Another Shooting

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
I believe that people have agendas. And Ben Shapiro has been shown on numerous occasions to misrepresent and mislead posing as someone with facts. I don’t believe things without doing my own research. Shocking I know. So I am skeptical from the outset. As I haven’t evaluated all of the expenditures by Unions it seems very diengenuous on the surface to compare a single policy like the NRA and “Unions” who have many many differet policies they lobby for. It is The MO of Shapiro though to misrepresent and conflate two things though. I understand that so I take what he says with a large dose of salt.

For example This link shows NRA spending outlays for this cycle at $400+ mil alone. While that includes political contributions and lobbying efforts I don’t know how Shapiro is getting his numbers. I am skeptical. He could be right and that is fine. But he did conflate NRA ops with UNION ops and that is dishonest intellectually, IMO.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/11/audit-shows-nra-spending-surged-100-million-amidst-pro-trump-push-in-2016/

I get it though. I am considered a very biased person on this forum as of late in particular because of Trump. That’s fine. I accept that people have a hard time dealing with me because I hold strong positions that are anti-GOP. I hold anti Dem positions too but that doesn’t seem to matter here I accept that as well. Believe or disbelieve my posts. Respect my posts or dont. It’s fine. I have a very strong and well founded poor opinion on Trump IMO and others don’t. That is fine.


I hear ya. We all have our biases. Why not ask him on Twitter to support his numbers? What’s the worse that can happen? The thing I have respected the most of guys like Shapiro, Jordan Petersen & David Rubin (@ least the few times i have watched them debate) is they appear to want a civil debate. They listen and respond vs calling their opponents names when they don’t have a reasonable response.

Both sides (& Libertarians) have commentators who support their opinions with facts. Of course, the views from their opposition can be opinions supported by facts. That’s when they agree to disagree while respecting their opponent. Neither side has the market cornered on absolutism.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Basically, FBI didn't follow protocols and should've stopped this guy --
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/fbi-florida-shooting-errors-415664

Like they got a very credible, detailed tip and did nothing with it. People should be fired.


The FBI failed in following through BUT they could not have stopped him.

They had no grounds for an arrest nor grounds to take him off the street unless they chose to violate the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

The due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.


I've read nothing to show where the FBI or LEOs could have impounded the AR-15 which was legally purchased and stored in a gun safe. His self cutting a few years ago caused minor injury to himself but NOT to others. In order for law enforcement to take action he has to have a history of violence to others not just the perception of potential violence.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I hear ya. We all have our biases. Why not ask him on Twitter to support his numbers? What’s the worse that can happen? The thing I have respected the most of guys like Shapiro, Jordan Petersen & David Rubin (@ least the few times i have watched them debate) is they appear to want a civil debate. They listen and respond vs calling their opponents names when they don’t have a reasonable response.

Both sides (& Libertarians) have commentators who support their opinions with facts. Of course, the views from their opposition can be opinions supported by facts. That’s when they agree to disagree while respecting their opponent. Neither side has the market cornered on absolutism.

Reps. I would contact him but we aren’t on speaking terms. We have had several disagreements in the past lol.
 

IrishSteelhead

All Flair, No Substance
Messages
11,114
Reaction score
4,686
Another Shooting

I believe that people have agendas. And Ben Shapiro has been shown on numerous occasions to misrepresent and mislead posing as someone with facts. I don’t believe things without doing my own research. Shocking I know. So I am skeptical from the outset. As I haven’t evaluated all of the expenditures by Unions it seems very diengenuous on the surface to compare a single policy like the NRA and “Unions” who have many many differet policies they lobby for. It is The MO of Shapiro though to misrepresent and conflate two things though. I understand that so I take what he says with a large dose of salt.

For example This link shows NRA spending outlays for this cycle at $400+ mil alone. While that includes political contributions and lobbying efforts I don’t know how Shapiro is getting his numbers. I am skeptical. He could be right and that is fine. But he did conflate NRA ops with UNION ops and that is dishonest intellectually, IMO.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...ed-100-million-amidst-pro-trump-push-in-2016/

I get it though. I am considered a very biased person on this forum as of late in particular because of Trump. That’s fine. I accept that people have a hard time dealing with me because I hold strong positions that are anti-GOP. I hold anti Dem positions too but that doesn’t seem to matter here I accept that as well. Believe or disbelieve my posts. Respect my posts or dont. It’s fine. I have a very strong and well founded poor opinion on Trump IMO and others don’t. That is fine.



