My poor Prius

You guys crack me up. Obviously the OP was baiting with some of her comments and it looks like she caught the whole school of fish.

 

I think they also don't understand the purpose of a debate.
A debate is not for changing your opponent's mind, by instead it serves to gain support from neutral parties for your believes, while gaining more knowledge from the other side.
Since this is not the time nor place, their time is pointlessly wasted, and everyone will go home disappointed. I have seen more action in "debate" forums compare to a voting booth There are many local ballets on the issue, is your name on any of them?
There is no right and wrong. Everyone is brought up different, and have different life experiences. There is only a majority and a minority. The society we live in makes rules according to the majority. So please, cast your vote. We have a 50% turnout (including everyone's dead grandparents) for the presidential vote and that drops drastically when it comes to State, city, local legislature. I'm not trying to judge anyone, but I get upset when I see a <1% turnout on issues that everyone seems to have such a strong opinion on.

I guess I can't be too upset, because even the modern Presidential debates has been nothing but sharp shooting and publicity stunts while not serving the debate's true purpose.
Criticisms of the Televised Debates Miss the Point - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com
True Purpose of Debate

 

Remember that the maps are based on per-capita rates. Greenland's population is so small that even a single murder puts its per-capita rate well above the best countries in Europe and the best states in the U.S.

This also means that the statistical noise (variance, standard deviation) is also quite large, so the per-capita rate varies sharply from year to year. This shows in image #23, where the coloration obviously means Greenland had no youth homicides that particular year. Even a single incident would have bumped it up at least two colors, maybe even three colors.

The same applies to Nunavut, Yukon, and Northwest Territories in images #38 and 39.

 

You're in the wrong section of the Internet if you're looking for "neutral parties".

 

exactly my point...

 

Edward R. Murrow would roll over in his grave if he saw the entertainment we now call 'news'. And yes, it is 'entertainment', as some former talking heads discovered when they sued over workplace discrimination. If it really wasn't entertainment, their cases would have had a foundation.

This so-called 'news' is in the business of attracting viewers, not to provide a representative view of what is really happening. 'If it bleeds, it leads.' For just a single example, when I was more active in this debate, there was a study of national news crime coverage. From 1993 to 1996, while our national murder rate fell 20%, national news coverage of murders (on ABC, CBS, and NBC) rose 721%. The rate has fallen much more since, but I doubt that many viewers have noticed.

Don't get me started with local examples here, particularly nearby tragedies that get little or no coverage at the same time something less serious and much farther away involved a GUN!

 

Fuzzy you can't sweep gun violence under the carpet. It is a daily occurance and can be reduced and eliminated.It takes Leadership.

 

I remember years ago we used to be able to order rifles mail order from a Sears catalog and have it delivered to our door, there were no mass shooting or gun violence back them like we have today.

Logic would say something happened to our society. Removing gun may reduce the statistics, but I've not seen anyone come up with a real gun control program that will work. We simply have too many unregistered guns that's out there, there is no way the Govt can get hold of all of them nor even know where they are at. However I think strict background check is a good start, and get guns away from people with mental issues. (Or anger management issue)

Don't mix up politician's gun control proposal with the facts that they actually care for your precious life, the truth is they can careless about your safety. Everything they do is about their political career. It's ironic to me that they sound so caring and sincere about our children's safety when they proposing a gun control law, but whenever there is a budget crisis the first thing they cut is education, police and fire.

 

You had no instant media magnification factor back then. Have we forgot all the mass killings in the world's history?
I think what we have now is more random killings in USA rather than ethnic killing way back. Some parts of the world are still going through ethnic killings now.

Humans are inherently violent creatures. Yes, some people learn to suppress instincts more than others.

 

Can't agree more.

