RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives?

RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No bad dogs, just bad owners. Except there are bad dogs (I'm saying this with two fostered animals in the house right now, until a forever home is found for them - and yes, we've had pits pass through in the past). It isn't their fault that they were bred that way, and trained that way, and maybe they can be rehabbed, but there are dogs that are just plain dangerous. This is a bad analogy. Guns don't get trained. They aren't bred. They don't have a memory. They don't have any loyalty. There are plenty of other dangerous inanimate objects they can be compared to. Cars. Cans of gasoline. Household cleaning supplies. Knives. Fire. End rant.

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No bad dogs, just bad owners. Except there are bad dogs (I'm saying this with two fostered animals in the house right now, until a forever home is found for them - and yes, we've had pits pass through in the past). It isn't their fault that they were bred that way, and trained that way, and maybe they can be rehabbed, but there are dogs that are just plain dangerous. This is a bad analogy. Guns don't get trained. They aren't bred. They don't have a memory. They don't have any loyalty. There are plenty of other dangerous inanimate objects they can be compared to. Cars. Cans of gasoline. Household cleaning supplies. Knives. Fire. End rant. The bad owners bred them that way and trained them that way. The bad dogs are the result of bad owners.

DominantWoman65 -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:15:39 PM)
It may be a bad analogy to us but it is the same concept used. Get rid of the dog/guns end of problem. They fail to see the human responsibility

DominantWoman65 -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:18:47 PM)
Oh and TH, Major props to you for fostering fur babies. You scored major points in my respect department. Thank you

ElectraGlide -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:37:43 PM)
Should Angies List be banned also ?

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 It may be a bad analogy to us but it is the same concept used. Get rid of the dog/guns end of problem. They fail to see the human responsibility An example my dog was, I am told, bred for dogfighting. He was rescued and given to my neighbors who could not control him. A year ago he dumped them and moved in with me. He is now the smartest and in many ways the best tempered dog I have ever "owned" (he seems to think I am his person but his first priority is making me happy).

TheHeretic -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:43:51 PM)
I just wanted to make clear that I'm not somebody whose firsthand knowledge of animals stops at having an aunt with a cat.

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/16/2014 9:46:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I just wanted to make clear that I'm not somebody whose firsthand knowledge of animals stops at having an aunt with a cat. point taken

Politesub53 -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/17/2014 11:42:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Obviously, the solution is to ban cords, knives and cars. Maybe we should put a chip in everyone's head and program them for proper behavior. Or maybe you should read her statement, where she claims to have shot the first victim. Its not fucking difficult. [8\|]

truckinslave -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/17/2014 6:56:01 PM)
It's a dangerous world. My family and I go armed. He should have.

TheHeretic -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/17/2014 7:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 It may be a bad analogy to us but it is the same concept used. Get rid of the dog/guns end of problem. They fail to see the human responsibility Coming back around to this, I think we might do a little better if we use Prohibition for the analogy. We had a collection of social ills that alcohol could easily, and sensationally, be blamed for. It was possible to demonize all drinkers, based on the behavior of a minority. A goodly chunk of the vocal opponents of evil liquor were pretty much ignorant of how the stuff was responsibly used, as were the reformed drunkards on the temperance bandwagon's circuit. That alcohol has positive benefits (yes, having a few beers and unwinding is a positive social benefit) never even entered their thinking. Nor did the possible impact of people breaking the law to keep drinking. This was going to be the cure for husbands who deserted their families. Worker productivity would skyrocket. Without the demon rum to make them do it, domestic violence would disappear, and it would be end of people getting drunk and stabbing each other in bars. Get rid of alcohol, and all manner of social ills would simply evaporate. Mostly, it didn't work for shit, because alcohol was only a common factor for problems with a lot of different cause. We get that now, and try to address those ills in better fashions. Any benefit we may have gotten was far and away trumped by the whole new set of social ills created. The analogy breaks in what those new problems were, because people used up alcohol, and needed more on some basis. It breaks again, because the right of the people to get a little loaded now and then doesn't serve as a deliberate hedge against the loss of other liberties, or as an overall deterrent to crime. Prohibition opened the door to organized crime such as we had never seen before. For the millions of people who would go out for a bottle anyway, it instilled a casual contempt for the laws of our society. What unintended damage might we do by dismantling the 2nd Amendment barrier to tyranny, because people who are stupid, are are stupid with guns?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/17/2014 7:47:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Obviously, the solution is to ban cords, knives and cars. Maybe we should put a chip in everyone's head and program them for proper behavior. Or maybe you should read her statement, where she claims to have shot the first victim. Its not fucking difficult. [8\|] 1. You accept the words of an admitted felon trying to beat a death penalty? 2. Having someone come behind you and put their hands over yours and pull the trigger when you're (underage) is hardly shooting someone. It's coerced.