Thanks for the response. I notice you post quite a bit of links in the political threads and was genuinely curious. Others that do the same are more transparent lol.

FWIW: I dont agree with about 50% of what Shapiro says but like his reckless nature and ability to combat anyone verbally.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Third-graders are selling AR-15 raffle tickets in Missouri (KC Star)

A Kansas candidate for Congress is continuing his AR-15 giveaway, despite backlash
(KC Star)

Gun laws in Kansas (wikipedia)
Subject/Law Long Guns Handguns Relevant Statutes
State permit to purchase? No No
Firearm registration? No No
Assault weapon law? No No
Magazine Capacity Restriction? No No
Owner license required? No No
Carry permits required? No No Kansas Chapter 75 Article 7c

As of July 1, 2013, you may conceal carry in any public area of state and municipal buildings. This encompasses carrying at public universities (schools were allowed to opt out until 2017; post-2017, only buildings with "adequate security measures" may remain gun-free). May carry concealed without permit as of July 1, 2015, however permits can be issued for those who wish to have them.

Open Carry? Yes Yes May carry openly without permit/license.
NFA weapons restricted? No No

The second amendment protection act Short barreled shotguns, and machine guns must be registered under the National Firearms Act. However a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, suppressor that is manufactured in Kansas and remains within the borders of Kansas are not subject to any federal law, including the NFA. A firearm manufactured in Kansas must have the words "Made in Kansas" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Shall Certify? Yes Yes 48-1906 Shall certify within 15 days.
Peaceable journey laws? No No Federal rules observed.
Background checks required for private sales? No No

Location of Kansas in the United States
Despite having relatively nonrestrictive firearms laws, Kansas remained one of the few states with no provision for the concealed carry of firearms until March 2006, when the state legislature passed Senate Bill 418, "The Personal and Family Protection Act." This bill made Kansas the 47th state to permit concealed carry in some form and the 36th state with a "shall issue" policy.[2] The bill was passed 30–10 in the state senate and 91–33 in the state house of representatives, gaining enough votes to override a veto from Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who had previously vetoed several other attempts to legalize concealed carry. Under the law, the Attorney General began granting permits to qualified applicants on January 1, 2007. Previously, Kansas had allowed only open carry of firearms, except where prohibited by local ordinance.

On April 21, 2008, Governor Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill allowing the sale and possession of NFA weapons. The law took effect on July 1, 2008.[3][4]

On April 22, 2014, Governor Sam Brownback signed HB 2578 the CLEO Shall Sign and Comprehensive Preemption legislation. These new laws went into effect on July 1, 2014. Effective on that date there will no longer be any local control of firearms. All current local firearms ordinances are null and void and all firearms laws are uniform statewide. The bill:

- Prohibits any city or county from expending funds derived from the proceeds of implementing, administering or operating a firearms buyback program.
- Preempts any and all local control of firearms and ammunition. No city or county or agent of such will be able to adopt any ordinance, resolution or regulation or take any administrative action governing the purchase, transfer, ownership, storage, carrying on one’s person or transporting firearms or ammunition or any component or combination thereof.
- No city or county or agent of such will be able to adopt any ordinance, resolution or regulation relating to the sale of a firearm by an individual who holds a federal firearms license that is more restrictive than any ordinance or regulation relating to the sale of any other commercial good.
- Clarifies that no municipality can enact any ordinance, resolution, regulation or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, gift, devise, licensing, registration or use of a knife or knife making components. Nullifies all existing past ordinances and prohibits future ones.
- Prohibits the destruction of seized firearms once they are no longer needed as evidence. They may be traded with other departments and KBI, sold or traded to licensed firearms dealers, used for testing or comparison by the forensics laboratory or given to the Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks and Tourism for use in Hunter Education programs. Payments for transfers will be credited to the asset seizure and forfeiture fund of the seizing agency.
- If a weapon is seized from an individual and they are not convicted or adjudicated of a crime that prevents firearms ownership, it shall be verified it is not stolen and upon verification returned to the individual from whom it was seized within 30 days.
- Cleans up the Knife Act from 2013 providing intended prohibition of enforcement of local ordinances passed prior to July 1, 2013 and addresses possession of knives by convicted felons. While daggers, dirks, dangerous knives, straight-edged razors, and stilettos are added back in to the law it is with an express intent and caveat that they are only prohibited for use with the intent to use it against another person unlawfully.
- Prohibits municipalities from requiring disclosure or making a record of concealed carry permits. Cities and counties are permitted to adopt ordinances, resolutions, or regulations relative to the personnel policies governing concealed carry of handguns by city or county employees, so long as in compliance with this law. The bill requires any such records created by a municipality before the effective date of the bill be destroyed by July 31, 2014.
- Requires that certification by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), when a sign off is required for the transfer of a firearm or other item regulated by the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), be provided within fifteen days as long as the applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving the firearm or other item.
 