 

I don't know of any organism that is completely docile. Plants kill each other by blocking the sun and compete for growth territory and food, even Bacteria has evolved and are now packing projectile weapons I don't really see a big problem with violence, it is part of life since the beginning. Before we had guns, we used to stab, chop, and smash each other to pieces. I think that was more violent and gruesome.
Some bacteria attack using spring-loaded poison daggers

 

In my community, opposing activists have absolutely no qualms about sweeping other local violence under the rug. One dead 15 year old burglar, shot by a homeowner as two companion burglars escaped, is somehow more tragic than all the non-gun intrusions and killings of homeowners and apartment dwellers combined.

 

Guys we evolved from the stone ages. We have one advantage we think.
A true sign of a advanced society is compassion.
We care for our sick and elderly.
We care for our children.
We can with technology and legislation reverse this disturbing trend of gun violence against the innocent.

There is talk about Biometric Identification of the Smart Gun.

The advantages are:
Proponents of smart gun technology say that smart gun technology would reduce or eliminate accidental use and misuse of guns by children and teens, as well as reducing accidental discharges or the use of a gun against the owner if it is stolen or taken away.

We have car safety legislation in America that is different than say India. If India wants to make a car to sell in the American market it must make sure it's cars meet our safety standards.

Going forward all guns manufactured and imported into the USA must meet Smart Gun standards to be determined.

Little by little the old guns will be replaced by smart guns. It will take a long time. I'm sure people will start to repair the old non smart guns, but there is a policy solution to that problem.

The Gun enthusiest still gets his gun, the manufactur still builds guns, the accidents against children is reduced, yes background checks, and little by little society gets safer.



Smart Gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Sounds like something out of the 007 movie. I hope they can really figure out how to make it work... I support it.

 

I hope so. I know you like to shoot as a sport. All should have that right.

 

I support guns rights because I have a lot of friends who keep and enjoy firearms.

But I have noticed whenever I discuss the "why" there is a common thread. Like I said in my other post, we all write our own stories. I've noticed with my gun owning friends the scenario they always imagine with usage of their firearm is always a "hero" scenario.

Somewhat like the OP, it's always they are going to have their gun and be able to diffuse or stop a crime in progress, or protect a loved one. All noble ideas.

But it seems to me, optimistic fiction.

Even in the OP's presented case. You have a car alarm, paging you within your condo telling you that your vehicle is being broken into. You grab you gun.

What are you now doing? You are armed, with a lethal tool, and running or approaching a criminal or criminals who are now desperate and potentially cornered. And also potentially armed.

Run it through a 100 scenarios. How often does it turn out good? We all like the "Dirty Harry" scene, where the mere sight of a gun causes a criminal to freeze, where crime is stopped with the presence of a gun. But I think more often, citizen with a gun....going into a situation where criminals have guns, is likely to produce a situation that increases danger to everyone involved- not decreases.

In the OP's "story" we all like her fighting spirit. The lady grabbing the gun and protecting her property against the bad guys. But what if with all the good intentions in the world, she runs into a situation where she's NOT the only one with a gun? And what if she get's herself shot or hurt trying to protect "airbags"?

Again, I'm not against people protecting their property, I'm not against people owning guns. But I think in MOST cases, the best way for the average person to handle a crime in progress or a criminal situation, is to NOT be in the same area as the criminal or the crime.

I think in most gun usage scenarios, gun owners always paint the most optimistic playing out of possible events. I think the reality is, often those scenarios don't play out the way we would like to imagine.

 

Thanks, regardless of the gun laws or restrictions I am not too worried. The last thing the law makers will touch is a harmless over & under double barrel shotgun. After all wasn't that what Biden recommend everyone to get? LOL!

 

Don't forget the tax poll.

Ok you working stiffs are you getting a Tax Refund this year? | PriusChat

 

I've being hearing such talk for more than twenty years.

This is turning out like economical hydrogen fusion power -- a wonderful dream that has been just twenty years away for more than fifty years.

 

Haha now this has covered all the bases of gun control ridiculousness. Hold on a sec Mr. Criminal while I make sure and scan my thumbprint so I can use my gun, even though I know that all gun control measures past present and future are always usurped by criminals such as yourself.