MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on January 23, 2018, 10:44:46 PM
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kentucky-shooting/kentucky-school-shooting-kills-2-wounds-13-teen-arrested-idUSKBN1FC209
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/kentucky-school-shooting.html
Thoughts and prayers (BANG!), thoughts and prayers (BANG!), thoughts and prayers (BANG!).
-
In before the lock...but it's appalling that the US is the only developed country in the world that supposedly "can't" do anything about gun violence....
-
No acknowledgement from Trump on Twitter. I'll assume the perpetrator is white.
Stunning.
-
In all seriousness, didn't most people go "Meh, it's only two deaths, 13 wounded. No biggie. Hey, beef and cheddars for lunch."
-
In all seriousness, didn't most people go "Meh, it's only two deaths, 13 wounded. No biggie. Hey, beef and cheddars for lunch."
As terrible as this is, if I'm being honest that's what my first reaction was. That's messed up.
-
The new normal.
-
In all seriousness, didn't most people go "Meh, it's only two deaths, 13 wounded. No biggie. Hey, beef and cheddars for lunch."
Yessir. Although if the perpetrator had been named Muhammad, I'm guessing it would be getting more attention from many. Especially one.
-
The new normal.
Not exactly new... it's been going on for at least 20 years now. But yes, this is the world we live in.
-
Not exactly new... it's been going on for at least 20 years now. But yes, this is the worldcountry we live in.
FIFY
As Gooo said, we are the only developed country who has this problem at this level.
-
FIFY
As Gooo said, we are the only developed country who has this problem at this level.
Indeed. But we're also the only developed country who has detonated a nuclear weapon against a foreign power; I believe we're also the only developed country that has a two-party power struggle. We're probably the only developed country who spends more money on elections than we do on post-secondary training & education. We are the only developed country who has four major sports championships that are broadcast around the world. We're the only developed country where a lot of things happen.
You know what we aren't... the only developed country that has crooked leadership and rogue actors seeking to undermine each other for their own personal/political gain elected by people who would rather stick their head in the sand of corruption and self-dealing than demand more from their candidates for leadership.
What we should be is the second developed country to have compulsory voting. But instead, we're the only developed country where most everyone is too stupid or ignorant to see how compulsory voting would solve a lot of our problems, including gun violence.
-
What we should be is the second developed country to have compulsory voting. But instead, we're the only developed country where most everyone is too stupid or ignorant to see how compulsory voting would solve a lot of our problems, including gun violence.
#BillofRightsnomatta ?
-
#BillofRightsnomatta ?
Don't get me wrong, the Bill of Rights absolutely matters... I don't want to speak for James Madison (never had a son and he fought the war of 1812) but I think the whole point of it was to put the government back into the hands of the people and let the people control the government instead of the other way around, or worse, a government steered by special interests and philosophical extremists.
-
Don't get me wrong, the Bill of Rights absolutely matters... I don't want to speak for James Madison (never had a son and he fought the war of 1812) but I think the whole point of it was to put the government back into the hands of the people and let the people control the government instead of the other way around, or worse, a government steered by special interests and philosophical extremists.
Furthermore, none of the rights detailed in the Bill of Rights is completely unfettered.
-
Don't get me wrong, the Bill of Rights absolutely matters... I don't want to speak for James Madison (never had a son and he fought the war of 1812) but I think the whole point of it was to put the government back into the hands of the people and let the people control the government instead of the other way around, or worse, a government steered by special interests and philosophical extremists.
Here in NC (and in a lot of other states) excessive gerrymandering - worse than it's ever been - has made it so the legislators choose the voters rather than the other way around. SCOTUS now has several states' cases, including ours, and has the power to put an end to something that was the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.
-
You know what we aren't... the only developed country that has crooked leadership and rogue actors seeking to undermine each other for their own personal/political gain elected by people who would rather stick their head in the sand of corruption and self-dealing than demand more from their candidates for leadership.
Is this supposed to be teal?
-
In all seriousness, didn't most people go "Meh, it's only two deaths, 13 wounded. No biggie. Hey, beef and cheddars for lunch."
Yes.
Standard reaction to each of these over the last five years. Sandy Hook laid the groundwork for complete inaction.
-
Yes.
Standard reaction to each of these over the last five years. Sandy Hook laid the groundwork for complete inaction.
Completely agree. This is when I knew nothing would ever get done. Now you have the NRA essentially declaring war on the rest of America that thinks sensible gun control is, well, sensible, and we're past the point of no return.
-
In before the lock.
-
Don't get me wrong, the Bill of Rights absolutely matters... I don't want to speak for James Madison (never had a son and he fought the war of 1812) but I think the whole point of it was to put the government back into the hands of the people and let the people control the government instead of the other way around, or worse, a government steered by special interests and philosophical extremists.
I wouldn't say they wanted a government in the hands of the "people," given that only about 20 percent of the people (kids excluded) were permitted to vote when the Constitution was written. White, male landowners were a special interest group unto themselves.
All that said, wouldn't compulsory voting violate one's right to free speech?
-
I wouldn't say they wanted a government in the hands of the "people," given that only about 20 percent of the people (kids excluded) were permitted to vote when the Constitution was written. White, male landowners were a special interest group unto themselves.
All that said, wouldn't compulsory voting violate one's right to free speech?
Possibly, but you could probably get around that by putting “nobody“ as an option on the ballot. I’m sure a few people would choose that, but once they’re in the booth, the vast majority of people would select an actual candidate.
-
Why do we want people who really don't care, and who are there only because they have to be, to vote? That's not going to make them care.
-
Why do we want people who really don't care, and who are there only because they have to be, to vote? That's not going to make them care.
I think the vast majority of people have a preference for one candidate or the other, but don't vote because they don't feel that their vote really matters.
-
Possibly, but you could probably get around that by putting “nobody“ as an option on the ballot. I’m sure a few people would choose that, but once they’re in the booth, the vast majority of people would select an actual candidate.
1. How does requiring votes from people who don't care (and likely aren't knowledgeable) improve the political process?
2. One could credibly argue that refusing to go to the polls is a protected form or political speech.
-
I think the vast majority of people have a preference for one candidate or the other, but don't vote because they don't feel that their vote really matters.
Naw. People who skip voting do it because a) they don't care and/or b) are too lazy to get to the polling place. Let people vote online from home and you'd see participation skyrocket, even though the chances of one vote making a difference would remain identical.
-
2. One could credibly argue that refusing to go to the polls is a protected form or political speech.
Agreed. And one could credibly argue otherwise.
-
Is this supposed to be teal?
He just said we aren't the only ones. And he's right - as a developed country, we stand alone in many shameful categories (like gun violence) but we don't stand alone in having grotesques run our political affairs. So I believe his point was this: if we're going to stand alone for something, let it not be for horrible things but instead be for showing that a political system can bear a modicum of integrity.
-
Naw. People who skip voting do it because a) they don't care and/or b) are too lazy to get to the polling place. Let people vote online from home and you'd see participation skyrocket, even though the chances of one vote making a difference would remain identical.
Participation and fraud would both skyrocket.
How do some of the posts in this thread not qualify as political posts that are prohibited?
On another front, in before the lock.
-
Don't get me wrong, the Bill of Rights absolutely matters... I don't want to speak for James Madison (never had a son and he fought the war of 1812)
Best reference ever. James Monroe's colossal nose was bigger than Pinocchio's
-
Not exactly new... it's been going on for at least 20 years now. But yes, this is the world we live in.
Much longer, Columbine was just the first "shocking" one.
-
I didn't think how it could be worse. I kept hearing 'arm the teachers' and 'arm the other 15 year olds' in my head. And then I swore a lot.
-
I didn't think how it could be worse. I kept hearing 'arm the teachers' and 'arm the other 15 year olds' in my head. And then I swore a lot.
We should definitely arm teachers.
(https://i2.wp.com/media1.giphy.com/media/16OVCXl1PH2uY/giphy.gif?resize=555%2C318&ssl=1)
-
We should definitely arm teachers.
In Wyoming you have to. You never know when a grizzly might stroll into to eat one of the first graders.
-
Here in NC (and in a lot of other states) excessive gerrymandering - worse than it's ever been - has made it so the legislators choose the voters rather than the other way around. SCOTUS now has several states' cases, including ours, and has the power to put an end to something that was the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.
Gerrymandering is definitely a thing (you should see some of the tortured legislative maps in Wisconsin - which is one of the cases you mention in front of SCOTUS) however, there is an argument to be made that for whatever reason there is a demographic/self-selection paradigm that is at best exacerbating the gerrymandering and at worst is a large driver of it.
If you lay out a heatmap of population vs political affiliation we all know we will see a huge concentration of Ds in small, urban locations a large "concentration" of Rs in large, rural areas and a "mix" of both in the suburbs(typically an R lean but still a mix). That concentration mechanism has been accelerating over the last 20 years. If you factor in the pragmatic need for people to be able to get to polling places, the ability to draw a map that is politically diverse for each district is neigh on impossible. It get's even worse at the federal level given the electoral college where the path to 270 is more difficult for Ds than Rs simply because there are fewer "paths" because of political distribution through the country.
*this is intended as a political science post, not as a political post.
-
In Wyoming you have to. You never know when a grizzly might stroll into to eat one of the first graders.
That's a new way to look at the whole, "how many 1st graders can I successfully knock unconscious before I'm overwhelmed by the total" thought experiment.
My number is 50 by the way
-
He just said we aren't the only ones. And he's right - as a developed country, we stand alone in many shameful categories (like gun violence) but we don't stand alone in having grotesques run our political affairs. So I believe his point was this: if we're going to stand alone for something, let it not be for horrible things but instead be for showing that a political system can bear a modicum of integrity.
Thanks for clarifying. I misread Benny B's statement.
-
Re: voting
Online/phone voting should be a thing in this day and age. You can do nearly anything in life on the internet. Including important things like bank transactions, paying your taxes, apply for lines of credit, etc. But we can't yet vote that way.
My personal guess is that's because neither side has figured out a way to make it better for them yet. Once they do, they'll push for it.
-
Re: voting
Online/phone voting should be a thing in this day and age. You can do nearly anything in life on the internet. Including important things like bank transactions, paying your taxes, apply for lines of credit, etc. But we can't yet vote that way.
My personal guess is that's because neither side has figured out a way to make it better for them yet. Once they do, they'll push for it.
The Republicans will hate it because there will a wider number of people to vote. The democrats will hate it because it will undermine people's ability to vote because they would need to be able to identify the voters somehow.
-
1. How does requiring votes from people who don't care (and likely aren't knowledgeable) improve the political process?
2. One could credibly argue that refusing to go to the polls is a protected form or political speech.
1. The flaw in in this is that you're implying that those who do vote are knowledgeable. I would argue that anyone who hasn't read through the platforms of all of the candidates isn't knowledgeable. Knowledge is relative. But what helps is that billions of dollars will no longer be spent trying to convince people to go to the polls.