Last edited:

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
If we make guns illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore.

That's how we stopped everybody from doing drugs.

100 years ago we passed the 18th Amendment to prohibit intoxicating beverages and stopped everybody from drinking alcohol.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Thanks for the response. I notice you post quite a bit of links in the political threads and was genuinely curious. Others that do the same are more transparent lol.

FWIW: I dont agree with about 50% of what Shapiro says but like his reckless nature and ability to combat anyone verbally.

Reckless? That is a good descriptor of Shapiro. I don’t like people who are reckless with truth and facts. Fact is that Shapiro’s argument fall down even with a medium amount of prep time. His argumentation style in debates is to spew as much stuff as he can in the hope that those trying to respond to him can’t adequately respond to everything so he comes out looking smart just by the shear volume of shit he said that cant get properly flushed.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
If we make guns illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore.

That's how we stopped everybody from doing drugs.

100 years ago we passed the 18th Amendment to prohibit intoxicating beverages and stopped everybody from drinking alcohol.

Lazy lazy lazy......


I guess we have forgotten all the restrictions on alcohol that are currently in place especially with age limits and driving/working while intoxicated....

Speed limits, seat belts, better car designs and safety features, requiring guard rails on roads for shoulders steeper than a certain amount, intoxication laws, non-passing zones in curves, signage on dangerous stretches of roads...have all reduced the hazardousness of driving even though the number of miles driven has increased exponentially since their inception because we have the knowledge and research to back it up. While some people do break these rules and accidents and fatalities occur, the avast majority of people understand this is a proper way to operate their vehicle while on the road with other humans who have the same right to life and liberty as they do.
adrian-lund-president-insurance-institute-for-highway-safety-iihs-13-638.jpg


We do this for all kinds of things in our lives. We dont give children the sames does of asprin or antibiotics becasue we have the knowledge and we have the research to back it up.

We vaccinate because we have the knowledge and we have research to back it up.

Its like sensible restrictions on human activities actually can reduce human deaths even though not all roadway deaths are prevented. We can prevent overdoes of children on medicines simply controlling their dose....We can make it safer and making it safer doesn't prevent ALL incidents but doing NOTHING does NOTHING and its unacceptable at this point. but it will take a culture change and acceptance by the public. That is the biggest challenge.
 
Last edited:

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
3,296
Forget these mass shootings. Forget the "people who want to kill, will find a way" line about using cars, trucks, bombs, etc. Think about the fact that by last October almost 3000 people were shot in Chicago (Nearly 3,000 people shot in Chicago so far this year - Chicago Tribune). I know I know, many of these guns were probably illegally owned, therefore people will say, "SEE!!! Having strict gun laws doesn't stop criminals!" I know, I get that. We have to find a way to better regulate gun ownership, the black market, aftermarket mods, etc. I'm all for gun ownership, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe in allowing this kind of access to guns that we currently have. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but some people much smarter than me could find some middle ground.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,955
Reaction score
11,239
Forget these mass shootings. Forget the "people who want to kill, will find a way" line about using cars, trucks, bombs, etc. Think about the fact that by last October almost 3000 people were shot in Chicago (Nearly 3,000 people shot in Chicago so far this year - Chicago Tribune). I know I know, many of these guns were probably illegally owned, therefore people will say, "SEE!!! Having strict gun laws doesn't stop criminals!" I know, I get that. We have to find a way to better regulate gun ownership, the black market, aftermarket mods, etc. I'm all for gun ownership, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe in allowing this kind of access to guns that we currently have. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but some people much smarter than me could find some middle ground.

