JCauto

By the way, the person who wrote the original analogy observed that when he would post this on fora, he practically NEVER gets a response because everyone knows what the answer is including the so-called "right-to-lifers", hence they simply won't answer. Prove us wrong Mac!

Oh, you mean the Future Forward Party? Gee, what happened with those guys?

Okay...so first of all, PTP hasn't fielded this woman as their leader, this is the response of people to a NIDA Poll. You know, as in "I, Prayuth, NEED A Poll that shows I am a popular Prime Minister..." That he finished 3rd in a NEED A Poll is about as big a condemnation as you're likely to observe in this land when it comes to powerful people who gained it via having guns. Second of all, while your last sentence is true, why should it be accepted as being so? When it appears that there may actually be an independent candidate or party, he's sure to be quickly moved to the side (do you recall Thanathorn?). And don't think this is just the Military who were on board with that; the Democrats and Peua Thai would similarly be pleased to see him shuffled off to the sidelines. That's what they REALLY don't want! But second-worst is Thaksin, who for all of his bluster, lack of respect for institutions and corruption did something nobody else had previously done - pointed the government firehose of funds towards the North and Northeast and decentralized power to them. That's something they'll never forgive, and why he's still Public Enemy Number One. Once the people realized that this was possible, the genie was out of the bottle. Now they'll put him or his relatives or sock puppets back whenever they're allowed to do so. The biggest disappointment for me remains the pathetic attitudes of the Bangkokians and other Thai who know better but won't vote against their own interests because they're essentially beneficiaries of the corruption and, at the end of the day, aren't willing to suffer even minor inconvenience to get real change. Oh, and the even-more-pathetic foreign cheerleaders (Steven100, care to offer another full-throated defense of the powers-that-be?).

His Master's Voice:

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Yes, an elective surgery is one where it is performed at the request of the patient rather than required according to the medical necessity of their condition. However, this does not mean that a woman in this case goes "I want to abort my baby at 27 weeks" and the doctors go "well, she said she wanted to do it, so let's scrub up and get to it!" Are you really that ignorant of medicine and medical practice? Have you never been to a hospital? And while I don't have nor am I willing to do the research into how your maps or graphs were created, in a situation where the doctors examined this woman and discovered that her foetus would almost certainly have birth defects or other issues, or that the pregnancy was unlikely to reach term, or any host of other reasons, then she would have a choice to make. If she chose to abort, then that would be "elective", but does that describe this woman's situation in detail? It lumps her in with someone who discovers they are pregnant at 4 weeks and does a simple abortion. You clearly have little understanding of the realities of modern medicine and the situations of women, whom I will note don't rate a mention in your considerations. It's all about YOUR unborn baby's life. Women are not your vessels or property.

There was a great analogy I read the other day that clarifies things in this endless and fruitless debate. It's a variation on the "Trolley Problem". You're in a house that has caught on fire. The house is a Center for Reproductive Health. You wake up in a panic and rush to get out. On your way out, you quickly open a door because you hear someone screaming in terror and inside there are two chairs. One has a child of 1 year old on it. The other has a big container with 1,000 in-vitro fertilization eggs that have already been impregnated with sperm and the cooling systems to maintain them. You can only carry one and what is left will burn. What do you do?

No, because when you make laws, they apply to everyone UNLESS those exceptions are made. And the laws that are being passed by the anti-abortion states allow for no exceptions. There's quite a simple way for you to understand this. Imagine yourself as a woman, and consider that situation where some guy is insisting that you have to do something with your body, or even that you're being forced to maintain a pregnancy for 8 months or so with no options, and that you cannot make any medical decisions without that person, whether their rapist or abuser or relative, having an equal say in the matter. You okay with that?

There is no child. There is a foetus. It is not viable outside the womb. By the way, are you also in favour then of laws that require the man in question to support the woman who bears the child from that instant of conception onwards? Why can't men be required to have vasectomies (they can be reversed when conception is required)?

Who said that? It of course is far less harmful than alcohol, as you helpfully pointed out. Do you find hysterical and untrue statements to help a debate or do they just further muddy the waters? Speaking of which, there's another musical genius who found inspiration in the devil's lettuce.

Sorry Khunying? You may have to dip into the petty cash to pay off this minor inconvenience. How much was scammed, just give us the number of zeros, no need for too much detail.