2. How would that differ from those who claim not paying their taxes is a protected form of political speech?
-
Re: voting
Online/phone voting should be a thing in this day and age. You can do nearly anything in life on the internet. Including important things like bank transactions, paying your taxes, apply for lines of credit, etc. But we can't yet vote that way.
My personal guess is that's because neither side has figured out a way to make it better for them yet. Once they do, they'll push for it.
To me, the biggest risk is hacking. Even the most secure systems get hacked, and a hacked election could have far more significant consequences than a bunch of stolen SSNs or medical records.
-
To me, the biggest risk is hacking. Even the most secure systems get hacked, and a hacked election could have far more significant consequences than a bunch of stolen SSNs or medical records.
IT guy here. No effing way would I want internet voting.
States have come up with flexible ways to get more voters, via early voting, mail, etc. That's good enough.
-
What we should be is the second developed country to have compulsory voting. But instead, we're the only developed country where most everyone is too stupid or ignorant to see how compulsory voting would solve a lot of our problems, including gun violence.
This.
-
Regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer, or what you think the solutions are, I think we should all agree that having 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of the year is a serious and unacceptable problem.
We should at least be willing to discuss solutions instead of just accepting it as a reality.
-
Regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer, or what you think the solutions are, I think we should all agree that having 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of the year is a serious and unacceptable problem.
We should at least be willing to discuss solutions instead of just accepting it as a reality.
Can't.
Too many elected officials are bought and sold, including the "all lives are precious" ones.
And speaking of the NRA ... what happened to the "bump stocks legislation" that even THEY supposedly want?
-
IT guy here. No effing way would I want internet voting.
States have come up with flexible ways to get more voters, via early voting, mail, etc. That's good enough.
A good place to start would be for states to stop keeping certain people from voting.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
-
IT guy here. No effing way would I want internet voting.
States have come up with flexible ways to get more voters, via early voting, mail, etc. That's good enough.
To get more people to vote, we could make it much simpler. Change voting day to a Sunday. Millions more would vote.
Now, people work all day and then have to go to the polls and, at times stand for hours to vote. Change it to a Saturday or Sunday when most people are off of work.
As far as safety, the internet couldn't be any worse than what we have now. Russians hacked 21 different states machines in 2016. We have no idea if they did any damage or not. so #1, there HAVE to be paper ballots that can't be counted by hand if necessary.
-
To get more people to vote, we could make it much simpler. Change voting day to a Sunday. Millions more would vote.
.. so #1, there HAVE to be paper ballots that can't be counted by hand if necessary.
Agree that there should be paper ballots, always.
I'm not against a weekend voting day .. nothing special about Tuesdays .. but disagree it would be that impactful. I suppose I don't know about all 50 states, but think most of them have early voting these days. Yeah, a lot of the vote comes in on Tuesday, but anyone who wants to vote 2-30 days early on their own schedule can do so.
IMO, non-voters aren't discouraged by the timing, they're discouraged by politics and hopelessness .. .weekend voting would only have a tiny effect, if at all.
-
To me, the biggest risk is hacking. Even the most secure systems get hacked, and a hacked election could have far more significant consequences than a bunch of stolen SSNs or medical records.
Simple answer, Blockchain. Voting is simply a transaction register.
Bottom line, the current election model is too bloody damn inefficient and all the stuff associated with it(turn out the vote ops, political ads, etc) is just a waste of precious capital.
-weekend voting
-two elections a year, that's it
-internet voting
-probably compulsory voting
Let's use all this money for something impactful
-
Didn't McCain and Feingold try to pass a bill that would have severely limited the amount of money that can (legally) be put into campaigns? I say let's revisit that
-
Speaking of Gerrymandering, here's a really fun interactive map from 538 on how you can "manipulate" election results simply by how you draw district maps (and an example why the framers made the Senate the upper/more powerful chamber). Play around with it, it is very interesting and also drives home that Republicans have a "natural" electoral advantage due to population concentration by Democrats.
*Edit: Would help if I attached the link
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/)
-
Didn't McCain and Feingold try to pass a bill that would have severely limited the amount of money that can (legally) be put into campaigns? I say let's revisit that
I would agree, but the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court allows unlimited expenditures by saying it is free speech.
-
Agree that there should be paper ballots, always.
Agree completely with this.
Also, voting by mail appears to work very well in Oregon.
-
Speaking of Gerrymandering, here's a really fun interactive map from 538 on how you can "manipulate" election results simply by how you draw district maps (and an example why the framers made the Senate the upper/more powerful chamber). Play around with it, it is very interesting and also drives home that Republicans have a "natural" electoral advantage due to population concentration by Democrats.
It is my understanding that California has about 2 million undocumented plus a good amount of documented, but non-citizens. That's at least 3 congressional districts that California gets that are taken away from states that have actual citizens. All perfectly legal.
-
It is my understanding that California has about 2 million undocumented plus a good amount of documented, but non-citizens. That's at least 3 congressional districts that California gets that are taken away from states that have actual citizens. All perfectly legal.
Are we going to do the same for Texas? Florida? Arizona?
-
IMO, non-voters aren't discouraged by the timing, they're discouraged by politics and hopelessness .. .weekend voting would only have a tiny effect, if at all.
...and many aren't discouraged at all. They're simply uneducated, lazy and don't care.
-
But how 'bout them shootings?
More guns! We need more, more, more!!!!
-
Unfortunate bump
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/us/los-angeles-sal-castro-middle-school-shooting/index.html?adkey=bn (http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/us/los-angeles-sal-castro-middle-school-shooting/index.html?adkey=bn)
-
Unfortunate bump
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/us/los-angeles-sal-castro-middle-school-shooting/index.html?adkey=bn (http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/us/los-angeles-sal-castro-middle-school-shooting/index.html?adkey=bn)
A female this time, which is a huge departure.
-
Let's make more laws....that law abiding citizens will follow, and those deranged enough to kill random citizens will not care about.
Something needs to be done. I agree with that.
GUN laws are not the answer.
Let the name calling begin.
-
Let's make more laws....that law abiding citizens will follow, and those deranged enough to kill random citizens will not care about.
Something needs to be done. I agree with that.
GUN laws are not the answer.
Let the name calling begin.
So something needs to be done, but not gun laws? What would you suggest then?
We have laws against robbing banks (or more broadly robbery of any sort), but some people choose not to follow them. Should we get rid of those laws?
-
So something needs to be done, but not gun laws? What would you suggest then?
We have laws against robbing banks (or more broadly robbery of any sort), but some people choose not to follow them. Should we get rid of those laws?
No, that would be reckless. There are thousands of gun laws already, many of which don't get enforced. There is a high school kid that was just convicted of ARMED robbery in Milwaukee recently and he is still playing HS basketball, because he hasn't been sentenced. (That is a whole extra topic) Oh, the gun charge was dropped. That is how seriously judges take more gun laws.
Criminals don't care about gun laws. Folks with mental health issues don't care either. The solution to random shootings is very complex and needs to be examined by professionals (not politicians). Gun laws have been added for years and the issue continues.
-
No, that would be reckless. There are thousands of gun laws already, many of which don't get enforced. There is a high school kid that was just convicted of ARMED robbery in Milwaukee recently and he is still playing HS basketball, because he hasn't been sentenced. (That is a whole extra topic) Oh, the gun charge was dropped. That is how seriously judges take more gun laws.
Criminals don't care about gun laws. Folks with mental health issues don't care either. The solution to random shootings is very complex and needs to be examined by professionals (not politicians). Gun laws have been added for years and the issue continues.
Well if not gun laws, what do you suggest? Because criminals and folks with mental health issues don't care about ANY laws, it isn't restricted to gun laws.
-
Well if not gun laws, what do you suggest?
Thoughts and prayers, of course!
-
So something needs to be done, but not gun laws? What would you suggest then?
We have laws against robbing banks (or more broadly robbery of any sort), but some people choose not to follow them. Should we get rid of those laws?
If we outlaw bank robbery, only outlaws will rob banks.
#nralogic
-
Let's make more laws....that law abiding citizens will follow, and those deranged enough to kill random citizens will not care about.
Something needs to be done. I agree with that.
GUN laws are not the answer.
Let the name calling begin.
You admit that something needs to be done and you admit you don't know the answer...but you claim to be so certain that new gun laws aren't the answer.
If the solution is too complicated for you, how can you be so sure that it isn't a gun law that you just haven't considered yet?
-
No, that would be reckless. There are thousands of gun laws already, many of which don't get enforced. There is a high school kid that was just convicted of ARMED robbery in Milwaukee recently and he is still playing HS basketball, because he hasn't been sentenced. (That is a whole extra topic) Oh, the gun charge was dropped. That is how seriously judges take more gun laws.
Criminals don't care about gun laws. Folks with mental health issues don't care either. The solution to random shootings is very complex and needs to be examined by professionals (not politicians). Gun laws have been added for years and the issue continues.
So just for funsies let's change the aforementioned issue here to global warming. "Global warming is very complex and needs to be examined by professionals (not politicians"). Environmtal laws have been added for years and the issue continues."
See then those professionals said more needs to be done and the right went nuts claiming fake news and fake science. If these "professionals" you want to have fix the problem were to ever discredit your viewpoint on gun laws they'd be thrown under the bus in an instant.
-
I'm gonna try something different in hopes of solving this once and for all. Instead of going with the lame "thoughts and prayers," I'm going to something radical ...
Prayers and thoughts.
See, the problem was that we weren't putting "prayers" first. God surely will take care of this now, especially when she notices the colorful font!
-
Typical of all you guys.
You don't answer any of my legitimate points. How long has the USA been adding gun laws? How is that working?
This is the way liberals answer any issue. Good intentions are the only thing that counts.
Why aren't you screaming about judges who refuse to enforce gun laws? No comment on the HS basketball player recently CONVICTED of ARMED ROBBERY, yet is still allowed to play HIGH SCHOOL basketball because he hasn't been sentenced.
How about this. Criminals have been allowed to get away with gun crimes for so long, they don't give a damn. How is that for the answer? You want to weaken the justice system. Continue to pass laws that you have no intention of enforcing.
I'm done. I know the vocal minority will be all over me. The silent majority that agrees with me has the brains to ignore your weak arguments.
-
nm
was gonna say something snarky, but I've said my piece.
-
Thoughts and prayers.
-
nm
was gonna say something snarky, but I've said my piece.
Does that make you part of the "super smart" silent majority?
-
Typical of all you guys.
You don't answer any of my legitimate points. How long has the USA been adding gun laws? How is that working?
This is the way liberals answer any issue. Good intentions are the only thing that counts.
Why aren't you screaming about judges who refuse to enforce gun laws? No comment on the HS basketball player recently CONVICTED of ARMED ROBBERY, yet is still allowed to play HIGH SCHOOL basketball because he hasn't been sentenced.
