independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 13 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 11/17/19 7:24pm

poppys

wildgoldenhoney said:

Easy access to guns, sure but where there is a will, there is a way. It comes back to the mindset of the person. And spiritual and moral decline.


Then why do countries with strictly enforced gun policies have drastically reduced gun deaths???

We have had many threads on this topic, with studies & links to back up opinions. Blaming this and that without proof is basically speculation. Which is fine, but let's call it what it is.

[Edited 11/17/19 20:02pm]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 11/17/19 7:37pm

wildgoldenhone
y

So, if it's only the guns then, good people should be shooting each other up too, just because they have access to guns.
[Edited 11/17/19 19:41pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 11/17/19 8:02pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

wildgoldenhoney said:

So, if it's only the guns then, good people should be shooting each other up too, just because they have access to guns. [Edited 11/17/19 19:41pm]

Don't you watch the news? What do you think the kid did?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 11/17/19 8:12pm

poppys

wildgoldenhoney said:

So, if it's only the guns then, good people should be shooting each other up too, just because they have access to guns.


What kind of flawed logic is that? Nonsense. Notice you didn't answer my question. Why do countries with strictly enforced gun policies have drastically reduced gun deaths???

And there always has been and probably always will be "spiritual and moral decline" among certain individuals.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 11/17/19 8:48pm

wildgoldenhone
y

You're only talking gun deaths, that's only a small part of the problem of violence in the world. Other countries there are suicide bombers, wars, governments oppressing people using violence. So if you're only looking at shootings, you're looking at the smaller picture. Violence in general and other means of people killing people are still there and what do they have in common? General attitudes of people and spiritual and moral decay. Basically, you're looking at things from a political stance whereas I'm looking at things from a spiritual view.

But, thank you for allowing me to comment with my 'opinion' though it's not based on those 'studies'.

To tell the truth, I don't trust 'studies' all the time. They could be useful but they don't tell the whole truth. It doesn't mean they thoroughly studied something from all angles, it's sometimes just based on numbers and observation to support a hypothesis. Just because studies come up with a 'conclusion' they base it only on what they saw or only with the evidence they have. Any new evidence could change that so called logical conclusion.

But if you just want to go on shootings itself, I can understated why you would say that.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 11/17/19 10:28pm

maplenpg

avatar

wildgoldenhoney said:

You're only talking gun deaths, that's only a small part of the problem of violence in the world. Other countries there are suicide bombers, wars, governments oppressing people using violence. So if you're only looking at shootings, you're looking at the smaller picture. Violence in general and other means of people killing people are still there and what do they have in common? General attitudes of people and spiritual and moral decay. Basically, you're looking at things from a political stance whereas I'm looking at things from a spiritual view. But, thank you for allowing me to comment with my 'opinion' though it's not based on those 'studies'. To tell the truth, I don't trust 'studies' all the time. They could be useful but they don't tell the whole truth. It doesn't mean they thoroughly studied something from all angles, it's sometimes just based on numbers and observation to support a hypothesis. Just because studies come up with a 'conclusion' they base it only on what they saw or only with the evidence they have. Any new evidence could change that so called logical conclusion. But if you just want to go on shootings itself, I can understated why you would say that.

Of course there are many examples of violence around the world, often much worse than in the US. But I disagree totally that their commonality is 'spiritual and moral decay', although I respect that is your opinion. All violence is not caused by a single contributary factor, but a melting pot of factors. Yet this thread is specifically about America, and specifically about yet another child with a gun killing others (and himself).

Yes, without question there is more to it than just gun laws, but IMO there is no question that American gun laws have allowed several shootings to happen (not just mass shootings, family shootings, suicides etc..), when stricter access to guns might just have made a difference. But, honestly, I'm interested - if you believe moral and spritual decay is causing mass shootings to happen, then what the heck do you think should be done about it?


The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 11/17/19 11:16pm

wildgoldenhone
y

In post no.7, I mentioned besides spiritual and moral, a few other factors that i mentioned are contributing factors. I also agree with a few other factors others have mentioned, so I agree that it's more than just one thing that's breeding this type of behavior. To add to that, I mentioned the spiritual aspect as well. And I'm not disagreeing that laws would help curb some deaths from gun violence or even violence, period.

In fact, laws would help but not just to control actions because before a person takes action, the thoughts are conceived in their mind and heart. So to change the actions, one needs to change the thoughts. Do you think a law from the government can change a person from wanting to inflict harm and death or express their anger or hatred on others? Probably not if people aren't happy with their government.