Basically where I'm at...
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Forget these mass shootings. Forget the "people who want to kill, will find a way" line about using cars, trucks, bombs, etc. Think about the fact that by last October almost 3000 people were shot in Chicago (Nearly 3,000 people shot in Chicago so far this year - Chicago Tribune). I know I know, many of these guns were probably illegally owned, therefore people will say, "SEE!!! Having strict gun laws doesn't stop criminals!" I know, I get that. We have to find a way to better regulate gun ownership, the black market, aftermarket mods, etc. I'm all for gun ownership, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe in allowing this kind of access to guns that we currently have. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but some people much smarter than me could find some middle ground.
AMEN.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Lazy lazy lazy......


I guess we have forgotten all the restrictions on alcohol that are currently in place especially with age limits and driving/working while intoxicated....

Speed limits, seat belts, better car designs and safety features, requiring guard rails on roads for shoulders steeper than a certain amount, intoxication laws, non-passing zones in curves, signage on dangerous stretches of roads...have all reduced the hazardousness of driving even though the number of miles driven has increased exponentially since their inception because we have the knowledge and research to back it up. While some people do break these rules and accidents and fatalities occur, the avast majority of people understand this is a proper way to operate their vehicle while on the road with other humans who have the same right to life and liberty as they do.
adrian-lund-president-insurance-institute-for-highway-safety-iihs-13-638.jpg


We do this for all kinds of things in our lives. We dont give children the sames does of asprin or antibiotics becasue we have the knowledge and we have the research to back it up.

We vaccinate because we have the knowledge and we have research to back it up.

Its like sensible restrictions on human activities actually can reduce human deaths even though not all roadway deaths are prevented. We can prevent overdoes of children on medicines simply controlling their dose....We can make it safer and making it safer doesn't prevent ALL incidents but doing NOTHING does NOTHING and its unacceptable at this point. but it will take a culture change and acceptance by the public. That is the biggest challenge.

Your point is clear that we make concessions for the common good as well as your implication that as a society we've reached a point where defending a constitutional right has its limits and has been driven to this point by the type of weapon made for mass killing resulting in mass murders. Certainly it's the kind of necessary dialogue that contributes to moving a society forward.

But in fairness to his points, you must see that the comparison is that gun manufacturers are similar to drug dealers or to the rise of organized crime. Giving them unrestricted legal access to a lucrative market is preferable than driving them overseas to some less developed country that doesn't restrict weapons just as drug dealers and crime organizers operate.

I understand your point is that "guns" is such a generalization and is not the point of mass killing weapons and their accessories only. How effective such specific restrictions would be is worth studying as a public health hazard and best done by those who approach this scientifically in other similar ways like the CDC does.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Your point is clear that we make concessions for the common good as well as your implication that as a society we've reached a point where defending a constitutional right has its limits and has been driven to this point by the type of weapon made for mass killing resulting in mass murders. Certainly it's the kind of necessary dialogue that contributes to moving a society forward.

But in fairness to his points, you must see that the comparison is that gun manufacturers are similar to drug dealers or to the rise of organized crime. Giving them unrestricted legal access to a lucrative market is preferable than driving them overseas to some less developed country that doesn't restrict weapons just as drug dealers and crime organizers operate.

I understand your point is that "guns" is such a generalization and is not the point of mass killing weapons and their accessories only. How effective such specific restrictions would be is worth studying as a public health hazard and best done by those who approach this scientifically in other similar ways like the CDC does.

I dont think that is an implication of my post at all. I am not for banning guns or re-doing the 2nd amendment to stop ALL incidents of gun use which, to me is the false equivalence being posited by BGIF. I could be wrong and if so I apologize.

