly does make me ill.

 

[fantome profane]

Why would we want anyone to shoot people? And do we give the shotguns to the homeless mentally ill?

Of course we do. The mentally ill homeless are victims of violence are a even higher rate than other homeless. They need a way to defend themselves. And what better way to defend yourself than a gun?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The issues are related because once again you and others continue to ignore that death is death.

That's irrelevant. This is about more death or less death.

It's a fact of life and people need to start living with the reality that people will continue to kill one another no matter what the law says.

Then perhaps they should just simply make what is called murder today legal tomorrow, since as you say, death is an ineluctable fact of life and can't be eradicated.

Cars are given a pass, they kill more people period .

Irrelevant.

How many people are killed by cancer? Should that be part of this debate, too?

Anybody who's against the gun doesn't deserve freedom in my opinion because that's the way the world works. You need them whether you like it or not.

No, neither you nor I need them to defend freedom. That's the job of law enforcement and military, They can be armed.

If you're going to argue against the evils of firearms stop talking about death as a lever for your arguments. It doesn't work.

Death is the central issue regarding guns. It cannot be separated from this issue.

Would you ask the kids in Parkland, Florida to forget about shooting deaths? They never will.

It's people you should be looking at, not the tools or means and start examining the systemic reasons why it would trigger people to go off the edge like that.

You've got a nation of tightly wound people standing at that edge ready to grab a gun and go off of it. If you think you can identify these people and keep them away from guns without tightening existing gun laws, go for it.

If not, make the guns less accessible.

I think people should stop blaming guns because it wasn't always like this. It's the asinine idiotic generations that we have today that can't tell their head from their *** where the actual problems lay.

And they're as armed as they care to be. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

how many tolerable deaths will be allowed before guns will stop being vilified?

When the number is at a minimum, and no additional interventions can lower it further - as with cars.

 

[suncowiam]

Couldn't tell if this was a joke. Can't still tell if this is a joke.

 

[Revoltingest]

Couldn't tell if this was a joke. Can't still tell if this is a joke.

If you refer to arming the homeless, the candidate said.....
U.S. Senate candidate wants to buy guns for homeless people

Ellison acknowledges his campaign, "Arm the Homeless," has shock value that will bring attention to his campaign. But he says as a third-party candidate going up against well-funded Democratic and Republican opponents, shock value is about the only thing he can do to get media coverage.

But he says there is a serious intent to the campaign, which is to bring attention to the high rates of violent crime against homeless people, as well as the dehumanization of the homeless.

 

[fantome profane]

If you refer to arming the homeless, the candidate said.....
U.S. Senate candidate wants to buy guns for homeless people

But he says there is a serious intent to the campaign, which is to bring attention to the high rates of violent crime against homeless people, as well as the dehumanization of the homeless.

And at the same time this can call attention to the fact that not all problems can be solved with guns.

(I don’t know if that was Ellison’s intent, but it is mine)