MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: swoopem on May 02, 2014, 09:54:19 AM
-
Obviously nothing new because this seems to happen about once a year, but still news worthy. It looks like the kid who got shot tried to be a hero and refused give up the goods
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/marquette-university-milwaukee-shooting-257656081.html
-
How stupid are you when you rob someone outside O'Donnell? But honestly unless you have a weapon and/or are extremely knowledgable in self defense then don't fight with someone trying to rob you.
-
When I was in school there was an abduction outside OD. The dudes grabbed a couple kids and drove them around Milwaukee taking them to different ATMs to draw out cash and beat the living sh!t out of them. They then left them on the side of the road so fend for themselves.
I'm pretty sure they eventually got caught though.
-
Yet another robbery on campus. I have to say I can't remember, fortunately, the last time a student was shot on campus.
-
How stupid are you when you rob someone outside O'Donnell?
Wisconsin now has concealed carry, and college students can't have firearms in their dorms. Granted, robbing someone is stupid to begin with, but doing it on MU's campus seems a little less stupid.
But honestly unless you have a weapon and/or are extremely knowledgable in self defense then don't fight with someone trying to rob you.
Both the best and worst advice that you could ever give anyone.
-
This is getting blown way out of proportion. The area MU is in is not even bad. The only reason people care is because its happening to MU students. I can garantuee you that nobody gives a single damn if its just a random passerby that gets robbed. The only reason the kid even got shot is because he tried to push the gun out of the way.
-
Soooooo
Getting shot is his fault.....
-
Soooooo
Getting shot is his fault.....
no, it's the gun's fault.
-
no, it's the gun's fault.
For at least 40% of our posters here, that doesn't need to be in teal. For me, put it in bold teal.
-
For at least 40% of our posters here, that doesn't need to be in teal. For me, put it in bold teal.
No, its not his fault, nor is it the guns fault but consealed carry is a horrible, horrible thing. Causes more deaths then prevents.
-
No, its not his fault, nor is it the guns fault but consealed carry is a horrible, horrible thing. Causes more deaths then prevents.
Sure, conseal carry never prevented a single death, but I can't think of how conseal carry would cause a death.
But to say it's a horrible, horrible thing... don't you think that's a little too melodramatic.
-
No, its not his fault, nor is it the guns fault but consealed carry is a horrible, horrible thing. Causes more deaths then prevents.
uh, got news for you...bad guys are going to carry guns, registered or not registered, purchased legally or illegally, no matter what the concealed carry/open carry laws are. They don't give a sh!t about the law, as they are committing other crimes with said guns. At least concealed carry gives the good guys/victims a chance to defend themselves.
-
I didn't even hear any gunshots. Maybe because I was rewatching 24
-
Sure, conseal carry never prevented a single death, but I can't think of how conseal carry would cause a death.
But to say it's a horrible, horrible thing... don't you think that's a little too melodramatic.
This didn't prevent a death, but it stopped a crime
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134172-armed-good-samaritan-stops-purse-snatching-next-even-better/
-
This didn't prevent a death, but it stopped a crime
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134172-armed-good-samaritan-stops-purse-snatching-next-even-better/
That was concealed carry. Chitownwarrior was talking about consealed carry.
I thought it was a typo at first, too... but the context was contradictory. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here that he was talking about sealing concrete, not guns.
-
In just saying that its more likely that an attacker will use a weapon when they see the victim has a weapon and vice versa. I would never get a gun but if I did have one I would worry for the people who cut me off when im driving.
-
No, its not his fault, nor is it the guns fault but consealed carry is a horrible, horrible thing. Causes more deaths then prevents.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
-
Lay off chitownwarrior if you guys grew up in a city as opposed to suburbs or country I'm sure you'd have very similar views to him (and me) but your perspectives are skewed by your environment.
-
I have never owned any personal weapons nor had any interest in possessing any. I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.
But I am proficient in handling both side arms and assault rifles. I also know that if I have a weapon on my person I can walk safely down any street in America without the least concern for my personal safety. Scoring a 240 on the M16x/M4x Series and being able to drop 10 out of 10 moving targets at 100 meters engenders a particular confidence that bad guys recognize and avoid.
-
I have never owned any personal weapons nor had any interest in possessing any. I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.
But I am proficient in handling both side arms and assault rifles. I also know that if I have a weapon on my person I can walk safely down any street in America without the least concern for my personal safety. Scoring a 240 on the M16x/M4x Series and being able to drop 10 out of 10 moving targets at 100 meters engenders a particular confidence that bad guys recognize and avoid.
I imagine when Keefe goes to the 'hood, he sticks out like a sore thumb.... he's the guy push-carting his GAU-8 down the street.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7783197952/h36AB922A/)
-
I imagine when Keefe goes to the 'hood, he sticks out like a sore thumb.... he's the guy push-carting his GAU-8 down the street.
People might not realize but the USAF started with GE's GAU and had Republic build the airframe and power plants around the weapon. The GAU is larger than a compact automobile.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/Rickjj/633659148436915781-gau8.jpg)
(http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/5-Revenge.jpg)
-
I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.
We have a winner! It's remarkable how the gun lobby has convinced many Americans to read the amendment totally out of the context in which it was written by ignoring the militia reference.
Shows how a well-funded lobby can turn black into white.
-
I stay strapped. It's real on these streets joe.
-
We have a winner! It's remarkable how the gun lobby has convinced many Americans to read the amendment totally out of the context in which it was written by ignoring the militia reference.
Shows how a well-funded lobby can turn black into white.
Huh?
-
Huh?
You weren't aware that the Second Amendment starts with with the words "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?
-
You weren't aware that the Second Amendment starts with with the words "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?
Citizens' right to keep & bear arms is what keeps the militia regulated.
-
I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.
Truth. Those words are not mere surplusage.
-
The Militia was the people then and now. People signed up a for a period and then went home to carry on with their lives. Mostly brought their own arms with them.
-
The Militia was the people then and now. People signed up a for a period and then went home to carry on with their lives. Mostly brought their own arms with them.
America in the 18th century was indeed a colonial outpost with incessant violence from many quarters. Every household outside of just a few large urban centers required a weapon for survival.
But there was a fundamental political dimension to the Second Amendment. The establishment of an American Federal system was a significant matter of contention and the concept of a standing National Army threatened the very cause of Independence. One key work around was to rely heavily on state militias for matters of defense from foreign powers and indigenous peoples.
And America was unique in the world - the first sovereign nation that allowed its citizenry to bear arms. Throughout the rest of the world, weapons were the sole privilege of the monarchy and the landed aristocracy (who raised and armed units for the King's Standard.) Americans were thus not only the first citizens in a world filled with subjects but the first polity to accept the fact of an armed citizenry.
Jefferson favored an armed citizenry not just for manning the state militias but, more philosophically, as a deterrent to political tyranny. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson believed that America would never suffer from authoritarianism since armaments were no longer the sole domain of the ruling elites.
The Second Amendment is not something that can be reduced to a sound bite - as has been tried by both proponents and opponents of "The Right to Bear Arms." It is a complex philosophical issue that was very much a product of its times. An armed citizenry is no longer a credible deterrent to political tyranny though it was very much so in the 18th and 19th centuries.
And there is a profound difference in technology. When the Founding Fathers put quill to paper state of the art was a man with a muzzle loader firing two rounds a minute with limited range and questionable accuracy. Today, one badass AFSOC TACP with an M4 can decimate one of Gen. Washington's companies without getting a scratch. Jefferson was a proponent of an armed citizenry but he never could have imagined the moral consequences and physical impact of a well armed sociopath wanting to inflict maximum damage inside a school cafeteria.
I am comfortable with weapons due to training but I respect what they are and have seen first hand what they can do. I have never owned any personal weapons and have never had the interest. But this country has a tradition of gun ownership and with that tradition comes tremendous responsibility. I think we often fall short in the responsibility side.
If persons cannot govern themselves then should government do so? We are back to that very same question that has characterized the political debate on this continent since the convening of the first Parliaments and Burgesses.
-
But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms. Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.
-
But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms. Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.
If you're going to state these facts I'd really appreciate the links and research backing it. Preferably from a site that doesn't list the NRA as a sponsor.
-
Let's put this instance in context, instead of generalizing a hot political issue. These are students, the shooting victim is a freshman and lives in the dorms. The conversation about strapping students ends right there, firearms aren't allowed in the dorms.
My reaction to this story is not "if he'd had a gun this would've been prevented", but more, "what can MU do to prevent these instances?" Hopefully having a real police force soon will be a move in that direction, but overall I think the school does a great job protecting students.
-
But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms. Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.
And a super-majority of people have no problem with hunting guns. Hunters certainly don't need a semi-automatic for hunting deer, rabbits, etc.
-
Let's put this instance in context, instead of generalizing a hot political issue. These are students, the shooting victim is a freshman and lives in the dorms. The conversation about strapping students ends right there, firearms aren't allowed in the dorms.
My reaction to this story is not "if he'd had a gun this would've been prevented", but more, "what can MU do to prevent these instances?" Hopefully having a real police force soon will be a move in that direction, but overall I think the school does a great job protecting students.
This is the real question at hand. We don't want armed students. We want thugs understanding that there will be an intolerable price to pay for preying on our students. I know for certain that every senior administrator's phone rang at 3a on Friday. I also know for certain that it was maximum boots on the ground both last night and tonight following Friday morning's incident. A real 'pick up a weapon and stand a post' mentality despite any 'all is well' Kevin Bacon speeches.
Perhaps we've relied a bit to much on a 'camera covering every inch' philosophy. For the moment, overtime is the order of the day until the kids go home over the next couple weeks. Then we've got some time to thoughtfully consider our options. I'm confident that the status quo isn't one of them.
-
This is the real question at hand. We don't want armed students. We want thugs understanding that there will be an intolerable price to pay for preying on our students. I know for certain that every senior administrator's phone rang at 3a on Friday. I also know for certain that it was maximum boots on the ground both last night and tonight following Friday morning's incident. A real 'pick up a weapon and stand a post' mentality despite any 'all is well' Kevin Bacon speeches.
Perhaps we've relied a bit to much on a 'camera covering every inch' philosophy. For the moment, overtime is the order of the day until the kids go home over the next couple weeks. Then we've got some time to thoughtfully consider our options. I'm confident that the status quo isn't one of them.
I am guessing the string of platitudes is tongue in cheek because every senior administrator being up at 0300 does nothing to improve campus security. If I am a bad guy prowling the mean streets looking for a mark at oh dark thirty the thought of an overweight middle aged guy awake and swathed in terrycloth in his Elm Grove rambler doesn't put the fear of God in me. Nor does unleashing the jack booted but unarmed Marquette Public Safety goons. Armed force is only deterred by armed force - a fact Neville Chamberlain failed to grasp but Winston Churchill understood from hard earned combat experience.
I am not suggesting we arm students because the only threat will be from a bunch of untrained goofs harming themselves and each other - the carnage would be unimaginable. In the face of an armed threat, genuine security is never delivered through the barrel of a security camera or a rent-a-cop packing a mean visage and a VHF Motorola two way. You can't eliminate an armed threat with staff meetings attended by grim-faced bureaucrats filled with a terrible resolve.
Our daughter attended Columbia and when there was an uptick in campus area crime the university went to the Mayor and the Governor and demanded an appropriate response. Both constituencies assessed that the safety and security of the Columbia University community was of paramount concern and applied swift and sure force to the immediate vicinity and the broader five borough area.
If Marquette is serious about combatting violent crime they need to call in the respective Marine Corps who can deploy the necessary force. Marquette has no weapons to pick up so let's hope they are speaking with the responsible authorities who can bring the necessary correlation of force to bear.
-
Not saying this would happen, nor do I think this will ever be an option, but if for some reason they allowed students to conceal carry and keep guns in the dorms I would transfer immediately.
-
If you're going to state these facts I'd really appreciate the links and research backing it. Preferably from a site that doesn't list the NRA as a sponsor.
Earlier in this thread I posted the following link.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
The "About" page states they accept no money from policy groups, including the NRA. You could also try this link..
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/
-
Marquette has no weapons to pick up so let's hope they are speaking with the responsible authorities who can bring the necessary correlation of force to bear.
Marquette officers are armed now, and have been for quite awhile.
I invite you to visit campus once in awhile to keep yourself informed.
-
Marquette officers are armed now, and have been for quite awhile.
I invite you to visit campus once in awhile to keep yourself informed.
Well, let's hope they have been trained properly. Obviously, they are not presenting too much of a deterrent.
-
Marine Corps is a bit much but I see your point Keefe. DPS is armed, and recent legislation was passed to effectively make them 'real' officers with arrest powers and more training with state funding. Hopefully, this happens sooner than later, maybe this incident will expedite this much overdo campus need.
-
Again still dont like the idea of DPS being a police force. I just dont see the point. What difference will it make since they are already armed? Maybe its just because its the enviornment I grew up in but I dont deem the area MU is in dangerous at all, maybe its because im from the city and not the burbs but I have never been afraid on MUs campus and think money should go to other things first. Its really not that bad of a neighborhood and this perception gets skewed because it was a MU student. This reaction doesnt happen if they are not MU affiliated.
-
Well, let's hope they have been trained properly. Obviously, they are not presenting too much of a deterrent.
If I am not mistaken, this is the first shooting of a student in 23 years.
I am pretty sure the crime rate on campus is significantly lower than that just beyond the perimeter.
-
Marine Corps is a bit much but I see your point Keefe. DPS is armed, and recent legislation was passed to effectively make them 'real' officers with arrest powers and more training with state funding. Hopefully, this happens sooner than later, maybe this incident will expedite this much overdo campus need.
Marine Corps was a metaphor. In the Columbia matter the NYPD and State Police organized dedicated Task Forces to address street crime - in effect serving as Columbia's USMC.
I wasn't aware that MUPS was now armed...my concern would center on the effectiveness of their training. The right to carry weapons and employ lethal force must have an oversight and training commensurate with that responsibility.
-
I wasn't aware that MUPS was now armed...my concern would center on the effectiveness of their training. The right to carry weapons and employ lethal force must have an oversight and training commensurate with that responsibility.
I am sure that everyone just found pistols in their cubby one morning.
The plurality, if not the majority, of armed officers are former police or military.
-
And while I have my concerns with what in my belief (I know many disagree and am not tying to stir the nest) is an inadequate registration of firearms, I note that in my year the student murdered (Toni Riordan) was stabbed, not shot, by a mentally ill man.
-
I am guessing the string of platitudes is tongue in cheek because every senior administrator being up at 0300 does nothing to improve campus security. If I am a bad guy prowling the mean streets looking for a mark at oh dark thirty the thought of an overweight middle aged guy awake and swathed in terrycloth in his Elm Grove rambler doesn't put the fear of God in me. Nor does unleashing the jack booted but unarmed Marquette Public Safety goons. Armed force is only deterred by armed force - a fact Neville Chamberlain failed to grasp but Winston Churchill understood from hard earned combat experience.
I am not suggesting we arm students because the only threat will be from a bunch of untrained goofs harming themselves and each other - the carnage would be unimaginable. In the face of an armed threat, genuine security is never delivered through the barrel of a security camera or a rent-a-cop packing a mean visage and a VHF Motorola two way. You can't eliminate an armed threat with staff meetings attended by grim-faced bureaucrats filled with a terrible resolve.
Our daughter attended Columbia and when there was an uptick in campus area crime the university went to the Mayor and the Governor and demanded an appropriate response. Both constituencies assessed that the safety and security of the Columbia University community was of paramount concern and applied swift and sure force to the immediate vicinity and the broader five borough area.
If Marquette is serious about combatting violent crime they need to call in the respective Marine Corps who can deploy the necessary force. Marquette has no weapons to pick up so let's hope they are speaking with the responsible authorities who can bring the necessary correlation of force to bear.
Respectfully keefe, you are effing clueless about the current state of affairs at Marquette. Thinking that things have been totally static since you left campus is naive and beneath you. I remember as a Brooks Union Super knowing that a call to Public Safety was useless and that my staff was the best bet to resolve a security problem. But keefe, it isn't 1983 anymore and things are WAY different. I enjoy your commentary here but I challenge you to spend some time to understand what Marquette is in 2014.
I can personally assure you that Friday morning's incident is being taken VERY seriously. How do I know? Guess you'll have to trust me. Peace brother.
-
If I am not mistaken, this is the first shooting of a student in 23 years.
I am pretty sure the crime rate on campus is significantly lower than that just beyond the perimeter.
There was at least one during my sophomore year, fall of 2004.
-
Respectfully keefe, you are effing clueless about the current state of affairs at Marquette. Thinking that things have been totally static since you left campus is naive and beneath you. I remember as a Brooks Union Super knowing that a call to Public Safety was useless and that my staff was the best bet to resolve a security problem. But keefe, it isn't 1983 anymore and things are WAY different. I enjoy your commentary here but I challenge you to spend some time to understand what Marquette is in 2014.
I can personally assure you that Friday morning's incident is being taken VERY seriously. How do I know? Guess you'll have to trust me. Peace brother.
You misunderstand my point. I am not questioning that MU leadership is taking the matter seriously; I am suggesting that the manner in which the administration responds to incidents, much less taking any preventative measures, is terrible. And deploying its own police force is not the answer for a number of reasons.
The University's posture towards student safety has been terrible for decades. There is no more compelling statement than Marquette's response to sexual assaults on coeds over the past few years. I would hope you share my disgust on that point.
Is the solution for MU to deploy a police force? I hardly think they are qualified along many dimensions and that is a very expensive proposition. Chick mentioned most of the current MUPS officers are former military and law enforcement. I would hazard a guess that these aren't former SOCOM operators or cops in their prime. I wear a Tab and I know the reality is that no one wanting to play on the A Team wakes up and informs his Team Leader he is punching out to join the MU Security Force.
My point is that MU needs to exert pressure on the authorities charged with actually providing security in that area. MU is not in the business of deploying a police force - it is not their core competency and it shouldn't be. Recruiting then training security officers to a requisite degree of tactical proficiency is bloody expensive and fraught with pitfalls. Anytime you empower people with the authority to employ lethal force the stakes are raised immeasurably. Either exert the necessary political effort to engineer change or outsource the responsibility to Academi.
-
You misunderstand my point. I am not questioning that MU leadership is taking the matter seriously; I am suggesting that the manner in which the administration responds to incidents, much less taking any preventative measures, is terrible. And deploying its own police force is not the answer for a number of reasons.
The University's posture towards student safety has been terrible for decades. There is no more compelling statement than Marquette's response to sexual assaults on coeds over the past few years. I would hope you share my disgust on that point.
Is the solution for MU to deploy a police force? I hardly think they are qualified along many dimensions and that is a very expensive proposition. Chick mentioned most of the current MUPS officers are former military and law enforcement. I would hazard a guess that these aren't former SOCOM operators or cops in their prime. I wear a Tab and I know the reality is that no one wanting to play on the A Team wakes up and informs his Team Leader he is punching out to join the MU Security Force.
My point is that MU needs to exert pressure on the authorities charged with actually providing security in that area. MU is not in the business of deploying a police force - it is not their core competency and it shouldn't be. Recruiting then training security officers to a requisite degree of tactical proficiency is bloody expensive and fraught with pitfalls. Anytime you empower people with the authority to employ lethal force the stakes are raised immeasurably. Either exert the necessary political effort to engineer change or outsource the responsibility to Academi.
I agree with this sentiment. What is an "official police force" going to change? Marquette can invest their money into things that are much more useful to the university. Again, ill ask the question, if the person who got shot is not Marquette affiliated, is this issue even being talked about and I still say no.
-
I have never owned any personal weapons nor had any interest in possessing any. I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.
YUP!
-
America in the 18th century was indeed a colonial outpost with incessant violence from many quarters. Every household outside of just a few large urban centers required a weapon for survival.
But there was a fundamental political dimension to the Second Amendment. The establishment of an American Federal system was a significant matter of contention and the concept of a standing National Army threatened the very cause of Independence. One key work around was to rely heavily on state militias for matters of defense from foreign powers and indigenous peoples.
And America was unique in the world - the first sovereign nation that allowed its citizenry to bear arms. Throughout the rest of the world, weapons were the sole privilege of the monarchy and the landed aristocracy (who raised and armed units for the King's Standard.) Americans were thus not only the first citizens in a world filled with subjects but the first polity to accept the fact of an armed citizenry.
Jefferson favored an armed citizenry not just for manning the state militias but, more philosophically, as a deterrent to political tyranny. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson believed that America would never suffer from authoritarianism since armaments were no longer the sole domain of the ruling elites.
The Second Amendment is not something that can be reduced to a sound bite - as has been tried by both proponents and opponents of "The Right to Bear Arms." It is a complex philosophical issue that was very much a product of its times. An armed citizenry is no longer a credible deterrent to political tyranny though it was very much so in the 18th and 19th centuries.
And there is a profound difference in technology. When the Founding Fathers put quill to paper state of the art was a man with a muzzle loader firing two rounds a minute with limited range and questionable accuracy. Today, one badass AFSOC TACP with an M4 can decimate one of Gen. Washington's companies without getting a scratch. Jefferson was a proponent of an armed citizenry but he never could have imagined the moral consequences and physical impact of a well armed sociopath wanting to inflict maximum damage inside a school cafeteria.
I am comfortable with weapons due to training but I respect what they are and have seen first hand what they can do. I have never owned any personal weapons and have never had the interest. But this country has a tradition of gun ownership and with that tradition comes tremendous responsibility. I think we often fall short in the responsibility side.
If persons cannot govern themselves then should government do so? We are back to that very same question that has characterized the political debate on this continent since the convening of the first Parliaments and Burgesses.
Everything here is quite well said.
It is a nuanced issue that requires historical context.
I too have never desired to carry a weapon. And I have lived in a couple iffy neighborhoods (Rogers Park near Morse Ave. in Chicago is no cakewalk, and was even worse when I lived there 5 years ago). Yes, there will always be criminals who find a way to possess guns. But at the end of the day, at a macro level, more guns = more violence. Its insane to argue the opposite.
I get it for hunting. But if you need a semiautomatic to kill a deer, you should find a new hobby. And there's no reason you shouldn't have to register and get a background check to buy that hunting shotgun.
-
Everything here is quite well said.
It is a nuanced issue that requires historical context.
I too have never desired to carry a weapon. And I have lived in a couple iffy neighborhoods (Rogers Park near Morse Ave. in Chicago is no cakewalk, and was even worse when I lived there 5 years ago). Yes, there will always be criminals who find a way to possess guns. But at the end of the day, at a macro level, more guns = more violence. Its insane to argue the opposite.
I get it for hunting. But if you need a semiautomatic to kill a deer, you should find a new hobby. And there's no reason you shouldn't have to register and get a background check to buy that hunting shotgun.
Respectfully, you sound like someone who's never owned, or maybe never shot a gun.
When I lived in Chicago, there was at least a murder a day. It wasn't the guns, it was the people.
Now, I live in a neighborhood where there is on average 5 guns per household. No murders in 25 years that I've been here.
-
Respectfully, you sound like someone who's never owned, or maybe never shot a gun.
When I lived in Chicago, there was at least a murder a day. It wasn't the guns, it was the people.
Now, I live in a neighborhood where there is on average 5 guns per household. No murders in 25 years that I've been here.
From a sheer numbers standpoint thats not that hard to fathom. 3 mil live in the city. I dont know if there are stats on this or not bu I do believe that if a victim tries to fight back or has a weapon on them the attacker is more likely to use their weapon.
-
This is one of those topics that....
I lump the pro and anti gun lobbies into the same bucket as the pro/anti abortion, pro/anti fill in the blank cause.
Passionate topics, but really, really stupid topics to base your vote on. Too many of us do that.
Instead, we should be worried about whirrled peas, tacks and re-establishment of CRP ( and I'm a conservative).
Love my 870.
-
Instead, we should be worried about whirrled peas, tacks and re-establishment of CRP ( and I'm a conservative).
One of my favorite works of fiction is a Russian novel set during Napoleon's March on Moscow. The protagonist, Warren Piecz, is the illegitimate son of Grand Duke. Epic novel.
-
I get it for hunting. But if you need a semiautomatic to kill a deer, you should find a new hobby. And there's no reason you shouldn't have to register and get a background check to buy that hunting shotgun.
I fish but don't hunt and I have no problem with hunters. Hunters are responsible gun owners who respect weapons and use rifles for sport.