I think guns and illicit drugs should be legal, but there are restrictions that can be legislated based on scientific analysis of related issues. Treating gun violence as a societal health issue and studying it as such makes this very applicable to my point. But the GOP restricted the CDC's ability to conduct research on gun violence. So here we are.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">LIVE: Over 1,000 students just walked out of West Boca High & are heading toward Stoneman Douglas HS—other high schools are apparently following suit. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GunReformNow?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GunReformNow</a> <a href="https://t.co/nXJOmoGshf">https://t.co/nXJOmoGshf</a></p>— Scott Dworkin (@funder) <a href="https://twitter.com/funder/status/966007624230670337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I dont think that is an implication of my post at all. I am not for banning guns or re-doing the 2nd amendment which, to me is the false equivalence being posited by BGIF. I could be wrong and if so I apologize.

I think guns and illicit drugs should be legal, but there are restrictions that can be legislated based on scientific analysis of related issues. Treating gun violence as a societal health issue and studying it as such makes this very applicable to my point. But the GOP restricted the CDC's ability to conduct research on gun violence. So here we are.

Makes for good bumper stickers, though - "Obama will take your guns away".

As for federally-funded scientific research on the public health implications, maybe Rep dominated Congresses withdrew that funding. That doesn't mean that a Dem controlled appropriations can't allot funds for that.

Meanwhile,

Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Firearms Research (includes citations for prior studies) (Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health)

A public health approach to stemming gun violence
(Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health)

Gun Violence (American Public Health Association)
Has gun violence articles, useful links, research data, studies, fact sheets, etc.
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,267
Forget these mass shootings. Forget the "people who want to kill, will find a way" line about using cars, trucks, bombs, etc. Think about the fact that by last October almost 3000 people were shot in Chicago (Nearly 3,000 people shot in Chicago so far this year - Chicago Tribune). I know I know, many of these guns were probably illegally owned, therefore people will say, "SEE!!! Having strict gun laws doesn't stop criminals!" I know, I get that. We have to find a way to better regulate gun ownership, the black market, aftermarket mods, etc. I'm all for gun ownership, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe in allowing this kind of access to guns that we currently have. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but some people much smarter than me could find some middle ground.

We don't prosecute the laws we have in place, sentencing for gun crimes is a joke and we have a revolving door bond system. No need to rack our brains to figure out which laws will fix the issue. Nobody cares.
 

SonofOahu

King Kamehameha
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
228
Forget these mass shootings. Forget the "people who want to kill, will find a way" line about using cars, trucks, bombs, etc. Think about the fact that by last October almost 3000 people were shot in Chicago (Nearly 3,000 people shot in Chicago so far this year - Chicago Tribune). I know I know, many of these guns were probably illegally owned, therefore people will say, "SEE!!! Having strict gun laws doesn't stop criminals!" I know, I get that. We have to find a way to better regulate gun ownership, the black market, aftermarket mods, etc. I'm all for gun ownership, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe in allowing this kind of access to guns that we currently have. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but some people much smarter than me could find some middle ground.

Basically where I'm at...


After Sandy Hook, I went on this long rant about how no civilians should have access to assault rifles or concealed carry. Here's the TL:DR on my rant:

Civilians should:

1. Only be allowed open carry
2. Have to pass a rigorous background check, similar to the TWIC/TSA process
3. Only have access to the following weapons:
  • Revolvers (five or six shot)
  • Shotguns
  • Bolt-action rifles(no military grade weapons)

Implement a 6-month buy-back or exchange program.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
After Sandy Hook, I went on this long rant about how no civilians should have access to assault rifles or concealed carry. Here's the TL:DR on my rant:

Civilians should:

1. Only be allowed open carry
2. Have to pass a rigorous background check, similar to the TWIC/TSA process
3. Only have access to the following weapons:
  • Revolvers (five or six shot)
  • Shotguns
  • Bolt-action rifles(no military grade weapons)

Implement a 6-month buy-back or exchange program.

Never ever ever ever going to happen.

How about:

* 21 to buy a gun, can possess a gun at 16 in the presence of a qualified parent
* Mandatory background check
* Mandatory safety classes & license
* No-fly, no-buy
* Cannot buy a weapon with violent conviction
* Three-month waiting period to buy a gun
* Six-month waiting period to buy a semi-automatic weapon
* Eight-round clip limit


...but while we're at it we might want to question what drugs we're putting our kids on, what foods we're letting kids eat, the impact of social media algorithms designed to take advantage of kids, the lack of built neighborhoods in favor of suburban isolation, etc etc etc etc etc
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Never ever ever ever going to happen.