How about this. Criminals have been allowed to get away with gun crimes for so long, they don't give a damn. How is that for the answer? You want to weaken the justice system. Continue to pass laws that you have no intention of enforcing.
Since you made this blatantly political by attacking me and my fellow liberals, I will respond.
There is ONE Creep in this country who is trying to destroy the Judicial System and the Rule of Law. You are only too anxious to join him.
Common sense should rule this issue. When car traffic deaths spike, we immediately look to the cause and change the law as necessary. The fools and traitors on you side refuse to do the same for gun crimes.
Now, please Mods, lock this thread. (I am sure that rara and the brain surgeon will whine, whine, whine about me in "secret memos" to you, so just close it down now).
-
Since you made this blatantly political by attacking me and my fellow liberals, I will respond.
There is ONE Creep in this country who is trying to destroy the Judicial System and the Rule of Law. You are only too anxious to join him.
Common sense should rule this issue. When car traffic deaths spike, we immediately look to the cause and change the law as necessary. The fools and traitors on you side refuse to do the same for gun crimes.
Now, please Mods, lock this thread. (I am sure that rara and the brain surgeon will whine, whine, whine about me in "secret memos" to you, so just close it down now).
If only everyone could be more polarizing, categorizing and divisive, we would be more apt to working together to solve issues, right?
Jockey, I’m sorry to be the one that has to break it to you, but you appear to be no liberal. Liberals are peaceful, tolerant and inclusive while you are simply acting like some vengeful mirror image of an alt-right neo-nazi.
Alt-right or alt-left, you’re all wrong.
-
Liberals are peaceful, tolerant and inclusive.
TAMU and Tower qualify. So does 82 (much of the time) and I'm sure some I'm forgetting. But you're right, leftist doesn't = liberal any more than alt right = conservative.
-
TAMU and Tower qualify. So does 82 (much of the time) and I'm sure some I'm forgetting. But you're right, leftist doesn't = liberal any more than alt right = conservative.
Much of the thanks, Lenny!
-
That is very kind, Lenny
-
Why aren't you screaming about judges who refuse to enforce gun laws? No comment on the HS basketball player recently CONVICTED of ARMED ROBBERY, yet is still allowed to play HIGH SCHOOL basketball because he hasn't been sentenced.
How about this. Criminals have been allowed to get away with gun crimes for so long, they don't give a damn. How is that for the answer? You want to weaken the justice system. Continue to pass laws that you have no intention of enforcing.
I have no idea what the case you are referring to is all about or why the ruling was what it was. Can you link to a reference to it? I do know I am extremely wary of using an anecdotal instance to proclaim a universal such as "judges are refusing to enforce gun laws".
And I have no idea what " You want to weaken the justice system" is supposed to mean. Who wants to weaken it? Claiming that "liberals" what to "weaken the justice system" and while wanting stricter gun laws is nonsensical and contradictory shouting.
-
Wow! That was delicious Benny, Lenny and rara-you realize you’re the one-legged men in the ass kickin contest right? I’m just gonna sit back and watch-wish ya’ll well
-
If only everyone could be more polarizing, categorizing and divisive, we would be more apt to working together to solve issues, right?
Jockey, I’m sorry to be the one that has to break it to you, but you appear to be no liberal. Liberals are peaceful, tolerant and inclusive while you are simply acting like some vengeful mirror image of an alt-right neo-nazi.
Alt-right or alt-left, you’re all wrong.
Jockey takes the position that "Common sense should rule this issue." and that makes him one of those hated "leftists" , polarizing, categorizing and divisive?
-
Jockey takes the position that "Common sense should rule this issue." and that makes him one of those hated "leftists" , polarizing, categorizing and divisive?
If only "Common sense should rule this issue" was all that was written, you would have a valid point. Unfortunately, it was not.
Until the "with us or against us" garbage stops, solutions will elude society. But that (solutions) is not what politics are about these days, right... it's about sticking it to the other side, calling them names, fostering FUD, etc. After all, what better way to motivate people to go out and vote than appealing to emotions of hatred and anger?
Now does everyone understand why voting should be compulsory, or do all y'all want to go on with your dance of suppression veiled in skepticism?
-
Typical of all you guys.
You don't answer any of my legitimate points. How long has the USA been adding gun laws? How is that working?
This is the way liberals answer any issue. Good intentions are the only thing that counts.
Why aren't you screaming about judges who refuse to enforce gun laws? No comment on the HS basketball player recently CONVICTED of ARMED ROBBERY, yet is still allowed to play HIGH SCHOOL basketball because he hasn't been sentenced.
How about this. Criminals have been allowed to get away with gun crimes for so long, they don't give a damn. How is that for the answer? You want to weaken the justice system. Continue to pass laws that you have no intention of enforcing.
I'm done. I know the vocal minority will be all over me. The silent majority that agrees with me has the brains to ignore your weak arguments.
I assumed this pent up frustration was written during a weekend of bad faith publicity stunting by your tribe but then the time stamp showed you were already quite agitated before the weekend of bad faith publicity stunting by your tribe. That's a tough double dose to swallow.
-
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/high-schools/2018/01/30/basketball-standout-deontay-long-pleads-guilty/1080936001/
-
Jockey takes the position that "Common sense should rule this issue." and that makes him one of those hated "leftists" , polarizing, categorizing and divisive?
Benny, for some reason, gets a kick out of attacking me.
I am rather amused by how he can come up with so many ways to say the same thing. That is something most cannot do. He is a true "artiste".
-
Benny, for some reason, gets a kick out of attacking me.
I am rather amused by how he can come up with so many ways to say the same thing. That is something most cannot do. He is a true "artiste".
Benny appears to be one of those big false equivalency guys.
-
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/high-schools/2018/01/30/basketball-standout-deontay-long-pleads-guilty/1080936001/
Thank you for the link. Based on the article, I don't understand your point that judges aren't enforcing gun laws or the claim about wanting to weaken the judicial system. Per the article, "The district attorney recommended four years of confinement and four years of extended supervision. Judge Pedro Colon will offer the final say on Long's sentence at the sentencing hearing March 28."
The judge won't even rule on the length of the sentence until March. How is that "refusing to enforce gun laws"??
If you are upset that he is still playing basketball in the meantime, I think you need to look at the school that is allowing it. But again, I don't see how this kid's situation says anything about enforcement of gun laws.
-
OK, I looked up a few more articles on this. Take it for what it is worth since it is coming from the admitted robber, but he says it was a BB gun and belonged to one of the other robbers.
I will admit, I am not all that concerned about enforcing laws around BB gun possession. Does that qualify me as "wanting to weaken the judicial system"?
-
I will say this about the gun issue, while I do think there are several common sense changes/additions to gun laws that could be made the idea that adding laws will solve the problem is somewhat laughable. It seems to be the people who do bad things with guns come in two categories: bad actors that don't care about laws (armed criminals, etc) and mentally unstable people. New laws aren't going to stop the former and the latter are typically getting guns via legal means (family owned or purchased legally). A significant majority of new laws would simply impact already law abiding citizens. Pragmatically it doesn't move the needle.
If I were to make any changes it would be around the dealer network and punishment for gun crimes. Eliminating loop holes and forcing dealers to take on the burden of making sure guns get into the "right" hands is something that might work while not limiting law abiding citizens access to guns. Also, it's insane that someone can serve a longer sentence for dealing weed than if the commit armed robbery. I would decriminalize pot and I would significantly ramp up mandatory sentencing for crimes involving guns.
-
Benny appears to be one of those big false equivalency guys.
Without going overboard on the nuance, my business is analogues, not equivalencies. But for those who see their own respective worlds as black and white (read: not race but rather the representations of everything and nothing on the visual spectrum), allow me to put this into universally understood terms*:
|Jockey & Muta| = |Chicos & Heisy|
That's not art, that's math (which is more science than science itself).
* Universally understood, that is, by anyone who passed 7th grade math.
-
I will say this about the gun issue, while I do think there are several common sense changes/additions to gun laws that could be made the idea that adding laws will solve the problem is somewhat laughable. It seems to be the people who do bad things with guns come in two categories: bad actors that don't care about laws (armed criminals, etc) and mentally unstable people. New laws aren't going to stop the former and the latter are typically getting guns via legal means (family owned or purchased legally). A significant majority of new laws would simply impact already law abiding citizens. Pragmatically it doesn't move the needle.
If I were to make any changes it would be around the dealer network and punishment for gun crimes. Eliminating loop holes and forcing dealers to take on the burden of making sure guns get into the "right" hands is something that might work while not limiting law abiding citizens access to guns. Also, it's insane that someone can serve a longer sentence for dealing weed than if the commit armed robbery. I would decriminalize pot and I would significantly ramp up mandatory sentencing for crimes involving guns.
I don't mean to be caustic toward you in particular because you're a completely reasonable person, but I am so flippin' tired of the lame a-- argument that since stricter gun control measures won't prevent a deranged/evil/insane person from committing a mass shooting, then we shouldn't bother.
A law doesn't have to eliminate every single act it targets to be effective. In fact, it could eliminate zero acts and still be entirely worthwhile.
A law banning bump stocks or individual ownership beyond a certain number of rifles may not have stopped Stephen Paddock from shooting up a country music concert in Las Vegas, but maybe instead of 57 killed and more than 800 injured, there's 15 killed and 150 injured. Are those 42 spared lives less important than Stephen Paddock's "right"to an arsenal?
A law banning civilian ownership of weapons like an AR-15 (which serves no real civilian purpose other than killing humans) may not have stopped a couple of terrorists from attacking a holiday party in San Bernardino, but wouldn't they have been less effective with handguns or hunting rifles? And aren't those lives worth it?
A law limiting clip size may not have prevented James Holmes from shooting up a movie theater in Colorado, but I bet he wouldn't have been able to shoot 71 people in less than two minutes. Again, what matters more, gun nuts' non-existent need for extended clips or lives?
To me, this all comes down to what's your bigger priority: Human lives, or appeasing a small but vocal group of gun owners who build arsenals to overcompensate for their small weiners and fragile masculinity.
You want a gun to hunt, shoot targets or "protect" your home, business or person? Go for it. Plenty of rifles and handguns out there that are more than adequate for the job.
You afraid the "gubmint" gonna take away your right to stockpile instruments of mass death? Tough. My kids' lives, my neighbors' lives, my life matters more than your irrationality.
-
Without going overboard on the nuance, my business is analogues, not equivalencies. But for those who see their own respective worlds as black and white (read: not race but rather the representations of everything and nothing on the visual spectrum), allow me to put this into universally understood terms*:
|Jockey & Muta| = |Chicos & Heisy|
That's not art, that's math (which is more science than science itself).
* Universally understood, that is, by anyone who passed 7th grade math.