What I have never understood is the sale of semi-automatic weapons. Give me a couple minutes and I can remove the semi while blind folded. There is no justification for assault rifles being made available to the general public. I am proficient in the handling, maintenance, and use of assault weapons and know what they are for - killing human beings efficiently and effectively. Assault weapons are essential for military operations and nothing else. In my view, semi-automatic assault weapons is the great lie of the gun industry.
-
I agree with this sentiment. What is an "official police force" going to change? Marquette can invest their money into things that are much more useful to the university. Again, ill ask the question, if the person who got shot is not Marquette affiliated, is this issue even being talked about and I still say no.
The problem Chitown is that Marquette has been made painfully aware that an appropriate MPD force in the Avenue's West neighborhood simply isn't in the budget and won't happen. From my reading, the state has recognized this reality and has simply outsourced the responsibility to the various institutions. I don't think MU really wants its own police force but is compelled to consider the notion as the only avenue toward greater security.
As a point of comparison, I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 80s. Hyde Park is surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago where real crime happens every day. The U of C police force was massive and maintained a constant presence in and around campus. And as a result, Hyde Park was a pretty safe place if you didn't venture outside the perimeter. At the same time, the sight of a Chicago Blue cruiser was relatively rare. Now I should note that I do not know if UCPD was a full fledged police force or a unit more akin to today's MU DPS which only lacks formal arrest power. Certainly both carried sidearms.
Anyway, the debate and discussion goes on as we're all really looking for the best way to maintain relative safety on the MU campus.
-
I am comfortable with weapons due to training but I respect what they are and have seen first hand what they can do. I have never owned any personal weapons and have never had the interest. But this country has a tradition of gun ownership and with that tradition comes tremendous responsibility. I think we often fall short in the responsibility side.
The exercise of rights, without taking into consideration the responsibilities that come with those rights, is a grand American tradition in and of itself.
The ownership of guns is just one example of that.
-
The exercise of rights, without taking into consideration the responsibilities that come with those rights, is a grand American tradition in and of itself.
The ownership of guns is just one example of that.
The essential point is that we must preserve the right and punish irresponsibility. One of the most remarkable political commentators to ever witness the American spectacle put it best:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
--Benjamin Franklin
-
Marine Corps was a metaphor. In the Columbia matter the NYPD and State Police organized dedicated Task Forces to address street crime - in effect serving as Columbia's USMC.
I wasn't aware that MUPS was now armed...my concern would center on the effectiveness of their training. The right to carry weapons and employ lethal force must have an oversight and training commensurate with that responsibility.
I don't think this is true. My freshman year (2000) a grad student was shot and had a laptop stolen. I think it was a block or so off campus but still too close for comfort.
-
The problem Chitown is that Marquette has been made painfully aware that an appropriate MPD force in the Avenue's West neighborhood simply isn't in the budget and won't happen. From my reading, the state has recognized this reality and has simply outsourced the responsibility to the various institutions. I don't think MU really wants its own police force but is compelled to consider the notion as the only avenue toward greater security.
As a point of comparison, I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 80s. Hyde Park is surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago where real crime happens every day. The U of C police force was massive and maintained a constant presence in and around campus. And as a result, Hyde Park was a pretty safe place if you didn't venture outside the perimeter. At the same time, the sight of a Chicago Blue cruiser was relatively rare. Now I should note that I do not know if UCPD was a full fledged police force or a unit more akin to today's MU DPS which only lacks formal arrest power. Certainly both carried sidearms.
Anyway, the debate and discussion goes on as we're all really looking for the best way to maintain relative safety on the MU campus.
I think we all agree that there is a problem with physical security on and around the Marquette campus. And it is likely that the administration is taking the matter seriously. But is the solution to provide greater authority, power, and responsibility to MUDPS? Frankly, they have a checkered record of accomplishment.
Creating an effective police force takes time, money, expertise, and infrastructure. And even then, there is no guarantee of success.
But let's focus on the real concern: Marquette has a serious problem with security though the heart of the issue is the perception of how the University administration is managing that challenge. The problem for Marquette University is that the media has picked up this story and potential students and their parents will factor this information into their purchasing decision.
Whether or not the answer is investing in MUDPS does not get to the heart of the issue. What is missing is how MU manages the problem. Obviously you have connectivity and assure us that the leadership is taking this problem seriously. I don't think anyone doubts that MU's administration is concerned about physical safety.
Frankly, I would have expected Marquette to have already made a statement that acknowledged the problem and outlined a methodology for addressing it. Responsible, effective leadership requires bold, decisive action. And sometimes that action is simply to admit there is a problem and to state unequivocally that the issue is being managed.
The silence coming from Marquette is deafening. Can anyone look at the University Administration and seriously suggest this is a well run organization? Marquette University today is characterized by chaos, confusion, and callousness. Their inability to get ahead of this problem - and it is a huge one - is troubling.
-
You weren't aware that the Second Amendment starts with with the words "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?
I'm aware what the Supreme Court of the United States of America has said. Apparently they read it differently than many other "legal experts" in this country.
Don't like it, change the constitution....get a constitutional amendment going and convention a constitutional convention.
For the record, I don't belong to the NRA and never would. That being said, I believe every American should have the right to arm themselves and defend their lives and property not only against others, but against a potentially tyrannical govt.
-
Not saying this would happen, nor do I think this will ever be an option, but if for some reason they allowed students to conceal carry and keep guns in the dorms I would transfer immediately.
Why, based on all the mass shootings going on at schools that do allow it? For which, there have been no mass shootings.
I'm always interested in the argument by people on drugs that say "just legalize them, they are going to get them anyway". Yet, with guns, you have the wrong sorts getting them already anyway, do people really thing tougher laws or going to take away guns from those people? Please. So who are you penalizing? Well, the people that are lawful, because the bad dude "are going to get them anyway".
-
Why, based on all the mass shootings going on at schools that do allow it? For which, there have been no mass shootings.
I'm always interested in the argument by people on drugs that say "just legalize them, they are going to get them anyway". Yet, with guns, you have the wrong sorts getting them already anyway, do people really thing tougher laws or going to take away guns from those people? Please. So who are you penalizing? Well, the people that are lawful, because the bad dude "are going to get them anyway".
In terms of drugs I only believe that weed should be legalized and even then only from a financial perspective so the goverment can put some real high taxes on the purchase of weed and make something out of it. I personally, again just my personal oppinion, could not be on a campus that allowed its students to conceal carry I wouldnt be able to give my money to an institution that supports that.
-
Why, based on all the mass shootings going on at schools that do allow it? For which, there have been no mass shootings.
I'm always interested in the argument by people on drugs that say "just legalize them, they are going to get them anyway". Yet, with guns, you have the wrong sorts getting them already anyway, do people really thing tougher laws or going to take away guns from those people? Please. So who are you penalizing? Well, the people that are lawful, because the bad dude "are going to get them anyway".
More access can turn a lot of people into the wrong sort. I was recently attacked by a rugby player after Murphy's closed. I slipped on ice and fell down then went into a blind rage threw him in a head lock and beat the crap out of him till MPD came. If I had a concealed weapon that might've ended up changing my life forever. I'm just saying concealed weapons on a college campus where there's loads of over drinking and young people with firey tempers is a bad idea.
-
More access can turn a lot of people into the wrong sort. I was recently attacked by a rugby player after Murphy's closed. I slipped on ice and fell down then went into a blind rage threw him in a head lock and beat the crap out of him till MPD came. If I had a concealed weapon that might've ended up changing my life forever. I'm just saying concealed weapons on a college campus where there's loads of over drinking and young people with firey tempers is a bad idea.
That's the argument by some. Then again, some states have allowed it since 2007 without a single incident.
Begs the question, would the rugby player attack you if he knew the possibility you would be carrying? That's the other side of the coin. More importantly to me is some of these shootings over the years in movie theaters, class rooms, etc. If that was your kid in the classroom getting mowed down, or your daughter at a movie theater, don't you wish someone in that place was carrying and had a chance to take down the bad dude? I sure would. By the time the cops arrive 5 or 10 minutes later, its way too late.
-
That's the argument by some. Then again, some states have allowed it since 2007 without a single incident.
Begs the question, would the rugby player attack you if he knew the possibility you would be carrying? That's the other side of the coin. More importantly to me is some of these shootings over the years in movie theaters, class rooms, etc. If that was your kid in the classroom getting mowed down, or your daughter at a movie theater, don't you wish someone in that place was carrying and had a chance to take down the bad dude? I sure would. By the time the cops arrive 5 or 10 minutes later, its way too late.
The states have but have the schools in that state? Or are those weapon free zones? Honestly I don't think that when you attack someone for no reason when you're beligerant you'd weigh the gun risks.
While I agree that it'd be nice to have someone prevent those mass shootings I would counter that argument with say this story below. And honestly I'd much rather take the risk of the chance at a mass shooting and my luck at taking the person down from behind over living in fear that any person I were to slightly upset would shoot me.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/pretial-set-for-this-morning-in-movie-theater-shooting-case/2169793
-
The states have but have the schools in that state? Or are those weapon free zones? Honestly I don't think that when you attack someone for no reason when you're belligerent you'd weigh the gun risks.
While I agree that it'd be nice to have someone prevent those mass shootings I would counter that argument with say this story. And honestly I'd much rather take the risk of the chance at a mass shooting and my luck at taking the person down from behind over living in fear that any person I were to slightly upset would shoot me.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/pretial-set-for-this-morning-in-movie-theater-shooting-case/2169793
How are you going to take that person down from behind if that person is in the back row of the movie theater or in the classroom, which is likely where they would be. Easy pickings from behind.
As to your other question, all public universities in Utah allow concealed carry with permit. Since 2007. University of Utah, Utah State, Weber State, etc, etc. Utah's state law prevents colleges from banning that right even in campus buildings, so all 10 state universities permit it.
There are 7 states in all that allow students to have guns on campus, though in these states the colleges and universities can put restrictions on where (dorms, etc)....Wisconsin is one of those states. Kansas just passed a law that college and universities cannot prohibit where the concealed guns can be had anywhere on campus, but there is a 4 year exemption period. Arkansas just passed legislation that faculty can carry. Colorado supreme court ruled last year that the University of Colorado system prohibiting guns on campus violated the Conceal Carry laws of Colorado. In 2011, Oregon Supreme Court ruled the same way.
Gun free zones....is like a flashing neon sign to deranged people to go start shooting, because no one is there to stop them.
-
How are you going to take that person down from behind if that person is in the back row of the movie theater or in the classroom, which is likely where they would be. Easy pickings from behind.
As to your other question, all public universities in Utah allow concealed carry with permit. Since 2007. University of Utah, Utah State, Weber State, etc, etc. Utah's state law prevents colleges from banning that right even in campus buildings, so all 10 state universities permit it.
There are 7 states in all that allow students to have guns on campus, though in these states the colleges and universities can put restrictions on where (dorms, etc)....Wisconsin is one of those states. Kansas just passed a law that college and universities cannot prohibit where the concealed guns can be had anywhere on campus, but there is a 4 year exemption period. Arkansas just passed legislation that faculty can carry. Colorado supreme court ruled last year that the University of Colorado system prohibiting guns on campus violated the Conceal Carry laws of Colorado. In 2011, Oregon Supreme Court ruled the same way.
Gun free zones....is like a flashing neon sign to deranged people to go start shooting, because no one is there to stop them.
Or, you know, it's just a gun-free zone. And we do a crapty job in this country of taking care of the mentally ill.
-
How are you going to take that person down from behind if that person is in the back row of the movie theater or in the classroom, which is likely where they would be. Easy pickings from behind.
As to your other question, all public universities in Utah allow concealed carry with permit. Since 2007. University of Utah, Utah State, Weber State, etc, etc. Utah's state law prevents colleges from banning that right even in campus buildings, so all 10 state universities permit it.
There are 7 states in all that allow students to have guns on campus, though in these states the colleges and universities can put restrictions on where (dorms, etc)....Wisconsin is one of those states. Kansas just passed a law that college and universities cannot prohibit where the concealed guns can be had anywhere on campus, but there is a 4 year exemption period. Arkansas just passed legislation that faculty can carry. Colorado supreme court ruled last year that the University of Colorado system prohibiting guns on campus violated the Conceal Carry laws of Colorado. In 2011, Oregon Supreme Court ruled the same way.
Gun free zones....is like a flashing neon sign to deranged people to go start shooting, because no one is there to stop them.
Would you like a play by play of what I'd attempt to do? I'm not saying I could at all but with my fighting background I'd have a better chance than most and I'll stick with that chance over trusting the many many unstable gun nuts in this country to not shoot me for texting during a movie, cutting someone off on the road, and a million other little things that people with anger problems freak out about.
Utah? Really man I expect better of you for examples. You used the most Mormon state with the strictest alcohol laws as an example of how belligerent college students haven't had shooting problems with concealed carry.
And that's certainly not true about gun free zones. If it was the suburb I moved to from chicago (which borders two extremely dangerous areas of the city) would have had shootings left and right when I was growing up as it was gun free before a court case last year. But no very few shootings happened and none of them were mass shootings. Your view seems shaped from paranoia.
-
It's time to build a wall around MU.
-
Or, you know, it's just a gun-free zone. And we do a crapty job in this country of taking care of the mentally ill.
So much this
-
Or, you know, it's just a gun-free zone. And we do a crapty job in this country of taking care of the mentally ill.
I do not disagree with you, but that begs the question why. There are a lot of people in this country, criminal or mentally ill that do not belong on the streets, but we also have a bunch of folks that believe it is ok for these folks to be out and about, redemption, turn them loose, "they aren't violent", etc, etc.
-
Would you like a play by play of what I'd attempt to do? I'm not saying I could at all but with my fighting background I'd have a better chance than most and I'll stick with that chance over trusting the many many unstable gun nuts in this country to not shoot me for texting during a movie, cutting someone off on the road, and a million other little things that people with anger problems freak out about.
Utah? Really man I expect better of you for examples. You used the most Mormon state with the strictest alcohol laws as an example of how belligerent college students haven't had shooting problems with concealed carry.
And that's certainly not true about gun free zones. If it was the suburb I moved to from chicago (which borders two extremely dangerous areas of the city) would have had shootings left and right when I was growing up as it was gun free before a court case last year. But no very few shootings happened and none of them were mass shootings. Your view seems shaped from paranoia.
I actually gave you the entire background. Seven states allow, Utah is one, but so are Kansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, etc. Some are more stringent than others in terms of the ability to have it on your person as you walk to class, vs having it in a class room. Feel free to use some of the other states if you wish.
I'm glad you have a plan for what you would do, typically those plans go south but sounds like you feel you are prepared. Now, you made this claim about "gun nuts". You do realize in order to get a conceal carry permit you must go through training...right? That's to reduce the potential danger that you have mentioned. You don't get to just arrive on campus brandishing gun and holster.
I don't think my view is shaped by paranoia any more than the view is by others that scream gun violence is rampant. How many guns are there in this country? Last estimates I saw were 270 million to 310 million, that's almost 1 per person, though obviously some people have 4 or 5 while many have none. Despite that many guns, how many gun incidents are there? Then, ask yourself the question where those incidents do happen, how many of them are by LAWFUL people that have lawfully obtained their firearms? At the end of the day, how many gun incidents are a result of people obeying the laws vs the ones ignoring them?
The proposed "solution" seems to be to restrict access to all guns, even though it is a small (very small) sample that is causing the issues and they ignore the laws anyway, so more laws are going to provide a solution to that group, how?
-
This conversation went to hell
-
I do not disagree with you, but that begs the question why. There are a lot of people in this country, criminal or mentally ill that do not belong on the streets, but we also have a bunch of folks that believe it is ok for these folks to be out and about, redemption, turn them loose, "they aren't violent", etc, etc.
Why? Social stigma of mental health problems. Lack of diagnosis/access. Lack of community understanding/involvement/support. I know you are an intelligent and learned individual, so I'm sure you knew the reason when you asked the question, so I'm further guessing that you're looking to play the blame game.
-
Why? Social stigma of mental health problems. Lack of diagnosis/access. Lack of community understanding/involvement/support. I know you are an intelligent and learned individual, so I'm sure you knew the reason when you asked the question, so I'm further guessing that you're looking to play the blame game.
Plenty of blame to go around, I'm certain you would also agree. I'm also certain you would agree there are people on the streets that shouldn't be, but we also have a push in this country to decriminalize many activities and in so doing, more than a few folks are pushed out of the system that shouldn't be.
We can go chapter and verse through many of the shootings over the years and the treatment those folks were getting and how some were considered to be no harm to society.
Plenty of blame to go around.
-
Are you muddying the waters between decriminalizing marijuana and the mentally ill mass murdering?
-
The proposed "solution" seems to be to restrict access to all guns, even though it is a small (very small) sample that is causing the issues and they ignore the laws anyway, so more laws are going to provide a solution to that group, how?
Actually my solution is that guns should be registered like you register automobiles.
-
Are you muddying the waters between decriminalizing marijuana and the mentally ill mass murdering?
Nope. Like I said, take a look at the backgrounds of the whack jobs that committed many of these shooting crimes. Most of them were under treatment in the past, few (almost none) were ever institutionalized and most were not considered a threat to society.
Yet, we want to restrict gun access because of the action of these looney toons or the failure to properly diagnose\treat them. Seems a bit odd that we're going down the path of restricting access for the 100's of millions that are just fine because we can't get our stool together regarding the mentally ill.
I'd suggest we start with the treatment of the mentally ill, first. That includes erring on the side of public safety for some of these folks that end up not being nearly as stable as their doctors and protectors claim them to be.
-
Actually my solution is that guns should be registered like you register automobiles.
For which law abiding citizens in states already do this as a requirement of state laws in those states. You might be referring to a national registry. Debates a plenty for or against.
Thing is, those nefarious types that want to do some nasty things with guns don't go through with the paperwork. For some odd reason.
I know folks that for registering all abortions, too, a national registry and a name given to the child that is carved up and dumped. As you can imagine, debates a plenty for or against that as well. Heck, in my state I just wish people getting a driver's license, which is an actual gov't document, were actually legally here in the state and\or the United States as a requirement....such pesky details to require such a requirement is no longer the case. Lots of stuff out there that people wish for.
-
Is there anyone on this board that you could see this occurring?...
*goes wild, does some insane acts*
You're interviewed... "Oh, ___ from Scoop? Yeah, I'm not really surprised. Dude was a nut job. We probably should have seen it coming. Dang it."
-
I'd suggest we start with the treatment of the mentally ill, first. That includes erring on the side of public safety for some of these folks that end up not being nearly as stable as their doctors and protectors claim them to be.
If that is the case, Scoop would lose ,more than a few contributors
-
Is there anyone on this board that you could see this occurring?...
*goes wild, does some insane acts*
You're interviewed... "Oh, ___ from Scoop? Yeah, I'm not really surprised. Dude was a nut job. We probably should have seen it coming. Dang it."
Anyone can snap, I'm more concerned about these guys:
James Egan Holmes, killed 12 people in Aurora, CO shooting. Prior to the shootings, he was under psychiatric treatment and treated by Dr. Lynne Felton who felt he could be a danger to others. She stated this a month before the shootings to campus police where he was a student. Despite this, she chose not to have him hospitalized.
Adam Lanza, Sandy Hook Elementary school killer. Under psychiatric care since he was a small child. Mother didn't force him to take his medication or follow-up visits requested by doctors. She and many small children paid the price for not taking their advice.
Jared Loughner, Tucson massacre. Three months before the incident campus police, professors, and fellow students said he had something major wrong upstairs. Campus police told his parents he was not welcome back without a psychological screening. It didn't happen.
Mental illness is serious stuff. People need to be helped, but seems too often the doctors and\or the protectors don't always want to do what is necessary. Many states have laws in which involuntary hospitalization is not allowed. As you can imagine, many suffering from schizophrenia refuse to admit they are sick, so they refuse treatment.
Sure, its easy to be Monday Morning QB on this stuff, just as it is easy to say if only there were stronger gun laws these things wouldn't have happened.
-
Respectfully, you sound like someone who's never owned, or maybe never shot a gun.
When I lived in Chicago, there was at least a murder a day. It wasn't the guns, it was the people.
Now, I live in a neighborhood where there is on average 5 guns per household. No murders in 25 years that I've been here.
Who the hell needs 5 guns in one household? You only have two hands. Sounds like compensation for something.
Your suspicions are correct. I have not fired or owned a gun and I am quite proud of that. It says something about the effectiveness of our society that I have been able to thrive without the need for one.
If my country is in need of my service and I am drafted I will happily bear arms for its defense.
If I am starving with no other resources at my disposal in a post apocalyptic world, I suppose I would take up a gun to hunt.
Outside of that I see no need to own an instrument whose singular purpose is to kill other living beings.
I respect the constitutional right of others to do so in very specific situations (such as hunting) but I have absolutely no desire. Id rather buy a nice watch.
-
Anyone can snap, I'm more concerned about these guys:
James Egan Holmes, killed 12 people in Aurora, CO shooting. Prior to the shootings, he was under psychiatric treatment and treated by Dr. Lynne Felton who felt he could be a danger to others. She stated this a month before the shootings to campus police where he was a student. Despite this, she chose not to have him hospitalized.
Adam Lanza, Sandy Hook Elementary school killer. Under psychiatric care since he was a small child. Mother didn't force him to take his medication or follow-up visits requested by doctors. She and many small children paid the price for not taking their advice.
Jared Loughner, Tucson massacre. Three months before the incident campus police, professors, and fellow students said he had something major wrong upstairs. Campus police told his parents he was not welcome back without a psychological screening. It didn't happen.
Mental illness is serious stuff. People need to be helped, but seems too often the doctors and\or the protectors don't always want to do what is necessary. Many states have laws in which involuntary hospitalization is not allowed. As you can imagine, many suffering from schizophrenia refuse to admit they are sick, so they refuse treatment.
Sure, its easy to be Monday Morning QB on this stuff, just as it is easy to say if only there were stronger gun laws these things wouldn't have happened.
And who's going to pay for the hospitalizations/treatments? Most people in these situations don't have the financial situations that allow for long term help.
-
More access can turn a lot of people into the wrong sort. I was recently attacked by a rugby player after Murphy's closed. I slipped on ice and fell down then went into a blind rage threw him in a head lock and beat the crap out of him till MPD came. If I had a concealed weapon that might've ended up changing my life forever. I'm just saying concealed weapons on a college campus where there's loads of over drinking and young people with firey tempers is a bad idea.
Typical millennial. "Thank God that someone else is making rules, otherwise I wouldn't know how to protect me from myself."
-
Typical millennial. "Thank God that someone else is making rules, otherwise I wouldn't know how to protect me from myself."
Or maybe just someone who is self reflective and has enough awareness of human limitation to know that there are certain situations where imperfect humans are likely to make misjudgments?
Whereas you think you are incapable of error. Typical Boomer.
-
Who the hell needs 5 guns in one household? You only have two hands. Sounds like compensation for something.
Your suspicions are correct. I have not fired or owned a gun and I am quite proud of that. It says something about the effectiveness of our society that I have been able to thrive without the need for one.
If my country is in need of my service and I am drafted I will happily bear arms for its defense.
If I am starving with no other resources at my disposal in a post apocalyptic world, I suppose I would take up a gun to hunt.
Outside of that I see no need to own an instrument whose singular purpose is to kill other living beings.
I respect the constitutional right of others to do so in very specific situations (such as hunting) but I have absolutely no desire. Id rather buy a nice watch.
If you are a hunter, father, a couple of sons....why wouldn't you have more than one gun? Plus, different guns do different things.
Why does someone need more than one tablet, or phone, or computer, or car in a household? Or television, or more than one watch to use your example? Why does my wife need so many pairs of black shoes, or handbags? She asks me why I need so many screw drivers, socket wrenches, etc. Because they serve different purposes.
-
Or maybe just someone who is self reflective and has enough awareness of human limitation to know that there are certain situations where imperfect humans are likely to make misjudgments?
Whereas you think you are incapable of error. Typical Boomer.
Always going to be the case....can't legislate morality or human limitations. Imagine if this had happened here in the U.S.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/02/gang-knife-wielding-men-in-deadly-attacks-on-china-train-station/
Or imagine people planting home made bombs at a marathon, or flying planes into buildings.