How about:

* 21 to buy a gun, can possess a gun at 16 in the presence of a qualified parent
* Mandatory background check
* Mandatory safety classes & license
* No-fly, no-buy
* Cannot buy a weapon with violent conviction
* Three-month waiting period to buy a gun
* Six-month waiting period to buy a semi-automatic weapon
* Eight-round clip limit


...but while we're at it we might want to question what drugs we're putting our kids on, what foods we're letting kids eat, the impact of social media algorithms designed to take advantage of kids, the lack of built neighborhoods in favor of suburban isolation, etc etc etc etc etc

A few problems.

1. Background checks, training classes, and licenses are expensive. I'm looking at $300 for the initial pistol permit in Connecticut, which is essentially a poll tax on the second amendment. It's no different than a mandatory paid voter ID law (for the record, I support voter ID laws but they have to be free on demand). Maybe federal funding can be passed down to the state and community colleges for free range training?

2. The no fly list is, itself, unconstitutional. There's no due process there.

3. A waiting period doesn't really achieve anything, especially if the purchaser already owns weapons. If I already have a semi-automatic weapon in my safe, what good is it making me wait to get another one?

4. Magazine limits are the biggest problem. First, most guns worth buying aren't even manufactured with 8 round magazines, which places a ridiculous burden on the manufacturers. It would be like placing a limit on soda cans, saying they couldn't be more than 11 oz. Plus, magazine restrictions limit the entire function of a firearm as self defense, which even most gun control advocates recognize as one of their legitimate functions. It says "hey good guys, you're allowed to keep your weapon, but you better be a damn good shot because the bad guy is going to have 3x the ammunition you're allowed."
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
^Pro-gun advocate mental gymnastics at it's finest.

The whole idea is that people want SOMETHING to be done to limit the easy access to firearms and massive amounts of ammunition that can take out dozens of people within minutes. This isn't that hard. Reasonable regulation at this point is beyond common sense. Everything Buster and Oahu listed are reasonable starting points for negotiations.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
"Somebody has to do soooooomething" is not an argument, it's an emotion. It's certainly a valid emotion, and one I share in light of these horrific murders. But emotion isn't a rational basis for sound policy.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
Wiz, no need to go all Ben Shapiro on me with the emotion hot take. "Doing something" is clearly a general way of summing up all of the valid ideas that have been put forth. Almost all of which turn out to be complete non-starters with pro-gun folks because [reasons].
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
"Somebody has to do soooooomething" is not an argument, it's an emotion. It's certainly a valid emotion, and one I share in light of these horrific murders. But emotion isn't a rational basis for sound policy.

You are right. Emotion is not. Good scientific, logical study is the cornerstone of any good policy. The GOP ended CDC research by defunding in 1996 and it has yet to be repealed.

When is it enough though? How many children will be shot by AR-15s in what is supposed to be a safe environment? Lets not pretend this is the first instance and everyone is acting out of emotion, I think that is very disingenuous. I am not emotional presently and I agree. Something must be done and soon. That meaning is that the legislators need to get it together and come up with some legitimate ideas to address this most OBVIOUS issue. I have held this position for many years, as have many other people. Let's not conflate the idea with the present situation that the people who just witnessed the horrific act are overreacting. They are grieving and looking for answers. As we all have for many years.

ETA just saw BleedBlueGold's response and that reminded that yes.... Ben Shapiro just said the same exact thing in a tweet last night and he is rightfully being raked over the coals for that hot take. I hope wiz doesn't drop the Dinesh D'Souza doozy.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
You are right. Emotion is not. Good scientific, logical study is the cornerstone of any good policy. The GOP ended CDC research by defunding in 1996 and it has yet to be repealed.

When is it enough though? How many children will be shot by AR-15s in what is supposed to be a safe environment? Lets not pretend this is the first instance and everyone is acting out of emotion, I think that is very disingenuous. I am not emotional presently and I agree. Something must be done and soon. That meaning is that the legislators need to get it together and come up with some legitimate ideas to address this most OBVIOUS issue. I have held this position for many years, as have many other people. Let's not conflate the idea with the present situation that the people who just witnessed the horrific act are overreacting. They are grieving and looking for answers. As we all have for many years.