Let me try to translate this into english: In Benny's world calling the Trump/NRA crowd "fools" and "traitors" is the equivalent of putting a white sheet over your head and burning crosses. Ok.
You can have the last word buddy.
-
Much respect to both mu03 and Pakuni for the good conversation.
I agree with both to a degree, and I like some of mu03's common-sense suggestions, but I hew more toward Pakuni's overall view on the "guns won't stop it all so let's not bother" argument some throw out there.
Rape laws don't stop all rapes, either!
I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.
-
Much respect to both mu03 and Pakuni for the good conversation.
I agree with both to a degree, and I like some of mu03's common-sense suggestions, but I hew more toward Pakuni's overall view on the "guns won't stop it all so let's not bother" argument some throw out there.
Rape laws don't stop all rapes, either!
I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.
I was re-reading the constitution and maybe someone can help me out here if I missed something, but I didn’t see anything in there about abortion rights or rape rights
Gotta vote
-
I was re-reading the constitution and maybe someone can help me out here if I missed something, but I didn’t see anything in there about abortion rights or rape rights
Gotta vote
People seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. But that aside, in your reading of the Constitution, did you detect any limits to gun ownership enumerated in the Second Amendment?
-
People seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. But that aside, in your reading of the Constitution, did you detect any limits to gun ownership enumerated in the Second Amendment?
Just vote, eyn’a? Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you
Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape? V-O-T-E
-
Just vote, eyn’a? Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you
Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape? V-O-T-E
A) nobody has ever said 'throw out the 2nd amendment' on Scoop. And in the political sphere, politicians are not trying to 'throw out the 2nd amendment' (i'm sure there is a quote somewhere, by someone, that somehow can be twisted to be construed as a platform)....just stop murdering our children.
B) that's a toxic '3 parts Heisy, 2 parts Chico's' cocktail you're drinking there.
-
Just vote, eyn’a? Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you
Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape? V-O-T-E
So you didn't answer--is there any limit to gun ownership based on your reading of the Second Amendment?
And correct me if I'm interpreting your statement wrong, but are you saying gun ownership laws are more important than laws about rape because the former is addressed in the Constitution whereas the latter is not specifically called out? Can you point me to the section of the Constitution that mentions laws about murder?
-
I don't mean to be caustic toward you in particular because you're a completely reasonable person, but I am so flippin' tired of the lame a-- argument that since stricter gun control measures won't prevent a deranged/evil/insane person from committing a mass shooting, then we shouldn't bother.
A law doesn't have to eliminate every single act it targets to be effective. In fact, it could eliminate zero acts and still be entirely worthwhile.
A law banning bump stocks or individual ownership beyond a certain number of rifles may not have stopped Stephen Paddock from shooting up a country music concert in Las Vegas, but maybe instead of 57 killed and more than 800 injured, there's 15 killed and 150 injured. Are those 42 spared lives less important than Stephen Paddock's "right"to an arsenal?
A law banning civilian ownership of weapons like an AR-15 (which serves no real civilian purpose other than killing humans) may not have stopped a couple of terrorists from attacking a holiday party in San Bernardino, but wouldn't they have been less effective with handguns or hunting rifles? And aren't those lives worth it?
A law limiting clip size may not have prevented James Holmes from shooting up a movie theater in Colorado, but I bet he wouldn't have been able to shoot 71 people in less than two minutes. Again, what matters more, gun nuts' non-existent need for extended clips or lives?
To me, this all comes down to what's your bigger priority: Human lives, or appeasing a small but vocal group of gun owners who build arsenals to overcompensate for their small weiners and fragile masculinity.
You want a gun to hunt, shoot targets or "protect" your home, business or person? Go for it. Plenty of rifles and handguns out there that are more than adequate for the job.
You afraid the "gubmint" gonna take away your right to stockpile instruments of mass death? Tough. My kids' lives, my neighbors' lives, my life matters more than your irrationality.
Yeah I meant literal gun laws. Limiting clip size or eliminating bump stocks or limiting scopes (no need for an ACOG sight, etc) make perfect sense, can be easily defined and enforced. I do have a tougher time with something like an AR15 simply because you (legal you, not literal you) can't define why/what makes an AR15 versus any other semi-auto long rifle.
-
Just vote, eyn’a? Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you
Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape? V-O-T-E
The "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
-
Just vote, eyn’a? Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you
Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape? V-O-T-E
So ... because there's nothing in the Constitution about rape being wrong, that means your official position is that rape is good?
Excellent to know!
-
“I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.“
Speaking of saving lives...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/04/he-bought-a-gun-to-protect-his-family-then-he-saw-someone-beating-up-a-cop/?utm_term=.2a78655f0b96
82 conflated the other 2(rape and abortion) I didn’t. They are 2 separate I topics that I don’t feel need to be nor should be discussed with regards to the 2nd amendment,unless it has something to do with protecting one from rape. Then yes, guns are good.
I can respect someone’s fear of guns as long as they respect my right to have and/or carry just as Oprah’s body guards do
-
So ... because there's nothing in the Constitution about rape being wrong, that means your official position is that rape is good?
Excellent to know!
Seriously? It’s got to be getting late out there in charlotte. You know better than that 82
-
Without going overboard on the nuance, my business is analogues, not equivalencies. But for those who see their own respective worlds as black and white (read: not race but rather the representations of everything and nothing on the visual spectrum), allow me to put this into universally understood terms*:
|Jockey & Muta| = |Chicos & Heisy|
That's not art, that's math (which is more science than science itself).
* Universally understood, that is, by anyone who passed 7th grade math.
You just "phoned in" this response. Complete lack of effort.
At some point, people become parodies of themselves. As a self-appointed man of reason, you are coming dangerously close.
-
You just "phoned in" this response. Complete lack of effort.
I admit, I did. I had a few more thoughts that were starting to draw comparisons to 3 and 4 dimensional space, but it seemed too preachy. Last thing I ever wanted to be was a math teacher, so I'm just going to hit the kill switch on that metaphor.
I'm pretty sure you understand the point I was trying to make. I'm certain you won't admit it.
-
I admit, I did. I had a few more thoughts that were starting to draw comparisons to 3 and 4 dimensional space, but it seemed too preachy. Last thing I ever wanted to be was a math teacher, so I'm just going to hit the kill switch on that metaphor.
I'm pretty sure you understand the point I was trying to make. I'm certain you won't admit it.
Much better.
-
Let me try to translate this into english: In Benny's world calling the Trump/NRA crowd "fools" and "traitors" is the equivalent of putting a white sheet over your head and burning crosses. Ok.
You can have the last word buddy.
Lost in translation - you're clearly unable to speak, read or understand "Benny". Study harder, the benefits make the work worthwhile.
-
Lost in translation - you're clearly unable to speak, read or understand "Benny". Study harder, the benefits make the work worthwhile.
Lenny= The Ross Douthat of MUScoop.
-
“I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.“
Speaking of saving lives...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/04/he-bought-a-gun-to-protect-his-family-then-he-saw-someone-beating-up-a-cop/?utm_term=.2a78655f0b96
82 conflated the other 2(rape and abortion) I didn’t. They are 2 separate I topics that I don’t feel need to be nor should be discussed with regards to the 2nd amendment,unless it has something to do with protecting one from rape. Then yes, guns are good.
I can respect someone’s fear of guns as long as they respect my right to have and/or carry just as Oprah’s body guards do
Ah yes, the one "good guy with a gun" anecdote. I'll see your one good guy and raise you 150 dead in Las Vegas. or Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or...an endless list.
-
Ah yes, the one "good guy with a gun" anecdote. I'll see your one good guy and raise you 150 dead in Las Vegas. or Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or...an endless list.
Well, I mean, you can toss out the bad actors and just consider the fact that a gun in the home is much more likely to harm a member of the household than protect a member of the household.
But if people want to take that risk, have at it.
-
So an interesting question came up at a Superbowl Party with friends. Group of us (3 families) that the wives have known each other since high school or college and we get together all of the time so we're pretty tight (so it's a safe space so to speak). Anyway, it came up in the course of conversation that the hosts have a handgun in the house, but it's in a gun safe that requires a thumb print to access. It was a weird lighting bolt moment because it was the first time I really thought about this in the context of having a kid old enough to wonder around a house and find a carelessly secure gun or whatever. So it elicited a lot of good conversation but generated a lot of interesting questions that while I have answers in mind based on my experience I don't know if they're the right ones or not. I wouldn't say I grew up in a gun culture but I learned to shoot when I was 8(Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts), I was use to my dad occasionally wearing a sidearm if he had to go right to the flight line because of a last second exercise/mission or whatever, and my parents talked to me about guns in terms of never handling one without an adult, not toys, however other then antique non-operable keepsakes (great grandfathers WWI rifle,etc) we had no guns in the house. My wife and our friends had very different experiences and I'd be curious as to the takes from the folks in this thread.
-When if ever do you train your kids on the use of guns? (I don't hunt, do not want guns in the house, but I will occasionally will go to the gun range or trap shooting with friends because I do enjoy target shooting and I do think it's important for my kid to know about guns if only to understand how dangerous they are)
-When do you talk to your kids about guns, like if they might come across one at a friends house?
-If your kid is going to a friend's house, do you ask the parents if they have guns in the house and are they secured?
-If there are gun(s) at the friend's house do you still let your kid go over
Thoughts? Other questions that need to be answered?
-
Well, I mean, you can toss out the bad actors and just consider the fact that a gun in the home is much more likely to harm a member of the household than protect a member of the household.
But if people want to take that risk, have at it.
More Americans have been shot by toddlers than terrorists!
-
Well, I mean, you can toss out the bad actors and just consider the fact that a gun in the home is much more likely to harm a member of the household than protect a member of the household.
But if people want to take that risk, have at it.
In the areas where most Scoopers live that's undoubtably true. It's one reason I've never even considered having a gun in my home. For a single woman living in Englewood I'm not convinced, though.
-
Here is an excellent, short editorial in the Charlotte Observer:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article198648229.html#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter
For those who for some reason can't access it via the link:
+++
Five months later, we still don’t know why Stephen Paddock rented a room in a Las Vegas high-rise and decided to commit one of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history, killing 58 and injuring more than 500.
Despite the carnage and initial chatter among members of Congress – and even the National Rifle Association – about finally taking concrete steps to lessen the chances such an event could be repeated, the federal government has again proven itself incapable of taking the issue seriously. Fortunately, several states and cities have begun trying to make up for Congress’s derelict of duty.
After the shooting, Columbia, S.C., became the first city to officially ban devices called bump stocks, which allowed Paddock to turn semi-automatic weapons into ones that could fire more rapidly and consistently. Cities such as Denver have followed suit. More than a dozen states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut have or are considering doing the same. It’s a small measure, and in some ways symbolic, given that we don’t how many people have bump stocks.