-
Typical millennial. "Thank God that someone else is making rules, otherwise I wouldn't know how to protect me from myself."
The only thing that separates my generation vs whatever you are is that we actually know what would screw us up. I was trying to be fair by putting the blame on myself but let's flip it and say I got attacked and fought back like I did against this guy who now has a concealed weapon. He now is all good to shoot me. There's not a single incident where I'm gonna be ok with that scenario.
-
I actually gave you the entire background. Seven states allow, Utah is one, but so are Kansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, etc. Some are more stringent than others in terms of the ability to have it on your person as you walk to class, vs having it in a class room. Feel free to use some of the other states if you wish.
I'm glad you have a plan for what you would do, typically those plans go south but sounds like you feel you are prepared. Now, you made this claim about "gun nuts". You do realize in order to get a conceal carry permit you must go through training...right? That's to reduce the potential danger that you have mentioned. You don't get to just arrive on campus brandishing gun and holster.
I don't think my view is shaped by paranoia any more than the view is by others that scream gun violence is rampant. How many guns are there in this country? Last estimates I saw were 270 million to 310 million, that's almost 1 per person, though obviously some people have 4 or 5 while many have none. Despite that many guns, how many gun incidents are there? Then, ask yourself the question where those incidents do happen, how many of them are by LAWFUL people that have lawfully obtained their firearms? At the end of the day, how many gun incidents are a result of people obeying the laws vs the ones ignoring them?
The proposed "solution" seems to be to restrict access to all guns, even though it is a small (very small) sample that is causing the issues and they ignore the laws anyway, so more laws are going to provide a solution to that group, how?
I'm on a cell phone right now so I'm not gonna respond to the whole thing but for now my response to the paranoia thing. Your view is constantly being prepared for the statistically unlikely event you'll be in a mass shooting. The way you're going about it is by saying we should all have weapons on us nap body can see. That's paranoia. Whereas those whore using the claim that gun violence is rampant are comparing the figures of our country to similar countries and realizing that it is in fact rampant.
I'll respond more tomorrow
-
The only thing that separates my generation vs whatever you are is that we actually know what would screw us up. I was trying to be fair by putting the blame on myself but let's flip it and say I got attacked and fought back like I did against this guy who now has a concealed weapon. He now is all good to shoot me. There's not a single incident where I'm gonna be ok with that scenario.
You don't think older generations have gone through a little bit of life's experience, accumulated a little wisdom and may also know "what would screw us up"?
-
I'm on a cell phone right now so I'm not gonna respond to the whole thing but for now my response to the paranoia thing. Your view is constantly being prepared for the statistically unlikely event you'll be in a mass shooting. The way you're going about it is by saying we should all have weapons on us nap body can see. That's paranoia. Whereas those whore using the claim that gun violence is rampant are comparing the figures of our country to similar countries and realizing that it is in fact rampant.
I'll respond more tomorrow
OK, and the flip side is that some people view that "statistically unlikely event" as a way to take guns away from law abiding people, even though it is "statistically unlikely event". ;)
Works both ways, right? Let's also not forget when Piers Morgan and his followers compare to other countries, he likes to say things like "events" or absolute number of crimes. Odd that he never mentions the USA with 330 million people vs the countries he is comparing that are nowhere close to that. I'd also point out, that in the UK and other places he likes to compare, other crimes are higher than here in the US. Robbery and aggravated assault, for example. Why? Who knows, but some academics believe it is due to the ability of folks to protect themselves here in a manner in which they cannot elsewhere.
One has to be careful when comparing rates of crimes with the US and other nations because crimes are categorized differently.
-
People who go into rages and can't control their temper should not carry a weapon. I am not for everyone going around packing heat but the data overwhelmingly shows that armed, normal citizens prevent thousands of crimes each year both aimed at themselves and others. Several of the recent mass shooters have shot themselves when confronted by armed response thus reducing the amount of possible casualties.
-
OK, and the flip side is that some people view that "statistically unlikely event" as a way to take guns away from law abiding people, even though it is "statistically unlikely event". ;)
Works both ways, right? Let's also not forget when Piers Morgan and his followers compare to other countries, he likes to say things like "events" or absolute number of crimes. Odd that he never mentions the USA with 330 million people vs the countries he is comparing that are nowhere close to that. I'd also point out, that in the UK and other places he likes to compare, other crimes are higher than here in the US. Robbery and aggravated assault, for example. Why? Who knows, but some academics believe it is due to the ability of folks to protect themselves here in a manner in which they cannot elsewhere.
One has to be careful when comparing rates of crimes with the US and other nations because crimes are categorized differently.
Where are these facts from? The UKs gun violence rates are wayyy lower than the US's.
l also agree with BB even good people with good intentions can make mistakes. Im sure youve all had the situation where you get super pissed at someone and either want to beat the crap out of them or do beat the crap out of them. Thats not to say they are a bad person but were human, mistakes happen. I just dont like the idea that even well intention humans who conceal have that ability to let their emotions get the better of them and shoot someone.
I dont think that having concealed carry really protects anybody, so why even allow it if its not doing its job?
-
Who the hell needs 5 guns in one household? You only have two hands. Sounds like compensation for something.
Your suspicions are correct. I have not fired or owned a gun and I am quite proud of that. It says something about the effectiveness of our society that I have been able to thrive without the need for one.
If my country is in need of my service and I am drafted I will happily bear arms for its defense.
If I am starving with no other resources at my disposal in a post apocalyptic world, I suppose I would take up a gun to hunt.
Outside of that I see no need to own an instrument whose singular purpose is to kill other living beings.
I respect the constitutional right of others to do so in very specific situations (such as hunting) but I have absolutely no desire. Id rather buy a nice watch.
I respect your opinion to not own guns.
Your opinion on how many guns one should own is what drive the NRA to be so aggressive on their advocacy.
I don't belong to the NRA. I think they are too extreme. Am I glad they are out there as a barrier between your line of thinking and my rights? Yes.
I own two rfles. A 30.06 and a .22. I sure as heck am not going to go plinking at pop cans with a 30.06. According to you, that's too many guns. I also have a 12 and 20 gauge shotguns. Too many guns? My son uses the 20 gauge for trap shooting.
Bleau, I am not critical of your opinion. It's your choice. I worry about others with your line of thinking who are mis informed, and want to overly regulate me.
-
I respect your opinion to not own guns.
Your opinion on how many guns one should own is what drive the NRA to be so aggressive on their advocacy.
I don't belong to the NRA. I think they are too extreme. Am I glad they are out there as a barrier between your line of thinking and my rights? Yes.
I own two rfles. A 30.06 and a .22. I sure as heck am not going to go plinking at pop cans with a 30.06. According to you, that's too many guns. I also have a 12 and 20 gauge shotguns. Too many guns? My son uses the 20 gauge for trap shooting.
Bleau, I am not critical of your opinion. It's your choice. I worry about others with your line of thinking who are mis informed, and want to overly regulate me.
I agree. My dad gave me my first rifle when I was 13. Now I have a Remington 700 and a 12 gauge. Took me awhile to get use to the recoil on the 12 gauge but a lot of that depends on the shell size.
-
I own two rfles. A 30.06 and a .22. I sure as heck am not going to go plinking at pop cans with a 30.06. According to you, that's too many guns. I also have a 12 and 20 gauge shotguns. Too many guns? My son uses the 20 gauge for trap shooting.
I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.
Chicos, I get what you are saying. I own 5 watches and have 2 wrists. The difference is, if I lose a watch or it is stolen, it cannot be used by the thief to kill someone (at least not without a good deal of creativity). If my as-yet-unconceived child gets a hold of it, they cannot harm themselves with it. I'm not talking about legislating or regulating how many guns you should own. Again, I recognize the constitutional right to do so. I would just like to hear a logical reason for owning that many. I don't get it. For the same reason I don't understanding owning a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity clip.
-
And who's going to pay for the hospitalizations/treatments? Most people in these situations don't have the financial situations that allow for long term help.
Obamacare, of course.
-
People who go into rages and can't control their temper should not carry a weapon. I am not for everyone going around packing heat but the data overwhelmingly shows that armed, normal citizens prevent thousands of crimes each year both aimed at themselves and others. Several of the recent mass shooters have shot themselves when confronted by armed response thus reducing the amount of possible casualties.
That's where I stand. I don't think everyone should pack either, but I certainly would like people to have that right. If people choose not to, that's fine. Training, etc has to go along with it (as it currently does). As long as the a-holes have them (and will continue to have them), then not allowing the good guys to have them seems to be a gaping hole.
More important for me is what the other side ultimately wants to do. Certainly there are many gun control folks that merely want to put tougher restrictions in play...I get it. However, there are others that want total removal, complete. For as extremist as people are about keeping assault rifles (which I don't think should be legal), I find this equally extreme. Bagpipe talks about unlikely events, fact is bad guys break into homes all the time and it is hardly an unlikely event. Many have been stopped or neutralized because the homeowner had the ability to do something.
-
Where are these facts from? The UKs gun violence rates are wayyy lower than the US's.
l also agree with BB even good people with good intentions can make mistakes. Im sure youve all had the situation where you get super pissed at someone and either want to beat the crap out of them or do beat the crap out of them. Thats not to say they are a bad person but were human, mistakes happen. I just dont like the idea that even well intention humans who conceal have that ability to let their emotions get the better of them and shoot someone.
I dont think that having concealed carry really protects anybody, so why even allow it if its not doing its job?
I think you missed the point. I said robbery, aggravated assault, etc, are higher in the UK. I said nothing about gun related crimes. That's the question, are those crimes higher in the UK because guns are banned...bad guys know that the homeowner isn't packing, etc.
Again, you have to be careful in comparing stats because the FBI categorizes crimes in US differently than the UK does.
-
Or maybe just someone who is self reflective and has enough awareness of human limitation to know that there are certain situations where imperfect humans are likely to make misjudgments?
Whereas you think you are incapable of error. Typical Boomer.
Boomer? Please... I've barely been alive long enough to be constitutionally eligible to become president, let alone be part of a generation that screwed the country.
Self-reflective? LOL. I can be self-reflective, too. You see, we Gen X'ers are able to recognize the difference between making a good decision and a bad decision regardless of what the rules say. For example... even if carrying a firearm into a bar was legal, I don't ever have to worry about doing something I'd regret because I still wouldn't carry a concealed weapon into a bar; I don't need a law to tell me that.
Gen X isn't incapable of error... in fact the major error we're guilty of is that we are, and will be for the next few decades, cleaning up the errors of the Boomers despite the fact that we know damn well that the millenials are going to undo everything and screw things up worse than the boomers before we even get a chance to retire.
-
I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.
Chicos, I get what you are saying. I own 5 watches and have 2 wrists. The difference is, if I lose a watch or it is stolen, it cannot be used by the thief to kill someone (at least not without a good deal of creativity). If my as-yet-unconceived child gets a hold of it, they cannot harm themselves with it. I'm not talking about legislating or regulating how many guns you should own. Again, I recognize the constitutional right to do so. I would just like to hear a logical reason for owning that many. I don't get it. For the same reason I don't understanding owning a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity clip.
You do understand, however, that all guns don't do the same thing and why people would own more than one? Right?
I'm not someone that endorses assault weapons, though the term semi-automatic has become a catchphrase demon that most people do not understand.
Gun safety is practiced very strongly by the vast vast vast majority of gun owners. Locked in a gun safe of gun cabinet, safeties, etc. Accidents can happen, just like accidents can happen with many things...medications, household cleaners, knives, etc. The gun owners I know, take extreme precautions with their weapons.
-
I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.
Bleu... you've been watching way too many of those survivalist shows; besides, your preconception of a "multi-gun" owner has nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make. My uncle - Vietnam vet - owns over a dozen guns... not one of them has been fired in nearly half a century, some longer - they're collector's items.
My stepfather owns at least 6-8 guns. One shotgun and one rifle each for deer (depending on the locale of the hunt - think the shotgun doubles as a bird gun, too, otherwise add one more shotgun), one rifle for bear, pretty sure he has a separate rifle for moose and other big game (though it might be the same as the bear gun), a couple of .22's for small game, a 12g 870 that he won in a raffle (and now uses for trap), one that his father gave him that he never uses for anything (might not even work), and maybe another one or two guns that I just don't know about.
My buddy who is CPD owns four guns in addition to his service weapon... one long gun and three handguns; don't know why, and I don't care.
Incidentally, these three individuals are some of the lowest-key and most responsible people I know. If you sat down at a bar next to these guys and didn't know who they were or what they did, it would never cross your mind that any of these guys owned a gun, let alone several -- and I guarantee they wouldn't have one on them.
-
I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.
Chicos, I get what you are saying. I own 5 watches and have 2 wrists. The difference is, if I lose a watch or it is stolen, it cannot be used by the thief to kill someone (at least not without a good deal of creativity). If my as-yet-unconceived child gets a hold of it, they cannot harm themselves with it. I'm not talking about legislating or regulating how many guns you should own. Again, I recognize the constitutional right to do so. I would just like to hear a logical reason for owning that many. I don't get it. For the same reason I don't understanding owning a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity clip.
In response to the high capacity magazine comment, I would answer by saying that if I were ever in a situation where I needed to defend myself or my family, I wouldn't want a politician telling me how many rounds that I "need". Once man's high capacity is another man's standard capacity.
-
In response to the high capacity magazine comment, I would answer by saying that if I were ever in a situation where I needed to defend myself or my family, I wouldn't want a politician telling me how many rounds that I "need". Once man's high capacity is another man's standard capacity.
By that logic, do you also "need" fully automatic guns? Where do we draw the line?
Assault weapons are offensive weapons. They are not defensive. They are designed to kill the most people in the shortest possible amount of time.
-
By that logic, do you also "need" fully automatic guns? Where do we draw the line?
Assault weapons are offensive weapons. They are not defensive. They are designed to kill the most people in the shortest possible amount of time.
Assault weapons is a term invented by the media and politicians for the modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 being of this type. These rifles are semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull), not automatic weapons and not machine guns. Many people use AR style rifles for hunting, competitive target shooting or plain old fun at the range. And yes, many people even use them for home defense.
I believe that the ownership of these weapons is not based on need, but on a right. I also believe that along with that right comes the responsibility of safe gun ownership, which includes proper storage, usage and training. And more training.
-
You don't think older generations have gone through a little bit of life's experience, accumulated a little wisdom and may also know "what would screw us up"?
I do but I take offense when someone generalizes an entire generation acting like his is somehow infallible like Benny B did.
-
I actually gave you the entire background. Seven states allow, Utah is one, but so are Kansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, etc. Some are more stringent than others in terms of the ability to have it on your person as you walk to class, vs having it in a class room. Feel free to use some of the other states if you wish.
I'm glad you have a plan for what you would do, typically those plans go south but sounds like you feel you are prepared. Now, you made this claim about "gun nuts". You do realize in order to get a conceal carry permit you must go through training...right? That's to reduce the potential danger that you have mentioned. You don't get to just arrive on campus brandishing gun and holster.
I don't think my view is shaped by paranoia any more than the view is by others that scream gun violence is rampant. How many guns are there in this country? Last estimates I saw were 270 million to 310 million, that's almost 1 per person, though obviously some people have 4 or 5 while many have none. Despite that many guns, how many gun incidents are there? Then, ask yourself the question where those incidents do happen, how many of them are by LAWFUL people that have lawfully obtained their firearms? At the end of the day, how many gun incidents are a result of people obeying the laws vs the ones ignoring them?
The proposed "solution" seems to be to restrict access to all guns, even though it is a small (very small) sample that is causing the issues and they ignore the laws anyway, so more laws are going to provide a solution to that group, how?
Already responded to the paranoia part.
You're right about listing more states but the one you provided the most data on was Utah so I chose to specifically respond to that claim as well stupid when you think of who lives in Utah.
I'm well aware of the training required I also know that the NRA opposes stricter psychological screening for these permits. So you'd think that as someone who is attempting to proclaim that the people with guns are overall responsible you'd recognize the importance of having proof in that statement through say advanced psychological screening.
I'm not anti gun at all. I went to two High Schools with gang problems and that influenced my beliefs. If I'd gone to high schools out in the nicer suburbs or country perhaps I'd have seen a different side of guns. I think that the idea that you can unanimously say something like you did about gun free zones being a neon sign to come start shooting, is baseless and either formed from NRA propaganda or like I said paranoia. Whereas I grew up in one of those gun free zones and outside of a few times all of the shootings were kept to the eastern boarder with the West side of Chicago.
-
OK, and the flip side is that some people view that "statistically unlikely event" as a way to take guns away from law abiding people, even though it is "statistically unlikely event". ;)
Works both ways, right? Let's also not forget when Piers Morgan and his followers compare to other countries, he likes to say things like "events" or absolute number of crimes. Odd that he never mentions the USA with 330 million people vs the countries he is comparing that are nowhere close to that. I'd also point out, that in the UK and other places he likes to compare, other crimes are higher than here in the US. Robbery and aggravated assault, for example. Why? Who knows, but some academics believe it is due to the ability of folks to protect themselves here in a manner in which they cannot elsewhere.
One has to be careful when comparing rates of crimes with the US and other nations because crimes are categorized differently.
It's much more statistically likely to be around a gang murder, than a mass murder shooting. And the gang murders are the ones where you're constantly saying they have guns anyways.
I could live happily in my house if I was a bit more scared about robberies than guns everywhere ie: England. But you side stepped the fact that comparable countries have significantly lower gun problems. I wasn't trying to act like all the countries are the same, especially those with a quarter as many people as us.
I think you're putting me into the no guns at all costs category. I'm anti assault weapons, and feel that gun free zones should be legal by local vote. Because what works in Chicago isn't going to work in (insert wealthy suburb here) which isn't going to work in bufu Wisconsin.
-
People who go into rages and can't control their temper should not carry a weapon. I am not for everyone going around packing heat but the data overwhelmingly shows that armed, normal citizens prevent thousands of crimes each year both aimed at themselves and others. Several of the recent mass shooters have shot themselves when confronted by armed response thus reducing the amount of possible casualties.
So I am assuming then that you will blatantly say you are disappointed by the NRA's stance against stricter psychological testing for gun permits? If you aren't then you're extremely hypocritical in your first statement.
-
That's where I stand. I don't think everyone should pack either, but I certainly would like people to have that right. If people choose not to, that's fine. Training, etc has to go along with it (as it currently does). As long as the a-holes have them (and will continue to have them), then not allowing the good guys to have them seems to be a gaping hole.
More important for me is what the other side ultimately wants to do. Certainly there are many gun control folks that merely want to put tougher restrictions in play...I get it. However, there are others that want total removal, complete. For as extremist as people are about keeping assault rifles (which I don't think should be legal), I find this equally extreme. Bagpipe talks about unlikely events, fact is bad guys break into homes all the time and it is hardly an unlikely event. Many have been stopped or neutralized because the homeowner had the ability to do something.
You talk about the bad guys all the time I'm guessing you mean gang members, cartel members, potential domestic terrorists, and your regular psychos. What about that retired cop at a movie theater who shot the father of a toddler for texting in a movie? Was that retired cop a good guy or bad guy? What about the guy who killed an african american teen in a suburb of detroit when she was just knocking on his door seeking help after a car accident?
You keep talking about rights, well when these rights were made the guns took about 5 minutes to load. They weren't even conceiving of the power of guns today but we're taking the statements of people firing muskets and using them as guidelines for unbelievably powerful weapons.
I'm not talking about unlikely events. You're examples are about mass shootings farrrrrr less likely than gun accidents, idiots firing on those who aren't armed, or idiotic people who kill without thinking about it at the time. (I don't want to flood this message board with gun fatalities by those with legal guns but I will to prove a point between studying for finals).
-
terrible story in Milwaukee last week about a 4 year old finding a loaded gun in the car and accidentally killing himself while his young sister also played in the car - no word yet if the mother will be charged with anything (her gun, her car)
-
I own two rfles. A 30.06 and a .22.
You actually own one rifle and one toy.
-
let alone be part of a generation that screwed the country.
So, you were born after 1980?
-
a lot of that depends on the shell size.
Shell size is important but the skill of the rifleman is far more critical in a satisfactory hunting experience.
-
Boomer? Please... I've barely been alive long enough to be constitutionally eligible to become president, let alone be part of a generation that screwed the country.
You sound like an entitled know-it-all punk who hates your parents. Get some counseling before coming here attacking people you don't know.
And yes I would say your boomer parents are partially responsible for the state of our country today - they raised you.
-
Already responded to the paranoia part.
You're right about listing more states but the one you provided the most data on was Utah so I chose to specifically respond to that claim as well stupid when you think of who lives in Utah.
I'm well aware of the training required I also know that the NRA opposes stricter psychological screening for these permits. So you'd think that as someone who is attempting to proclaim that the people with guns are overall responsible you'd recognize the importance of having proof in that statement through say advanced psychological screening.
I'm not anti gun at all. I went to two High Schools with gang problems and that influenced my beliefs. If I'd gone to high schools out in the nicer suburbs or country perhaps I'd have seen a different side of guns. I think that the idea that you can unanimously say something like you did about gun free zones being a neon sign to come start shooting, is baseless and either formed from NRA propaganda or like I said paranoia. Whereas I grew up in one of those gun free zones and outside of a few times all of the shootings were kept to the eastern boarder with the West side of Chicago.
Didn't you just get done saying you didn't like generalizations of millenials and you just generalized all of Utah...right?
-
You talk about the bad guys all the time I'm guessing you mean gang members, cartel members, potential domestic terrorists, and your regular psychos. What about that retired cop at a movie theater who shot the father of a toddler for texting in a movie? Was that retired cop a good guy or bad guy? What about the guy who killed an african american teen in a suburb of detroit when she was just knocking on his door seeking help after a car accident?
You keep talking about rights, well when these rights were made the guns took about 5 minutes to load. They weren't even conceiving of the power of guns today but we're taking the statements of people firing muskets and using them as guidelines for unbelievably powerful weapons.
I'm not talking about unlikely events. You're examples are about mass shootings farrrrrr less likely than gun accidents, idiots firing on those who aren't armed, or idiotic people who kill without thinking about it at the time. (I don't want to flood this message board with gun fatalities by those with legal guns but I will to prove a point between studying for finals).
I would categorize any person that does someone else harm due to malicious intent as a bad guy. Cop, gang member, etc. Accidents happen, mistakes happen. Of course the press also puts those on the front page as often as they can. Ever notice that a homeowner saving his hide in his house by using a gun to fend off an intruder isn't on the front page? I always found that curious. I will concede in a second that guns in the hands of the wrong people can kill, hurt, maim. Drugs, in the hands of the wrong people, can kill, hurt, etc. Ironically, some of the same people looking to ban guns want to legalize street drugs.
This situation can't be perfect, and no legislation or outlawing of them will make them perfect either. That's my concern, people think with the swipe of a pen they can legislate morality, and that is for both sides. You can't. The human condition will not allow for it. You ban guns, innocent people will still die and you've taken any ability to defend themselves away. You keep guns around, there will be deaths as a result due to mistakes, misuse.
-
But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms. Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.
Why do we need gun control? These are the people fighting hardest for guns!!!
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/christian-militia-leader-now-networking
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oath-keepers-claim-government-psy-ops-behind-bundy-ranch-drone-rumor-militia-infighting
-
Assault weapons is a term invented by the media and politicians for the modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 being of this type. These rifles are semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull), not automatic weapons and not machine guns. Many people use AR style rifles for hunting, competitive target shooting or plain old fun at the range. And yes, many people even use them for home defense.
I believe that the ownership of these weapons is not based on need, but on a right. I also believe that along with that right comes the responsibility of safe gun ownership, which includes proper storage, usage and training. And more training.
I believe it was actually, no sh1t, Hilary Clinton who invented the term "assault weapon."
And while I agree with your statement that ownership of AR 15 type weapons is based on right rather than need that doesn't justify these being made available to the public.
And one technical point: Hand-held military assault weapons do not have a "Full Automatic" mode. There are three settings - Safe, Single, Burst. The reason Uncle Sugar decided to limit his warriors to no more than a 3 round burst in issue hand held weapons is because recoil is additive so that by the third round you are spraying bullets into the sky rather than slaying Tallies.
Also, you would expend a 30 round mag in a couple seconds, creating a tactical and logistical nightmare. Small unit doctrine calls for belt-fed crew served weapons to provide suppressing fire that channels the bad guys into a kill zone where they can be picked off by the guys squeezing off accurately placed three round bursts from their M 16s and M 4s.