And,so if this is a spiritual/moral problem, then the changes can only come about through a higher power. I don't think any government has been successful in changing people's hearts and actions except one. 😁 You know where I'm going with this.
[Edited 11/17/19 23:18pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 11/17/19 11:17pm

IanRG

wildgoldenhoney said:

So, if it's only the guns then, good people should be shooting each other up too, just because they have access to guns. [Edited 11/17/19 19:41pm]

.

Exactly AND this is what is happening:

.

The people most likely to kill or injure you with a gun are your family, friends or yourself. This occurs everywhere outside of war zones and places with extreme difficulties. As access to guns is a key issue, the US rate of "good" people shooting each other up IS 10 times higher than the average of equivalent nations (per 100,000 people).

.

Access means more than mere numbers of guns: Places like Switzerland have a high number of guns per 100,000 people but they do not have the death and violence culture of the "good" people in the US and they have seriously tight and actively enforced laws on gun safety.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 11/18/19 12:42am

BombSquad

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

And again someone illegally gets a gun, in gun grabbing--anti-civil-rights-- state, went into a gun free zone... and did evil and the rabid anti-liberty fools who apparently only want cops and criminals to have guns use this to push for more laws?

Yeah. It proves the point for better gun laws. Wtf?

indeed! Duh! LOL

yet the gun nutty P.A.R.A.N.O.I.D anti-life fools and shitheads will never grasp that.

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 11/18/19 1:21am

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

And again someone illegally gets a gun, in gun grabbing--anti-civil-rights-- state, went into a gun free zone... and did evil and the rabid anti-liberty fools who apparently only want cops and criminals to have guns use this to push for more laws?


it's rather pretty simple. if YOU are against strengthening gun laws, then it is very obviosuly YOU who wants the criminals to have easy access to guns

that is not rocket science LMFAO
FAIL


so then, do you just LIE on purpose again or are you really too ignorant to understand?
cause this "argument" is still the dumbest thing the P.A.R.N.A.O.I.D. fools bring to the table, and everytime it exposes immediately how ignorant and uninformed someone is. or a LIAR

the goal is to make it harder for the BAD guys to get guns. BAD. getit?
now how hard to understand is that???? even for a lost propganda driven tool?


yet the LIE that all the Fox shtiheads hammer down the ignorant fools throats, who are not able to think for themselves, is that someone wants to take away liberties from the law abiding citizens. nope. WRONG

will some have to go through more checks or examiantions etc.? you bet! but that is not taking any liberties or freedoms, it is not against the 2nd, and it is a small price to pay in order to save lifes. yet anti-life fools and shitheads disagree

maybe Darwin will take care of them




Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 11/18/19 2:19am

maplenpg

avatar

wildgoldenhoney said:

In post no.7, I mentioned besides spiritual and moral, a few other factors that i mentioned are contributing factors. I also agree with a few other factors others have mentioned, so I agree that it's more than just one thing that's breeding this type of behavior. To add to that, I mentioned the spiritual aspect as well. And I'm not disagreeing that laws would help curb some deaths from gun violence or even violence, period. In fact, laws would help but not just to control actions because before a person takes action, the thoughts are conceived in their mind and heart. So to change the actions, one needs to change the thoughts. Do you think a law from the government can change a person from wanting to inflict harm and death or express their anger or hatred on others? Probably not if people aren't happy with their government. And,so if this is a spiritual/moral problem, then the changes can only come about through a higher power. I don't think any government has been successful in changing people's hearts and actions except one. 😁 You know where I'm going with this. [Edited 11/17/19 23:18pm]

Having worked in a high security jail I agree with this from your post #7.

Anger is a ingrained trait that we all have but they just don't know to control themselves or their impulses.

Yet there is a difference between highly calculated mass shootings where manifestos have been written etc... and a man who shoots his wife and kids in a fit of temper. The anger might be a commonality, but usually one is committed when emotions are high, and are often being expressed outwardly (shouting, screaming etc...), whereas the other is a deep-rooted, often silent anger that builds inside, and maybe is only shared with a select few in some buried site on the dark web. Even just addressing anger is complex, and many wouldn't agree that they need help, therefore though I agree, short of education, I don't see much changing with regards anger. I do wonder if something could be done to build self-worth though.