It won’t prevent every mass shooting. It won’t stop every person determined to cause as much harm as possible. Guns, semi-automatic or bump stock-enhanced, are not the only way to commit massacres and unleash havoc and terror. So even if our leaders in Washington reverse course and get busy on bipartisan legislation banning bump stocks, no one should declare victory over the scourge of gun violence that is the worst in the developed world. Only diligent, painstaking law enforcement work, along with a strong partnership with the community, can root out the most dangerous among us before they can cause too much damage.
But the decision to act in the face of inaction from Washington by a growing number of cities and states is welcome nonetheless. It’s not as effective as more comprehensive background checks, better mental health care, stricter training requirements, or any number of other measures. Still, it puts down a marker, makes a declaration that there are ways to cobble together the political will to begin tackling gun violence, even if it is one painstakingly slow step at a time.
We’ve so lost our way on this issue. Mass shootings and everyday shootings, no matter if they are in churches or schools, at country music concerts, or inside nightclubs, generate a few mostly localized headlines before quickly fading from public awareness. According to the Gun Violence Archive, more than 800 people were shot and killed in less than a month after the Las Vegas shooting even as Congress refused to act. So far this year, more than 5,300 people have been shot, nearly 1,500 of whom died, including 60 children. Charlotte in 2017 saw its most homicides in a dozen years, and a gun was involved in three-quarters of them.
That list will only grow. At some point, we must muster the courage to do something about it. Banning bump stocks should be only the beginning.
-
This article kind of highlights the absurdity of our nation regarding new gun laws.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/02/07/tide-pods-must-be-changed-to-be-less-delicious-looking-lawmakers-say.html
(http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/02/07/tide-pods-must-be-changed-to-be-less-delicious-looking-lawmakers-say.html)
We will pass laws to make tide pods look less delicious to stop people from eating tide pods, but we will do nothing regarding legislation to protect american's from gun violence by instituting new gun laws.
-
More Americans have been shot by toddlers than terrorists!
Of course... because terrorists don't actually shoot Americans; they just crash them into something or decapitate them.
Which, when you come to think of it is somewhat ironic (Canadian irony) insomuch that a terrorist act (to the terrorist) is mostly propaganda, i.e. to draw maximum attention/emotional effect. If Hakmed goes out and shoots at a few Americans, it ends up in the pile with all of the other daily gun deaths that 95% of Americans don't even hear about. In other words, the only chance it makes the news is if Hakmed leaves some sort of ISIS manifesto behind. But Habib detonates a pressure cooker filled with nails and screws... that's not something you see every day, i.e. that's going to draw the attention of eyeballs around the country.
It hearkens to the paradox that we only pay attention to the violence when either a) it's in our immediate backyard or b) it's unique/sensational enough to draw curiosity. After all, if we treated all gun deaths equally, 82 would have to spend his entire day - every day - just starting new threads on Scoop. In other words, we don't have the emotional capacity, let alone the time, to react to every life that's lost to a firearm.
So getting back to the sensational nature of a terrorist act.... that's not something that's going to be solved with putting more laws on the books. Even if the US enacted a wholesale ban on firearms, I'm sure there are already tens, and more likely hundreds, of thousands of guns drenched in oil buried underground somewhere. So I think most would agree that you can enact every extremist law you want, but you're not going to stop these incidents. What we perhaps overlook is the reality is that of the incidents typically cited as rationale for more gun control, not all of them are being committed with a primary intent to kill... Eric and Dylan had a specific plan and were targeting specific people... that's intent to kill. Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Vegas... those were simply random killings committed in the name of making a statement. Orlando... kind of a hybrid between the two.
I absolutely believe that more gun control would - at the very least - reduce the severity of these incidents, but I didn't think it would reduce the frequency until now. In short, these are two different types of incidents that can't be killed with one stone; I believe that denying access to firearms will reduce the frequency (but do little to the severity) of the Columbine-type incidents and reduce the severity (but do little to the frequency) of the Vegas-type incidents.
My only concern is that these whack jobs just feel like they have to make a statement, so they're going to do whatever it takes to get people's attention; whether this is grown from the same root stock as the Meeseeks ("look at me") phenomenon that seems to be rising in correlation to the rise of social media is a different analysis for a different day, but to these people, guns are simply a means to an end, and a convenient one at that. If you take away that access, are you actually going to stop them from making a statement? If not, it begs the question of how they're going to stage such a sensational, news-worthy event without firearms? Poisoning? Viruses? Bombs? Torture? Arson? Evisceration?*
I would think the overwhelming consensus is that something should be done (yes, banning bump stocks and any contrivances that cause semi-autos to mimic autos would be an excellent start). But everyone should bear in mind that while the cost of doing nothing is certainly greater than the cost of doing something, the cost of some things may be greater than the cost of doing nothing.
Come to think of it, gun control and immigration seem to be peas in a pod.... "ban the guns" and "build the wall" are both ideas with merit that will not solve the problem on their own, but I'll be damned if those two rallying cries don't turn out the vote. #CompulsoryElections
* With as ubiquitous as mass-killings are becoming these days, we might be moving towards this anyway.
-
So an interesting question came up at a Superbowl Party with friends. Group of us (3 families) that the wives have known each other since high school or college and we get together all of the time so we're pretty tight (so it's a safe space so to speak). Anyway, it came up in the course of conversation that the hosts have a handgun in the house, but it's in a gun safe that requires a thumb print to access. It was a weird lighting bolt moment because it was the first time I really thought about this in the context of having a kid old enough to wonder around a house and find a carelessly secure gun or whatever. So it elicited a lot of good conversation but generated a lot of interesting questions that while I have answers in mind based on my experience I don't know if they're the right ones or not. I wouldn't say I grew up in a gun culture but I learned to shoot when I was 8(Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts), I was use to my dad occasionally wearing a sidearm if he had to go right to the flight line because of a last second exercise/mission or whatever, and my parents talked to me about guns in terms of never handling one without an adult, not toys, however other then antique non-operable keepsakes (great grandfathers WWI rifle,etc) we had no guns in the house. My wife and our friends had very different experiences and I'd be curious as to the takes from the folks in this thread.
-When if ever do you train your kids on the use of guns? (I don't hunt, do not want guns in the house, but I will occasionally will go to the gun range or trap shooting with friends because I do enjoy target shooting and I do think it's important for my kid to know about guns if only to understand how dangerous they are)
-When do you talk to your kids about guns, like if they might come across one at a friends house?
-If your kid is going to a friend's house, do you ask the parents if they have guns in the house and are they secured?
-If there are gun(s) at the friend's house do you still let your kid go over
Thoughts? Other questions that need to be answered?
I deplore the fact that my 9 year old is going through the standard obsession with guns phase right now; fortunately, it seems to be subsiding. Nevertheless, I have tried to use it to teach him the basics of gun safety without having him hold an actual gun; but Cub Scouts day at the firing range is coming up next year, and I am probably going to enroll him in hunter's safety, even though I'm not a hunter (although I have hunted in the past and may again in someday in the future), for that exact reason -- in case he encounters one at a friend's house.
As to whether he gets to go to the friend's house if I know there are guns there... I honestly don't know. Frankly, it isn't a conversation I've had with my wife either... I guess the default would be "no" but if I knew the parents well and were comfortable with their sense of responsibility, I probably would allow it.
But I also have a single firearm in the house. A 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun secured such that a both a key and combination is required to make it work. It's stored in a plain, black inconspicuous case that's completely hidden in a place where my children will quite likely never find it. More importantly, the only person in the entire world who knows there's a gun in our house is my wife. Not our friends, not our neighbors, not our parents, and especially not our children.
Am I the most responsible parent in the world for keeping a gun in a house with three children? Of course not. But as they say "out of sight, out of mind" and the fewer the people who know it's actually there, the less risk there is of any sort of curiosity-driven accident. This isn't a pistol being kept in a dresser... it's hidden such that the only way anyone ever finds it is if they know what it is they're looking for; in other words, it's statistically impossible that anyone will ever stumble upon it completely by chance, but given the industrious nature of my kids, I will concede an outside chance that if they were actively looking for it, eventually they might find it.
That said, I bet I could explain everything I just did (and even elaborate on the deliberate measures I've taken with the location of the key, how well it's hidden, etc.) and for most parents, it won't matter. Hell, I could have one of those mini bank safes with the spinnie captain's wheel with two-factor biometrics, time-release, and a 24/7 armed security guard watching over the damn thing, and the only thing they'll process is "loaded gun in the house."
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/47/153603564_7281ad0588_m.jpg)
So if I'm ever asked if there was a gun in the house, my answer is going to be an unequivocal "no," and that troubles me, because I don't want to lie to someone any more than I want them to lie to me when it comes to my children's safety, actual or perceived. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that - given the security measures I've taken - disclosure presents more of a risk than honesty. So if I am ever asked, I will at least try to be half-respectful of the parents' wishes and subtlety insist the kids have play-dates elsewhere from then on... which is a win-win because I don't need more kids tracking salt and slush into my house right now. Wet socks suck.
-
But I also have a single firearm in the house. A 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun secured such that a both a key and combination is required to make it work. It's stored in a plain, black inconspicuous case that's completely hidden in a place where my children will quite likely never find it. More importantly, the only person in the entire world who knows there's a gun in our house is my wife. Not our friends, not our neighbors, not our parents, and especially not our children.
Well, until now... ;)
-
I deplore the fact that my 9 year old is going through the standard obsession with guns phase right now; fortunately, it seems to be subsiding. Nevertheless, I have tried to use it to teach him the basics of gun safety without having him hold an actual gun; but Cub Scouts day at the firing range is coming up next year, and I am probably going to enroll him in hunter's safety, even though I'm not a hunter (although I have hunted in the past and may again in someday in the future), for that exact reason -- in case he encounters one at a friend's house.
If you are a good father - as you seem to be, it shouldn't worry you. The fascination is normal. He won't be scarred by shooting a gun.
Yes, it's really me (no one hacked my Scoop account), and you well know that I am anti-gun and think the right has made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment. I was fascinated by guns as a kid. We played cowboys and Indians and were pretend shooting each other almost every day. My dad had a rifle from his dad from WW1 that I played with all of the time.
As an adult, I have never owned a gun, never shot one, and never plan to own one. I have no problem with hunters, collectors, or, if someone feels the need, to have a handgun in their house for protection.
I would let my child go to a friends's house whose parent owned a gun as long as it was locked up securely. I would never let him go where guns were owned and not locked up. Ever. And I woulkd let that kid's parent know exactly why in no uncertain terms.
-
But I also have a single firearm in the house. A 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun secured such that a both a key and combination is required to make it work. It's stored in a plain, black inconspicuous case that's completely hidden in a place where my children will quite likely never find it. More importantly, the only person in the entire world who knows there's a gun in our house is my wife. Not our friends, not our neighbors, not our parents, and especially not our children.
If someone breaks in your house, be very polite and offer him coffee and cookies. That should give you time to distract him, go get your gun, and shoot the intruder. Just remember. Don't just ask "Do you mind if I get my gun?", cuz he'll probably just shoot you first.
-
-When if ever do you train your kids on the use of guns? (I don't hunt, do not want guns in the house, but I will occasionally will go to the gun range or trap shooting with friends because I do enjoy target shooting and I do think it's important for my kid to know about guns if only to understand how dangerous they are)
-When do you talk to your kids about guns, like if they might come across one at a friends house?
-If your kid is going to a friend's house, do you ask the parents if they have guns in the house and are they secured?
-If there are gun(s) at the friend's house do you still let your kid go over
Thoughts? Other questions that need to be answered?
1. Seeing as that I'm not a gun owner and have limited experience firing guns, I won't be training my kids on their use or having someone else do it. If they wish to be trained as adults, that's their call.
2. I've spoken to my kids about guns being dangerous and they should never touch/play with one without an adult present, and even then it's better to keep away until they're older.
3. I've never asked. I wonder if I'm a bad/lazy parent for that, or simply trying to avoid coming off as judgmental (I only do that on the internet).
4. See 3. I know one of my son's close friends comes from a family of hunters and they have firearms in the home. I also know the dad well and am confident the guns are secure and his kids know not the play with them.
Speaking of reasonable gun laws .... is anyone against criminalizing the failure to secure firearms (either by trigger lock or a gun safe) firearms kept in homes with children under 18?
-
Speaking of reasonable gun laws .... is anyone against criminalizing the failure to secure firearms (either by trigger lock or a gun safe) firearms kept in homes with children under 18?
The NRA (and those that it bribes in Congress) would never allow it.
That is the sad state of this country and probably the biggest reason I consider Dems to be cowards. Obama - whom I consider an outstanding president - failed miserably after Sandy Hook when pressure could have been applied as he had overwhelming support on the issue from the American people.
-
Obama failed miserably.
+1.
(Sorry, Brandie, couldn't resist)
-
The NRA (and those that it bribes in Congress) would never allow it.
That is the sad state of this country and probably the biggest reason I consider Dems to be cowards. Obama - whom I consider an outstanding president - failed miserably after Sandy Hook when pressure could have been applied as he had overwhelming support on the issue from the American people.
Support from citizens is great but what do you suggest he had done with a Republican controlled House led by Boehner that stalled every discussion with gun safety regulations included?
-
Support from citizens is great but what do you suggest he had done with a Republican controlled House led by Boehner that stalled every discussion with gun safety regulations included?
These political issues don't happen in a vacuum, not saying it would have been easy or cheap from a political "capital" standpoint but the pressure to do something was never going to be higher (I hope) but because of political choices before and during that time he didn't have the ability to force the issue. I mean the Republican's were awful on that issue, it should have been relatively easy to force their hand.
-
Well, until now... ;)
Perhaps... but you don't know where my house is. And if you do, then rest assured I'll be waiting for you, Stalky McStalkerson.
-
These political issues don't happen in a vacuum, not saying it would have been easy or cheap from a political "capital" standpoint but the pressure to do something was never going to be higher (I hope) but because of political choices before and during that time he didn't have the ability to force the issue. I mean the Republican's were awful on that issue, it should have been relatively easy to force their hand.
You either weren't paying attention at that time or you've forgotten how easy it was to feign concern. It was easy to sidestep the issue. Much like it's been easy to sidestep the issue after the deadliest shooting massacre in modern American history occurred in Las Vegas.
The American people, and as an extension it's politicians, are experts in forgetting. We shove everything into a closet and simply move on. There is no reckoning. There is no proper action taken. There is no path forward other then accepting that shooting massacres that take anywhere from eight to 50 lives will be an ever present touchstone in our culture for the foreseeable future.
-
You either weren't paying attention at that time or you've forgotten how easy it was to feign concern. It was easy to sidestep the issue. Much like it's been easy to sidestep the issue after the deadliest shooting massacre in modern American history occurred in Las Vegas.
The American people, and as an extension it's politicians, are experts in forgetting. We shove everything into a closet and simply move on. There is no reckoning. There is no proper action taken. There is no path forward other then accepting that shooting massacres that take anywhere from eight to 50 lives will be an ever present touchstone in our culture for the foreseeable future.
True dat.
I mean, remember when even the GOP and the FNRA were gung-ho to ban bump stocks?
Well, I just checked on Amazon, and this little baby is available for any domestic terrorist who wants to shoot up the next Vegas concert:
https://smile.amazon.com/Exile-Machine-Hammerhead-CA-Legal-Adapter/dp/B00RY568CS/ref=sr_1_1?s=sports-and-fitness&ie=UTF8&qid=1518325376&sr=1-1&keywords=bump+stock+ar+15
-
willie sutton jr. said, you know why we shoot up schools do ya? it's because there ain't NO guns there...low hangin fruit baby.
if they had armed guards-sorry it had to get to this, and metal detectors for that matter, people may, and i said may think twice before bringing daddy's side by side to school with them
-
willie sutton jr. said, you know why we shoot up schools do ya? it's because there ain't NO guns there...low hangin fruit baby.
if they had armed guards-sorry it had to get to this, and metal detectors for that matter, people may, and i said may think twice before bringing daddy's side by side to school with them
We've also seen mass shootings on military bases, concerts with armed security, nightclubs with armed security, schools with armed security, etc.
A study last year looked at 111 mass shootings since 1966 in which six or more people were killed. Of those 111, only 18 took place in locations where guns were specifically banned or restricted. So the argument that the potential presence of an armed civilian or guard acts as a deterrence is absolute nonsense.
-
Shhhh. Don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative.
-
We've also seen mass shootings on military bases, concerts with armed security, nightclubs with armed security, schools with armed security, etc.
A study last year looked at 111 mass shootings since 1966 in which six or more people were killed. Of those 111, only 18 took place in locations where guns were specifically banned or restricted. So the argument that the potential presence of an armed civilian or guard acts as a deterrence is absolute nonsense.
This is so idiotic.
Everybody knows the only solution is to hand each kid a Glock at the start of every school day and then collect it at day's end. Duh.
-
willie sutton jr. said, you know why we shoot up schools do ya? it's because there ain't NO guns there...low hangin fruit baby.
if they had armed guards-sorry it had to get to this, and metal detectors for that matter, people may, and i said may think twice before bringing daddy's side by side to school with them
You are an extremely stupid individual.
-
You are an extremely stupid individual.
and you're a jack wagon-take a hike
pak-man, the only people who are allowed to carry guns on military bases are military police. you knew that, right? all of these mp's cannot be armed while off duty and their guns are returned to the armory when their shifts are over
-
and you're a jack wagon-take a hike
pak-man, the only people who are allowed to carry guns on military bases are military police. you knew that, right? all of these mp's cannot be armed while off duty and their guns are returned to the armory when their shifts are over
So, what you're saying is that the presence of an armed military-trained police force failed to deter a mass shooting.
Glad we could come to an agreement on this issue.
FWIW, you're wrong on who's allowed to carry weapons on military bases. But since this is a relatively new change, I'll cut you some slack.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html
-
pak-man, the only people who are allowed to carry guns on military bases are military police. you knew that, right? all of these mp's cannot be armed while off duty and their guns are returned to the armory when their shifts are over
Pakuni shows you statistics that disprove your point and you...dig in further, ignoring the evidence.
This is way I stopped debating with right wingers-- facts simply don't matter to them.
-
Pakuni shows you statistics that disprove your point and you...dig in further, ignoring the evidence.
This is way I stopped debating with right wingers-- facts simply don't matter to them.
Well, that's not fair. Many of them fully embrace alternative facts.
-
So, what you're saying is that the presence of an armed military-trained police force failed to deter a mass shooting.
Glad we could come to an agreement on this issue.
FWIW, you're wrong on who's allowed to carry weapons on military bases. But since this is a relatively new change, I'll cut you some slack.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html
Thank you for this- noting the military base mass shootings were all prior to this directive. Not doing happy dance as this could prove to be a bigger deterrent but crazies are still, well, crazy. This could save some lives.
-
Pakuni shows you statistics that disprove your point and you...dig in further, ignoring the evidence.
This is way I stopped debating with right wingers-- facts simply don't matter to them.
You did notice that park merely pointed out the recent directive that was not in affect when the mass shootings occurred, right? And I appreciated that bit of information
Yes, facts do matter, you can stop with the projection. When pointed out to me, THE FACTS, I will always take them under consideration. Depends if my stance is an opinion or fact-based argument. That what is nice about a MESSAGE BOARD such as scoop(get that sully?) I’m not so closed minded that I cannot stand to be corrected
-
Thank you for this- noting the military base mass shootings were all prior to this directive. Not doing happy dance as this could prove to be a bigger deterrent but crazies are still, well, crazy. This could save some lives.
Columbine had armed security. The Pulse night club had armed security. Mandalay Bay had armed security.
Being a no-gun zone has zero bearing on where shooters target. They target places where they can best achieve their goals, e.g. workplaces, schools, offices that are the source of their anger, or gay nightclubs if they are antigay, or police stations if they are anti-police, or movie places/concerts where everyone is sitting and lined up like fish in a barrel if they want to maximize casualties.
If there are armed security, they plan to take them out first or position themselves opposite the security.
Others being armed is only a deterrent if the people have any intention of getting out alive, and even then they can plan around security. Most mass shootings involve people intent on also dying.
Also, opinions also have to be fact-based arguments. If your opinions are not based on facts or run contrary to fact, then they are either useless or wrong respectively.
That is a problem these days, people think opinions can't be controverted by facts.
-
Columbine had armed security. The Pulse night club had armed security. Mandalay Bay had armed security.
Being a no-gun zone has zero bearing on where shooters target. They target places where they can best achieve their goals, e.g. workplaces, schools, offices that are the source of their anger, or gay nightclubs if they are antigay, or police stations if they are anti-police, or movie places/concerts where everyone is sitting and lined up like fish in a barrel if they want to maximize casualties.
If there are armed security, they plan to take them out first or position themselves opposite the security.
Others being armed is only a deterrent if the people have any intention of getting out alive, and even then they can plan around security. Most mass shootings involve people intent on also dying.
Also, opinions also have to be fact-based arguments. If your opinions are not based on facts or run contrary to fact, then they are either useless or wrong respectively.
That is a problem these days, people think opinions can't be controverted by facts.
Or, they don't care if there's armed security because they have no intention of surviving. That's why the deterrent thing is nonsense. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent for someone who intends (and often wants) to die.
-
Or, they don't care if there's armed security because they have no intention of surviving. That's why the deterrent thing is nonsense. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent for someone who intends (and often wants) to die.
Correct.
Of course, additional gun laws probably wouldn't stop that person, either. That's the kind of thing the FNRA argues.
What laws reducing the number and availability of guns that can fire off a bazillion rounds a minute MIGHT do is reduce the number of deaths and injuries when these maniacs start firing.
For some reason, though, the all-life-is-precious people don't see it this way. They'd rather have MORE people armed with MORE guns. Which makes sense, given that they lobby in part for the gun manufacturers.
Hell, we're all just wasting our time here anyway. Months ago, even the FNRA backed making "bump stocks" illegal. Congress has been too busy giving out trillions to finance tax cuts for billionaires and extra weapons for the Pentagon, and The Very Stable Genius is too wrapped up in planning his taxpayer-funded military parade and defending wife-beaters.
-
You did notice that park merely pointed out the recent directive that was not in affect when the mass shootings occurred, right? And I appreciated that bit of information
Yes, facts do matter, you can stop with the projection. When pointed out to me, THE FACTS, I will always take them under consideration. Depends if my stance is an opinion or fact-based argument. That what is nice about a MESSAGE BOARD such as scoop(get that sully?) I’m not so closed minded that I cannot stand to be corrected
No, the statistics he quoted were not about military bases-- they were locations with armed security. You ignored this and attempted to blow the entire thing off because of the timing of a particular rule on military bases.
You ignored the facts because they didn't fit your narrative.
-
Or, they don't care if there's armed security because they have no intention of surviving. That's why the deterrent thing is nonsense. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent for someone who intends (and often wants) to die.
Agree 100%. See line after the bolded ;) .
-
NM.... confused FNRA with FINRA. Thought someone might have shot up the SEC over the weekend.
-
NM.... confused FNRA with FINRA. Thought someone might have shot up the SEC over the weekend.
Certainly could have happened. Probably with guns fitted with bump stocks.
As you obviously know, the F is the same as Jimmy's middle initial. (Sorry Jimmy.)
-
ANNNNNND ... another one.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html
Right now, it doesn't appear anybody is dead, thankfully.
Making America great again, one mass shooting at a time.
More thoughts, more prayers.
-
More guns needed. If all the kids had been armed with M134's this never would have happened.
-
ANNNNNND ... another one.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html
Right now, it doesn't appear anybody is dead, thankfully.
PROGRESS!!!
-
Multiple deaths. Burn the second amendment.
-
Nobody would have died if everyone in the building was packing heat. They would have pulled out their guns, and the only person to be killed or wounded would be the perp...because that’s just how guns would work if we didn’t have any of those inconvenient rules.
-
Just another example of a European educational model that won't work here. Absence of mass shootings in schools.
-
I just hope the shooter isn't an illegal immigrant. Imagine how much worse it would be for the victims' families then.
-
Nobody would have died if everyone in the building was packing heat. They would have pulled out their guns, and the only person to be killed or wounded would be the perp...because that’s just how guns would work if we didn’t have any of those inconvenient rules.
Except for maybe a dozen or three bystanders what with all of the bullets whizzin' around.
That's all I got to say - it's way too soon.
-
I'm just shocked this has happened again. Shocked. How have all those thoughts and prayers not worked?!?
Bump stocks remain legal. I'm just stunned.
Again, if nothing changed after a bunch of 6 and 7 years-olds were killed nothing ever will.
I'm just tired of it. F*ck the NRA. And f*ck you if you support that organization.
-
I'm just shocked this has happened again. Shocked. How have all those thoughts and prayers not worked?!?
Bump stocks remain legal. I'm just stunned.
Again, if nothing changed after a bunch of 6 and 7 years-olds were killed nothing ever will.
I'm just tired of it. F*ck the NRA. And f*ck you if you support that organization.
Ya it's the nras fault for this. Not the absolutely barbaric and devastating state of our mental healthcare system.
-
Ya it's the nras fault for this. Not the absolutely barbaric and devastating state of our mental healthcare system.
Crazy thought ... it could be a complex, multi-layered problem requires complex, multi-layered solutions.
But that's hard. And we don't like hard.
In the meantime, a real, actual tweet today from a U.S. senator who apparently has been napping for the past 20 years.
"Just spoke to Broward School Superintendent. Today is that terrible day you pray never comes."
-
Ya it's the nras fault for this. Not the absolutely barbaric and devastating state of our mental healthcare system.
Of course that is also a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
-
CNN reporting sixteen dead now, suspect is Nicolas Cruz 19yr old former student
-
CNN reporting sixteen dead now, suspect is Nicolas Cruz 19yr old former student
I feel horrible for saying this but is this and the sandyhook the only two ones that weren't done by current students?
-
Saying AR-15
For those interested his instagram is f*cked up
-
I feel horrible for saying this but is this and the sandyhook the only two ones that weren't done by current students?
Why does that matter?
-
Death count official at 17
Still some in Surgery
-
Some of you folks are sick.
It's cute you think you have an easy answer to nutcases killing innocent people, but man...
-
Why does that matter?
Because statistics are a thing and statistically most mass shooters commit acts at a place they frequent around the times of the act.
-
Some of you folks are sick.
It's cute you think you have an easy answer to nutcases killing innocent people, but man...
Who said there's an easy answer?
I know what doesn't work - doing jack-sh*t.
-
Who said there's an easy answer?
I know what doesn't work - doing jack-sh*t.
This man's not wrong. For a week (it used to be three... Sigh) we will all talk about this and bicker back and forth with each other about the problem and get stuck at each other's throats. Then we will disappear until another 22 kids die.
-
Armed gaurd? Check
Sent to school therapy then expelled for the safety of other students? Check
School does multiple shooting preparation drills? Check
Any suggestions on what adjustnents you'd all make to help address this issue or minimize casualties? I'm not interested in being called sick by our resident jacka$$ so figured I'd ask
-
Armed gaurd? Check
Sent to school therapy then expelled for the safety of other students? Check
School does multiple shooting preparation drills? Check
Any suggestions on what adjustnents you'd all make to help address this issue or minimize casualties? I'm not interested in being called sick by our resident jacka$$ so figured I'd ask
Watching local news down here. FYI Parkland is beautiful place, was voted most safest city in Florida at end of 2017.
Two Police Officers, not armed guards. They were on duty at that time and shooter still went thru with his plans.
Major mental issues and I heard through a friend, he may have been turned to Islamic trends.
AR-15 is just a terrible weapon and I have seen what damage a .223 round can do to a human body. Just a shame.
-
Some of you folks are sick.
It's cute you think you have an easy answer to nutcases killing innocent people, but man...
You're right, we should continue to do nothing and just accept this sort of thing as normal. That's working well so far. Why change?
-
Watching local news down here. FYI Parkland is beautiful place, was voted most safest city in Florida at end of 2017.
Two Police Officers, not armed guards. They were on duty at that time and shooter still went thru with his plans.
Major mental issues and I heard through a friend, he may have been turned to Islamic trends.
AR-15 is just a terrible weapon and I have seen what damage a .223 round can do to a human body. Just a shame.
Thanks the superintendent was a little unclear he would say squad cars but not say police when asked to clarify so I was confused.
Based on this Instagram post calling Libyans "sand durkahs" I'm not sure if he did turn to Islam.
-
Two Police Officers, not armed guards. They were on duty at that time and shooter still went thru with his plans.
Must be fake news, rocket informed us this was the way to stop mass shootings.
-
Watching local news down here. FYI Parkland is beautiful place, was voted most safest city in Florida at end of 2017.
Two Police Officers, not armed guards. They were on duty at that time and shooter still went thru with his plans.
Major mental issues and I heard through a friend, he may have been turned to Islamic trends.
AR-15 is just a terrible weapon and I have seen what damage a .223 round can do to a human body. Just a shame.
That's great, because President Pumpkin needs to be able to avoid focusing on the underlying root causes and blame someone (Radicals! Dems! James Comey!) for it.
-
Thanks the superintendent was a little unclear he would say squad cars but not say police when asked to clarify so I was confused.
Based on this Instagram post calling Libyans "sand durkahs" I'm not sure if he did turn to Islam.
Yes, they are called in law enforcement, School Resource Officers", if you ever hear that term again. They are police officers usually assigned to larger schools or problem schools across the country.
The guy I spoke to stated the Islamic trend is based on people calling in reference his background and they are checking all angles. But definitely a mental deficiency aspect.
You know, I have stayed away from these guns/law enforcement topics on purpose. Why are you guys always yelling and screaming and calling each other out for all the time?
-
Based on this Instagram post calling Libyans "sand durkahs" I'm not sure if he did turn to Islam.
That is a shame because if we have learned anything about our American culture is that if a foreigner, or Islam, or anything other than a typical American is to blame we will do something about it.
If it is your average American who did this absolutely nothing, nada, will meaningfully be done about it.
-
I'll be curious to see how he got the AR-15.
No reason for any civilian to own a weapon like that.
-
Except for maybe a dozen or three bystanders what with all of the bullets whizzin' around.
That's all I got to say - it's way too soon.
Agree. My post was implied teal.
-
Some of you folks are sick.
It's cute you think you have an easy answer to nutcases killing innocent people, but man...
Arrest them, right?
-
Arrest them, right?
In this case... perhaps. Need to learn more. #MedicalHold
-
Some of you folks are sick.
It's cute you think you have an easy answer to nutcases killing innocent people, but man...
POTUS is the only person who thinks there are simple solutions to complex problems.
I don’t think anyone proposing stricter gun laws thinks they’ll solve the problem... but they would be a good START.
-
But the problems won't be solved by thoughts and prayers and demonizing.
-
In this case... perhaps. Need to learn more. #MedicalHold
Hold them where? The nation hit a record low in 2016 for psychiatric beds, down 13 percent from just 2010. According to one study, demand exceeds what's available by more than 123,000 beds.
#realitycheck
#ratherbuildawall
#$30millionmilitaryparade
-
Hold them where? The nation hit a record low in 2016 for psychiatric beds, down 13 percent from just 2010. According to one study, demand exceeds what's available by more than 123,000 beds.
#realitycheck
#ratherbuildawall
#$30millionmilitaryparade
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/17/2014-welfare-waste-dwarfs-forced-military-cuts-by-25/
etc., etc.
-
I'm just shocked this has happened again. Shocked. How have all those thoughts and prayers not worked?!?
Bump stocks remain legal. I'm just stunned.
Again, if nothing changed after a bunch of 6 and 7 years-olds were killed nothing ever will.
I'm just tired of it. F*ck the NRA. And f*ck you if you support that organization.
+1000000
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/17/2014-welfare-waste-dwarfs-forced-military-cuts-by-25/
etc., etc.
Cool. The government should do more to eliminate waste in the welfare system.
Doesn't make the wall or military parade any less stupid, or you're medical hold suggestion any less impossible.
And that's ignoring how hard it is to get a medical hold in the first place.
-
I'll be curious to see how he got the AR-15.
No reason for any civilian to own a weapon like that.
To be fair I have a 30.06 semi automatic hunting rifle which has farther range and stopping power then a .223 Ar-15. Don't be confused by one being wood and one being a military design.
-
That is a shame because if we have learned anything about our American culture is that if a foreigner, or Islam, or anything other than a typical American is to blame we will do something about it.
If it is your average American who did this absolutely nothing, nada, will meaningfully be done about it.
You forgot to add 'robot' or 'automated solution' to the list. if a robot was ever bold enough to cut into a decent American's opportunity to slaughter other Americans we'd see change because the headline would scream "The Robots are coming after YOUR guns!"
-
To be fair I have a 30.06 semi automatic hunting rifle which has farther range and stopping power then a .223 Ar-15. Don't be confused by one being wood and one being a military design.
And do you have this semi automatic hunting rifle for the sole purpose of hunting with it when you obtain a license to do so with it?
if the answer is "yes", would you have any issue with having the gun registered and held at the hunting licensing office where you would check it in and out for your hunting expeditions?
-
To be fair I have a 30.06 semi automatic hunting rifle which has farther range and stopping power then a .223 Ar-15. Don't be confused by one being wood and one being a military design.
I'm not a hunter nor do I really comprehend that hobby but that's a different conversation all together. My question would be is that kind of weapon necessary for hunting? Does it hold high capacity magazines?
-
And do you have this semi automatic hunting rifle for the sole purpose of hunting with it when you obtain a license to do so with it?
if the answer is "yes", would you have any issue with having the gun registered and held at the hunting licensing office where you would check it in and out for your hunting expeditions?
Great questions.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/17/2014-welfare-waste-dwarfs-forced-military-cuts-by-25/
etc., etc.
"By far the largest source of improper payments, at $45.8 billion, was the Medicare program, which posted a 12.7 percent error rate. "
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/17/2014-welfare-waste-dwarfs-forced-military-cuts-by-25/
Medicare is welfare?
-
I'm not a hunter nor do I really comprehend that hobby but that's a different conversation all together. My question would be is that kind of weapon necessary for hunting? Does it hold high capacity magazines?
Yes, they are identical guns.
This is why the assault weapons ban was lifted. There is really no difference between assault weapons and hunting rifles., They are identical in every way to hunting rifles. The difference is hunting rifles just do not have the military look.
I posted many images of this in the closed threads on this subject before.
And this is why gun owners fight so hard against these rules. Hunters that understand know that the gun they hunt with is the same as the assault rifle. So they fear you are coming after them.
-
Great questions.
uh...most people hunt on private property..where would this hunting licensing office be located?
-
And do you have this semi automatic hunting rifle for the sole purpose of hunting with it when you obtain a license to do so with it?
if the answer is "yes", would you have any issue with having the gun registered and held at the hunting licensing office where you would check it in and out for your hunting expeditions?
Who is paying for this office to hold the guns? This will cost way more than the gun itself. Deny poor people the right to own a gun because they cannot afford the fees of this "gun library."
You really want the government to do this? You see the slippery slope?
-
"By far the largest source of improper payments, at $45.8 billion, was the Medicare program, which posted a 12.7 percent error rate. "
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/17/2014-welfare-waste-dwarfs-forced-military-cuts-by-25/
Medicare is welfare?
He's siting citing a Tucker Carlson fronted website..........might as well copy and Onion post
-
I'm not a hunter nor do I really comprehend that hobby but that's a different conversation all together. My question would be is that kind of weapon necessary for hunting? Does it hold high capacity magazines?
Every gun ever made that uses a magazine can take a high capacity magazine.
-
I'm just shocked this has happened again. Shocked. How have all those thoughts and prayers not worked?!?
Bump stocks remain legal. I'm just stunned.
Again, if nothing changed after a bunch of 6 and 7 years-olds were killed nothing ever will.
I'm just tired of it. F*ck the NRA. And f*ck you if you support that organization.
The is undirected emotion, rage and hate and innocent people that want a solution as much as you. This kind of hate speech leads to people being hurt.
Is it ok for people to feel this way about pro-choicers? Minorities? Please give me the list of the groups we are allowed to have undirected rage against and want harm to come to and the groups we are not.
Do you want to rethink this position?
-
The is undirected emotion, rage and hate and innocent people that want a solution as much as you. This kind of hate speech leads to people being hurt.
Is it ok for people to feel this way about pro-choicers? Minorities? Please give me the list of the groups we are allowed to have undirected rage against and want harm to come to and the groups we are not.
Do you want to rethink this position?
Your side would probably need to answer the question you posit about whether it's ok to feel this way about pro choicers or other groups listed. If the answer is yes from your side then I'd say yes to our side.
That being said if anyone is using a gun with that much power to hunt then you aren't a good hunter in the first place and should rethink your hobbies. (Just a general thought)
-
The is undirected emotion, rage and hate and innocent people that want a solution as much as you. This kind of hate speech leads to people being hurt.
Is it ok for people to feel this way about pro-choicers? Minorities? Please give me the list of the groups we are allowed to have undirected rage against and want harm to come to and the groups we are not.
Do you want to rethink this position?
I don't, Tugg. Honestly, you disgust me.
-
Who is paying for this office to hold the guns? This will cost way more than the gun itself. Deny poor people the right to own a gun because they cannot afford the fees of this "gun library."
You really want the government to do this? You see the slippery slope?
I understand that you see any movement to curb gun availability an affront and i'm not going to debate that with you but what I don't understand is why your see your right to own a gun is greater than the 16 (ish, i don't have a current count) kids who died todays right to live their life to a natural end.
-
Serious question ... how much anti-social behavior must one show before someone acts?
Authority types always say "report suspicious activity" and everyone rolls their eyes because no matter how outrageous the activity, nothing is done about it.
Florida school shooting suspect was ex-student who may have been flagged as threat
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200126034.html
“We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him,” said math teacher Jim Gard, who said Cruz had been in his class last year. “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.”
The Broward County School District Superintendent, however, told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that he did not know of any concerns raised about the student.
As for Gard, he said he believes the school administration earlier sent out an e-mail warning teachers that the student had made threats against others in the past and that he should not be allowed on the campus with a backpack.
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Police-Respond-Marjory-Stoneman-Douglas-High-School-Parkland-474078423.html
In the video they said students were running out of the school saying "Nick Cruz" was shooting. They knew him and said they were not surprised as they called him "crazy" and they predicted he would do this.
https://twitter.com/WJXTvic/status/963899957559390210
"Everyone predicted it," a student said about the #Parkland shooting.
(another video of another student that knew Nick Cruz and was not surprised.
https://wsvn.com/news/local/bso-17-dead-in-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-school-shooting/
--------------------
So I ask again, how many more warning signs are necessary to act. And how did a kid with this background get this gun? (I'm asking if he gout it legally)?
-
He's siting citing a Tucker Carlson fronted website..........might as well copy and Onion post
Of course. And the website is a joke and Tucker is a pig. But I'm not a big "shoot the messenger" guy so one has to read the article in order to see what morons these folks really are. Also, read the comments if you want a few laughs.
-
I don't, Tugg. Honestly, you disgust me.
Openly wishing harm on innocent people makes toy the most dangerous person on this board. I fear you actually intend on acting on this emotion.
-
Your side would probably need to answer the question you posit about whether it's ok to feel this way about pro choicers or other groups listed. If the answer is yes from your side then I'd say yes to our side.
That being said if anyone is using a gun with that much power to hunt then you aren't a good hunter in the first place and should rethink your hobbies. (Just a general thought)
This is interesting. Why don't you tell us more about muzzle velocity and guns in general that leads you to this well thought out and informed opinion?
-
Serious question ... how much anti-social behavior must one show before someone acts?
Authority types always say "report suspicious activity" and everyone rolls their eyes because no matter how outrageous the activity, nothing is done about it.
Florida school shooting suspect was ex-student who may have been flagged as threat
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200126034.html
“We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him,” said math teacher Jim Gard, who said Cruz had been in his class last year. “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.”
The Broward County School District Superintendent, however, told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that he did not know of any concerns raised about the student.
As for Gard, he said he believes the school administration earlier sent out an e-mail warning teachers that the student had made threats against others in the past and that he should not be allowed on the campus with a backpack.
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Police-Respond-Marjory-Stoneman-Douglas-High-School-Parkland-474078423.html
In the video they said students were running out of the school saying "Nick Cruz" was shooting. They knew him and said they were not surprised as they called him "crazy" and they predicted he would do this.
https://twitter.com/WJXTvic/status/963899957559390210
"Everyone predicted it," a student said about the #Parkland shooting.
(another video of another student that knew Nick Cruz and was not surprised.
https://wsvn.com/news/local/bso-17-dead-in-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-school-shooting/
--------------------
So I ask again, how many more warning signs are necessary to act. And how did a kid with this background get this gun? (I'm asking if he gout it legally)?
But you are not answering the question.....why is your right to own guns greater than these kids rights to live their lives to full completion?
-
Openly wishing harm on innocent people makes toy the most dangerous person on this board. I fear you actually intend on acting on this emotion.
You must struggle immensely with comprehension because I didn't wish harm on anyone.
-
ANNNNNND ... another one.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html
Right now, it doesn't appear anybody is dead, thankfully.
Making America great again, one mass shooting at a time.
More thoughts, more prayers.
This is really sad. Does everything have to be political? If we can't possibly deport every illegal to solve our immigration problem then how could we confiscate 200 million guns in this country to solve these school shootings; because that is pretty much what it would take to do so.
-
You must struggle immensely with comprehension because I didn't wish harm on anyone.
I'm just tired of it. F*ck the NRA. And f*ck you if you support that organization.
This is an aggressive/violent statement. The fact that you don't understand it is what is the really scary part.
-
This is my last post as I expect this thread to close shortly.
This thread, like all the shooting threads before it is why nothing will ever get done. You think every shooting gives you the right to go off on gun owners with violent speech, condescending talk. You probably blame me (again) for the shooting because I do not share your extreme minority views.
Bludgeoning someone to agree with you is not the way to find a solution. But it is obvious, you don't want a solution., You want more blood so you can scream and attack. Because you are more interested in winning the argument than fixing the problem.
The most important thing is to feel superior, right?
Just watch the attacks this will generate until the thread closes. They will all be the same, make yourself feel superior.
-
But you are not answering the question.....why is your right to own guns greater than these kids rights to live their lives to full completion?
I cannot believe I am arguing for guns...never owned one, nor do I think non-hunting guns are necessary, but your question is not a fair one. Why not ban alcohol, due to all of the people killed by drunk drivers?
-
I cannot believe I am arguing for guns...never owned one, nor do I think non-hunting guns are necessary, but your question is not a fair one. Why not ban alcohol, due to all of the people killed by drunk drivers?
and pot