Finally, "full automatic" mode has a very high probability of jamming. And the last thing anyone wants in a fire fight is a weapon that needs to be broken down, cleared, and reassembled. What is pure bull chit is the movies and games where idiots are wildly spraying rounds around from AKs or Uzis they are holding one hand with the effect of mowing down dozens of the enemy.
Hunters are much better off with purpose designed weapons that offer greater reliability, accuracy, range, and sportsmanship. An AR 15 or AK variant is designed to do one thing - put out a lot of rounds in relatively close quarter in controlled bursts. Anyone hunting deer with an M 16 is an idiot.
-
Didn't you just get done saying you didn't like generalizations of millenials and you just generalized all of Utah...right?
Knowing that a state is 60% mormon and a guy saying "typical millennial" aren't exactly the same thing. I think you know that and are just trying to poke holes in what I was saying.
-
I would categorize any person that does someone else harm due to malicious intent as a bad guy. Cop, gang member, etc. Accidents happen, mistakes happen. Of course the press also puts those on the front page as often as they can. Ever notice that a homeowner saving his hide in his house by using a gun to fend off an intruder isn't on the front page? I always found that curious. I will concede in a second that guns in the hands of the wrong people can kill, hurt, maim. Drugs, in the hands of the wrong people, can kill, hurt, etc. Ironically, some of the same people looking to ban guns want to legalize street drugs.
This situation can't be perfect, and no legislation or outlawing of them will make them perfect either. That's my concern, people think with the swipe of a pen they can legislate morality, and that is for both sides. You can't. The human condition will not allow for it. You ban guns, innocent people will still die and you've taken any ability to defend themselves away. You keep guns around, there will be deaths as a result due to mistakes, misuse.
Ok, fair enough about the good guy/bad guy thing. Curious though since you're so gunho about defending your home. http://gawker.com/horrifying-audio-of-man-killing-unarmed-teens-released-1570904656
Good guy or bad guy? Two unarmed teens sneak in, fair reason to defend yourself you don't know if they're armed and they're trespassing. He execution kills the girl after it's fairly clear that they posed no threat and could very well have called the cops. Legal gun, legally defending himself, absolutely evil and malicious killing. Please defend. Also you never answered my question about why the NRA doesn't support better psych screening please defend that as well.
-
I believe it was actually, no sh1t, Hilary Clinton who invented the term "assault weapon."
And while I agree with your statement that ownership of AR 15 type weapons is based on right rather than need that doesn't justify these being made available to the public.
And one technical point: Hand-held military assault weapons do not have a "Full Automatic" mode. There are three settings - Safe, Single, Burst. The reason Uncle Sugar decided to limit his warriors to no more than a 3 round burst in issue hand held weapons is because recoil is additive so that by the third round you are spraying bullets into the sky rather than slaying Tallies.
Also, you would expend a 30 round mag in a couple seconds, creating a tactical and logistical nightmare. Small unit doctrine calls for belt-fed crew served weapons to provide suppressing fire that channels the bad guys into a kill zone where they can be picked off by the guys squeezing off accurately placed three round bursts from their M 16s and M 4s.
Finally, "full automatic" mode has a very high probability of jamming. And the last thing anyone wants in a fire fight is a weapon that needs to be broken down, cleared, and reassembled. What is pure bull chit is the movies and games where idiots are wildly spraying rounds around from AKs or Uzis they are holding one hand with the effect of mowing down dozens of the enemy.
Hunters are much better off with purpose designed weapons that offer greater reliability, accuracy, range, and sportsmanship. An AR 15 or AK variant is designed to do one thing - put out a lot of rounds in relatively close quarter in controlled bursts. Anyone hunting deer with an M 16 is an idiot.
Keefe, no matter the discussion topic you always bring great knowledge and perspective. One of the reasons I love Scoop.
-
Knowing that a state is 60% mormon and a guy saying "typical millennial" aren't exactly the same thing. I think you know that and are just trying to poke holes in what I was saying.
Not really, they're both generalizations.
Maybe we can pass a law that only mormons can conceal and carry. ;)
-
Someone should put this thread out of its misery.
-
Ok, fair enough about the good guy/bad guy thing. Curious though since you're so gunho about defending your home. http://gawker.com/horrifying-audio-of-man-killing-unarmed-teens-released-1570904656
Good guy or bad guy? Two unarmed teens sneak in, fair reason to defend yourself you don't know if they're armed and they're trespassing. He execution kills the girl after it's fairly clear that they posed no threat and could very well have called the cops. Legal gun, legally defending himself, absolutely evil and malicious killing. Please defend. Also you never answered my question about why the NRA doesn't support better psych screening please defend that as well.
Like I said, it can't be perfect, impossible. I concede any example you come up with. Just as you I would expect you to acknowledge these types of events:
http://yellowhammernews.com/buzzworthy/alabama-man-gun-stops-machete-wielding-home-intruder/
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/home-intruder-found-woman-with-pistol-police-say/article_d61116de-b6d7-11e3-817f-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_25440871/police-gun-wielding-glenville-woman-stops-intruder-his
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/14/Woman-Stops-Burglar-Holds-At-Gun-Point-23-Minutes-Until-Police-Arrive
I didn't know the NRA question was pushed to me. I don't know what the NRA supports or doesn't support, I don't support the NRA, but I'm glad someone is out there to be a boogeyman for others. If I had to guess, I suspect that they are worried about a slippery slope of who is considered ok and who isn't. If you had a prescription for valium 5 years ago, does that mean you are unhinged and can't own a weapon? Who gets to decide? If you bought St. John's Wart at Walgreen's, are you eligible? If you are perfectly sane but your wife went through post partem depression, is that justification to keep a gun out of a home? So on and so forth. That's merely a guess.
-
Ok, fair enough about the good guy/bad guy thing. Curious though since you're so gunho about defending your home. http://gawker.com/horrifying-audio-of-man-killing-unarmed-teens-released-1570904656
Good guy or bad guy? Two unarmed teens sneak in, fair reason to defend yourself you don't know if they're armed and they're trespassing. He execution kills the girl after it's fairly clear that they posed no threat and could very well have called the cops. Legal gun, legally defending himself, absolutely evil and malicious killing. Please defend. Also you never answered my question about why the NRA doesn't support better psych screening please defend that as well.
Uhh...bad guy. There's no way anyone can defend the actions of this sick individual. This goes way beyond defending oneself.
-
I believe it was actually, no sh1t, Hilary Clinton who invented the term "assault weapon."
I rarely find you to be in error, so I couldn't help myself :'(
Popularization of the term "assault weapon" is attributed by many to the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann.
The term was also used by a California pol back in the '80s when introducing a gun control bill.
-
Someone should put this thread out of its misery.
Why, it's pretty good conversation, no one is being belligerent, adults still talking.
-
Why, it's pretty good conversation, no one is being belligerent, adults still talking.
It was a joke ...
-
Not really, they're both generalizations.
Maybe we can pass a law that only mormons can conceal and carry. ;)
Ok remember why I said Utah is bad example? Because it's mostly mormons, what can mormons not do that most people can? Drink. I was directly saying that Utah is a bad example because there will be tremendously less beligerant people on the streets than other states. Not a generalization due to the tough alcohol laws and religious presence. I had facts backing up what I said that would imply a correlation. What Benny B said was flat out making a generalization without anything to substantiate his claim. Would you prefer I looked up the religious demographics of the 7 universities in UTAH to further support my claim? would that make it not a generalization?
-
I rarely find you to be in error, so I couldn't help myself :'(
Popularization of the term "assault weapon" is attributed by many to the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann.
The term was also used by a California pol back in the '80s when introducing a gun control bill.
Touche. In the conventional wisdom of the TACP world, coining of the term is credited to the then First Lady. As with most things spawned by men institutionally deprived of alcohol and female companionship while enduring long stretches in primitive conditions the imagination gets the better of reality. If I had a nickel for every "There I Was" tale of adventure, conquest, or invention I have sat through there would be a shortage of five cent coins in circulation.
-
Ok remember why I said Utah is bad example? Because it's mostly mormons, what can mormons not do that most people can? Drink. I was directly saying that Utah is a bad example because there will be tremendously less beligerant people on the streets than other states. Not a generalization due to the tough alcohol laws and religious presence. I had facts backing up what I said that would imply a correlation. What Benny B said was flat out making a generalization without anything to substantiate his claim. Would you prefer I looked up the religious demographics of the 7 universities in UTAH to further support my claim? would that make it not a generalization?
First, you would be surprised how many Mormons drink. The 2.8% beer, home made wine, and just regular over the counter stuff.
Have you never heard the joke, "why do you take two mormons with you fishing? Because if you take one he'll drink all the beer"
Nevertheless, I understand your point as certainly the amount of alcohol consumption is less, far less. Aren't you discounting the 40% of the population that isn't Mormon? Or in the case of the universities, anywhere from 40% to 65% depending on the school? What of the other states that now allow conceal carry on campus property, that aren't the state of Utah?
-
Like I said, it can't be perfect, impossible. I concede any example you come up with. Just as you I would expect you to acknowledge these types of events:
http://yellowhammernews.com/buzzworthy/alabama-man-gun-stops-machete-wielding-home-intruder/
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/home-intruder-found-woman-with-pistol-police-say/article_d61116de-b6d7-11e3-817f-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_25440871/police-gun-wielding-glenville-woman-stops-intruder-his
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/14/Woman-Stops-Burglar-Holds-At-Gun-Point-23-Minutes-Until-Police-Arrive
I didn't know the NRA question was pushed to me. I don't know what the NRA supports or doesn't support, I don't support the NRA, but I'm glad someone is out there to be a boogeyman for others. If I had to guess, I suspect that they are worried about a slippery slope of who is considered ok and who isn't. If you had a prescription for valium 5 years ago, does that mean you are unhinged and can't own a weapon? Who gets to decide? If you bought St. John's Wart at Walgreen's, are you eligible? If you are perfectly sane but your wife went through post partem depression, is that justification to keep a gun out of a home? So on and so forth. That's merely a guess.
I guess then that I was stereotyping you as an NRA supporter for which I apologize. I concede what you're saying for some of those examples. Though a disoriented guy might've left once coming to I know I found myself in a fair share of random peoples rooms after a night out when I lived in Schroeder and I came to and left no guns needed.
I know it's not possible to legislate morality but what it boils down to is which side do you trust. Do you trust that the majority of people in this country are sane and won't shoot you if you slightly offend them. Or do you trust that with less access to guns or at least assault guns, that lethal crimes can be reduced. I clearly trust the later you the former.
I maintain that you're wrong about the neon sign to come in and start shooting comment and maintain that whatever it is that works in your I'm assuming either suburb or upscale area of a city. Won't work in certain other areas thus instead of legislating it, it should be taken down to a local vote.
Don't understand the assault rifles thing at all. I get entertainment for people but between the hundreds of game systems, sports, cars, off road vehicles, professional sports to watch, board games, TV shows, movies, hunting, etc that we'd be entertained enough without needing unbelievable powerful guns to add to that.
-
First, you would be surprised how many Mormons drink. The 2.8% beer, home made wine, and just regular over the counter stuff.
Have you never heard the joke, "why do you take two mormons with you fishing? Because if you take one he'll drink all the beer"
Nevertheless, I understand your point as certainly the amount of alcohol consumption is less, far less. Aren't you discounting the 40% of the population that isn't Mormon? Or in the case of the universities, anywhere from 40% to 65% depending on the school? What of the other states that now allow conceal carry on campus property, that aren't the state of Utah?
No sorry must be a west coast joke. I am discounting a great deal of the school but factor in social drinkers, people who just don't drink because, and those waiting till their 21. You get a fairly small portion of those schools.
I only chose to address Utah because it was the first on your list and my first reaction was "really? You're going to point to Utah?". Perhaps I read it wrong but it seemed like the other laws hadn't been instituted yet or had exemptions for on campus facilities? Keep in mind I'm also studying for finals so it is very possible I misread that statement.
-
I understand the arguments for both sides. From my perspective, I have taken care of the victims too many times, seen too many holes in people, to be a fan.
-
Ok remember why I said Utah is bad example? Because it's mostly mormons, what can mormons not do that most people can? Drink. I was directly saying that Utah is a bad example because there will be tremendously less beligerant people on the streets than other states. Not a generalization due to the tough alcohol laws and religious presence. I had facts backing up what I said that would imply a correlation. What Benny B said was flat out making a generalization without anything to substantiate his claim. Would you prefer I looked up the religious demographics of the 7 universities in UTAH to further support my claim? would that make it not a generalization?
Nothing to substantiate my claim? Well now that you've asked, please allow this entitled know-it-all to back it up:
http://www.multivu.com/mnr/63068-ernst-and-young-llp-research-younger-managers-rise-in-the-ranks
Some snippets:
Members of Gen X lead the pack when it comes to positive perceptions of both the characteristics and management skills of each generation. Members of Gen X were cited as “best” among the generations in seven out of 11 attributes, including being a “revenue generator” (58%) as well as possessing traits of “adaptability” (49%), “problem-solving” (57%) and “collaboration” (53%). However, members of Gen X lag behind boomers in being perceived as “best” at displaying executive presence (28% vs. 66%) and being cost effective (34% vs. 59%).
Members of Gen Y scored high marks for being “enthusiastic” (68% agree) but had lower scores for being perceived as a “team player” (45%), “hardworking” (39%) and “a productive part of my organization” (58%). They also scored highest in three out of four negative traits, such as being perceived as “entitled” (68%).
And here's my generalization of the Boomers in chart form.
-
I understand the arguments for both sides. From my perspective, I have taken care of the victims too many times, seen too many holes in people, to be a fan.
Have you ever taken care of someone that wasn't shot because they had a gun and were able to defend themselves? ;) In other words, absence of an injury like the many articles I posted earlier today. Intruder stopped, no one got hurt, bad guy in jail, no "holes in people".
-
Nothing to substantiate my claim? Well now that you've asked, please allow this entitled know-it-all to back it up:
http://www.multivu.com/mnr/63068-ernst-and-young-llp-research-younger-managers-rise-in-the-ranks
Some snippets:
And here's my generalization of the Boomers in chart form.
So what this is saying that a group of young people just entering the work force aren't as good at managing as Gen X which has been in the workforce for awhile? Seriously man come on. If the majority of your generation was either in college/gradschool or just coming out the survey respondents would say you're not ready to be management as well.
Also nowhere in that article did it say that Gen Y is looking for other people to stop them from screwing up. So once again you made an unsubstantiated claim that was baseless own up to it.
-
Have you ever taken care of someone that wasn't shot because they had a gun and were able to defend themselves? ;) In other words, absence of an injury like the many articles I posted earlier today. Intruder stopped, no one got hurt, bad guy in jail, no "holes in people".
I have taken care of someone who was in a position to return fire, returned fire, but got hit anyway. I've also taken care of one of the victims when there were two shooters involved and both got hit. I have taken care of victim's shot by people with licenses who were either drunk or had a temper tantrum. Most, however, were shot by an unlicensed handgun. I've taken care of dummies who accidentally shot themselves in the leg, both with licensed and unlicensed guns. I've been on scene when people have committed suicide with a licensed handgun. One time, I got to be first on the scene when a boyfriend shot his estranged girlfriend, her sister, and then himself after couples counseling didn't work. Licensed handgun. In 24 years, I have cleaned up after between 30 and 40 shootings. I look at guns like tobacco and casinos. Others can do what they like; I know they are not for me.
-
So what this is saying that a group of young people just entering the work force aren't as good at managing as Gen X which has been in the workforce for awhile? Seriously man come on. If the majority of your generation was either in college/gradschool or just coming out the survey respondents would say you're not ready to be management as well.
Also nowhere in that article did it say that Gen Y is looking for other people to stop them from screwing up. So once again you made an unsubstantiated claim that was baseless own up to it.
You yourself implied that if it wasn't for a law/rule that kept you from carrying a concealed weapon into a bar, you don't know if you might do something that would change your life forever. In essence, you've stated that you don't carry concealed weapons into bars because "someone" told you not to do it; in this case, someone happens to be the government. In contrast, I don't need someone to tell me not to carry a concealed weapon because I already know it's a bad idea.
That's the difference between our generations... Gen X's parents were mostly "hands off" meaning that we were left to learn common sense for ourselves through trial and error (mostly coming in the forms of cuts, scrapes, bumps and bruises playing with toys that have long since been banned). Your generation has been told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it so much that you've never had to ask "why;" so it's no surprise that common sense is oft overlooked amongst your peers. Sure, these are generalizations and there are always exceptions to the rule; but the overall findings in just about every study on the Millenials over the past decade+ have been in line with the anecdotal stuff like the Millenials' taking their parents to job interviews, arguing grades with professors because the answer to the essay question wasn't on the study guide, videotaping their own acts of breaking the law, etc. The development of critical thinking skills - relative to earlier generations - is a bit behind, but it's not like Millenials are morons.
One thing in the study where Millenials excelled is enthusiasm, and that's actually quite beneficial to employers and leaders. Again, maybe that's because Millenials' predisposition for enthusiasm has more to do with age/stage-of-life than it is generational. But sometimes, you can be too enthusiastic about something that you fail to see the causes and consequence of taking (or not taking) action. In this case, I have no doubt that you are fully aware that carrying a weapon - gun, knife, taser, laser-kitten, etc. - on your person into a bar is a bad idea. But the enthusiasm you have for your stance on gun control blinded that knowledge and instead, it caused you to falsely attribute your ability to make a good decision to someone having told you it was a good decision.
Now that we got that out of the way, let's be friends --- because we need to channel Millenials' enthusiasm along with Gen X's problem solving skills and figure out how we can abolish social security without grandma and grandpa (or mom and dad) finding out.
-
You yourself implied that if it wasn't for a law/rule that kept you from carrying a concealed weapon into a bar, you don't know if you might do something that would change your life forever. In essence, you've stated that you don't carry concealed weapons into bars because "someone" told you not to do it; in this case, someone happens to be the government. In contrast, I don't need someone to tell me not to carry a concealed weapon because I already know it's a bad idea.
That's the difference between our generations... Gen X's parents were mostly "hands off" meaning that we were left to learn common sense for ourselves through trial and error (mostly coming in the forms of cuts, scrapes, bumps and bruises playing with toys that have long since been banned). Your generation has been told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it so much that you've never had to ask "why;" so it's no surprise that common sense is oft overlooked amongst your peers. Sure, these are generalizations and there are always exceptions to the rule; but the overall findings in just about every study on the Millenials over the past decade+ have been in line with the anecdotal stuff like the Millenials' taking their parents to job interviews, arguing grades with professors because the answer to the essay question wasn't on the study guide, videotaping their own acts of breaking the law, etc. The development of critical thinking skills - relative to earlier generations - is a bit behind, but it's not like Millenials are morons.
One thing in the study where Millenials excelled is enthusiasm, and that's actually quite beneficial to employers and leaders. Again, maybe that's because Millenials' predisposition for enthusiasm has more to do with age/stage-of-life than it is generational. But sometimes, you can be too enthusiastic about something that you fail to see the causes and consequence of taking (or not taking) action. In this case, I have no doubt that you are fully aware that carrying a weapon - gun, knife, taser, laser-kitten, etc. - on your person into a bar is a bad idea. But the enthusiasm you have for your stance on gun control blinded that knowledge and instead, it caused you to falsely attribute your ability to make a good decision to someone having told you it was a good decision.
Now that we got that out of the way, let's be friends --- because we need to channel Millenials' enthusiasm along with Gen X's problem solving skills and figure out how we can abolish social security without grandma and grandpa (or mom and dad) finding out.
I'm a boxer do you really think you've learned more from getting cuts and bruises than I have?
I really think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm never gonna have a gun this has nothing to do with someone having to tell me whether I can or can't have it. I was using my example for everyone to see how drunk people don't think consequentially. And if you're going to tell me that when you were 23 you were mr rationale even at 2am after closing down whatever bar you frequented here then props to you but the point of my example is that drunkenly getting attacked you're gonna think fight back. And it's not about what'll happen to the other person it's immediately fight back.
For the way you're taking it I'm not saying "someone" told me not to have a gun. I'm saying that because I thought through that exact situation in previous times I know guns aren't right for me because of my fight back attitude. As it was the university still charged me with battery despite being attacked so with a gun... hence the life would've changed stance.
-
Have you ever taken care of someone that wasn't shot because they had a gun and were able to defend themselves? ;) In other words, absence of an injury like the many articles I posted earlier today. Intruder stopped, no one got hurt, bad guy in jail, no "holes in people".
By the same token, how many people has he not had to take care of because the potential perpetrator did not have access to a gun because there were checks in place to prevent him from getting it?
As you like to say, goes both ways. There's no way to know the answer to either of our questions.
-
I'm a boxer do you really think you've learned more from getting cuts and bruises than I have?
Incidentally, I busted my Nintendo kicking it while playing Mike Tyson's Punch Out; several weeks without video games taught me that I needed to get better at video games. Does that count?
-
Only in America. Regardless of position you must appreciate the passion.
(http://www.cyroul.com/wp-content/uploads/44543795_charlton_heston_nra466ap.jpg)
(http://www.penbaypilot.com/sites/default/files/field/image/rally004-001.jpg)
(http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Anti-Gun-Protest.jpg?9ad01f)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTc77rUowpfbGIs6GOqnocPalxvGwbwK_-QBGnw_js2OZotiVH4_w)
(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.5781696.1374965426!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG)
-
Incidentally, I busted my Nintendo kicking it while playing Mike Tyson's Punch Out; several weeks without video games taught me that I needed to get better at video games. Does that count?
Depends did you have someone show you how to kick your Nintendo or tell you not to and you did it anyways or did you learn from your bruised toe not to do it.
-
By the same token, how many people has he not had to take care of because the potential perpetrator did not have access to a gun because there were checks in place to prevent him from getting it?
As you like to say, goes both ways. There's no way to know the answer to either of our questions.
Yup, that is exactly correct.
I can see a scenario where Tower is fireman in Aurora, CO and is called to the scene of a mass shooting in a theater. After it is clear to go in, the carnage is massive. 12 people dead, 20 others injured. Many holes in bodies as it were. A sight no one should have to see and certainly wouldn't make him or anyone else a fan.
Now let's assume same scenario, called to the scene, but this time there are 2 people dead, 3 injured because someone in the theater was carrying a concealed and took this a-hole down when the shooting started. My guess is that the view will still be one of horror, still too many holes in bodies, but how many lives were saved as a result? How many fewer holes happened? For me, though not a big fan of what happened to the victims (obviously), I'm a huge fan of the guy that saved his fellow man and didn't let a terrible incident become a massacre. If we're really lucky, the perp is also dead rather than getting 3 squares and a cot the rest of his life.
-
Yup, that is exactly correct.
I can see a scenario where Tower is fireman in Aurora, CO and is called to the scene of a mass shooting in a theater. After it is clear to go in, the carnage is massive. 12 people dead, 20 others injured. Many holes in bodies as it were. A sight no one should have to see and certainly wouldn't make him or anyone else a fan.
Now let's assume same scenario, called to the scene, but this time there are 2 people dead, 3 injured because someone in the theater was carrying a concealed and took this a-hole down when the shooting started. My guess is that the view will still be one of horror, still too many holes in bodies, but how many lives were saved as a result? How many fewer holes happened? For me, though not a big fan of what happened to the victims (obviously), I'm a huge fan of the guy that saved his fellow man and didn't let a terrible incident become a massacre. If we're really lucky, the perp is also dead rather than getting 3 squares and a cot the rest of his life.
Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater. This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun. So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone. The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text. Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.
There's a third scenario we can imagine though. Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns. He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.
-
I rarely find you to be in error, so I couldn't help myself :'(
Popularization of the term "assault weapon" is attributed by many to the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann.
The term was also used by a California pol back in the '80s when introducing a gun control bill.
BTW, anytime anyone in the military uses the expression, "no sh1t," you know that a legend or fable is about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting populace. Thus, when I attributed the term "assault weapon" to the former First Lady it was with the full understanding that the statement is what is known as a "No Sh1tter."
-
This document has about the data you could Possibly want on guns, ownership, percent, murders etc. I'm sure we can all use this to make our point.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At6CC4x_yBnMdFVES2NiaU1ibHhrS2xiM1NSXzcxWlE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=5
-
Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater. This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun. So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone. The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text. Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.
There's a third scenario we can imagine though. Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns. He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.
Yup, crazy people can act crazy sometimes, but the vast vast vast vast majority of people that legally have conceal permits don't. They are responsible, safe, etc. If we are to pass laws based on the actions of the extreme all the time, isn't that equally problematic? Man drives car into crowd on purpose to kill people. It happens. Man takes machete to girlfriend's body and kills her. Woman puts drano in husband's coffee. So on and so forth.
Question I have for you is how many people, of all the people that have concealed carry permits, are acting like that? Should we not let Muslims on planes again because 4 of them flew planes into buildings and the ground?
-
Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater. This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun. So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone. The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text. Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.
There's a third scenario we can imagine though. Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns. He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.
You have a fervid, fevered, and fertile imagination...
-
Nope. Like I said, take a look at the backgrounds of the whack jobs that committed many of these shooting crimes. Most of them were under treatment in the past, few (almost none) were ever institutionalized and most were not considered a threat to society.
Yet, we want to restrict gun access because of the action of these looney toons or the failure to properly diagnose\treat them. Seems a bit odd that we're going down the path of restricting access for the 100's of millions that are just fine because we can't get our stool together regarding the mentally ill.
I'd suggest we start with the treatment of the mentally ill, first. That includes erring on the side of public safety for some of these folks that end up not being nearly as stable as their doctors and protectors claim them to be.
It sure came off that way, when you say something as broad as "decriminalizing behavior" and the above post refers to marijuana, then you talk about guns. You're all over the place, politicizing topics unnecessarily. Status quo.
-
People and families I know shoot trap and pistols competitively...have done so decades.
People drink alcohol. The vast, vast majority don't abuse it. A few do, just like guns.
Abuse by both can lead to tragic consequences. Both need a level of control to reduce abuse.
At the end of the day, personal responsibility is the key. It will never, however, eliminate all potential abuses. It's the price we pay for living in a free society.
-
Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater. This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun. So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone. The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text. Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.
There's a third scenario we can imagine though. Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns. He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.
Check
And
Mate
-
BTW, anytime anyone in the military uses the expression, "no sh1t," you know that a legend or fable is about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting populace. Thus, when I attributed the term "assault weapon" to the former First Lady it was with the full understanding that the statement is what is known as a "No Sh1tter."
Appreciate the info.
-
It sure came off that way, when you say something as broad as "decriminalizing behavior" and the above post refers to marijuana, then you talk about guns. You're all over the place, politicizing topics unnecessarily. Status quo.
There has been decriminalization of many things. The question you asked me if I was equating murder with drugs, which I am not. That doesn't change the fact that there has been a movement to decriminalize a number of things in this country, from drug crimes, immigration, etc. As it relates to this topic, I believe I also mentioned the lack of will to commit people to an institution that need to be committed, or allowing dangerous folks to be out in society.
I don't see how that is politicizing anything. That is the nature of what is going on. Don't want to offend someone for being here illegally, so we no longer say illegal (even though they are here illegally). Don't want to attach a stigma to someone that might be schizophrenic, so we don't hospitalize. Etc, etc.
-
Check
And
Mate
I always loved this, as if you are playing a game with yourself and your bestest friends and can high five each other in the men's room. :D
-
I have taken care of someone who was in a position to return fire, returned fire, but got hit anyway. I've also taken care of one of the victims when there were two shooters involved and both got hit. I have taken care of victim's shot by people with licenses who were either drunk or had a temper tantrum. Most, however, were shot by an unlicensed handgun. I've taken care of dummies who accidentally shot themselves in the leg, both with licensed and unlicensed guns. I've been on scene when people have committed suicide with a licensed handgun. One time, I got to be first on the scene when a boyfriend shot his estranged girlfriend, her sister, and then himself after couples counseling didn't work. Licensed handgun. In 24 years, I have cleaned up after between 30 and 40 shootings. I look at guns like tobacco and casinos. Others can do what they like; I know they are not for me.
Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.
-
Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.
Sheboygan?
-
Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.
+1
-
Could someone who backs the NRA explain to me the logic behind blocking these guns?
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bitter-battle-over-smart-guns-247514691537?cid=sm_facebook_video
-
Could someone who backs the NRA explain to me the logic behind blocking these guns?
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bitter-battle-over-smart-guns-247514691537?cid=sm_facebook_video
I'm not a backer of the NRA, but I would guess that companies like Remington, S&W, and Browning are.
Also guessing that the Armatix smart gun is probably being perceived as a competitive threat to the existing gun manufacturers, and they're simply using the NRA lobby to run said potential competitor out of town.
-
Could someone who backs the NRA explain to me the logic behind blocking these guns?
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bitter-battle-over-smart-guns-247514691537?cid=sm_facebook_video
Basically its the fear of government mandating the sale of only these types of guns, once they've decided it's the solution to eliminating child gun accidents, gun suicides, creating a more peaceful society, etc. Living in the state of Illinois and having closely followed the CCW debates in the Illinois GA last year, I have no doubt that the anti-gun legislators of the Chicago machine would push for this. No doubt. The only reason we now have a CC law is that the 7th circuit forced them to do it.
Personally, I would never buy one of these. Need to defend yourself? Better be wearing your watch. Your wife needs to defend herself with your gun? Forget about it. Your watch battery is dead...?
The story says that police officers are in favor of this technology. Do you think any police chief would issue these to the men and women under their command?
-
Basically its the fear of government mandating the sale of only these types of guns, once they've decided it's the solution to eliminating child gun accidents, gun suicides, creating a more peaceful society, etc. Living in the state of Illinois and having closely followed the CCW debates in the Illinois GA last year, I have no doubt that the anti-gun legislators of the Chicago machine would push for this. No doubt. The only reason we now have a CC law is that the 7th circuit forced them to do it.
Personally, I would never buy one of these. Need to defend yourself? Better be wearing your watch. Your wife needs to defend herself with your gun? Forget about it. Your watch battery is dead...?
See... that's just garbage "NRA propaganda" that was probably written in the boardroom of a major gun manufacturer and sent in the same FedEx envelope with the mfg's annual contribution (plus a little extra juice this year) to the NRA. IMO - None of this debate is about gun rights, gun control, etc; it's entirely about impeding commerce. This shouldn't be a surprise... impeding commerce for the benefit of your campaign benefactors is the very foundation of our two-party system, isn't it?
The story says that police officers are in favor of this technology. Do you think any police chief would issue these to the men and women under their command?
Absolutely. If I were a police officer, it would make me feel a lot safer knowing that my or my partner's (or any colleague, for that matter) couldn't be turned on me. I don't see any downside here... most police officers already wear a watch, and the likelihood of a battery going dead is a statistical impossibility considering that the department would mandate and oversee replacements well before the battery's expected service life expires.
Sure, there's probably a dozen fluke scenarios like "spilled coffee on the watch" that could render a service weapon useless, but a mechanical malfunction in the gun would be much more likely to happen than any of them.
-
Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.
The great thing is, you have a choice. Pro Choice as it were. ;) You can feel free to own one, or not own one. Some have it for defense, some for sport, some to display. Bad news will always get the headlines, the 99.99% of people who use guns correctly, safely, without incident is boring, doesn't require calls to the fire department and generally isn't making the news.
-
See... that's just garbage "NRA propaganda" that was probably written in the boardroom of a major gun manufacturer and sent in the same FedEx envelope with the mfg's annual contribution (plus a little extra juice this year) to the NRA. IMO - None of this debate is about gun rights, gun control, etc; it's entirely about impeding commerce. This shouldn't be a surprise... impeding commerce for the benefit of your campaign benefactors is the very foundation of our two-party system, isn't it?
Absolutely. If I were a police officer, it would make me feel a lot safer knowing that my or my partner's (or any colleague, for that matter) couldn't be turned on me. I don't see any downside here... most police officers already wear a watch, and the likelihood of a battery going dead is a statistical impossibility considering that the department would mandate and oversee replacements well before the battery's expected service life expires.
Sure, there's probably a dozen fluke scenarios like "spilled coffee on the watch" that could render a service weapon useless, but a mechanical malfunction in the gun would be much more likely to happen than any of them.
Great points.
I don't really see a downside to these types of guns. You'd think it would be a pretty reasonable compromise point. If you think they are a good idea, and I think they are a good idea, and we are on opposing sides of the spectrum, you'd think it would be a slam dunk.
-
The great thing is, you have a choice. Pro Choice as it were. ;) You can feel free to own one, or not own one. Some have it for defense, some for sport, some to display. Bad news will always get the headlines, the 99.99% of people who use guns correctly, safely, without incident is boring, doesn't require calls to the fire department and generally isn't making the news.
Oh come on chicos you took all those shots at anti gun people saying they were the ones who also want to legalize drugs. But now you're gonna proclaim pro choice for guns? Valuing a choice seems to be familiar in another controversial issue that most pro gun people go against choice.
-
Oh come on chicos you took all those shots at anti gun people saying they were the ones who also want to legalize drugs. But now you're gonna proclaim pro choice for guns? Valuing a choice seems to be familiar in another controversial issue that most pro gun people go against choice.
I own no personal weapons and do not advocate abortion for any reason. I also do not believe that government should regulate either. People can and should be free to make choices but they must also live with those choices. I believe that is the essence of Mr. Jefferson's political philosophy.
-
See... that's just garbage "NRA propaganda" that was probably written in the boardroom of a major gun manufacturer and sent in the same FedEx envelope with the mfg's annual contribution (plus a little extra juice this year) to the NRA. IMO - None of this debate is about gun rights, gun control, etc; it's entirely about impeding commerce. This shouldn't be a surprise... impeding commerce for the benefit of your campaign benefactors is the very foundation of our two-party system, isn't it?
Absolutely. If I were a police officer, it would make me feel a lot safer knowing that my or my partner's (or any colleague, for that matter) couldn't be turned on me. I don't see any downside here... most police officers already wear a watch, and the likelihood of a battery going dead is a statistical impossibility considering that the department would mandate and oversee replacements well before the battery's expected service life expires.
Sure, there's probably a dozen fluke scenarios like "spilled coffee on the watch" that could render a service weapon useless, but a mechanical malfunction in the gun would be much more likely to happen than any of them.
Hey we both have our opinions, which we're entitled to. Mine has nothing to do with what the NRA thinks. Like I said, I followed the CC legislation process in IL last year, attended hearings, spoke with lawmakers and it's my opinion that the anti's are frothing at the mouth to mandate smart gun technology, among many other restrictions. And with the Machine wielding so much power, the push for these restrictions will never end. Thank God for the downstate democrats!
As for the malfunction issue, modern, semi-automatics are nearly 100% reliable, with a failure to fire almost always being caused by ammunition. A quick tap and rack will usually fix that. Revolvers, even more reliable. My opinion, as someone who knows a little bit about firearms, is that I would trust the reliability of a regular gun over one controlled by a watch any day.
-
I own no personal weapons and do not advocate abortion for any reason. I also do not believe that government should regulate either. People can and should be free to make choices but they must also live with those choices. I believe that is the essence of Mr. Jefferson's political philosophy.
Essentially whatever tickles your pickle?
-
gun controlled by a watch any day.
Uh, for less than $10 they could just put a lock on the damn things, too...
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/lockdown-gunlocks-04.jpg)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/lockdown-gunlocks-08.jpg)
-
Essentially whatever tickles your pickle?
That's not what I said.
Jefferson believed in a "wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another" but which otherwise left them free to regulate their own affairs.
I highly recommend you read Jefferson's actual thoughts. An excellent one-volume summary, which includes his "Autobiography" and "Notes on the State of Virginia" is Thomas Jefferson: Writings. This one man had more impact on modern political philosophy than any other. His Declaration of Independence still stands as one of the single most remarkable and relevant documents ever crafted.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YJDDYBSPL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
Great points.
I don't really see a downside to these types of guns. You'd think it would be a pretty reasonable compromise point. If you think they are a good idea, and I think they are a good idea, and we are on opposing sides of the spectrum, you'd think it would be a slam dunk.
But you see, we're not on opposite sides of the spectrum; dichotomies really aren't my thing.
Think of me as the guy in the middle of the teeter-totter who can slam both sides into the ground simply by shifting my weight slightly to one side or the other... the further you are from equilibrium, the harder you're going to hit the ground.
Hey we both have our opinions, which we're entitled to. Mine has nothing to do with what the NRA thinks. Like I said, I followed the CC legislation process in IL last year, attended hearings, spoke with lawmakers and it's my opinion that the anti's are frothing at the mouth to mandate smart gun technology, among many other restrictions. And with the Machine wielding so much power, the push for these restrictions will never end. Thank God for the downstate democrats!
You spoke with lawmakers? Voluntarily? Or was that part of an internship for a career working with coma patients?
So what if the anti's mandate smart gun technology? There are enough "dumb" guns in circulation today to last for generations for people who want them. Heck, you buy me a smart gun, and I'll straight up trade you for my dumb shotgun in near-mint condition. The only people who stand to lose by the implementation of smart guns are gun manufacturers... because if smart gun technology was mandated, overall gun sales would plummet.
The only "right" that the pro's would be losing is the ability to buy a shiny new Glock every other year. Instead, you have to buy one that - while functionally identical - simply doesn't come with the fresh scent of cutting oil. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to make you feel pretty; if TV's taught me anything, the purpose is to ensure that when aliens (or zombies) invade the US, we don't have to fight back with a board & a nail.
-
But you see, we're not on opposite sides of the spectrum; dichotomies really aren't my thing.
Think of me as the guy in the middle of the teeter-totter who can slam both sides into the ground simply by shifting my weight slightly to one side or the other... the further you are from equilibrium, the harder you're going to hit the ground.
You spoke with lawmakers? Voluntarily? Or was that part of an internship for a career working with coma patients?
So what if the anti's mandate smart gun technology? There are enough "dumb" guns in circulation today to last for generations for people who want them. Heck, you buy me a smart gun, and I'll straight up trade you for my dumb shotgun in near-mint condition. The only people who stand to lose by the implementation of smart guns are gun manufacturers... because if smart gun technology was mandated, overall gun sales would plummet.
The only "right" that the pro's would be losing is the ability to buy a shiny new Glock every other year. Instead, you have to buy one that - while functionally identical - simply doesn't come with the fresh scent of cutting oil. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to make you feel pretty; if TV's taught me anything, the purpose is to ensure that when aliens (or zombies) invade the US, we don't have to fight back with a board & a nail.
I think we're on opposite sides of the teeter-totter
-
There has been decriminalization of many things. The question you asked me if I was equating murder with drugs, which I am not. That doesn't change the fact that there has been a movement to decriminalize a number of things in this country, from drug crimes, immigration, etc. As it relates to this topic, I believe I also mentioned the lack of will to commit people to an institution that need to be committed, or allowing dangerous folks to be out in society.
I don't see how that is politicizing anything. That is the nature of what is going on. Don't want to offend someone for being here illegally, so we no longer say illegal (even though they are here illegally). Don't want to attach a stigma to someone that might be schizophrenic, so we don't hospitalize. Etc, etc.
New study on the economics of ending the war on drugs
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/LSE-IDEAS-DRUGS-REPORT-FINAL-WEB.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/end-drug-war_n_5275078.html
-
But you see, we're not on opposite sides of the spectrum; dichotomies really aren't my thing.
Think of me as the guy in the middle of the teeter-totter who can slam both sides into the ground simply by shifting my weight slightly to one side or the other... the further you are from equilibrium, the harder you're going to hit the ground.
You spoke with lawmakers? Voluntarily? Or was that part of an internship for a career working with coma patients?
So what if the anti's mandate smart gun technology? There are enough "dumb" guns in circulation today to last for generations for people who want them. Heck, you buy me a smart gun, and I'll straight up trade you for my dumb shotgun in near-mint condition. The only people who stand to lose by the implementation of smart guns are gun manufacturers... because if smart gun technology was mandated, overall gun sales would plummet.
The only "right" that the pro's would be losing is the ability to buy a shiny new Glock every other year. Instead, you have to buy one that - while functionally identical - simply doesn't come with the fresh scent of cutting oil. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to make you feel pretty; if TV's taught me anything, the purpose is to ensure that when aliens (or zombies) invade the US, we don't have to fight back with a board & a nail.
Dichotomies aren't my thing either, that's why I used the term spectrum. But I think we are devolving into semantics.
The gist of my point was that we have fundamental differences on gun laws yet agree that net net, this technology would be a good thing.
In general I agree with your point that the middle ground (or center of the teeter-totter, if you will) is generally a good place for a reasonable person to be. The problem is, what is the true center of the teeter-totter?
Views on certain issues have shifted so fundamentally in our country in the last century its hard to even know where the middle is anymore. A current "middle ground" view on gay marriage (such as civil unions) would have been considered far left just 10 years ago. Obamacare (currently derided as "socialist" by Republicans) was originally floated by a conservative Richard Nixon in the 1970s (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/02/04/another-early-obamacare-supporter-richard-nixon/).
So what's really the center?
-
New study on the economics of ending the war on drugs
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/LSE-IDEAS-DRUGS-REPORT-FINAL-WEB.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/end-drug-war_n_5275078.html
These types of arguments have been made for a long time. Remember, tobacco bad....because tobacco has big corporations behind it so attack them. BUT, legalize drugs, cuz....well....even though there are serious health risks for some people, that's ok.
How has that war on poverty thing gone....should that end?
-
These types of arguments have been made for a long time. Remember, tobacco bad....because tobacco has big corporations behind it so attack them. BUT, legalize drugs, cuz....well....even though there are serious health risks for some people, that's ok.
How has that war on poverty thing gone....should that end?
The key difference is that tobacco companies knowingly misled the public to think that cigarettes weren't harmful.
POT IS HARMFUL.
Doesn't mean it has to be illegal. Lots of "harmful" things are legal.
Also, from a practicality standpoint, making such things illegal creates another unregulated marketplace, and there are a whole new set of issues that go along with that.
I'm not saying Pot should definitely BE LEGAL, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.
-
The key difference is that tobacco companies knowingly misled the public to think that cigarettes weren't harmful.
POT IS HARMFUL.
Doesn't mean it has to be illegal. Lots of "harmful" things are legal.
Also, from a practicality standpoint, making such things illegal creates another unregulated marketplace, and there are a whole new set of issues that go along with that.
I'm not saying Pot should definitely BE LEGAL, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.
I always thought if you could legalize everything, a guy like Sam Walton would come along with a Wal-Mart of drug stores, offer crack and blow and pot and meth at low everyday prices, which would in turn result in all the hippies, gangbangers and junkies OD-ing. Not only could we raise a buttload of tax revenue, but it would essentially bring an end to the poverty, crime and hippie music festivals that plague the country.
-
These types of arguments have been made for a long time. Remember, tobacco bad....because tobacco has big corporations behind it so attack them. BUT, legalize drugs, cuz....well....even though there are serious health risks for some people, that's ok.
How has that war on poverty thing gone....should that end?
As a mostly libertarian (thought you were also) this issue is pretty simple and not at all as you frame it.
Legalize (and regulate) drugs (like alcohol and tobacco) even though we know there are health risks involved because a) freedom of choice (even choices most would consider bad ones) is essential to a free society and b) the "drug war" has had horrible unintended consequences - homicides, overflowing prisons, etc.
The tobacco "bad" meme is misrepresented by you. It's true that it is a killer and a physically addictive one at that. But as long as that's on the table people can, in my view, pay their money and take their chances. The really "bad" part of tobacco and the corporations that sell it is that they knew it was addictive and a killer and while they searched (and found) ways to make it more addictive they were perjuring themselves on Capitol Hill about it. How you can defend that is beyond me.
-
hippie music festivals that plague the country.
So what will 4ever, Lenny, Goose, and Sir Lawrence get into if not for hippie music festivals? At least these affairs are contained and keeps their sort off the streets.
(http://zionstrumpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10-19-10-hippies-4-ever-Bearded_couple.jpg)
-
As a mostly libertarian (thought you were also) this issue is pretty simple and not at all as you frame it.
Legalize (and regulate) drugs (like alcohol and tobacco) even though we know there are health risks involved because a) freedom of choice (even choices most would consider bad ones) is essential to a free society and b) the "drug war" has had horrible unintended consequences - homicides, overflowing prisons, etc.
The tobacco "bad" meme is misrepresented by you. It's true that it is a killer and a physically addictive one at that. But as long as that's on the table people can, in my view, pay their money and take their chances. The really "bad" part of tobacco and the corporations that sell it is that they knew it was addictive and a killer and while they searched (and found) ways to make it more addictive they were perjuring themselves on Capitol Hill about it. How you can defend that is beyond me.
Those are necessary d/t all the private prison contracts that governors across the nation signed.
-
I've never quite understood the idea that we should ban pot because it's bad, or not ban something because it's not bad. Who is supposed to determine these claims? The government? Obama's HHS? Pass. I'd rather not have the government decide whether something should be legal or not based on whether the government thinks it is healthy. It's really not far from the logic that says the government has the competence to regulate anything else it deems harmful.
And if it is harmful, who cares? Guns are harmful and I want as many non-felons to own them as desired. Cars are harmful. Knives are harmful. Do we have the government regulate things on a grading scale of harm?
The worst thing about the drug war - the worst - is the complete militarization of today's local police force. A thing of pure disgust.
Also, it's time to stop baby sitting citizens. If you want to destroy yourself with McD's every day, I don't want to pay for your medical bills. If you want to destroy yourself with pot, I don't want the government spending my tax dollars to warehouse you in prison.
-
So what will 4ever, Lenny, Goose, and Sir Lawrence get into if not for hippie music festivals? At least these affairs are contained and keeps their sort off the streets.
(http://zionstrumpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10-19-10-hippies-4-ever-Bearded_couple.jpg)
My favorite photo of me and "my old lady". Ain't she a looker?
-
My favorite photo of me and "my old lady". Ain't she a looker?
The 'Pope' introduce you two at The Gym?
-
I always thought if you could legalize everything, a guy like Sam Walton would come along with a Wal-Mart of drug stores, offer crack and blow and pot and meth at low everyday prices, which would in turn result in all the hippies, gangbangers and junkies OD-ing. Not only could we raise a buttload of tax revenue, but it would essentially bring an end to the poverty, crime and hippie music festivals that plague the country.
Whoa bro getting rid of festivals is a little over the top don't you think? I don't care about gangbangers and junkies, but don't try and take my music away. Seems like you could use a summer tour run, eh
-
The 'Pope' introduce you two at The Gym?
She's Toothless Ruthie's little sister. Met her at the 'Lanche - didn't need the Pope for the hook up, I was smooth back in the day.
-
She's Toothless Ruthie's little sister. Met her at the 'Lanche - didn't need the Pope for the hook up, I was smooth back in the day.
what the heck happened?
-
what the heck happened?
You know that old trees get stronger
And old rivers grow wilder every day....
-
You know that old trees get stronger
And old rivers grow wilder every day....
Hello in there, hello
-
So what will 4ever, Lenny, Goose, and Sir Lawrence get into if not for hippie music festivals? At least these affairs are contained and keeps their sort off the streets.
(http://zionstrumpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10-19-10-hippies-4-ever-Bearded_couple.jpg)
I wish I could grow a beard like that. His isn't bad either.
-
I always thought if you could legalize everything, a guy like Sam Walton would come along with a Wal-Mart of drug stores, offer crack and blow and pot and meth at low everyday prices, which would in turn result in all the hippies, gangbangers and junkies OD-ing. Not only could we raise a buttload of tax revenue, but it would essentially bring an end to the poverty, crime and hippie music festivals that plague the country.
Honestly, I think that is what would happen.
Some people think that people would still "grow their own" or whatever, but the truth is, the pharma companies will figure out how to manufacture it cheaply, and sell in mass.
Now, if the government taxes it so highly that it's "expensive", then you still may have your traditional "pot dealers".
But, as long as the taxes aren't too high, pharma would wipe out every pot growing/selling organization within 10 years. Done. Gone. Buh bye. Why buy pot from shady jeff when you can get it at walmart in pill form for 10.99 per bottle? Take 1 pill with a bottle of beer, and I'm set for the evening.
The really interesting thing would be to watch the potential vacuum that would be created. Still a good amount of cash/guns out of the street that was traditionally used for pot manufacturing and pot sales. Now they aren't needed, so where does it all go? Other drug related enterprises?
Oh, and I know it's hypocritical, but I'm not sure if I want to legalize meth (and/or blow). They are soooo additive and destructive.
-
Why buy pot from shady jeff when you can get it at walmart in pill form for 10.99 per bottle?
Yea, but then like what would I do with my Europe 72 double album cover, man?
(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mF1RnIMJnQk_yahVChXVj1g.jpg)
-
Hello in there, hello
My favorite Prine song.
-
My favorite Prine song.
The mailman delivers, brother
-
Why buy pot from shady jeff when you can get it at walmart in pill form for 10.99 per bottle? Take 1 pill with a bottle of beer, and I'm set for the evening.
I've been smoking pot for decades, and that sounds like an absolutely terrible way to get stoned.
-
I've never quite understood the idea that we should ban pot because it's bad, or not ban something because it's not bad. Who is supposed to determine these claims? The government? Obama's HHS? Pass. I'd rather not have the government decide whether something should be legal or not based on whether the government thinks it is healthy. It's really not far from the logic that says the government has the competence to regulate anything else it deems harmful.
And if it is harmful, who cares? Guns are harmful and I want as many non-felons to own them as desired. Cars are harmful. Knives are harmful. Do we have the government regulate things on a grading scale of harm?
The worst thing about the drug war - the worst - is the complete militarization of today's local police force. A thing of pure disgust.
Also, it's time to stop baby sitting citizens. If you want to destroy yourself with McD's every day, I don't want to pay for your medical bills. If you want to destroy yourself with pot, I don't want the government spending my tax dollars to warehouse you in prison.
I'd like some consistency. Tobacco is bad, we go after tobacco companies, we have ads condemning the usage all the time. Pot is harmful, impacts some people poorly from a health perspective, yet we glorify it and are pushing more lax laws. What kind of true research has been done to understand all the impacts? What are the impacts in vehicle accidents, workplace injury, general safety for others, what does it lead to (heavier drug use \ alcohol use), etc. Decades ago we let products be sold without totally understanding them. Then, we learned more about it and much of it was hidden from the consumer, thus the tobacco companies got sued to kingdom come. What happens as we learn more of impacts to health on these drugs, who is everyone going to sue 20, 30 years down the road? The gov't?
-
no we'll sue Big Pharma that sells the pot pills
-
The key difference is that tobacco companies knowingly misled the public to think that cigarettes weren't harmful.
POT IS HARMFUL.
Doesn't mean it has to be illegal. Lots of "harmful" things are legal.
Also, from a practicality standpoint, making such things illegal creates another unregulated marketplace, and there are a whole new set of issues that go along with that.
I'm not saying Pot should definitely BE LEGAL, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Correct you are, except the timeline is a little different. In the early stages of cigarettes, I don't believe that was the case. Certainly later it was and the companies got sued accordingly for hiding information. Remember, cigarettes were introduced in 1840's in Europe and didn't really catch on in the US until the 1850's. It wasn't until the 1920's or 1930's that health risks started to be talked about and much more so in the 1950's.
So that begs the question, what kind of research has really been down around POT? Isn't it funny with the latest two studies, people can't wait to bash them as wrong. Makes you wonder why. Are we just going to legalize and then find out what happens 10, 15, 20, 25 years from now and say OOOPS? What is the recourse at that time? Or is there none? I think those are fair questions to ask, but I agree there are many harmful things that are legal.
-
I'd like some consistency. Tobacco is bad, we go after tobacco companies, we have ads condemning the usage all the time. Pot is harmful, impacts some people poorly from a health perspective, yet we glorify it and are pushing more lax laws. What kind of true research has been done to understand all the impacts? What are the impacts in vehicle accidents, workplace injury, general safety for others, what does it lead to (heavier drug use \ alcohol use), etc. Decades ago we let products be sold without totally understanding them. Then, we learned more about it and much of it was hidden from the consumer, thus the tobacco companies got sued to kingdom come. What happens as we learn more of impacts to health on these drugs, who is everyone going to sue 20, 30 years down the road? The gov't?
Believe me, if pot is legalized and is the killer that tobacco is it will get plenty of bad press. There's no inconsistency here. Tobacco dug its own grave. They knew their product was addictive and sought to make it more addictive. And they knowingly perjured themselves about that. They also knew that their product in and of itself was lethal, killing thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people. They lied under oath about that too. Even given that, those poor little corporations for whom your heart bleeds are still making money hand over fist. I'm okay with that (though I have to swallow hard when I say that) but please, no pity parties for the tobacco companies. They're the bad guys and that's undeniable.
-
Correct you are, except the timeline is a little different. In the early stages of cigarettes, I don't believe that was the case. Certainly later it was and the companies got sued accordingly for hiding information. Remember, cigarettes were introduced in 1840's in Europe and didn't really catch on in the US until the 1850's. It wasn't until the 1920's or 1930's that health risks started to be talked about and much more so in the 1950's.
So that begs the question, what kind of research has really been down around POT? Isn't it funny with the latest two studies, people can't wait to bash them as wrong. Makes you wonder why. Are we just going to legalize and then find out what happens 10, 15, 20, 25 years from now and say OOOPS? What is the recourse at that time? Or is there none? I think those are fair questions to ask, but I agree there are many harmful things that are legal.
We'll print in on every package from DAY 1.
POT IS BAD FOR YOU. YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT.
Then, if consumers hurt themselves, it's their own fault.
Nobody is suing about cigarettes right now. EVERYBODY knows its dangerous. That's it. Case closed.
To be honest, the tobacco industry is better off. They don't have to lie anymore. Tell everybody its bad. Tell them not to do it. People still do it. Philip Morris still makes $$.
I actually understand the case against legalizing pot, but I don't really understand if that case if being made by a self proclaimed conservative/libertarian. I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's honestly confusing to me.
-
Oh, and I know it's hypocritical, but I'm not sure if I want to legalize meth (and/or blow). They are soooo additive and destructive.
But that's the whole point... survival of the fittest. The more addictive and destructive the drug, the less likely the user survives. Darwinism will ultimately prove to be infinitely more succesful than the War on Frugs ever could be.
-
I actually understand the case against legalizing pot
I am actually very confused as to how or why government chooses its outrages. Somehow, marijuana has been determined to be evil while tobacco and alcohol are readily available despite overwhelming scientific evidence as to their negative health impacts.
The reality is that monied interests lobbied aggressively against marijuana more than a century ago which led to its being made illegal in the United States. Corporate profits, combined with ignorance, ambition, and racism coalesced behind the power of the Hearst Empire to demand that marijuana be banned.
WASP westward expansion collided with Catholic Hispanic populations who preferred cannabis over other forms of social lubricants. Racism and religious intolerance seized on the Hispanic preference as a lever of oppression and the first laws against marijuana were all enacted throughout the west.
But the reality is that marijuana was once a mandatory crop in all of the original English settlements. Colonists were required to plant hemp for its many industrial uses which were vital for survival on a frontier.
I am astounded that government feels it has the right to intervene on such a granular level in the lives of its citizens. Marijuana laws are right up there with Prohibition, the Sodomy Statutes, Same Sex Restrictions and every other effort made to legislate morality. Neither Central nor State authority was vested with such discretionary powers at the founding of this nation. Thomas Jefferson, home vintner and brewer and hemp and tobacco grower, never would have envisioned the ridiculous intrusions that presently pass for Federal Authority in this once great Republic.
The sad reality of our Drug Statutes is that our society bears an inordinately high cost for their enforcement and the incarceration of its offenders. A citizen can be deprived of his liberty for years for possession of cannabis - and we pay for that in far too many ways. Politicians know that sounding tough on crime, enacting even more stringent drug laws, spending more on cops and prisons, and enflaming racial fears through the surrogate of drug laws translates into votes from the center and contributions from pharma, alcohol, and agribusiness among other constituencies.
I have no dog in this fight. I do not smoke weed and, because of my wound care drug therapy, I don't even drink alcohol these days. But I am astounded a man can be deprived of his liberty because of weed that is now legal in two jurisdictions. As a card carrying member of the Cato Institute I could not see this any other way, frankly.
-
We'll print in on every package from DAY 1.
POT IS BAD FOR YOU. YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT.
Then, if consumers hurt themselves, it's their own fault.
Nobody is suing about cigarettes right now. EVERYBODY knows its dangerous. That's it. Case closed.
To be honest, the tobacco industry is better off. They don't have to lie anymore. Tell everybody its bad. Tell them not to do it. People still do it. Philip Morris still makes $$.
I actually understand the case against legalizing pot, but I don't really understand if that case if being made by a self proclaimed conservative/libertarian. I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's honestly confusing to me.
Don't confuse Libertarian with libertarian. The Libertarian party had legalization as one of their planks. Now, I fully admit libertarians support legalization in a majority, but it's not a slam dunk either.
Personally, I have a bias because of what happened to my sister and her boyfriend...murdered over a drug situation. These kids started with mj, got bored with it (gateway) and moved on up the ladder. That led to some bad stuff and eventually this guy getting killed.
I think kids lives are damn hard as it is right now, not sure throwing this stuff in everyone's face out in the open doesn't create a can of worms. Too easy to buy (even if you need to be 18), etc, etc.
-
Don't confuse Libertarian with libertarian. The Libertarian party had legalization as one of their planks. Now, I fully admit libertarians support legalization in a majority, but it's not a slam dunk either.
Personally, I have a bias because of what happened to my sister and her boyfriend...murdered over a drug situation. These kids started with mj, got bored with it (gateway) and moved on up the ladder. That led to some bad stuff and eventually this guy getting killed.
I think kids lives are damn hard as it is right now, not sure throwing this stuff in everyone's face out in the open doesn't create a can of worms. Too easy to buy (even if you need to be 18), etc, etc.
To quote Eminem "marijuana is everywhere, where was you brought up"
-
Don't confuse Libertarian with libertarian. The Libertarian party had legalization as one of their planks. Now, I fully admit libertarians support legalization in a majority, but it's not a slam dunk either.
Personally, I have a bias because of what happened to my sister and her boyfriend...murdered over a drug situation. These kids started with mj, got bored with it (gateway) and moved on up the ladder. That led to some bad stuff and eventually this guy getting killed.
I think kids lives are damn hard as it is right now, not sure throwing this stuff in everyone's face out in the open doesn't create a can of worms. Too easy to buy (even if you need to be 18), etc, etc.
Chico
I am sorry for what happened to your sister but that cannot be the basis for a view that is antithetical to your otherwise libertarian values. And without getting into the specifics of your sister's incident, the statute had little if anything to do with the murder.
As Jefferson wrote to John Page,
"The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us; and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavours of our lives. The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect resignation to the Divine will, to consider that whatever does happen, must happen; and that by our uneasiness, we cannot prevent the blow before it does fall, but we may add to its force after it has fallen. These considerations, and others such as these, may enable us in some measure to surmount the difficulties thrown in our way; to bear up with a tolerable degree of patience under this burthen of life; and to proceed with a pious and unshaken resignation, till we arrive at our journey’s end, when we may deliver up our trust into the hands of him who gave it, and receive such reward as to him shall seem proportioned to our merit. Such, dear Page, will be the language of the man who considers his situation in this life, and such should be the language of every man who would wish to render that situation as easy as the nature of it will admit. Few things will disturb him at all: nothing will disturb him much."
-
Chico
I am sorry for what happened to your sister but that cannot be the basis for a view that is antithetical to your otherwise libertarian values. And without getting into the specifics of your sister's incident, the statute had little if anything to do with the murder.
As Jefferson wrote to John Page,
"The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us; and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavours of our lives. The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect resignation to the Divine will, to consider that whatever does happen, must happen; and that by our uneasiness, we cannot prevent the blow before it does fall, but we may add to its force after it has fallen. These considerations, and others such as these, may enable us in some measure to surmount the difficulties thrown in our way; to bear up with a tolerable degree of patience under this burthen of life; and to proceed with a pious and unshaken resignation, till we arrive at our journey’s end, when we may deliver up our trust into the hands of him who gave it, and receive such reward as to him shall seem proportioned to our merit. Such, dear Page, will be the language of the man who considers his situation in this life, and such should be the language of every man who would wish to render that situation as easy as the nature of it will admit. Few things will disturb him at all: nothing will disturb him much."
For the record, it was her boyfriend killed, not her. Sorry if that didn't come across. Yes, I agree that one personal anecdote shouldn't be used, it is just my bias and I'm honest about it. Beyond what happened to her, I just have a problem in general about legalizing something that for some people just leads to bigger issues. People can say it isn't a gateway drug, that's B.S. It is for some, how many is up for debate, but it is human nature. You start with beer, you move on to the hard stuff. You start with cigs, move on to weed, then move on to something else (for some, not all...fully realize, not all) Start with the missionary, next thing you're on the trampoline (which I fully endorse).
-
For the record, it was her boyfriend killed, not her. Sorry if that didn't come across. Yes, I agree that one personal anecdote shouldn't be used, it is just my bias and I'm honest about it. Beyond what happened to her, I just have a problem in general about legalizing something that for some people just leads to bigger issues. People can say it isn't a gateway drug, that's B.S. It is for some, how many is up for debate, but it is human nature. You start with beer, you move on to the hard stuff. You start with cigs, move on to weed, then move on to something else (for some, not all...fully realize, not all) Start with the missionary, next thing you're on the trampoline (which I fully endorse).
I have already contacted the Cato Institute. I should expect they shall be wanting a return of credentials forthwith. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, Chico. This is about being pregnant or not. Indeed, it is for the very soul of a nation.
-
I have already contacted the Cato Institute. I should expect they shall be wanting a return of credentials forthwith. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, Chico. This is about being pregnant or not. Indeed, it is for the very soul of a nation.
This. If all freedoms can be taken away because some abuse them there will be none left in short order. And if principles are compromised over an anecdote they were never principles to begin with.
-
I am actually very confused as to how or why government chooses its outrages. Somehow, marijuana has been determined to be evil while tobacco and alcohol are readily available despite overwhelming scientific evidence as to their negative health impacts.
The reality is that monied interests lobbied aggressively against marijuana more than a century ago which led to its being made illegal in the United States. Corporate profits, combined with ignorance, ambition, and racism coalesced behind the power of the Hearst Empire to demand that marijuana be banned.
WASP westward expansion collided with Catholic Hispanic populations who preferred cannabis over other forms of social lubricants. Racism and religious intolerance seized on the Hispanic preference as a lever of oppression and the first laws against marijuana were all enacted throughout the west.
But the reality is that marijuana was once a mandatory crop in all of the original English settlements. Colonists were required to plant hemp for its many industrial uses which were vital for survival on a frontier.
I am astounded that government feels it has the right to intervene on such a granular level in the lives of its citizens. Marijuana laws are right up there with Prohibition, the Sodomy Statutes, Same Sex Restrictions and every other effort made to legislate morality. Neither Central nor State authority was vested with such discretionary powers at the founding of this nation. Thomas Jefferson, home vintner and brewer and hemp and tobacco grower, never would have envisioned the ridiculous intrusions that presently pass for Federal Authority in this once great Republic.
The sad reality of our Drug Statutes is that our society bears an inordinately high cost for their enforcement and the incarceration of its offenders. A citizen can be deprived of his liberty for years for possession of cannabis - and we pay for that in far too many ways. Politicians know that sounding tough on crime, enacting even more stringent drug laws, spending more on cops and prisons, and enflaming racial fears through the surrogate of drug laws translates into votes from the center and contributions from pharma, alcohol, and agribusiness among other constituencies.
I have no dog in this fight. I do not smoke weed and, because of my wound care drug therapy, I don't even drink alcohol these days. But I am astounded a man can be deprived of his liberty because of weed that is now legal in two jurisdictions. As a card carrying member of the Cato Institute I could not see this any other way, frankly.
I'm not saying I agree with people who are against legalization... I'm just saying I understand how a person with a more "socialistic" viewpoint can be against it. If we believe that government has to help care for it's people, then it's reasonable that the government should do thing to keep it's people safe. Speed limits, drugs limits, health insurance, social welfare programs, social security, etc. etc.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with this, but I understand the viewpoint.
What I don't understand are people who claim to be all about personal responsibility, but then in specific cases (like legalization), they are afraid of it.
Chico's, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I've just heard this same viewpoint from several conservatives on television, and I've never really heard a logical reason for it. It's always some sort of rationalization.
-
What I don't understand are people who claim to be all about personal responsibility, but then in specific cases (like legalization), they are afraid of it.
Chico's, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I've just heard this same viewpoint from several conservatives on television, and I've never really heard a logical reason for it. It's always some sort of rationalization.
Lots of people on both the left and right who choose situation ethics over what they would consider their core principles. For example, lefties are usually adamant about torture as long as its someone else's kids in danger, and righties are all about tough love and personal responsibility until it's their kid in trouble. Principled about the world, sure, but their own get a dispensation when it's convenient.
-
Lots of people on both the left and right who choose situation ethics over what they would consider their core principles. For example, lefties are usually adamant about torture as long as its someone else's kids in danger, and righties are all about tough love and personal responsibility until it's their kid in trouble. Principled about the world, sure, but their own get a dispensation when it's convenient.
That's human nature.
It takes a rational, unemotional perspective to stick to ethical principles. Most people fall into situational ethics.
-
Lots of people on both the left and right who choose situation ethics over what they would consider their core principles. For example, lefties are usually adamant about torture as long as its someone else's kids in danger, and righties are all about tough love and personal responsibility until it's their kid in trouble. Principled about the world, sure, but their own get a dispensation when it's convenient.
Fair enough. We live in the real world, so I understand the nuance.
I guess it's hard for me to hear people so strident and consistent on some topics, but then complete 180 on others. It would be easier if people (specifically politicians and political commentators) admitted there was a middle ground (on 99% of topics) and then we can go from there.
But, middle ground doesn't get votes or viewers I suppose.
Yeah America!
-
But, middle ground doesn't get votes or viewers I suppose.
Viewers yes but the middle ground is always the battle ground.
-
what about that shooting 'eh?
-
Viewers yes but the middle ground is always the battle ground.
Actually, that's not true at all. Our political system has bred an environment where campaigning is not about swaying the opinions of voters in swing states, it's entirely about motivating people in swing states to vote.
-
Actually, that's not true at all. Our political system has bred an environment where campaigning is not about swaying the opinions of voters in swing states, it's entirely about motivating people in swing states to vote.
I agree, its about turnout.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/19-year-old-charged-in-marquette-holdup-shooting-has-long-criminal-past-b99263187z1-258997261.html
-
Developments (and some very bad guys). Glad they're off the streets.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/19-year-old-charged-in-marquette-holdup-shooting-has-long-criminal-past-b99263187z1-258997261.html
Sorry. Beat me by 30 seconds.
-
Glad they're off the streets.
For now.
-
For now.
I'll bet for an extended time up in the big house. We're way beyond a wallet grab. Anyway, let's hope a limp wristed judicial system gets some backbone. And let's also hope that Marquette privately makes its expectations known with the DA.
-
I'll bet for an extended time up in the big house. We're way beyond a wallet grab. Anyway, let's hope a limp wristed judicial system gets some backbone. And let's also hope that Marquette privately makes its expectations known with the DA.
Agreed. After reading that article these guys are some trouble makers and they need to be locked up.
-
They need more than being locked up, you can fill in the blank. >:(
-
They need more than being locked up, you can fill in the blank. >:(
I'm going to try to remain Christian but . . .
And prayers for the innocent kids they victimized.
-
Agreed. After reading that article these guys are some trouble makers and they need to be locked up.
What's really going to come back to burn the younger kid is that "apology" he filed in court the last time he was convicted.
-
let's hope a limp wristed judicial system gets some backbone.
well, someone's ultimately getting back boned because of this
-
Well done.
-
For anyone who wants to send him a message or creep on the guy
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007938156313&fref=ts
-
For anyone who wants to send him a message or creep on the guy
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007938156313&fref=ts
I don't do the Facebook thing, but I'm guessing that there's no relationship option for "Down Low in the Slammer"
-
I don't do the Facebook thing, but I'm guessing that there's no relationship option for "Down Low in the Slammer"
Lol no unfortunately not. But it's funny that yesterday his profile was public and now it's not.
-
Lol no unfortunately not. But it's funny that yesterday his profile was public and now it's not.
Must have lawyered up.
-
I'm aware what the Supreme Court of the United States of America has said. Apparently they read it differently than many other "legal experts" in this country.
Don't like it, change the constitution....get a constitutional amendment going and convention a constitutional convention.
For the record, I don't belong to the NRA and never would. That being said, I believe every American should have the right to arm themselves and defend their lives and property not only against others, but against a potentially tyrannical govt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/opinion/nocera-right-to-bear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
The Supreme Court isn't always right. And what good would an amendment do if the court is just going to misinterpret it anyway?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/opinion/nocera-right-to-bear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
The Supreme Court isn't always right. And what good would an amendment do if the court is just going to misinterpret it anyway?
I agree with the sentiment that SCOTUS isn't always right, but in practical terms the buck stops with them whether we agree with the decisions or not. If an amendment is passed, it will be ultimately up to SCOTUS and the lower courts to interpret as they do every other piece of the Constitution.
Thanks for the article....the interpretation of what the fathers "really meant" is always fun. A lot of people think they have cornered the right answer on that as well.
Over the weekend here we had 7 people killed at UCSB by another nutjob. He shot 3 people and then killed himself. He also stabbed to death 3 people, but the stories have been about the shootings, not about the stabbings for the most part. Lots of anti NRA stuff, ban guns, etc, which is interesting in this case due to the 3 slayings by the same guy but with a knife.
-
I He also stabbed to death 3 people, but the stories have been about the shootings, not about the stabbings for the most part.
Has the NKA weighed in yet? They usually offer razor sharp insight into such matters.
This woman was the victim of a horrific attack by knife wielding little persons
(http://www.digdang.com/media/images/knife_wielding_midgets_866.jpg)
-
Speaking of shootings. How about that psycho at UCSB. The fact that people are blaming the women who didn't sleep with him is disgusting and frankly horrifying.
Edit: missed CBBs comment but I still stand by how disgusted I am at the victim blaming.
-
Speaking of shootings. shootings and knife slayings.... How about that psycho at UCSB. The fact that people are blaming the women who didn't sleep with him is disgusting and frankly horrifying.
Edit missed CBBs comment but I still stand by how disgusted I am at the victim blaming.
FIFY
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default
-
Over the weekend here we had 7 people killed at UCSB by another nutjob. He shot 3 people and then killed himself. He also stabbed to death 3 people, but the stories have been about the shootings, not about the stabbings for the most part. Lots of anti NRA stuff, ban guns, etc, which is interesting in this case due to the 3 slayings by the same guy but with a knife.
He shot twelve people and killed four with guns, including himself.
It's about the shootings because campus shootings are a thing that happen in America multiple times a year and campus knife attacks are not. That's not interesting at all. Honestly, it's not worth really getting upset about these things one way or the other unless one is personally affected by such an event. Nothing is going to change.
-
He shot twelve people and killed four with guns, including himself.
It's about the shootings because campus shootings are a thing that happen in America multiple times a year and campus knife attacks are not. That's not interesting at all. Honestly, it's not worth really getting upset about these things one way or the other unless one is personally affected by such an event. Nothing is going to change.
Since knife killings don't happen multiple times per year, seems it is rather newsworthy. Just surprises me...he was 3 for 3 in the knife killings, 3 for 12 on the shooting. (1 for 1 offing himself) Those 3 dead by knife slaying are just as dead as those from the gunshots, but one would think their lives are somehow less worthy of discussion in the media the last few days. Doesn't fit an agenda apparently. Dead is dead, be it by knife, car, gun shots. Nutcase was known to have problems
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00991/knife-460b_991929c.jpg)
-
Since knife killings don't happen multiple times per year, seems it is rather newsworthy. Just surprises me...he was 3 for 3 in the knife killings, 3 for 12 on the shooting. (1 for 1 offing himself) Those 3 dead by knife slaying are just as dead as those from the gunshots, but one would think their lives are somehow less worthy of discussion in the media the last few days. Doesn't fit an agenda apparently. Dead is dead, be it by knife, car, gun shots. Nutcase was known to have problems
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00991/knife-460b_991929c.jpg)
You are inventing a narrative that people actually think their deaths are less newsworthy, you know you are.
As for shooting versus stabbing deaths, 8600 are shot to death every year, while a knife is used about 1700 (higher than I thought it would have been). Plus, all the horrific mass shootings in this country, makes the rounds on the news cycles, 24/7, so yeah they will get more attention.