To address the bold in this post, there are ways we can change thoughts - the US could start by getting rid of the ridiculous notion that you need guns to protect yourself from the boogieman. This argument is fundementally flawed. In the UK we are hearing this argument all the time with knife crime. i.e. "I carry a knife to protect myself from others carrying knives", and guess who are the ones getting killed? Yep, it's those with knives. The way to stop knife crime is not for more people to carry knives, just as the way to stop gun crime is not to encourage the idea that more people need to carry guns.

Stricter gun laws would mean less guns in society, and IMO that cannot be a bad thing. If a man in a fit of temper cannot reach into his drawer and pull out a shotgun to kill his family, then the family just might be saved. If a child cannot access his parent's guns (kept in case the boogieman calls) then he might just not shoot his schoolfriends. There are reasons we restrict access to things in life, and if stricter gun laws save lives (as has been proved in the Western world, Australia probably being the best example), then I don't understand the pushback.

But hey, thoughts and prayers, and waiting for that higher power to do something seems to have been the standard response so far, I honestly don't think it's going to change anytime soon. Meanwhile more kids, or others, are going to end up cold stone dead.

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 11/18/19 4:50am

PennyPurple

avatar

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/4-dead-6-wounded-in-fresno-california-football-party-shooting.html
  • Four people were killed and six more wounded when “unknown suspects” sneaked into a backyard filled with people at a party in central California and fired into the crowd.
  • The shooting took place about 6 p.m. on Fresno’s southeast side, where people were gathered to watch a football game.
  • About 35 people were at the party when the shooting began and all of the victims were Asian men ranging in ages from 25 to 35.

COME BACK RODEO COME BACK!

djThunderfunk said:
Not because of some silly milano on the org. lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 11/18/19 5:49am

BombSquad

avatar

^^another great occasion to celebrate Freedom™

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 11/18/19 7:21am

poppys

wildgoldenhoney said:

You're only talking gun deaths, that's only a small part of the problem of violence in the world. Other countries there are suicide bombers, wars, governments oppressing people using violence. So if you're only looking at shootings, you're looking at the smaller picture. Violence in general and other means of people killing people are still there and what do they have in common? General attitudes of people and spiritual and moral decay.

Basically, you're looking at things from a political stance whereas I'm looking at things from a spiritual view. But, thank you for allowing me to comment with my 'opinion' though it's not based on those 'studies'. To tell the truth, I don't trust 'studies' all the time. They could be useful but they don't tell the whole truth. It doesn't mean they thoroughly studied something from all angles, it's sometimes just based on numbers and observation to support a hypothesis.

Just because studies come up with a 'conclusion' they base it only on what they saw or only with the evidence they have. Any new evidence could change that so called logical conclusion. But if you just want to go on shootings itself, I can understated why you would say that.

Statistics would probably have been a better word then studies. Statistics are changed when there are new numbers, not random.

I'm not "allowing" anything. You are free to post. I see you are either new, or a new ID. The thread topic is about another mass shooting in the US, as opposed to general worldwide violence. Anyone here can start a thread on any topic.

There are many of these shooting incident threads, almost every time we have one. This discussion is not new here. In fact, we were recently told by a mod that there was no point in discussing this topic anymore, that's how many we have, and how much fatigue there is. A variety of orgers have contributed a wealth of views on all those threads.

One logical conclusion, aka fact, is that the United States is awash with guns. Many very religious people have no problem with all the guns and support the NRA. I come from a Christian sect that preaches pacifism, it runs the gamut. Where do you stand on US gun policies?

[Edited 11/18/19 11:42am]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 11/18/19 7:56am

poppys

maplenpg said:

wildgoldenhoney said:

In post no.7, I mentioned besides spiritual and moral, a few other factors that i mentioned are contributing factors. I also agree with a few other factors others have mentioned, so I agree that it's more than just one thing that's breeding this type of behavior. To add to that, I mentioned the spiritual aspect as well. And I'm not disagreeing that laws would help curb some deaths from gun violence or even violence, period.

In fact, laws would help but not just to control actions because before a person takes action, the thoughts are conceived in their mind and heart. So to change the actions, one needs to change the thoughts. Do you think a law from the government can change a person from wanting to inflict harm and death or express their anger or hatred on others?

Probably not if people aren't happy with their government. And,so if this is a spiritual/moral problem, then the changes can only come about through a higher power. I don't think any government has been successful in changing people's hearts and actions except one. 😁 You know where I'm going with this.