ETA just saw BleedBlueGold's response and that reminded that yes.... Ben Shapiro just said the same exact thing in a tweet last night and he is rightfully being raked over the coals for that hot take. I hope wiz doesn't drop the Dinesh D'Souza doozy.

That Dinesh stuff was off the charts. Left me speechless and just staring at my Twitter screen blankly trying to process it.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
A few problems.

1. Background checks, training classes, and licenses are expensive. I'm looking at $300 for the initial pistol permit in Connecticut, which is essentially a poll tax on the second amendment. It's no different than a mandatory paid voter ID law (for the record, I support voter ID laws but they have to be free on demand). Maybe federal funding can be passed down to the state and community colleges for free range training?

It costs more to operate a new vehicle each year than it would for reasonable gun regulations that would be *similar* to all the hoops you have to jump through to own a car and be an insured driver. We make legal drivers jump through hoops to try and make sure their shit is in order, we should be able to do the same with responsible gun owners.

2. The no fly list is, itself, unconstitutional. There's no due process there.

No argument there.

3. A waiting period doesn't really achieve anything, especially if the purchaser already owns weapons. If I already have a semi-automatic weapon in my safe, what good is it making me wait to get another one?

A waiting period doesn't achieve anything for current, responsible gun owners. But you're ignoring the rest of the population of first-time owners that might be well-served by a waiting period... the disgruntled kid on a college campus that thinks an assault rifle is the answer to his problems can't just go buy a gun as-is. He's gonna have to go through other venues. And that *might* be enough to kill his motivation. And if it's enough to deescalate just one person from committing murder, I think it's worth it.

4. Magazine limits are the biggest problem. First, most guns worth buying aren't even manufactured with 8 round magazines, which places a ridiculous burden on the manufacturers. It would be like placing a limit on soda cans, saying they couldn't be more than 11 oz. Plus, magazine restrictions limit the entire function of a firearm as self defense, which even most gun control advocates recognize as one of their legitimate functions. It says "hey good guys, you're allowed to keep your weapon, but you better be a damn good shot because the bad guy is going to have 3x the ammunition you're allowed."

Are "bad guys" with guns really getting into multi-clip shootouts with civilians? If you can't defend yourself in 8 shots, you're probably toast anyway, because you ran into someone who was more than just a run-of-the-mill criminal. You ran into a goddamn movie character.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
It costs more to operate a new vehicle each year than it would for reasonable gun regulations that would be *similar* to all the hoops you have to jump through to own a car and be an insured driver. We make legal drivers jump through hoops to try and make sure their shit is in order, we should be able to do the same with responsible gun owners.
Several obvious differences. The first is that there's no constitutionally protected right to operate a motor vehicle or any other type of transportation device. The second is that you're actually buying something when you talk about the cost of insurance. Registration fees and background checks do not add value to the consumer.

A waiting period doesn't achieve anything for current, responsible gun owners. But you're ignoring the rest of the population of first-time owners that might be well-served by a waiting period... the disgruntled kid on a college campus that thinks an assault rifle is the answer to his problems can't just go buy a gun as-is. He's gonna have to go through other venues. And that *might* be enough to kill his motivation. And if it's enough to deescalate just one person from committing murder, I think it's worth it.
Do we know how long these guys owned their guns (serious question, I don't know)? I don't think I've ever seen an example of a guy who bought his gun that day, the day before, or that week immediately before committing a crime like this.

Are "bad guys" with guns really getting into multi-clip shootouts with civilians? If you can't defend yourself in 8 shots, you're probably toast anyway, because you ran into someone who was more than just a run-of-the-mill criminal. You ran into a goddamn movie character.
These people are movie characters. James Eagan Holmes was wearing damn body armor. Yeah, it can take a lot more than 8 shots to land a kill shot on a highly armed and armored shooter in a room full of innocents when your adrenaline is on overload.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
3,296
Are "bad guys" with guns really getting into multi-clip shootouts with civilians? If you can't defend yourself in 8 shots, you're probably toast anyway, because you ran into someone who was more than just a run-of-the-mill criminal. You ran into a goddamn movie character.

archer_closeup-56a00f9f3df78cafda9fde1c.png


Does no one count bullets?
 
Top