-
I have seen people killed by both gunfire and knife. Death by knife is far more sanguinary.
-
You are inventing a narrative that people actually think their deaths are less newsworthy, you know you are.
As for shooting versus stabbing deaths, 8600 are shot to death every year, while a knife is used about 1700 (higher than I thought it would have been). Plus, all the horrific mass shootings in this country, makes the rounds on the news cycles, 24/7, so yeah they will get more attention.
With all due respect, no I'm not. Driving home from work tonight, the talk was about the NRA and "senseless" gun deaths at UCSB. Finally near the end of the program some guy called in and said "what about that half the victims were killed by stabbing". The host, yes, that is tragic as well but we're trying to make a point here.
I had to chuckle for a minute. Yes, we certainly understand the point the host was trying to make and it was confirmed with his comment at the end. Certain deaths were more important to him because it provided ammunition (pun intended) for his agenda and argument. Simple.
-
Has the NKA weighed in yet? They usually offer razor sharp insight into such matters.
This woman was the victim of a horrific attack by knife wielding little persons
(http://www.digdang.com/media/images/knife_wielding_midgets_866.jpg)
Da fuq
-
We all have our theories
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140527/perhaps-no-lesson-to-be-learned-from-santa-barbara-rampage-doug-mcintyre
-
Since knife killings don't happen multiple times per year, seems it is rather newsworthy. Just surprises me...he was 3 for 3 in the knife killings, 3 for 12 on the shooting. (1 for 1 offing himself) Those 3 dead by knife slaying are just as dead as those from the gunshots, but one would think their lives are somehow less worthy of discussion in the media the last few days. Doesn't fit an agenda apparently. Dead is dead, be it by knife, car, gun shots. Nutcase was known to have problems
No one here is disputing that the three people killed by knife have less worthy deaths. However, as you yourself said, (mass) knife killings don't happen multiple times per year. Campus (or other mass) shootings do happen multiple times per year all over the country. That is context, not an agenda.
You are trying to obfuscate the broader issue of mass shootings with your concern trolling over the knife deaths.
I have a simple question. Do you think mass shootings are a problem in America, and why or why not?
-
No one here is disputing that the three people killed by knife have less worthy deaths. However, as you yourself said, (mass) knife killings don't happen multiple times per year. Campus (or other mass) shootings do happen multiple times per year all over the country. That is context, not an agenda.
You are trying to obfuscate the broader issue of mass shootings with your concern trolling over the knife deaths.
I have a simple question. Do you think mass shootings are a problem in America, and why or why not?
They are a problem and will continue to be. Not because of Judd Apatow or Seth Rogen (how wacky is that NY Times film critic?) but because hard liners who want no restrictions on people having access to buying firearms and hard liners who want it to be virtually impossible to commit the mentally ill are winning the day. I understand their slippery slope arguments - the balance between protecting people's freedoms and restricting them for the common good can be tricky. But when will enough be enough and when will reasonable people of good will insist on problem solving rather than sloganeering? Who knows. Compromise is a dirty word these days.
-
No one here is disputing that the three people killed by knife have less worthy deaths. However, as you yourself said, (mass) knife killings don't happen multiple times per year. Campus (or other mass) shootings do happen multiple times per year all over the country. That is context, not an agenda.
You are trying to obfuscate the broader issue of mass shootings with your concern trolling over the knife deaths.
I have a simple question. Do you think mass shootings are a problem in America, and why or why not?
So by the numbers here (which I am neither substantiating nor disputing) for every five homicides by firearm, there is one homicide by knife. Yet I tend to agree with Chico's underlying point that the media reports of homicide by firearm outnumber the media reports by knife by drastically more than 5:1. If true, that's not context, that's subjective reporting.
Personally, I can't think of the last time I saw a stabbing death in the news. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the media averages one death report per day when it comes to guns. Whether or not it happens by mass shooting is irrelevant. An individual's death isn't rendered more or less important because of the numbers involved.
Although, I wouldn't call any of this an anti-gun or gun-control agenda... I think the media is just doing what it does so well: hyping and trumping up stories that drive the biggest ratings. If knife fights drove more to hysterics than gun violence, every stabbing would be front page news.
-
So by the numbers here (which I am neither substantiating nor disputing) for every five homicides by firearm, there is one homicide by knife. Yet I tend to agree with Chico's underlying point that the media reports of homicide by firearm outnumber the media reports by knife by drastically more than 5:1. If true, that's not context, that's subjective reporting.
Personally, I can't think of the last time I saw a stabbing death in the news. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the media averages one death report per day when it comes to guns. Whether or not it happens by mass shooting is irrelevant. An individual's death isn't rendered more or less important because of the numbers involved.
Although, I wouldn't call any of this an anti-gun or gun-control agenda... I think the media is just doing what it does so well: hyping and trumping up stories that drive the biggest ratings. If knife fights drove more to hysterics than gun violence, every stabbing would be front page news.
Media reporting is not reflective of the exact ratio of events as they occur. Its unrealistic to expect reporting on something that happens 20% as frequently, 20% of the time because it is not a proportional thing.
Media tends to take the biggest 4 or 5 issues and report on them relentlessly. Its not necessarily an issue of bias but rather using story lines that they know will resonate because they have impacted more people and people tend to feel more passionately about it. That's really all it comes down to. Its about making money.
-
No one here is disputing that the three people killed by knife have less worthy deaths. However, as you yourself said, (mass) knife killings don't happen multiple times per year. Campus (or other mass) shootings do happen multiple times per year all over the country. That is context, not an agenda.
You are trying to obfuscate the broader issue of mass shootings with your concern trolling over the knife deaths.
I have a simple question. Do you think mass shootings are a problem in America, and why or why not?
I think you are ignoring the numbers and you are a numbers guy. How many people are murdered each year by something other than a firearm? How much of that is reported and is it with the same zest? I'll let you decide that, but I have my opinion.
Your question is a bit odd to me. Do I think mass shootings are a problem in America...of course. Innocent people dying is not a good thing. Do I think millions of aborted innocent people each year is a problem...yes, but a lot of people on the left don't. We can ask these types of questions and go one layer deep to expose the hypocrisy quite quickly. Innocent deaths are innocent deaths.
My problem is who or what gets the blame. The UCSB example is the perfect example. All one has to do is watch this guy's videos, read his manifesto and he was going to do harm no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT. In fact, he did...with his car, with a knife, with guns. Yet the focus is on the guns. Did you know the last time there was a mass killing at UCSB was 2004....how? Guy drove his car into a crowded street killing 4 people.
I have a problem with the 99.9% of people that handle guns just fine, every single day and the crowd on the other side that wants to take them away (and please don't say "no one is saying take them away"...in fact, many people are) because of the actions of some nutjobs. I prefer to live in a society in which the citizenry can be armed, not just the govt. It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers. It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.
Finally, the irony is not lost on my that this killer is the son of Hollywood director who has to his credits a movie in which kids kill other kids, the Hunger Games. The money earned from that movie (which I enjoyed), probably helped to pay for the kid's SUV and BMW that he used to try and kill people with.
-
So by the numbers here (which I am neither substantiating nor disputing) for every five homicides by firearm, there is one homicide by knife. Yet I tend to agree with Chico's underlying point that the media reports of homicide by firearm outnumber the media reports by knife by drastically more than 5:1. If true, that's not context, that's subjective reporting.
Personally, I can't think of the last time I saw a stabbing death in the news. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the media averages one death report per day when it comes to guns. Whether or not it happens by mass shooting is irrelevant. An individual's death isn't rendered more or less important because of the numbers involved.
Although, I wouldn't call any of this an anti-gun or gun-control agenda... I think the media is just doing what it does so well: hyping and trumping up stories that drive the biggest ratings. If knife fights drove more to hysterics than gun violence, every stabbing would be front page news.
We miss the full implications of gun deaths by focusing only on homicides. The ratio becomes far more than just 5:1. For example, from the New England Journal of Medicine (emphasis mine).
Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1 A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths. Nearly half of these deaths occurred in people under the age of 35. When we consider that there were also nearly 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms, we are left with the staggering fact that 100,000 men, women, and children were killed or wounded by firearms in the span of just one year.
I also agree with you that mass shootings drive more news than anything else.
-
Just back from Mexico where stringent gun laws work to keep everybody safe. I am particularly heartened when I approach an ATM to secure some pesos and it is guarded by someone in full battle armor and a riot shotgun.
-
It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers. It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.
I'm all for doing a better job of identifying and institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill. I'm also all for sane legislation that would prevent those who may have fallen through the cracks or haven't completely gone off the reservation (yet) from buying firearms at gun shows with no background checks. Why is either stance even controversial? Wing nuts.
-
For you guys who say knife attacks aren't in the news what about the kid from Frankin, PA who attacked and stabbed 21 people at his school just a few months ago? That was all over the news
-
I think you are ignoring the numbers and you are a numbers guy. How many people are murdered each year by something other than a firearm? How much of that is reported and is it with the same zest? I'll let you decide that, but I have my opinion.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/causes-of-violent-death.jpg)
There's your answer on violent deaths by age category, quantity, and type. Guns aren't only the first leading cause of death, they are the second leading cause of death.
I have a problem with the 99.9% of people that handle guns just fine, every single day and the crowd on the other side that wants to take them away (and please don't say "no one is saying take them away"...in fact, many people are) because of the actions of some nutjobs. I prefer to live in a society in which the citizenry can be armed, not just the govt. It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers. It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.
You're railing against a problem that doesn't exist. There are over 300 million guns in America. I want you to consider the practical logistics of trying to reduce the total amount of guns by half, or a third, or even one tenth... if the political will even existed. It's impossible.
The gun lobby won years ago. Guns are going to continue to be the leading cause of death. We're going to continue to see mass shootings. The media will continue to spin it up. People will get outraged on both sides.
Why bother? We would all be more productive praying that none of us are ever impacted.
-
Source?
-
I think you are ignoring the numbers and you are a numbers guy. How many people are murdered each year by something other than a firearm? How much of that is reported and is it with the same zest? I'll let you decide that, but I have my opinion.
Your question is a bit odd to me. Do I think mass shootings are a problem in America...of course. Innocent people dying is not a good thing. Do I think millions of aborted innocent people each year is a problem...yes, but a lot of people on the left don't. We can ask these types of questions and go one layer deep to expose the hypocrisy quite quickly. Innocent deaths are innocent deaths.
My problem is who or what gets the blame. The UCSB example is the perfect example. All one has to do is watch this guy's videos, read his manifesto and he was going to do harm no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT. In fact, he did...with his car, with a knife, with guns. Yet the focus is on the guns. Did you know the last time there was a mass killing at UCSB was 2004....how? Guy drove his car into a crowded street killing 4 people.
I have a problem with the 99.9% of people that handle guns just fine, every single day and the crowd on the other side that wants to take them away (and please don't say "no one is saying take them away"...in fact, many people are) because of the actions of some nutjobs. I prefer to live in a society in which the citizenry can be armed, not just the govt. It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers. It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.
Finally, the irony is not lost on my that this killer is the son of Hollywood director who has to his credits a movie in which kids kill other kids, the Hunger Games. The money earned from that movie (which I enjoyed), probably helped to pay for the kid's SUV and BMW that he used to try and kill people with.
How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.) Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.
You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them. Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes. Nope.
So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show. I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show. Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered. You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap. Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more. I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses. This is 2014.
Go USA I guess.
-
How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.) Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.
You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them. Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes. Nope.
So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show. I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show. Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered. You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap. Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more. I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses. This is 2014.
Go USA I guess.
Way too much common sense in this post. What say you, Chico? Are the no background checks at gun shows guys the mirror image of the no ban on partial birth abortion guys?
-
I'm all for doing a better job of identifying and institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill. I'm also all for sane legislation that would prevent those who may have fallen through the cracks or haven't completely gone off the reservation (yet) from buying firearms at gun shows with no background checks. Why is either stance even controversial? Wing nuts.
racist
-
How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.) Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.
You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them. Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes. Nope.
So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show. I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show. Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered. You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap. Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more. I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses. This is 2014.
Go USA I guess.
Incredibly well said
-
How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.) Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.
You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them. Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes. Nope.
So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show. I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show. Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered. You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap. Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more. I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses. This is 2014.
Go USA I guess.
How do the Mexicans obtain guns which are illegal? ( other than from the US DOJ) Go to a gun show , you can't buy a gun here without a background check and waiting period. The laws are on the books but people get around them. After England confiscated most firearms "hot" burglaries increased and shootings did as well. You are stereotyping most gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. And yes, the government started making noises about taking guns and politicians began to pontificate and regular people got nervous and bought guns.
https://blu180.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=8c943078-e3b5-11e3-b04b-6c3be5a7fae4&attindex=20&cp=-1&attdepth=20&imgsrc=cid%3a862602FBC2714150A30E969E1432C8B0%40aldonnaPC&cid=62572fe70c58b031&blob=MjB8QVRUMDAwMDEuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=loftusrp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.148.78.8&d=d437&mf=32&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2028%20May%202014%2018%3a32%3a22%20GMT&st=loftusrp&hm__ha=01_de0baa32b6c715e74ec315252cface0dc88c62ae6fb07b3031ba6bb485ab0a47&oneredir=1
-
How do the Mexicans obtain guns which are illegal? ( other than from the US DOJ) Go to a gun show , you can't buy a gun here without a background check and waiting period. The laws are on the books but people get around them. After England confiscated most firearms "hot" burglaries increased and shootings did as well. You are stereotyping most gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. And yes, the government started making noises about taking guns and politicians began to pontificate and regular people got nervous and bought guns.
https://blu180.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=8c943078-e3b5-11e3-b04b-6c3be5a7fae4&attindex=20&cp=-1&attdepth=20&imgsrc=cid%3a862602FBC2714150A30E969E1432C8B0%40aldonnaPC&cid=62572fe70c58b031&blob=MjB8QVRUMDAwMDEuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=loftusrp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.148.78.8&d=d437&mf=32&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2028%20May%202014%2018%3a32%3a22%20GMT&st=loftusrp&hm__ha=01_de0baa32b6c715e74ec315252cface0dc88c62ae6fb07b3031ba6bb485ab0a47&oneredir=1
By definition, you cannot stereotype "most" of any group. You stereotype the group. And Chico's statement that most gun owners are law abiding citizens is not a stereotype... it's an accurate & factual statement. That is, unless you're going to set aside drivers who go 66 in a 65 mph zone, people who tear mattress tags off and homeowners who don't mow their grass until it's over 4-1/2" tall from the "law-abiding" group.
-
How do the Mexicans obtain guns which are illegal? ( other than from the US DOJ) Go to a gun show , you can't buy a gun here without a background check and waiting period. The laws are on the books but people get around them. After England confiscated most firearms "hot" burglaries increased and shootings did as well. You are stereotyping most gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. And yes, the government started making noises about taking guns and politicians began to pontificate and regular people got nervous and bought guns.
https://blu180.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=8c943078-e3b5-11e3-b04b-6c3be5a7fae4&attindex=20&cp=-1&attdepth=20&imgsrc=cid%3a862602FBC2714150A30E969E1432C8B0%40aldonnaPC&cid=62572fe70c58b031&blob=MjB8QVRUMDAwMDEuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=loftusrp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.148.78.8&d=d437&mf=32&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2028%20May%202014%2018%3a32%3a22%20GMT&st=loftusrp&hm__ha=01_de0baa32b6c715e74ec315252cface0dc88c62ae6fb07b3031ba6bb485ab0a47&oneredir=1
First off, broken link. And not sure about that whole Mexican thing in the first sentence, but it sounds like a clear and valid point. Is it some lame joke attempt at the Fast and Furious scandal??
Secondly, I talked about the US culture as a whole with an obsession with firearms. My point being, because of this obsession for a very long time, more and more guns find their way to the streets, you have to agree on that right? Criminals ain't building firearms in their garages, they are everywhere because as a nation (people, the media, politicians, the NRA, Hollywood) for too long did not respect the sheer deadly consequences this obsession with guns has made our country into.
Of course, the vast majority of gun owners own less than 3 guns, are law abiding, and never have an issue owning a gun. But you know what comes with that responsibility, the strongest protections possible from trying to stop wackaloons from running into schools, or movie theaters, or a beach boardwalk, or Army barracks strapped to the gills with firearms.
And gun owners, like yourself are now crying foul because past generations didn't do what needed to be done in the first place. ya know what, too bad. I say the same thing to people complaining about SS not being there in 30 years, tough crap. Move on, stop your whining.
And to those politicians who cower because of Wayne LaPierre, screw you. And to the nuts who think that we should round up all the LEGAL firearms from law abiding citizens, screw you too, you are not helping.
-
How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.) Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.
You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them. Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes. Nope.
So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show. I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show. Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered. You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap. Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more. I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses. This is 2014.
Go USA I guess.
Good arguments. Allow me to respond on a few of them.
First of all, I'm not against common sense measures as I've said time and time again. The problem I have is too many people on the left don't want to stop there, it's all or nothing. That's a problem. The reason why law abiding gun owners are so put off by those people is that the law abiding gun owners aren't doing anything wrong and they feel that these folks are in a mode of all or nothing. That has to be addressed in terms of the overall discussion.
The second point is around trust. We've been hearing the term "common sense measures" for several decades, and despite what one side will say, many of them have been put into place. Yet it hasn't done much, if anything. The concern of gun owners is that you will continue to apply "common sense measures" again, and again, and again and as each one fails to work, it goes deeper and deeper into an end game of total removal, which is the end goal for some people. It just is, they have flat out said it. Zero guns, period. So there is a great deal of mistrust on the give an inch, take a mile side of the issue, especially for the 100 million people that have guns and don't do anything wrong with them.
On your specific points, yes most guns are purchased legally the first time. Some are stolen, some are resold, etc. I'm not crazy about the gov't telling me what I can do with my private property, bought legally, but I'll concede on your point for a bit. The question I have is, what do you propose? I've heard some people say they want to put the onus on the original gun owner as to whom he/she sells the gun to in a private transaction. Honestly, how is that person going to know what the buyer is going to do with it? How stable that person is? Or, if the buyer doesn't turn around and give it to someone else, sell it to someone else. Have it stolen, whatever. The chain of custody is very problematic. Furthermore, what is the outcome here. If I buy a gun lawfully and 3 years from now I sell it to you and you use it to kill someone, am I liable? What about the car I sell to college kid who decides to mow down a bunch of people with it, am I liable?
Things like background checks at gun shows....sure. Fine. Some of the other measures...sure...fine. I think you are going to find that ultimately, they don't do a damn thing. A person willing to commit that heinous of a crime will find a way.
-
We miss the full implications of gun deaths by focusing only on homicides. The ratio becomes far more than just 5:1. For example, from the New England Journal of Medicine (emphasis mine).
I also agree with you that mass shootings drive more news than anything else.
I'd be curious to know how many of those suicides would have happened anyway, but with a different tool (drugs, hanging, etc). Knowing someone in my family that went down this path, but without a gun, it is the end conclusion they seek. Freedom from their pain and suffering and they find a way to get to that end state.
-
I'm all for doing a better job of identifying and institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill. I'm also all for sane legislation that would prevent those who may have fallen through the cracks or haven't completely gone off the reservation (yet) from buying firearms at gun shows with no background checks. Why is either stance even controversial? Wing nuts.
I'm for both as well. I can lay out the arguments of both sides why they are controversial, pretty simple to do.
-
For you guys who say knife attacks aren't in the news what about the kid from Frankin, PA who attacked and stabbed 21 people at his school just a few months ago? That was all over the news
Always exceptions to the rule. In this particular case at UCSB, their is an agenda to be driven which is why the deaths by gunshot are leveraged in the story, while the deaths via the knife are a throw-in....a cheap collateral damage remark by some pushing the agenda. Don't believe me, turn on the radio out here in So. Cal where this has been the constant talk the last few days. Three deaths counted more than three others. Sad, but that's the story.
-
And to those politicians who cower because of Wayne LaPierre, screw you. And to the nuts who think that we should round up all the LEGAL firearms from law abiding citizens, screw you too, you are not helping.
What if they are not cowering at all, but simply believe in the right as laid out in our Constitution and reaffirmed many times over by the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Maybe they are simply trying to follow the Constitution, an oath that they took when sworn in as an elected member of government.
-
I'd be curious to know how many of those suicides would have happened anyway, but with a different tool (drugs, hanging, etc). Knowing someone in my family that went down this path, but without a gun, it is the end conclusion they seek. Freedom from their pain and suffering and they find a way to get to that end state.
It can be done other ways, but guns are certainly the most effective. Many, many more people try to hang themselves or OD and survive. And many of those end up glad they did survive down the road. There would most certainly be fewer deaths if people had to find other methods of killing themselves.
Just like there would still be homicides without guns. But certainly many fewer. Someone would not be able to conduct a mass stabbing in a movie theater and kill more than a handful of people before being accosted. They just couldn't.
-
Good arguments. Allow me to respond on a few of them.
First of all, I'm not against common sense measures as I've said time and time again. The problem I have is too many people on the left don't want to stop there, it's all or nothing. That's a problem. The reason why law abiding gun owners are so put off by those people is that the law abiding gun owners aren't doing anything wrong and they feel that these folks are in a mode of all or nothing. That has to be addressed in terms of the overall discussion.
The second point is around trust. We've been hearing the term "common sense measures" for several decades, and despite what one side will say, many of them have been put into place. Yet it hasn't done much, if anything. The concern of gun owners is that you will continue to apply "common sense measures" again, and again, and again and as each one fails to work, it goes deeper and deeper into an end game of total removal, which is the end goal for some people. It just is, they have flat out said it. Zero guns, period. So there is a great deal of mistrust on the give an inch, take a mile side of the issue, especially for the 100 million people that have guns and don't do anything wrong with them.
On your specific points, yes most guns are purchased legally the first time. Some are stolen, some are resold, etc. I'm not crazy about the gov't telling me what I can do with my private property, bought legally, but I'll concede on your point for a bit. The question I have is, what do you propose? I've heard some people say they want to put the onus on the original gun owner as to whom he/she sells the gun to in a private transaction. Honestly, how is that person going to know what the buyer is going to do with it? How stable that person is? Or, if the buyer doesn't turn around and give it to someone else, sell it to someone else. Have it stolen, whatever. The chain of custody is very problematic. Furthermore, what is the outcome here. If I buy a gun lawfully and 3 years from now I sell it to you and you use it to kill someone, am I liable? What about the car I sell to college kid who decides to mow down a bunch of people with it, am I liable?
Things like background checks at gun shows....sure. Fine. Some of the other measures...sure...fine. I think you are going to find that ultimately, they don't do a damn thing. A person willing to commit that heinous of a crime will find a way.
Fair response as well. To your point around stolen guns, if they were locked up, and still stolen. Nope, not your fault. To idiots, like this politician who leaves machine guns in her garage? Hell to the yes. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ar-15-rifle-stolen-from-rep-ellmers-nc-home-98719.html
(Now do me a favor, and don't troll me that if someone steal a butcher knife from my house, then stabs someone 6 months down the road, am I at fault... :)
To your last paragraph, if we can't even muster enough political support for background checks @ gun shows, clearly something is wrong in this country, right? The wacky 10% of gun nuts is ruining it for the rest of everyone, that sucks.
You talk slippery slope, but what about the 16,000 guns manufactured every day in this country (and rising)...more and more of them will end up in the hands of bad dudes. Our culture, gun manufacturers, and a small, but powerful minority of folks think the solution to crime is more guns, but fail to recognize that it is easier than ever for criminals to get guns, and will get easier as more and more get produced, sold, resold, lost, stolen...
Wingnuts and gun manufacturers have played this fear mongering card for the last 50 years.
Rinse. Repeat.
-
What if they are not cowering at all, but simply believe in the right as laid out in our Constitution and reaffirmed many times over by the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Maybe they are simply trying to follow the Constitution, an oath that they took when sworn in as an elected member of government.
What is inscribed on the wall at the NRA headquarters? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
It's very interesting that they never mention the entire statement. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Why only the 2nd half? Is the NRA afraid that the American people know what the Constitution actually says?
-
And to those politicians who cower because of Wayne LaPierre, screw you. And to the nuts who think that we should round up all the LEGAL firearms from law abiding citizens, screw you too, you are not helping.