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/17/2014 7:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Obviously, the solution is to ban cords, knives and cars. Maybe we should put a chip in everyone's head and program them for proper behavior. Or maybe you should read her statement, where she claims to have shot the first victim. Its not fucking difficult. [8\|] 1. You accept the words of an admitted felon trying to beat a death penalty? 2. Having someone come behind you and put their hands over yours and pull the trigger when you're (underage) is hardly shooting someone. It's coerced. 1 of 22

Politesub53 -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/18/2014 5:32:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam 1. You accept the words of an admitted felon trying to beat a death penalty? 2. Having someone come behind you and put their hands over yours and pull the trigger when you're (underage) is hardly shooting someone. It's coerced. 1. You think she is lying about killing others. It wont be hard for cops to prove her innocent. [8\|] 2. Read the OP......Someone said no Guns were involved, which leads me to wonder why you didnt question the girls claim in post #3 Unless you are suggesting that Bama, Rich and yourself all thought the girls claim was true, before I posted. [8\|]

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/19/2014 12:09:09 AM)
FR no good link Hopefully they are right. A missing persons group says it is skeptical of a 19-year-old woman's claim that she has killed more than 20 people -- most of the murders taking place in her native Alaska and so many that she "stopped counting at 22." Seeking Alaska's Missing, a statewide support group for missing people and their families, said Tuesday that it is "skeptical" of alleged killer Amanda Barbour's claim that she took part in the murder of at least 22 people as she traveled south from Alaska to North Carolina and was involved in a satanic cult. Barbour, 19, and her husband, Elytte Barbour, 22, are charged with first-degree murder in the November killing of 42-year-old Troy LaFerrara in Sunbury, Pa. Prosecutors allege that Miranda Barbour met LaFerrara on Craigslist and offered him sex for $100. After luring LaFerrara into her vehicle, Miranda Barbour stabbed him, while her husband of three weeks strangled the man from the backseat of the vehicle. In a shocking jailhouse interview, Miranda Barbour allegedly told The Daily Item in Sunbury that she had previously killed at least 22 people from Alaska to Texas, and could "pinpoint on a map" where the bodies could be located. In the case of LaFerrara, Barbour said she and her husband killed him because, "he said the wrong things," according to the newspaper's report published Saturday. Barbour allegedly said she would have let LaFerrara go, but after telling him she was just 16, he said he wanted to proceed with the arrangement the two had made. "If he would have said no, that he wasn't going to go through with the arrangement, I would have let him go,'' she said, according to the newspaper. Barbour allegedly told the paper Friday that most of the other crimes took place in her native Alaska -- a claim the missing persons group questions -- and said she took part in the killings as early as 13 years old. "Based on the research we have conducted, we are not putting much stock into what this woman has claimed. We remain skeptical at this time until further proof is given," the group said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Our focus at Seeking Alaska's Missing is finding the missing and, unless they have not been reported by a family member or friend, the numbers simply do not match up." The FBI confirmed to FoxNews.com that it is investigating the young woman's claim, but declined to elaborate further on the case. The agency said in a statement Sunday that its Philadelphia division "has recently been in contact with the Sunbury Police Department regarding Miranda Barbour, and will offer any assistance requested in the case.'' Barbour, originally from North Pole, Alaska, lived in Anchorage and Palmer before leaving the state. The young woman claims she was part of a satanic cult that took her to several other states, including California, Texas and North Carolina. Barbour could face the death penalty in connection with LaFerrara's murder if she is convicted. Cristina Corben