Once again, on schedule and off point. You're a boring troll. "My point, which you I'm sure fully understood, was that if the shooter in this specific case had to go through the 17 steps of the driver's license process, with multiple people who were trained in "red flag" signs such as the shooting instructor, they would have likely been identified as a risk and then they would not have gotten a gun." Now, you'll no doubt go off an another dull attempt at trolling by saying "hmmm, you want to make a point by comparing guns to driving." Go on, you can't resist, and you have a pathological need to get the last word in. Tell you what, if you actually post something germane and sensible I'll let you have it and you can triumphantly raise your beer among your miserable mates and receive the plaudits. Because no doubt you're about 4 beers in at this point of the day.

Oh, are you making a point of some sort? Because if you are, perhaps you might explain it so that we can understand. Is there a way in Texas to get a driver's license without testing or identification or something? Or are you just trying to get in the "last word" so you can declare victory with your drinking mates and can regale them about how you "owned the libs" again on gun control?

Oh wow! More deflection! I'm shocked! My point, which you I'm sure fully understood, was that if the shooter in this specific case had to go through the 17 steps of the driver's license process, with multiple people who were trained in "red flag" signs such as the shooting instructor, they would have likely been identified as a risk and then they would not have gotten a gun. If the age for being able to purchase a gun was raised to 21 (you know, like the drinking age because apparently 18yo are too immature to drink, but they ARE mature enough to handle a war weapon), then they would not have been able to get one without breaking the law and being at further risk of being identified and arrested prior to the opportunity to shoot up a school. If they had to wait 3 years to enact their nefarious plan, odds are they'd have an incident with the law that would put at risk their ability to purchase a firearm legally. So yes, that DOES start to address the problem.

In other words, YES, you have to do a driving test, and having done three in the past, that was accepted as valid. While I'd enjoy a trip to Arizona (with my golf clubs), it's not going to work because of this. I would be interested though in your actual response to the question I posed. Why wouldn't you have a similar licensing process for guns as you do for driving? As a trained driver, and trained gun user, why would you want people wandering around without any gun training or licensing?

At least you're consistent in your disingenuousness. Great comparison by the way if illustrating my point was your objective (even though it was not). First of all, are there REALLY places where you can get a driver's license without a driving test? Please let me know where, so I can get my wife to go and get one as she's failed at hers twice already. But I think you know that there isn't. Here's how to get one in Texas - https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/how-apply-texas-driver-license 1. US Citizenship or evidence of lawful presence; 2. Texas residency; 3. ID; 4. SSN; 5. Texas vehicle registration for each vehicle you own; 6. Proof of insurance for each vehicle you own; 7. Evidence of completion of Impact Texas Driver if you will be taking a driving test; 8. Six hour adult Driver Education course if you are 18-24 years of age; 9. Application; 10. Appointment; 11. Documentation; 12. Signature; 13. Thumbprints; 14. Photo; 15. Fee; 16. Vision exam; 17. Take and pass the knowledge and driving tests. WOW! Lucky this kid didn't want to drive to the supermarket, he only wanted to buy enough weaponry and ammunition to go and kill over 20 people. Tell you what, let's just accept what Texas accepts as a normal, ordinary, often-used procedure for driving licenses and apply it to guns. That works for me.

In order to join the military, you have to not be disqualified. In order to not be disqualified, you have to be tested, interviewed and have your record examined, and if any of these things is the case, you will be disqualified: Bad credit or a lot of debt; Citizenship or Legal Permanent Residence status; High School graduate or equivalent; Dependency/History of drug or alcohol dependency; Criminal history including ANY domestic violence misdemeanor, felony conviction as an adult, felony conviction involving violence as a juvenile, sex crimes or sale of illegal drugs; Specific medical condition (including mental health issues). So, what I want is for anyone buying a gun to have similar sort of scrutiny first, then be properly trained where someone with a lot of experience can both teach them how to properly operate and maintain the weapon but also interact up close and personal with the trainee to provide another level of assurance that there wasn't something missed in the original vetting process. Obviously it's not foolproof, but it's a way you can at least cut out a lot of the obvious red flag cases. Would this kid have been able to get through a session with an experienced instructor without him detecting red flags (especially if they are trained to do so)? I am guessing not, but of course it's possible he could have. You can't have a 100% success rate, but even a 25% success rate would mean reducing the killing by a significant amount. Now why is it that the military insists on this as policy? Why would you want there to be zero scrutiny before someone buys a weapon capable of similar efficiency in killing people and no oversight or training or other requirements of said person?

Typical deflection and misdirection - disingenuousness is your calling card. This entire discussion is about allowing civilians to purchase these weapons without restriction and the context is the 18yo who went out on his birthday, bought one and shot up an Elementary School. Remember? Oh yeah! And even still your response is "I don't believe in licensing", and then go off on a nonsensical argument about different constitutional amendments. Do you think it is the same thing to license people to use a weapon that can kill dozens in a few minutes versus having a license to speak? Of course you don't, you're just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope you don't have to make a logical argument, something you are basically incapable of. I will be charitable and assume there was a typo in your sentence "FYI, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many" which makes no sense. I have never watched an episode of "the View" - I don't watch television at all. So now that we've wasted time on your nonsensical non-sequitur, let's get back to the question I asked you. You state that you served time in a combat zone, meaning you were a highly trained soldier who had to regularly undertake refresher training in the use of guns and requalify, store the weapons in authorized and secure locations, learn about proper use, fire discipline, etc. With this knowledge, how do you justify providing similar weapons to kids with no training and no requirement to safely store the weapons? Do you think it was a waste of time to train you, and all that was needed was to slap on some camo gear and send you into war? Why do you need training when this kid does not?

And you have learned nothing from the experience then. If you served, you've seen the horrible damage these weapons can inflict on those shot, you've understood that you only could even serve with those weapons if you were passed initial, regular and update training every single year you served. If you demonstrated poor fire discipline, equipment maintenance or insubordination, you were punished for it. You were continually monitored by your superior officers. You could not take the weapons off base or off duty. Yet you're totally cool with giving 18yo a right to go buy a semi-auto with similar killing power along with a high capacity magazine without any background check, any training, any obligation to ensure that they're a safe gun user, any licensing, any wait period, any oversight, any storage. No restrictions, let's just give them to everyone who wants one and wonder why all the carnage takes place? How do you justify that position from a logical point of view?

Why don't you go to Ukraine and show what a hero you really are? Oh, not so fun when the other guys shoot back? Another child in an adult body.

Yes, sorry about that. One might think that a post fully supporting the points you made might engender more politesse, but I understand your frustration in dealing with the gun-nuts and their relentless attempts to obfuscate, change the topic, raise completely unrelated points and otherwise justify their love of shooting guns despite the death that it comes along with. So long as it's not their death or someone they love, who GAF? I like to shoot guns, let them die! Freedumb!

There has never been any evidence that video games have had any impact on pre-disposing children or teenagers to violence. In fact, the latest study has shown that it is quite good for the development of children's brains. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00134/full#:~:text=A recent interventional study found,rapid improvements in brain development. But surely there have been studies of correlation between videogames and violence specifically you say? Yes, there was, and no there isn't! https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200373 Interestingly, it seems that 65% of videogamers continue to play as adults. That's 2 out of 3!

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/preventing-mass-shootings-myths-mental-illness-warning-signs-red-flags-uvalde/?fbclid=IwAR0_6L-mo8IBAPrsxXCSQPM9IOX9gsOVOai1idMKrFUNSh5kKyDgkcuGNeU This article (yes, I know, Mother Jones) is actually one of the most sensible things I've read, because it actually identifies a number of common characteristics of these mass shooters. It notes that these are never impulsive acts that come from nowhere, but carefully planned decisions by angry young men who have and engage in: 1. Entrenched grievances. 2. Threatening communications. 3. Patterns of aggression (domestic violence for e.g.). 4. Stalking behaviour. 5. Emulation (identification with past attackers). 6. Personal deterioration. 7. Triggering events. 8. Attack preparation. Many of these were common for the guy in Uvalde, the guy in Buffalo and the guy in Michigan (Oxford High). This is why gun control advocates are pushing for "Red Flag" laws.

Uh, sorry, are you under the impression that the entire world is governed by YOUR constitution? It's not. Are you under the impression that the constitution of your country was written by supernatural beings? It wasn't. Are you thinking that the 2nd Amendment was part of the drafting of the Constitution and therefore connected inextricably to it and the writing contained within? It was not. Do you, as a gun owner, likely belong to a "well-regulated militia"? Almost certainly not. Your pretending to have some divine connection to your "inalienable right" to carry around weapons that weren't even conceived of at the time is nonsense.

"God-given rights" - you have none. You have rights that were codifed under the constitution. It was written by men, not God. Many of the men were explicitly not religious and this was one of the major attractions of their starting their new country. This is why the separation of church and state was written into that document. The evidence is clear, the assault gun ban worked. Here it is, not a BS source, University of Tennessee, just published. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057

Your predictable "whataboutism" and deflection is trite. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057 The ban on assault weapons worked. It should be reinstituted. Your attempts to hijack and divert the argument are pathetic.