+1
-
There seems to be a John Oliver quote circulating now:
"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."
-
I'm not crazy about the gov't telling me what I can do with my private property, bought legally
The government regulates the sale of all kinds of private property, and for good reason.
Try buying a house, car, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or any other number of items without some sort of government regulation. In all instances there has never been any doubt as to the constitutionality of the the government regulating this commerce.
-
The government regulates the sale of all kinds of private property, and for good reason.
Try buying a house, car, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or any other number of items without some sort of government regulation. In all instances there has never been any doubt as to the constitutionality of the the government regulating this commerce.
Don't forget that sticky chronic..shout out to Coloradical and Washington
-
Don't forget that sticky chronic..shout out to Coloradical and Washington
The funniest bit about the hemp law is that the DEA acknowledged that it would not enforce contradictory and antithetical Federal law in WA and CO.
-
The government regulates the sale of all kinds of private property, and for good reason.
Try buying a house, car, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or any other number of items without some sort of government regulation. In all instances there has never been any doubt as to the constitutionality of the the government regulating this commerce.
Yes, the gov't regulates some purchases but let's not kid ourselves. Selling a house is different than selling a gun. Are we going to mandate registration of all weapons...can I sell a knife any longer? Machete (I own a few, from my dad's days in the Amazon jungle when he was have to be on a well site)? What about nunchucks? So on and so forth. By the way, that house or car that I have, I can choose to sell it to anyone. Is the gov't going to let me do that with a gun, or do I have to fine out how sane they are?
I just want to know what they are going to do to the person that had the property, sold it and someone 3 people later in the chain of custody does something the gov't doesn't like....whom are they going to blame? I'm not denying the gov't is involved in regulating commerce, what I want to know is what is the end game here?
-
It can be done other ways, but guns are certainly the most effective. Many, many more people try to hang themselves or OD and survive. And many of those end up glad they did survive down the road. There would most certainly be fewer deaths if people had to find other methods of killing themselves.
Just like there would still be homicides without guns. But certainly many fewer. Someone would not be able to conduct a mass stabbing in a movie theater and kill more than a handful of people before being accosted. They just couldn't.
Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived. Lucky, but did survive. Sometimes the bullet goes just right. Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die. A second chance.
Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things. It happens. Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents. ;) I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.
-
Fair response as well. To your point around stolen guns, if they were locked up, and still stolen. Nope, not your fault. To idiots, like this politician who leaves machine guns in her garage? Hell to the yes. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ar-15-rifle-stolen-from-rep-ellmers-nc-home-98719.html
(Now do me a favor, and don't troll me that if someone steal a butcher knife from my house, then stabs someone 6 months down the road, am I at fault... :)
To your last paragraph, if we can't even muster enough political support for background checks @ gun shows, clearly something is wrong in this country, right? The wacky 10% of gun nuts is ruining it for the rest of everyone, that sucks.
You talk slippery slope, but what about the 16,000 guns manufactured every day in this country (and rising)...more and more of them will end up in the hands of bad dudes. Our culture, gun manufacturers, and a small, but powerful minority of folks think the solution to crime is more guns, but fail to recognize that it is easier than ever for criminals to get guns, and will get easier as more and more get produced, sold, resold, lost, stolen...
Wingnuts and gun manufacturers have played this fear mongering card for the last 50 years.
Rinse. Repeat.
I'll have to disagree with you about guns stolen in the garage. Stolen is stolen. I guess I should read the article, but if the guns are in my house (garage, house, attic, basement, whatever) and someone comes in and takes them...that is stealing. If they came into my garage and stole my car but I had the keys in the car, it's still stealing my car.
Question for you, despite the proliferation of guns that you speak of, wouldn't you think this would mean more homicides by guns each year? Why is the data showing the opposite?
1993 was the peak, at 17,075 gun related homicides. In 2010, 11,078 gun related homicides. So is it perception that it outweighing reality? Seems to me, despite all these guns out there, more than ever, the actual number of gun related deaths has been on the decline. Incidentally, of the gun related homicides, the FBI reports over 80% are gang related.
-
The funniest bit about the hemp law is that the DEA acknowledged that it would not enforce contradictory and antithetical Federal law in WA and CO.
Yeah, a lot of that going on....the laws that were sworn to be followed and executed aren't so followed, executed or enforced. Not sure why these guys even put a hand on the bible anymore, they're lying from the get go.
-
What is inscribed on the wall at the NRA headquarters? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
It's very interesting that they never mention the entire statement. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Why only the 2nd half? Is the NRA afraid that the American people know what the Constitution actually says?
I have no idea....same as I have no idea how our leaders can put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold and ENFORCE the laws on the books. Seems a lot of organizations, gov't bodies, etc are choosing what to say, follow, etc....not just in your example above.
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the militia arguments in Heller v D.C and later in McDonald v Chicago. You may not like the ruling, but that's the interpretation of the law of the land.
-
There seems to be a John Oliver quote circulating now:
"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."
Some truth to that. I guess I would ask our politicians why they have armed guards or security details that can carry....why they think they are able to do this but I as a citizen cannot. Apparently they think they are above everyone else....well, actually I already knew that.
-
1993 was the peak, at 17,075 gun related homicides. In 2010, 11,078 gun related homicides. So is it perception that it outweighing reality? Seems to me, despite all these guns out there, more than ever, the actual number of gun related deaths has been on the decline. Incidentally, of the gun related homicides, the FBI reports over 80% are gang related.
just a guess here but maybe Crack had something to do with the numbers back in '93 vs. later
-
Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived. Lucky, but did survive. Sometimes the bullet goes just right. Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die. A second chance.
Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things. It happens. Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents. ;) I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.
So much wrong with your statement that shows just how big of a silver spoon you were raised with
-
Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived. Lucky, but did survive. Sometimes the bullet goes just right. Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die. A second chance.
Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things. It happens. Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents. ;) I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.
Red herring for dinner tonight? At least we made it 12 pages before it happened.
If it makes you feel better, I am not morally comfortable with abortion and would never advise or encourage anyone toward it. I am consistent in that regard. That said I am not a medical professional or a female and feel even more uncomfortable imposing my belief on others. I recognize that other people may have different beliefs than me and my beliefs aren't special and they don't get to determine the law in a secular democracy. I believe in the rule of law and the Supreme Court has spoken and laid down the law of the land on this issue. If you are against abortion, my suggestion is similar to those who are against gay marriage: then don't get one or perform one.
What I find even more hypocritical are those who argue against abortion but do not offer any real world suggestions to prevent it, such as realistic sex education, safety nets for single mothers, universal access to prenatal care, subsidized daycare, etc.
-
Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived. Lucky, but did survive. Sometimes the bullet goes just right. Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die. A second chance.
Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things. It happens. Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents. ;) I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.
Wow... from botched abortion to superstar... sounds like an urban legend to me.
I'm so thankful we have rugged throwbacks with pickup truck mentalities like Chicos to save us from all they hypocrisy!
Hypocrisy: 0
NRA: kaching! got that Chicos cheddar!
The real winner here is the U.S. constitution. Thank you Chicos. Thank you!
-
Red herring for dinner tonight? At least we made it 12 pages before it happened.
If it makes you feel better, I am not morally comfortable with abortion and would never advise or encourage anyone toward it. I am consistent in that regard. That said I am not a medical professional or a female and feel even more uncomfortable imposing my belief on others. I recognize that other people may have different beliefs than me and my beliefs aren't special and they don't get to determine the law in a secular democracy. I believe in the rule of law and the Supreme Court has spoken and laid down the law of the land on this issue. If you are against abortion, my suggestion is similar to those who are against gay marriage: then don't get one or perform one.
What I find even more hypocritical are those who argue against abortion but do not offer any real world suggestions to prevent it, such as realistic sex education, safety nets for single mothers, universal access to prenatal care, subsidized daycare, etc.
i get so freaking annoyed at people who bring logic into these discussions. how dare you.
-
I have no idea....same as I have no idea how our leaders can put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold and ENFORCE the laws on the books. Seems a lot of organizations, gov't bodies, etc are choosing what to say, follow, etc....not just in your example above.
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the militia arguments in Heller v D.C and later in McDonald v Chicago. You may not like the ruling, but that's the interpretation of the law of the land.
<---is a real-life military historian who draws a paycheck from it.
The "militia" back when the constitution was written was every able-bodied male with their own firearms. It was not until the 1870s where the term National Guard came into play. Also, "regulated" in the context of the time means "outfitted" or "equipped", not organized by a bunch of laws, rules and regulation.
-
Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.
Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting. Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa. Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting. Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.
Why the two standards?
-
Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.
Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting. Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa. Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting. Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.
Why the two standards?
Because no one has ever killed someone with a ballot (at least not directly).
I am pro- gun rights, BTW; just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
-
The fundamental question I would have for those talking about common sense changes, would any of them prevented what happened?
From what I'm seeing, no.
The common sense requests are to do background checks of people who were institutionalized for psychiatric reasons. This kid never was. He certainly was going through counseling for many years, but so are tens of millions of Americans. Unless the new common sense change is to say anyone that ever once spoke to a psychiatrist or psychologist is not eligible, well that's going to be interesting. At the end of the day, despite this kid going through counseling all these years, his doctors never felt him a threat to institutionalize him.
He had no criminal history.
He bought his weapons legally, not at a gun tradeshow or off the street.
He did not buy a gun with a large magazine capacity, another "common sense" approach.
Yes, he had a lot of rounds, but when people shoot, they consume rounds. Is the common sense approach to say you can only buy X number of rounds per month? Even if so, all a guy has to do is buy that cap for several months in a row and stock them. How would anyone know, as far as the gov't knows he's at the range shooting the rounds and consuming them.
Unless I'm missing something, what would those changes that everyone is up in arms about (which honestly, I'm fine with them making most of them), how would any of those proposed changes have made a difference?
-
So much wrong with your statement that shows just how big of a silver spoon you were raised with
Yeah, spending years in 3rd world countries, having my mom have to barricade us in a tiny apartment in Panama as a man with a machete tries to take down the door and do who knows what to her and us. I could go on, but you seem to know so much about me.
-
Red herring for dinner tonight? At least we made it 12 pages before it happened.
If it makes you feel better, I am not morally comfortable with abortion and would never advise or encourage anyone toward it. I am consistent in that regard. That said I am not a medical professional or a female and feel even more uncomfortable imposing my belief on others. I recognize that other people may have different beliefs than me and my beliefs aren't special and they don't get to determine the law in a secular democracy. I believe in the rule of law and the Supreme Court has spoken and laid down the law of the land on this issue. If you are against abortion, my suggestion is similar to those who are against gay marriage: then don't get one or perform one.
What I find even more hypocritical are those who argue against abortion but do not offer any real world suggestions to prevent it, such as realistic sex education, safety nets for single mothers, universal access to prenatal care, subsidized daycare, etc.
It's amazing to me how few single mothers we had "back in the old days" compared to now. Wonder why that is....
At any rate, I'm merely pointing out the argument about the innocents killed by guns always makes me wonder about how these people square the ultimate in innocent life lost. Let's face it, MOST of the deaths at the hands of guns per the FBI are gang related and involving criminal activity. Not a whole lot of innocent things going on. Of course there are the mass shootings that get the headlines and people focus on those...hard not to. But my head does spin when someone says we have to "stop the senseless killing" with these guns and 5 minutes later they are fine with a baby being decapitated or having their skull crushed in the womb...and to make it easier for them to accomodate their hypocrisy they call it a "fetus" as if it is a ball of mush. Human beings are quite unreal sometimes.
-
Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.
Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting. Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa. Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting. Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.
Why the two standards?
I think we all know the reason for the double standard.
-
It's amazing to me how few single mothers we had "back in the old days" compared to now. Wonder why that is....
no fault divorce?
-
Yeah, spending years in 3rd world countries, having my mom have to barricade us in a tiny apartment in Panama as a man with a machete tries to take down the door and do who knows what to her and us. I could go on, but you seem to know so much about me.
Want sympathy? I'll give you about as much as you clearly have for rape victims getting an abortion, or the thousands who died from back alley abortions, or the unfortunate women who make that choice.
-
The fundamental question I would have for those talking about common sense changes, would any of them prevented what happened?
From what I'm seeing, no.
The common sense requests are to do background checks of people who were institutionalized for psychiatric reasons. This kid never was. He certainly was going through counseling for many years, but so are tens of millions of Americans. Unless the new common sense change is to say anyone that ever once spoke to a psychiatrist or psychologist is not eligible, well that's going to be interesting. At the end of the day, despite this kid going through counseling all these years, his doctors never felt him a threat to institutionalize him.
He had no criminal history.
He bought his weapons legally, not at a gun tradeshow or off the street.
He did not buy a gun with a large magazine capacity, another "common sense" approach.
Yes, he had a lot of rounds, but when people shoot, they consume rounds. Is the common sense approach to say you can only buy X number of rounds per month? Even if so, all a guy has to do is buy that cap for several months in a row and stock them. How would anyone know, as far as the gov't knows he's at the range shooting the rounds and consuming them.
Unless I'm missing something, what would those changes that everyone is up in arms about (which honestly, I'm fine with them making most of them), how would any of those proposed changes have made a difference?
Because of Connecticut law and the sequence of events, the thought is he would have been stopped here. This ran in yesterday's New Haven Register.
Elliot Rodger likely would have been stopped in Connecticut, state official says
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140527/elliot-rodger-likely-would-have-been-stopped-in-connecticut-state-official-says
-
It's amazing to me how few single mothers we had "back in the old days" compared to now. Wonder why that is....
At any rate, I'm merely pointing out the argument about the innocents killed by guns always makes me wonder about how these people square the ultimate in innocent life lost. Let's face it, MOST of the deaths at the hands of guns per the FBI are gang related and involving criminal activity. Not a whole lot of innocent things going on. Of course there are the mass shootings that get the headlines and people focus on those...hard not to. But my head does spin when someone says we have to "stop the senseless killing" with these guns and 5 minutes later they are fine with a baby being decapitated or having their skull crushed in the womb...and to make it easier for them to accomodate their hypocrisy they call it a "fetus" as if it is a ball of mush. Human beings are quite unreal sometimes.
Dude a fetus is essentially a ball of mush. And I'd like to say that you're quick to point out this hypocrisy but it's only a hypocrisy if someone follows your beliefs. You talk about it being the ultimate innocent life or whatever, to me it's a cluster of cells for quite awhile before it reaches that stage. The reason people freak out about young deaths more is because not only the potential (which you seemed concerned about) but also because they've experienced life and the world but that gets taken away. The "life" you refer to has not experienced anything this the loss is purely based on potential.
I'm curious if you were drowning with two sons ages 3 and 7 and you can save one of them which would you save? I actually have a point to this depending on your answer.
Was considering pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti choice folks who don't wanna help the babies forced into this world with cheap healthcare or how those same people are all about military spending but anti expanding veterans benefits but... Oops guess I did just point out some of your side's hypocrisies
-
Yeah, spending years in 3rd world countries, having my mom have to barricade us in a tiny apartment in Panama as a man with a machete tries to take down the door and do who knows what to her and us. I could go on, but you seem to know so much about me.
You've told this story multiple times. Something bad might have happened to you once 35 years ago - but it didn't. May be time to get over it.
-
Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.
Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting. Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa. Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting. Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.
Why the two standards?
I have no problems with voter ID laws. I'm for them, think there a good idea. But I've seen no evidence pointing to extensive vote fraud in this country. How many elections have been stolen in the last 20 years? Don't think it's quite the problem gun violence is here.
-
Making voting easier should be the goal. The amount of proven voter fraud is miniscule. The number of gun-related homicides and suicides is not.
-
You've told this story multiple times. Something bad might have happened to you once 35 years ago - but it didn't. May be time to get over it.
Uhm, when someone says I had a silver spoon in my mouth and knows nothing about my early upbringing, including that event....it puts things in context.
You're unnatural carnal knowledgeing damn right I'm going to bring it up and my mom and her kids will NEVER get over it. That's not something you get over. Maybe next time someone doesn't say I grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth without knowing someone's history. You can get over your unnatural carnal knowledgeing self
-
Dude a fetus is essentially a ball of mush.
You seem like a disturbed person. Please get help.
-
Want sympathy? I'll give you about as much as you clearly have for rape victims getting an abortion, or the thousands who died from back alley abortions, or the unfortunate women who make that choice.
You have no idea the sympathy or exceptions I place on abortion, you just decided you knew.
The thousands that died in back alley abortions...do you have some data on this...sounds awfully contrived to serve an agenda.
-
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111134798/3480921-inbeforethelockij.gif)
-
Because of Connecticut law and the sequence of events, the thought is he would have been stopped here. This ran in yesterday's New Haven Register.
Elliot Rodger likely would have been stopped in Connecticut, state official says
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140527/elliot-rodger-likely-would-have-been-stopped-in-connecticut-state-official-says
The Sheriff in California was called at the behest of his mother for a video he posted a month ago. Without that call or tip, the Sheriffs don't even talk to the kid, let alone decide to search his home. That's my point, say this same kid did exactly the same thing except didn't leave any hints on facebook for his mom to call the Sheriff? Nothing changes....regardless of the so called "tougher" laws. What this guy in CT is arguing is that because the mother called about concerns for her son, under the laws in that state they MAY have able to go in and check on his weapons. Totally reliant on the mom calling or someone calling ahead of time. Take it further, say they went in and his guns were there and he had a bunch of rounds of ammunition. Has he committed a crime?
The common sense laws that people are talking about, in this example, wouldn't have changed anything. What's even more, with each one of these things people get smarter. The next guy isn't going to leave bread crumbs on facebook until he's walking out the door, and certainly not a month in advance.
-
This went south in a hurry.
-
Dude a fetus is essentially a ball of mush. And I'd like to say that you're quick to point out this hypocrisy but it's only a hypocrisy if someone follows your beliefs. You talk about it being the ultimate innocent life or whatever, to me it's a cluster of cells for quite awhile before it reaches that stage. The reason people freak out about young deaths more is because not only the potential (which you seemed concerned about) but also because they've experienced life and the world but that gets taken away. The "life" you refer to has not experienced anything this the loss is purely based on potential.
I'm curious if you were drowning with two sons ages 3 and 7 and you can save one of them which would you save? I actually have a point to this depending on your answer.
Was considering pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti choice folks who don't wanna help the babies forced into this world with cheap healthcare or how those same people are all about military spending but anti expanding veterans benefits but... Oops guess I did just point out some of your side's hypocrisies
Uhm, no....a fetus is defined up until birth, meaning could be 9 months along. A baby can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks. So no, it's not a ball of mush, but great try. Have you ever taken a biology class, or perhaps are a parent and go through the ultra sound process. No wonder why you think it is a "cluster of cells", that's how people that justify that abomination can do so.
-
I have no problems with voter ID laws. I'm for them, think there a good idea. But I've seen no evidence pointing to extensive vote fraud in this country. How many elections have been stolen in the last 20 years? Don't think it's quite the problem gun violence is here.
Making voting easier should be the goal. The amount of proven voter fraud is miniscule. The number of gun-related homicides and suicides is not.
So if the goal is to make voting easier, why not make it mandatory? Seriously... how can something be any easier than if it were mandatory?
Oh yeah... because the same people who want to make voting "easy" are the same ones scared about the implications for their affiliations if turnout was 100%.
-
I have no problems with voter ID laws. I'm for them, think there a good idea. But I've seen no evidence pointing to extensive vote fraud in this country. How many elections have been stolen in the last 20 years? Don't think it's quite the problem gun violence is here.
didn't it just come out that several places had evidence of thousands of bogus votes? How about the uncounted votes that an election official "found" in her trunk that pushed Al franken over the top?
Don't think there is voter fraud on a large scale? Read the biographies of Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman. Gudalupe County in Texas had more votes for Kennedy/Johnson than registered voters, for example. I grew up in Chicago where I have natural carnal knowledge of how the system works there.
-
Making voting easier should be the goal. The amount of proven voter fraud is miniscule. The number of gun-related homicides and suicides is not.
Not true, the amount of CONVICTED fraud is small, but that's because a lot of people don't want to prosecute it. There is fraud all over the place and it is proven each and every election. Big difference.
Regardless, if voting should be made easier, the integrity of the vote should be paramount, and it isn't. A fraudulent vote wipes out a legitimate vote.
-
(http://cdn.niketalk.com/0/06/061e36ac_in-before-the-lock.gif)
-
I'm curious if you were drowning with two sons ages 3 and 7 and you can save one of them which would you save? I actually have a point to this depending on your answer.
I'm saving the 3 year old, because if conditions are conducive to my survival with a 3 y/o in my arms, my 7 year old - who has been swimming for several years by this point - is going to survive, too.
-
Uhm, no....a fetus is defined up until birth, meaning could be 9 months along. A baby can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks. So no, it's not a ball of mush, but great try. Have you ever taken a biology class, or perhaps are a parent and go through the ultra sound process. No wonder why you think it is a "cluster of cells", that's how people that justify that abomination can do so.
Yes have taken a bio class. I think you're sitting there thinking that I'm prochoice for the entire pregnancy or something... I'm not. 22 weeks is a long ass time and if someone hasn't made up their mind by then they shouldn't get to. The fetus until 9 months thing is right but seeing as bones don't form for 10 weeks it's hard to explain how it's not mush before that. Regarding the other stuff you said I hope you read my PM and feel like crap for bringing it up.
-
So if the goal is to make voting easier, why not make it mandatory? Seriously... how can something be any easier than if it were mandatory?
Oh yeah... because the same people who want to make voting "easy" are the same ones scared about the implications for their affiliations if turnout was 100%.
huh?
-
didn't it just come out that several places had evidence of thousands of bogus votes? How about the uncounted votes that an election official "found" in her trunk that pushed Al franken over the top?
Don't think there is voter fraud on a large scale? Read the biographies of Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman. Gudalupe County in Texas had more votes for Kennedy/Johnson than registered voters, for example. I grew up in Chicago where I have natural carnal knowledge of how the system works there.
It's all about the conviction rate and prosecutors willing to take it to court. It happens a lot, but sometimes certain parties that control the levers of law enforcement aren't interested in using their resources, and that goes for both sides.
When you have precincts all around the country with OVER 100% voting participation and precincts that have 100% of the vote going for one person, statisticians will tell you it is essentially impossible. Yet that has happened. Let alone the number of people each election that are dead and somehow had a ballot cast in their name, or those alive that had a ballot cast in their name and when they show up to actually vote they are told someone already did so for them.
All about the convictions. The rate of speeders ticketed is probably 10%, does that mean we don't have speeders? Of course we do, but one side refuses to acknowledge it.
-
didn't it just come out that several places had evidence of thousands of bogus votes? How about the uncounted votes that an election official "found" in her trunk that pushed Al franken over the top?
Don't think there is voter fraud on a large scale? Read the biographies of Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman. Gudalupe County in Texas had more votes for Kennedy/Johnson than registered voters, for example. I grew up in Chicago where I have natural carnal knowledge of how the system works there.
Or George Dubya in Florida
-
An increased sense of community as well as more vigilant parenting and less PC-ness would go a long way to help in controlling some of these public/school shootings.
-
The rate of speeders ticketed is probably 10%, does that mean we don't have speeders? Of course we do, but one side refuses to acknowledge it.
One side of the political spectrum refuses to acknowledge that America has a problem with speeding? WTF?
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Confused-Gary-Payton.gif)
I thought this thread was about guns, err...abortion? Or maybe we are just going to hit every f*cking issue that "culture warriors" demand on talking about in every political discussion...
Can you stay on one topic for 5 minutes?
-
huh?
Make. Voting. Mandatory.
No more fraud. No more worrying about minorities being shut out or oppressed. You don't have to worry about Grandma not having a driver's license. No longer will national campaigns be decided by about three dozen precincts throughout the country. The campaign system will become a debate and discussion about issues instead of the vitriol and histrionics solely meant to get your base to the polls.
-
Make. Voting. Mandatory.
No more fraud. No more worrying about minorities being shut out or oppressed. You don't have to worry about Grandma not having a driver's license. No longer will national campaigns be decided by about three dozen precincts throughout the country. The campaign system will become a debate and discussion about issues instead of the vitriol and histrionics solely meant to get your base to the polls.
I was "huh"ing at the second part of your post.
-
For the record, I don't read many superbar topic, so thanks to the one poster that reported this as overly political (I suppose I should have guessed by the 13 pages).