Tkman117 -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/19/2014 8:54:55 AM)
The point about guns most liberals try to make but conservatives don't understand is that we generally don't want to BAN guns. We are generally in favour of reasonable safety and registry regulations. Now, if we are talking about banning guns. Answer this: what is the original purpose of the gun? What was it built to do? And before you answer with "it's designed to propel metal at high velocity" also answer WHY this was originally desired. Simple answer, but I'd lile to hear it from you guys. Another question: is it not reasonable to restrict the type, use and ownership of a tool which allows an individual to kill more people in a given amount of time than any other tool? You can only kill so many running and screaming people with a knife and a car within a minute, much more if you have an automatic weapon. If you need to defend yourself, chances are you're not going o need a military grade weapon like and assault rifle or sub machine gun, and chances are you're not going to be carrying around said large weapons on a daily basis. Most people carry pistols on their person no doubt, so why do you need anything more than that to get the point across that you mean business? Liberals aren't in favor of outright banning guns, we're in favor of reasonal ways to increase safety and reduce uneccessary shootings without outright taking away people's rights.

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/19/2014 10:27:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The point about guns most liberals try to make but conservatives don't understand is that we generally don't want to BAN guns. We are generally in favour of reasonable safety and registry regulations. Now, if we are talking about banning guns. Answer this: what is the original purpose of the gun? What was it built to do? And before you answer with "it's designed to propel metal at high velocity" also answer WHY this was originally desired. Simple answer, but I'd lile to hear it from you guys. Another question: is it not reasonable to restrict the type, use and ownership of a tool which allows an individual to kill more people in a given amount of time than any other tool? You can only kill so many running and screaming people with a knife and a car within a minute, much more if you have an automatic weapon. If you need to defend yourself, chances are you're not going o need a military grade weapon like and assault rifle or sub machine gun, and chances are you're not going to be carrying around said large weapons on a daily basis. Most people carry pistols on their person no doubt, so why do you need anything more than that to get the point across that you mean business? Liberals aren't in favor of outright banning guns, we're in favor of reasonal ways to increase safety and reduce uneccessary shootings without outright taking away people's rights. The DC government considered their gun ban was reasonable and did not violate anyone's rights

igor2003 -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/19/2014 10:59:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The point about guns most liberals try to make but conservatives don't understand is that we generally don't want to BAN guns. We are generally in favour of reasonable safety and registry regulations. What one person considers "reasonable" is total stupidity to another. Now, if we are talking about banning guns. Answer this: what is the original purpose of the gun? What was it built to do? And before you answer with "it's designed to propel metal at high velocity" also answer WHY this was originally desired. The Chinese invented the first "firearms". I don't know what their original "desire" was, but the first known use for said firearms was military. So what? What they did centuries ago has no bearing on what use I might want to put a gun to today. Simple answer, but I'd lile to hear it from you guys. Another question: is it not reasonable to restrict the type, use and ownership of a tool which allows an individual to kill more people in a given amount of time than any other tool? If you take a look around you will see that there ARE restrictions dealing with firearms. In fact, some of the places with the strictest restrictions are the very places where they are the least effective. That lack of effectiveness is one reason that people can argue about what is considered "reasonable". Another thing is that many things that some people consider "reasonable" only affect law abiding citizens, and have little or no effect on people that willing break laws. You can only kill so many running and screaming people with a knife and a car within a minute, much more if you have an automatic weapon. I think you need to learn the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic" and the difference in what it takes to own them. If you need to defend yourself, chances are you're not going o need a military grade weapon like and assault rifle or sub machine gun, and chances are you're not going to be carrying around said large weapons on a daily basis. Not to worry...most people can't get or own military grade weapons like assault rifles or sub machine guns. Most people carry pistols on their person no doubt, so why do you need anything more than that to get the point across that you mean business? You're right...most people have no "need" of assault "style" rifles. And, most people are legal, law abiding citizens. Those same legal, law abiding citizens also have no "need" of a car or motorcycle that will go 200 miles per hour. So let's put heavy restrictions on those since no one needs to go over the speed limit and only creates a public hazard when they do. And no one "needs" a house larger than 1200 or 1500 square feet, so let's put severe restrictions on those to help the country's energy woes. While we are at it, let's put restrictions on how many children a couple can have in order to stop overcrowding the world. The point is that the vast majority of firearms in the USA, regardless of size, style, color, or design, are legally owned and used, as guaranteed to us by Constitutional amendment. Simple "need" should not factor into legal ownership, whether it is about cars, homes, families,...or firearms. And by the way, of the long guns I own, one is a 12 gauge shotgun and the other is a .22 rifle. I don't own, and do not plan on owning, an assault style rifle, or any other larger caliber rifle, but I definitely believe in the rights of US citizens to own them if they wish. Liberals aren't in favor of outright banning guns, we're in favor of reasonal ways to increase safety and reduce uneccessary shootings without outright taking away people's rights. Believe it or not, I lean heavily toward the liberal side of most things, but I have a big problem with what some people consider "reasonable". You show me a law that takes firearms out of the hands of criminals without putting severe restrictions on the law abiding citizens, then I'll be all for it. But the vast majority of what some people call "reasonable" laws will only affect law abiding citizens and do absolutely nothing to stop the crazies.

TheHeretic -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/19/2014 7:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The point about guns most liberals try to make but conservatives don't understand is that we generally don't want to BAN guns. We are generally in favour of reasonable safety and registry regulations. Now, if we are talking about banning guns. Answer this: what is the original purpose of the gun? What was it built to do? And before you answer with "it's designed to propel metal at high velocity" also answer WHY this was originally desired. Simple answer, but I'd lile to hear it from you guys. Guns are tools for making things dead. Clear enough? I raised my own question on another thread recently, so perhaps you'll be willing to answer where nobody there was. Why do anti-gun folks always seem to assume the only possible target of that metal being projected at high speed is another human being (only maybe with game as an afterthought)? When I talk about having guns for protection, the main things I have in mind are rattlesnakes and feral dogs. Home intrusion is not unheard of here, and I have one of those quirky jobs where I get the odd death threat, but the first line of defense in my house is a couple of big loud dogs, and I have faster access to some nasty medieval weapon than I do to a firearm, when I'm sitting in the living room watching TV.

BamaD -> RE: Will banning Craigslist save lives? (2/19/2014 9:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The point about guns most liberals try to make but conservatives don't understand is that we generally don't want to BAN guns. We are generally in favour of reasonable safety and registry regulations. Now, if we are talking about banning guns. Answer this: what is the original purpose of the gun? What was it built to do? And before you answer with "it's designed to propel metal at high velocity" also answer WHY this was originally desired. Simple answer, but I'd lile to hear it from you guys. Guns are tools for making things dead. Clear enough? I raised my own question on another thread recently, so perhaps you'll be willing to answer where nobody there was. Why do anti-gun folks always seem to assume the only possible target of that metal being projected at high speed is another human being (only maybe with game as an afterthought)? When I talk about having guns for protection, the main things I have in mind are rattlesnakes and feral dogs. Home intrusion is not unheard of here, and I have one of those quirky jobs where I get the odd death threat, but the first line of defense in my house is a couple of big loud dogs, and I have faster access to some nasty medieval weapon than I do to a firearm, when I'm sitting in the living room watching TV. Even if the target is human that is not automatically bad, and when it is it is not the choice of the gun.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02