Having worked in a high security jail I agree with this from your post #7.

Anger is a ingrained trait that we all have but they just don't know to control themselves or their impulses.

Yet there is a difference between highly calculated mass shootings where manifestos have been written etc... and a man who shoots his wife and kids in a fit of temper. The anger might be a commonality, but usually one is committed when emotions are high, and are often being expressed outwardly (shouting, screaming etc...), whereas the other is a deep-rooted, often silent anger that builds inside, and maybe is only shared with a select few in some buried site on the dark web. Even just addressing anger is complex, and many wouldn't agree that they need help, therefore though I agree, short of education, I don't see much changing with regards anger. I do wonder if something could be done to build self-worth though.

To address the bold in this post, there are ways we can change thoughts - the US could start by getting rid of the ridiculous notion that you need guns to protect yourself from the boogieman. This argument is fundementally flawed. In the UK we are hearing this argument all the time with knife crime. i.e. "I carry a knife to protect myself from others carrying knives", and guess who are the ones getting killed? Yep, it's those with knives. The way to stop knife crime is not for more people to carry knives, just as the way to stop gun crime is not to encourage the idea that more people need to carry guns.

Stricter gun laws would mean less guns in society, and IMO that cannot be a bad thing. If a man in a fit of temper cannot reach into his drawer and pull out a shotgun to kill his family, then the family just might be saved. If a child cannot access his parent's guns (kept in case the boogieman calls) then he might just not shoot his schoolfriends. There are reasons we restrict access to things in life, and if stricter gun laws save lives (as has been proved in the Western world, Australia probably being the best example), then I don't understand the pushback.

But hey, thoughts and prayers, and waiting for that higher power to do something seems to have been the standard response so far, I honestly don't think it's going to change anytime soon. Meanwhile more kids, or others, are going to end up cold stone dead.


Was thinking the same thing, you said it better.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 11/18/19 8:10am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

PennyPurple said:

Evidently the laws aren't strict enough.

so because someone breaks the law we need more laws? People Speed so we should lower the speed limit?

so youre arguing for absolutely no gun restrictions or laws?

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 11/18/19 9:50am

cborgman

avatar

three dead in a walmart parking lot shooting this morning, and 4 dead at a football viewing party last night too.


.

[Edited 11/18/19 9:54am]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 11/18/19 10:29am

sexton

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

PennyPurple said:

Evidently the laws aren't strict enough.

so because someone breaks the law we need more laws? People Speed so we should lower the speed limit?


That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 11/18/19 12:27pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

sexton said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so because someone breaks the law we need more laws? People Speed so we should lower the speed limit?


That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.


yeahthat

Misinformation Kills
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 11/18/19 6:00pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

sexton said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so because someone breaks the law we need more laws? People Speed so we should lower the speed limit?


That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.

except not at all... not at all.

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 11/18/19 6:52pm

onlyforaminute

OnlyNDaUsa said:



sexton said:




OnlyNDaUsa said:




so because someone breaks the law we need more laws? People Speed so we should lower the speed limit?





That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.




except not at all... not at all.



If enough people are killed it is. It called acceptable risk. Obviously children of all ages being randomly killed en masse is an acceptable risk.
Life is to be lived, not controlled, and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat.

-Ralph Ellison
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 11/19/19 2:14am

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sexton said:


That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.

except not at all... not at all.

.

Normally you demonstrate that your understanding of law is woefull, now it is "not at all" that is beyond your ken.

.

Every time an accident hot spot has its speed limit reduced by law, it's speed limit has been reduced by law because of its relative danger. Even if it occured only once this means your "not at all" claim is utter nonsense - and it occurs far far far more regularly than only once.

.

Remember this was from your poor analogy: As you analogy is wrong, you should admit that when your country's death and violence rate from guns is 10 times higher proportionally than in other equivalent nations, then the response should be the same as with vehicle accident hot spots - The USA is the hot spot: As a nation it is not mature enough to have as much access to guns as every other equivalent nation. Just as learner drivers are more speed limited than normal drivers and underaged children cannot drive for their own good, you should be more gun limited than equivalent nations for you own good.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 11/19/19 4:12am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

onlyforaminute said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

except not at all... not at all.

If enough people are killed it is. It called acceptable risk. Obviously children of all ages being randomly killed en masse is an acceptable risk.

huh? that is why we have Laws in place. But to say "people break laws so we need more laws" is fallacios. And as I thought some would equate speeding to having accidents. But that is not what I said.

People break laws. People kill other people... but most >99% of all gun and of all legal gun owners never do.

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 11/19/19 5:03am

sexton

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sexton said:


That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.

except not at all... not at all.


Except you're wrong. And now you're trying to backtrack from your misinformed statement with more of your word games.

Congratulations on derailing another thread by having people argue with you about something unrelated to the original topic. You seem to get off on this disruptive behavior so I will no longer engage with you on this subject.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 11/19/19 7:16am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sexton said:


That's exactly why speed limits get lowered.

except not at all... not at all.

rolleyes

.

yea, im sure there's corners of roads with lots of speeding deaths where theres also a you-equivalent saying "it doesnt matter several people die at this corner every day, because less than 1% of the cars that use this highway end up with multiple deaths at this corner."

.

OF COURSE this is exactly why speed limits get lowered in problem areas.
.
i cant tell if you are pretending not to understand how speed laws get made to be difficult, if you genuinely didnt know or comprehend something as simple as that, or if you were drunk when you posted it.

.

whichever it was, its an incredibly stupid analogy.

.

[Edited 11/19/19 7:30am]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 11/19/19 12:58pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

onlyforaminute said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: If enough people are killed it is. It called acceptable risk. Obviously children of all ages being randomly killed en masse is an acceptable risk.

huh? that is why we have Laws in place. But to say "people break laws so we need more laws" is fallacios. And as I thought some would equate speeding to having accidents. But that is not what I said.

People break laws. People kill other people... but most >99% of all gun and of all legal gun owners never do.

.

What an abysmal failure of "gotcha" argument!

.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume even you know that the prime reason for laws against speeding is to reduce the chances of death and injury as a result of accidents. It is so very, very wrong for you to say that speed limits are never lowered by law to reduce death and injury from accidents. But you know this and this is just a trolling word game.

.

By your poor analogy, you were arguing that gun laws should be like speeding laws: As speeding laws are, in fact, often sought to be made more effective to reduce death and injury, then so should gun laws. This is especially so because the purpose of vehicles is transportation, not to be able to threaten or actually inflict death and injuries on people and animals. However, the only reason most people have guns is to be able to threaten or inflict death and injury on others.

.

Your statistics are made up and irrelevant. Most people killed or injured by guns are killed or injured by their family, friends or themselves using legally obtained and held guns. Most people killed or injured by guns in domestic violence are killed or injured by people using legally obtained and held guns. Most people killed or injured in public mass shootings are killed or injured by people using legally obtained and held guns. The only place that illegally obtained guns are more often used to kill or injure a person is as part of another crime against people other than family and friends. To equate this with road rules, it is not the number of vehicles that fail to be in an accident or the number of people who did not use a gun to kill or injure people with guns: It is the number of people that are killed or injured by vehicles (contrary to a vehicles intended purpose) and guns (specifically and directly in line with the intended purpose of most types of guns).

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 11/20/19 2:10pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

sexton said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

except not at all... not at all.


Except you're wrong. And now you're trying to backtrack from your misinformed statement with more of your word games.

Congratulations on derailing another thread by having people argue with you about something unrelated to the original topic. You seem to get off on this disruptive behavior so I will no longer engage with you on this subject.

nod

Misinformation Kills
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 11/20/19 4:31pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

sexton said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

except not at all... not at all.


Except you're wrong. And now you're trying to backtrack from your misinformed statement with more of your word games.

Congratulations on derailing another thread by having people argue with you about something unrelated to the original topic. You seem to get off on this disruptive behavior so I will no longer engage with you on this subject.

wrong. I said speeding not accidents. I did not derail this I made a comparison that you failed to grasp.

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 11/20/19 4:43pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sexton said:


Except you're wrong. And now you're trying to backtrack from your misinformed statement with more of your word games.

Congratulations on derailing another thread by having people argue with you about something unrelated to the original topic. You seem to get off on this disruptive behavior so I will no longer engage with you on this subject.

wrong. I said speeding not accidents. I did not derail this I made a comparison that you failed to grasp.

.

What is the purpose of laws to reduce speeding?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 11/20/19 4:54pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

wrong. I said speeding not accidents. I did not derail this I made a comparison that you failed to grasp.

.

What is the purpose of laws to reduce speeding?


hmmm to reduce the frequency of accidents on certain stretches of highway perhaps?

Misinformation Kills
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 13 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting